Are You a Fundamentalist?

[KevinK]

Are most of the members here fundamentalists, i.e. believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture? Or are there some more like myself, believing the Bible certainly does contain the word of God, but is not in all cases literal truth, being subject to various deviations: to name but a few, parables meant to convey an abstruse subject in simple terms; translational errors; agenda-driven editing or even omissions.

To clarify and don't-get-me-wrong, I believe the Bible to be mostly true, but like just about anything else, the truth must be worked for. It's somewere in-between total religionist fabrication and Supreme Being-guided transmission of Holy Word. It's much closer to the latter, imo, but you still must do a little work to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I'm just wondering if believers like me are in the minority here.

 

[KevinK]

Mods, forgive me for not posting a Scripture in my OP. I did now know what I could post, as the scope of the question encompasses the entire Bible (a rather large reference). Maybe I should repost this in the Lounge. I would have, but then I realized the propensity for debate on an issue like this. How to handle?

 

[Eugene]

Are most of the members here fundamentalists, i.e. believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture? Or are there some more like myself, believing the Bible certainly does contain the word of God, but is not in all cases literal truth, being subject to various deviations: to name but a few, parables meant to convey an abstruse subject in simple terms; translational errors; agenda-driven editing or even omissions.

To clarify and don't-get-me-wrong, I believe the Bible to be mostly true, but like just about anything else, the truth must be worked for. It's somewere in-between total religionist fabrication and Supreme Being-guided transmission of Holy Word. It's much closer to the latter, imo, but you still must do a little work to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I'm just wondering if believers like me are in the minority here.

Dear Brother Kevin, I personally have never had that problem faith wise, but I have had to study hard in some parts to discern context to my satisfaction. Please allow me to give an example. We read in 1 Corinthians Chapter Ten that though God had brought Israel through the sea,

1 Co 10:5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
1 Co 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted
1 Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples (types): and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

How does what I read in the Old Testament affect what I read in the New Testament? Let's take a look at Genesis Chapter Twenty-four, because the entire chapter gives a pattern, or type of what God is doing with us today using Abraham representing God our Father, the eldest servant Eliezer (Gen 15:2) the Holy Spirit, Isaac the Son Jesus, and Rebekah being Jesus’ bride; a part of God’s people (Gen 24:4).

In Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. Rebekah alone of her people rode the camel across the desert to go to Isaac to be his bride. In Rom 8:17 we see suffering (enduring) as a quality distinguishing heirs of God from joint-heirs with Christ. 2 Tim 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him . . .

Instead of mere stories, God’s word has purpose. 2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Another analogy of Jesus and His bride is contained in the Song of Solomon; again not restricted to simply be a history lesson.

 

[Brother Mike]

Are most of the members here fundamentalists, i.e. believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture? Or are there some more like myself, believing the Bible certainly does contain the word of God, but is not in all cases literal truth, being subject to various deviations: to name but a few, parables meant to convey an abstruse subject in simple terms; translational errors; agenda-driven editing or even omissions.

To clarify and don't-get-me-wrong, I believe the Bible to be mostly true, but like just about anything else, the truth must be worked for. It's somewere in-between total religionist fabrication and Supreme Being-guided transmission of Holy Word. It's much closer to the latter, imo, but you still must do a little work to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I'm just wondering if believers like me are in the minority here.

I find it often people want to say something is just hyperbole, or just a Parable (Meaning it's not literal, Like Abraham in Hell) I have to look at if there is an Agenda to protect if someone says something in scripture is not exactly literal or even should be there.

I can't think of one parable Jesus told that is not 100% truth, and Abraham in Hell was no Parable, but a fact of something He saw in the spirit realm.

God was more than able to protect, and keep his Word. If the Holy Spirit shows you something not quite right, it's normally just some doctrine a person added (Like ROME and those influenced by ROME) that does not really make that much a difference.

 

[KevinK]

Thank you, Brother Eugene, for your response. Some good scriptures there, seriously.

I am confused by 2 Tim 3:16. Does this passage say to read scripture literally, or that we must scrutinize and interpret?

 

[Brother Mike]

Thank you, Brother Eugene, for your response. Some good scriptures there, seriously.

I am confused by 2 Tim 3:16. Does this passage say to read scripture literally, or that we must scrutinize and interpret?

It stays nothing about how "YOU" read it. It just says ALL scripture was given for reproof and doctrine.

Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
1Co_2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1Jn_2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Nothing about YOU scrutinizing and interpreting. Your Job is to study, and meditate.

The Word is alive, it's Eternal, it's only spiritually discerned. Man's methods of understanding is without faith and simplicity that is Our Great God. Being alive, then the depth of revelation on just a passage of scripture has to be revealed.

For example:
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
(Act 4:12 KJV)

Now some would say that Jesus is the only name men can be saved by to have eternal life.

That is a revelation, because many don't even believe that.
Is that what Peter's talking about? Just that whole situation with Peter, I have been shown a whole lot more than that, but if someone believes Jesus is the only way to have salvation from that, then they do good. It does not mean I have full understand of all that is there, or anyone else, but what is revealed to us.

Mike.

 

[KevinK]

Thank you also, Brother Mike. So would you call yourself a fundamentalist basically?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

believing the Bible certainly does contain the word of God, but is not in all cases literal truth, being subject to various deviations: to name but a few, parables meant to convey an abstruse subject in simple terms; translational errors; agenda-driven editing or even omissions.

