Replies

Holy Scripture is not a text book. It matters not whether the world was made in 6 days (as measured in our time) or 6 million. Are the six days of creation really literal twenty-four-hour periods or a symbol of divine work, however long it took? Did Jesus really turn bread and wine into his body and blood, or is it just a figure? Did a great red dragon really sweep a third of the stars out of heaven with his tail, or does that symbolize something else? Are these symbols or miracles? We must pay attention to the faith and to try to learn how language was used at the time, in the tongues and cultures of the Bible, and then say to ourselves, "What did the author most likely intend when he said this?"

That is the point of this article.

I am well aware of your detestably low view of the Word of G-d (apparently there's no difference between Maronites and Latins in that regard). Though I give you props for consistency in classifying transubstantiation along with all the other alleged fables that never really happened. Most Catholics hypocritically insist on that one while rejecting everything else.

But you are missing the point. The alleged purpose of the article is to defend Sacred Tradition (by pointing out the inconsistency of Protestants). I defended genuine Sacred Tradition by pointing out that that Tradition is that Cain married his twin sister (and that this was a cause of friction between Cain and Abel). Your post quoted above says not a word about Tradition. It is nothing but the most modernistic, anti-Traditional secular "modern scholarship." Is this what Catholics now mean by Tradition?

Where do your church fathers say "we must be aware of the imagery of ancient cultures" in their Biblical commentaries? They don't. You got that from the historical criticism created by liberal Lutherans in the nineteenth century. That, apparently, is your "tradition."

I informed you of the immemorial Oral Tradition about Cain and Abel. You reject it and fall back on modern scholarship. Who is the "protestant" here?

I miss wideawake, who apparently is no longer with us.

I defended genuine Sacred Tradition by pointing out that that Tradition is that Cain married his twin sister (and that this was a cause of friction between Cain and Abel).

Is that universally held? In my Midrash studies (which I admit I know a lot more of than Talmud, though -- from what I've read -- Talmud works the same way), there are normally several comments on each verse, which may agree or disagree (sometimes wildly), and all are allowed to stand and are held in respect.