The last line in my post to you said: "So if you're referring to protestant churches then I definitely disagree." I still believe that. I'm also familiar with churches who disagree with what I've said, but to claim a vast majority is, IMO, wrong, although I agree with some of what you've said.
Anybody who still believes the documentary hypothesis is even remotely true probably hasn't read work beyond 19th century scholarship. Or if they have, no matter who or where they are, their reading is very limited.
I'm not sure what I said that hinted or implied anything that warranted most of your response. I certainly don't blame anybody and don't subscribe to many of the things you list. It's almost as if you have me confused with somebody else or perhaps you felt the need to rant which, at times, I certainly understand as many folks would do themselves a huge service to better understand why they believe what they believe.
I encourage you to start your own threads as it would take a great deal of time to respond to each of your points, many of which could be their own large threads.
My post contained points addressed to both you and to someone else who had attacked the Oral Law. Did you not read the other name in the header?
I am sorry you felt my stating certain facts (which should be self-evident but are practically unknown in the US) qualified as a "rant."