Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and how would you know this? what is your authority- what is this belief based on? hmmmmm??
It is based on my interpretation of scripture, just as your belief is upon yours. It is backed up by a healthy dose of personal experience in which I have seen fundamentalists (including in this very forum) judge and condemn others. And you still haven't aswered my questions.
You know what is literal and what isn't? Please tell me how do you know what parts of the bible to take literal?
I most certainly DON'T claim to know what is Truth and what is not. I seek to let the Holy Spirit guide me as I read the Bible. The only ones insisting that they know the absolute truth of the Bible are the fundamentalists insisting it is the inerrant Word of God. So the question is, how do YOU know? Particularly if the Bible you are reading is the result of a multitude of translations done by imperfect men.
It is based on my interpretation of scripture, just as your belief is upon yours. It is backed up by a healthy dose of personal experience in which I have seen fundamentalists (including in this very forum) judge and condemn others. And you still haven't aswered my questions.
I did answer your question. I am a fundamentalist. I believe the bible is the INERRANT, INFALLIBLE word of God. There are no errors, If there is an error in the bible it is rendered useless and Christianity is a farce because God lied.
Now to that last post. First I do not judge salvation, God has already done that and we are just relaying the message which we are commanded. The same massage we literalists must follow also.
Personal experience does not help me. Personal experience is relative. If you take away the bible you have no authority just helter skelter. A bunch of people saying, what the bible means to them. Then it becomes just another religion.
Given the following facts, all easily verifyable with a minimum of research, how do fundamentalist continue to adhere to a strict literalist interpretation of the Bible?
1) The earliest historical Biblical documents we currently have are the Dead Sea Scrolls (approximately 200 BC - 70 AD) Given that the OT dates from about 1400-1500 BC, how do we verify the acuracy of the copies and translations made in the interim? Given that much of the OT was translated into Aramaic around 400-500 BC, how do we know the Scrolls themselves were not translated back into Hebrew from an Aramaic source?
Because Jesus confirmed the OT.
Quote:
2) The earliest full edition of the Bible, with all "accepted" books in the OT and NT is likely the Latin Vulgate (St Jerome) with a first edition dating of 383BC. A council OF MEN in the early Roman Catholic Church (a Christian denomination routinely derided by fundamentalists) determined what would be included in the Bible and what would not.
Actually many early Church fathers had multiple quotes within their letters in the first century to virtually reconstruct the NT without much effort.
Quote:
3) Through the centuries, MAN has struggled (hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit) to research and identify the most faithful translation of the Bible. Revisions were made, efforts to be faithful to translate from the earliest available Hebrew and Greek text were made. All of this requires an acknowledgement that versions of the Bible may not be perfect, may not be as faithful to God's intent as we desire.
The differences have all been minor and have no effect on the actual message.
Quote:
4) Fundamentalism and a literalist interpretation of the Bible as a movement only dates back to the 19th century (the Niagara Bible Conference of 1897). It was not until the 1910 general assembly of the Presbyterian Church that the Bible as the "inerrant Word of God" became a formalized doctrine.
Actually this has always been from the first century and it was only given the name in recent time. Inerrant Word of God has always been doctrine.
Quote:
I am genuinely curious. Given the above, how do fundamentalists/literalists out there decide which is the correct translation of the Bible to use? If the translation you choose was created over the centuries(as all versions of the Bible are), by MEN who who sought to find the most faithful translation of the Bible - an implicit acknowledgement on their part that the Bible as a book/translation is imperfect - how do you then make the leap to it being perfect now? It seems somewhat similar to the Mormon church deciding (by divine revelation no less) that blacks could be equal in their church about a century after the U.S. government did. I've always asked Mormons "How did the government beat God to the punch?"
You are missing the point of your own converstaion. These subtle differences have no impact on the fundamental truth. The majority of these differences are as tricial as a misspelled word or the order of a sentence structure. Not the meaning of the Word and very often seek more accuracy is merely seeking older, closer copies to the originals because the secular world does not want to accept copies even thought they accept much later copies of so many other works as authentic.
Quote:
Let's face it. The Bible IS the Divinely inspired Word of God. But it was originally written by, and subsequently translated through an imperfect conduit in the form of MAN. Through the centuries, man has struggled (guided by the Holy Spirit) to be as faithful to God's intent as possible; and we STILL STRUGGLE today. How can you be so certain that your current translation is perfect? To claim that God somehow ensured it was perfect would remove man's free will, which goes against scripture.
