The Eastern Orthodox are a strange lot. They criticize "rationalism" and "the Pope's atheist astronomers" but they're as evolutionist and higher critical as anyone. Certainly I've never heard of Orthodox defending the Bible from the higher critics.
Moses did not write the Torah. G-d wrote it and dictated it to Moses letter for letter, and Moses wrote it down. There was no redaction from earlier sources. And even more importantly, the story of the sin in Eden (upon which chr*stianity bases its claim of being the "fulfillment" of Judaism) has only existed as part of the G-d dictated Torah. It was not redacted or adapted from any ancient sources but "HaShem dictated and Moses wrote it down." The "new testament" makes so much of that episode yet the episode is part of the Torah, not the new testament. Chr*stians who impose a chr*stian meaning on it have no right to criticize Protestants for imposing a "Protestant" meaning on Paul's theology. What I'm saying is that the solution to the sin in the Garden is not some later "revelation" but the Torah, which is the document that tells us what happened in the first place and which is the only sacred document literally dictated by HaShem.
I don't understand why the Catholic Church is so soft on evolution when "heretical sects" shun it. It's almost as if the magisterium performs a primarily liberalizing and de-literalizing function. And by the way, "inerrant but not literally true" is one of those things that allows you to take both sides of the argument and have things both ways. What use is an "inerrant" Bible that isn't literally true?
The cross is indeed the "crux" of the matter. Why should anyone assume a priori that Judaism's only purpose was to pave the way for chr*stianity? The Bible begins with Genesis, not Matthew, and the prophecies fit only if you are determined to believe so from the outset. Down here folks accept J*sus on the authority of the Bible while liturgical chr*stians seem to accept the Bible on the authority of J*sus (in spite of the fact that the Holy Torah was G-d-dictated and did not need the approval of a man who lived a thousand years after it was given). What I'm saying is that since the Torah came first and was already acknowledged as Divine Revelation it is the Torah that sits in judgement on the claims of chr*stianity, not vice versa.
One of my points is that Fundamentalist Protestants would be better off as Noachides than as chr*stians. The only things that hold them are 1)the fact that their Bible has a new testament in it and 2)their Lutheran view of human nature, which Catholics ironically attack (talk them out of it and what purpose does J*sus serve anymore?). If I'm not so messed up by the sin of Adam that only the passive reception of salvation by means of the vicarious damnation of a divine scapegoat can keep me out of Hell, then why all the hypocritical tub-thumping about "grace" vs. "the law?" Sheesh. If Catholics ever talk Fundamentalist Protestants out of their Lutheran view of fallen human nature, see if they stop at Catholicism when they start looking for what G-d wants them to do.
But you never merit salvation. Christ gives salvation. Obeying the Church (i.e. the new Law) is subsidiary to faith. A Catholic who never misses a feast day, etc. -- all the works of law -- is still saved, if at all, because of the work of Christ in him.
What use is an "inerrant" Bible that isn't literally true?
It is inerrant as it leads us to Christ, and that is the purpose of the scripture.
ce the Torah came first and was already acknowledged as Divine Revelation it is the Torah that sits in judgement on the claims of chr*stianity, not vice versa.
No. That puts God, -- Christ, -- subject to judgement of His own and earlier revelation. God revels himself progressively, first to Adam, then to Noah, then to the Jews and finally to all men. You cannot subject God to the judgement of His earlier revelation than you can tell me what my mind is today based on what I posted 7 years ago on FR, especially if I am here now to tell you myself.