“Except that everything in the Bible actually happened as written, and that it can have no mistakes of any kind “
That’s fine if you’re into sola scriptura. But the Bible is just the launching point for two thousand years of tradition, which grow into authority equal to scripture, per the RCC.
"Except that everything in the Bible actually happened as written, and that it can have no mistakes of any kind"
That's fine if you're into sola scriptura. But the Bible is just the launching point for two thousand years of tradition, which grow into authority equal to scripture, per the RCC.
::Sigh:: There you people go again. You see this, ebb?
What in the name of all that is reasonable does the historical accuracy of the Bible have to do with sola scriptura??? I'll tell you what--NOTHING, that's what! But you Catholics simply can't seem to tell the difference.
Would it surprise you to learn that I also reject sola scriptura and believe in an authoritative oral interpretive tradition? Because I do.
I did not say I believed in sola scriptura. I said I believed that everything described in the Bible actually happened (the one exception here is the Book of Job which may--may, mind you--be a parable, because this is a possibility taught by the Tradition (and not by some skeptical "higher critic" of the Bible).
I'm sick and tired of hearing "sola scriptura" constantly being invoked as the reason that Catholics believe that Adam and Eve, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel are "fairy tales." Because your implication that nineteenth century German criticism is of equal authority to the Bible is hogwash. Ancient tradition, yes--modern skepticism, no.