No it does not go against scripture it uses willing mens bodys to humbly record the truth accurately as dictated by the Holy Spirit.
Quote:
I firmly believe that when God sees Christian men and women struggling to find the Truth in both Faith and science, he is smiling. It is true that we may not, indeed will not, always get it right. But searching, trying to be open to the Holy Spirit, is far more likely to bring us closer to God than marching lock step to literalist dogma. The latter, as I have pointed out on several occassions, leads to a presumption to know the Mind of God, and passing judgement on others - which again goes against the very scripture you hold dear.
You really need to read the book "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell, it clears up alot of these questions you have.
It is based on my interpretation of scripture, just as your belief is upon yours. It is backed up by a healthy dose of personal experience in which I have seen fundamentalists (including in this very forum) judge and condemn others. And you still haven't aswered my questions.
This goes against scripture, interpritation is not up to any man but up to the Holy Spirit. Now many of the translations you speak of are done in accordance to the changing of generational languages. What if an older translation say that Jesus was gay, as in happy. Would you have the translation remain the same knowing that the word gay also mean homosexual. What of calling a man aweful, today it mean something bad but in its truest form it mean full of awe. What you see as judgement and condemnation is merely the sharing of Gods word. If someone teaches something contrary to the word of God then they are apostate according to scripture. If someone is having sex outside of marriage then they are fornicators according to scripture. When the scripture says something you must try to use all scripture related even if it doesnt agree with your personal view and this is proper interpritation. Consider adultry, nowhere in scripture is it condoned, therefore it is condemned. Murder is never condoned therefore it is condemned. We interprit the Bible with the Bible thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The confusion comes in when we seek to justify our personal interpritation which conflicts with the scriptures.
This goes against scripture, interpritation is not up to any man but up to the Holy Spirit. Now many of the translations you speak of are done in accordance to the changing of generational languages. What if an older translation say that Jesus was gay, as in happy. Would you have the translation remain the same knowing that the word gay also mean homosexual. What of calling a man aweful, today it mean something bad but in its truest form it mean full of awe. What you see as judgement and condemnation is merely the sharing of Gods word. If someone teaches something contrary to the word of God then they are apostate according to scripture. If someone is having sex outside of marriage then they are fornicators according to scripture. When the scripture says something you must try to use all scripture related even if it doesnt agree with your personal view and this is proper interpritation. Consider adultry, nowhere in scripture is it condoned, therefore it is condemned. Murder is never condoned therefore it is condemned. We interprit the Bible with the Bible thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The confusion comes in when we seek to justify our personal interpritation which conflicts with the scriptures.
I did answer your question. I am a fundamentalist. I believe the bible is the INERRANT, INFALLIBLE word of God. There are no errors, If there is an error in the bible it is rendered useless and Christianity is a farce because God lied.
Now to that last post. First I do not judge salvation, God has already done that and we are just relaying the message which we are commanded. The same massage we literalists must follow also.
Personal experience does not help me. Personal experience is relative. If you take away the bible you have no authority just helter skelter. A bunch of people saying, what the bible means to them. Then it becomes just another religion.
Personal experience has been a great eye opener in my life. The Lord has shown my many things through trials and good times...personal experiences.
Really look at what seperates them, tongues no toungues, submerssion or sprinkle, women must wear dresses they can wear pants, must dress in your best suit come as you are, hats no hats, long hair short hair, pretty much simple things that have nothing to do with the actual message. Please share some you know about and I believe you will see alot of trivial matters seperating the various denominations.
I agree that the overall Truth of Scripture remains. But in acknowledging "errors", you must then acknowledge man's interpretation. You cannot acknoledge errors and in the same breath insist on "inerrant truth". Acknowledging a differentiation between "what is read" and "what is written" in and of itself forces an acknowledgement of INTERPRETATION. Again, man has through the centuries and will continue to the end of time to try to interpret Scripture so as come closer to the Holy Spirit and do the Lord's will.
Man's translation often gets in the way of inerrancy too. For instance, aionios and olam are sometimes translated as "eternal." Well, it is impossible for there to be "eternal torment" since God is going to save all mankind (1 Timothy 2:4-6; 4:10,11). But once one finds out aionios and olam when used as adjectives just mean "pertaining to the eon" or "pertaining to the olam/eon" as a noun," and you have inerrancy once again as to the truth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
