First, I agree with what the Pope said about Islam. Thank goodness we Protestants don't think anything like that in this context. The scriptures ARE God's LITERAL WORD. Inside that literal word, God shows us that there are times when we are to take the word literally, and other times when we are to interpret. This idea is self contained in the Bible. One example are the parables of Jesus. Inside scripture itself, Jesus interprets His own parable, thus telling us clearly how we are to treat His own teaching. The trick is getting it right, but God proves that interpretation is sometimes necessary, and we Protestants fully know that.
What we have in the Bible is a compilation of books that happen to expound and verify the oral teachings given. Orthodox men of the Church read all the writings, looked at what they had been taught, and said "yep, the writing we call 'Gospel of Matthew' is from God, the writing called 'Gospel of Thomas' is a not from God". THAT is why the Scriptures have a wonderful uniformity.
I would respectfully disagree that the books of the Bible expound and verify the oral teachings (overall), because so many of them aren't there. I continue to ask "why is that?" I also reiterate that no man had any kind of a 'yup' or 'nope' vote in what went into the Bible. It was rigged from the beginning. When it came to the importance of the written way mankind would ever know God, He didn't nudge, He didn't take any chances or rely on luck of good human decisions, He went and got what He wanted. Thank God.
You are contradicting yourself. If the Bible is the LITERAL WORD of God, there is NO ROOM for INTERPRETATION. It is ALWAYS to be taken literally! Thus, the literal word of cutting off your hand is NOT to be understood as hyperbole. It is God's LITERAL WORD! I would understand that most Protestants do not consider the Scipture as God's literal word, but God speaking THROUGH the writers to convy His inerrant teachings to mankind. Thus, God's inerrant writings are subject to interpretation by the Church, changing meaning over time in some cases (since God speaks to men of different ages and cultures). Thus, taking oaths or money from loans, or polygamy are not indefinite literal commands.
I would respectfully disagree that the books of the Bible expound and verify the oral teachings (overall), because so many of them aren't there. I continue to ask "why is that?"
Partially answered above. God's inerrant word comes to us through Scripture. But God taught man to teach other men the proper WAY of interpretating Scriptures - for men of today. An authoritative body, put together and empowered by Christ, IS the sign of authority of Christ on earth, not the Bible. A book CANNOT interpret itself! The Church treasured the writings of the Apostles - who had long ago died. They compiled the writings they left. Found within the Scriptures is all we need to know for salvation - BUT, it is not always clearly and explicitly laid out. For example - prayers to saints in heaven to intercede for us. It is based on Scripture and was obviously a teaching of the Apostles. To cull out these "hidden" meanings in Scripture requires a Body of Teaching first. Then, we can point to Scripture and say, "yes, it is within Scriptures dictates and is allowed and expected that we DO ask for the prayers of other Christians, including those who have physically died".
This same authoritative Body teaches that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ. Can you find a time before 1000 AD where this was not taught? No. It is Scriptural and it was believed by Christians everywhere. But a Protestant, reading the Scriptures (like the Ethiopian of Acts) without help of the Church, comes up with the spiritual-only interpretation.
The problem, then, is that you accept the authority of Scriptures, but not the same body who wrote and collated it - identifying and verifying it, that the Bible is, INDEED, the Word of God. How can a fallible group of men determine what are infallible writings and infallibly compile them into one book? Without making ONE mistake? Recall that Jesus left an authoritative group of men, not a book.
I also reiterate that no man had any kind of a 'yup' or 'nope' vote in what went into the Bible. It was rigged from the beginning
Men throughout the Church could not agree on 2 Peter, for example, and whether it was inspired. This went on past 250 AD! God made His "decision" through men. That's the way God works. If the Bible came to us like you say, it would have fell from the sky, a la Koran, and there would have been NO dispute. Here is a table that shows that the Church from 100 AD did not automatically "recognize" what was Scripture and what wasn't!:
http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml
this site has a lot of good info and quotes on the development of the NT into one book.
Regards