I've noticed that as far as believing that the scriptures contain errors introduced by man, that is what we tend to start thinking has happened when we read passages that we don't understand, or have a lack of faith about, or which don't make logical sense to us. We try to justify our lack of faith and understanding by thinking that perhaps man put that there, or man mis-translated it here, or added to it in this place, etc. I've found that most of the time there's a legitimate answer to be known that makes it so we don't have to resort to doing that.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I'm a fundamentalist for sure.
Sola Scriptura.
The Bible is the complete Word of God.
Nothing to be added to it or taken away.
What we need to do is learn it, understand it, and apply it to our lives.
And we do that through the help of the Holy Spirit of God.

With that said, let us humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift us up higher.

 

[KevinK]

I've noticed that as far as believing that the scriptures contain errors introduced by man, that is what we tend to start thinking has happened when we read passages that we don't understand, or have a lack of faith about, or which don't make logical sense to us. We try to justify our lack of faith and understanding by thinking that perhaps man put that there, or man mis-translated it here, or added to it in this place, etc. I've found that most of the time there's a legitimate answer to be known that makes it so we don't have to resort to doing that.

Can you think of a specific example from Scripture, Jethro?

 

[smaller]

Are most of the members here fundamentalists, i.e. believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture? Or are there some more like myself, believing the Bible certainly does contain the word of God, but is not in all cases literal truth, being subject to various deviations: to name but a few, parables meant to convey an abstruse subject in simple terms; translational errors; agenda-driven editing or even omissions.

To clarify and don't-get-me-wrong, I believe the Bible to be mostly true, but like just about anything else, the truth must be worked for. It's somewere in-between total religionist fabrication and Supreme Being-guided transmission of Holy Word. It's much closer to the latter, imo, but you still must do a little work to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I'm just wondering if believers like me are in the minority here.

Fundamentalist and literalist are not equal. Faith/belief, by nature, is Spiritual. Trying to make Spiritual strictly literal will always be a problem because matters of faith can not be put into literal measures.

I consider myself very fundamental in the "classic" sense of determinations of christian foundational issues. But that does not imply I'm a literalist whatsoever, nor do I believe the scriptures insist on that kind of imposition. Yes, God's Words are "literally" True. They are however, still Spiritual/Life in nature.

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

 

[Eugene]

I am confused by 2 Tim 3:16. Does this passage say to read scripture literally, or that we must scrutinize and interpret?

Brother KevinK, I find problems being with me when I misapply something of God’s word, and later revelation incorporates scripture that brings loose ends together.

Isa 28:9 Whom shall He teach knowledge? and whom shall He make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. A new Christian may bring much religion with them that they can learn to overcome as they grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 2 Pet 3:18.
Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

We might read Mat 27:5 . . . he (Judas) . . . went and hanged himself, and then add to it Luk 10:37 . . . Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
To me another example is Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike . . .

Brother Mike brought forth the fact that parables such as Abraham’s bosom of Lk 16:19-31 also reveals spiritual concepts if we are able to receive them. I believe this, but still need to learn more concerning every aspect of my practical experience to having God’s best for me.

I once taught that receiving the Holy Spirit experientially and evidenced by speaking in tongues were limited to the time of the early Church, and was so wrong. That was the largest step of growth in my Christian walk allowing me see and believe concepts previously seemingly hidden to me. We must believe, receive, and run with all the word of God as we are led in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake. Psa 23:3.
Blessings in Christ Jesus.

 

[Kidron]

To clarify and don't-get-me-wrong, I believe the Bible to be mostly true, .

Hello,

question for you...
you state that you believe the bible is "mostly true", so, would you mind telling us which parts are not true, in your opinion?
Im assuming that when you use the word "most" that you mean "mostly true but not all of it is true".

 

[Drew]

Thank you, Brother Eugene, for your response. Some good scriptures there, seriously.

I am confused by 2 Tim 3:16. Does this passage say to read scripture literally, or that we must scrutinize and interpret?

It is almost beyond belief that anyone would take everything literally in the Bible. Consider this text:

For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. [Isaiah 55:12, NKJV]

I am not holding my breath waiting for the mountains to sing.

Despite what some will no doubt claim, interpretation cannot be avoided when reading the Bible. This is not rocket science: it is bound up in the very nature of the human use of language. You read a word on the page and you necessarily interpret it - assign a meaning to it based on how that word was used in the cultural setting in which it was written down. Same idea at higher levels: sentences must be interpreted - there is no magical bypassing of the mental processes of reasoning and deduction that lead the reader to draw a particular conclusions from what is, apart from acts of interpretation, merely a string of letters on a page.

 

[Kidron]

It is almost beyond belief that anyone would take everything literally in the Bible. Consider this text:

For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. [Isaiah 55:12, NKJV]

.

A student of the Word is taught that the verses in the bible are understood to be literal at times, function as analogy at times, and are sometimes presenting symbolism.

You quoted a verse that speaks of the earth singing.
Well, when Jesus was riding the mule into Jerusalem (Passover feast), many people were celebrating his coming and the jealous Jewish leaders were complaining about it.
Jesus told them to let the people have their moment of joy as to make them be quiet would cause the rocks to rejoice.

Luke 19:40

"I tell you," Jesus replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."

So, Drew, i'll let you decide if Jesus is being symbolic or literal.

 

[Brother Mike]

It is almost beyond belief that anyone would take everything literally in the Bible. Consider this text:

For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. [Isaiah 55:12, NKJV]

I am not holding my breath waiting for the mountains to sing.

Despite what some will no doubt claim, interpretation cannot be avoided when reading the Bible. This is not rocket science: it is bound up in the very nature of the human use of language. You read a word on the page and you necessarily interpret it - assign a meaning to it based on how that word was used in the cultural setting in which it was written down.

The Word has no Culture setting, it was given to man, all of them in the earth.

did you know fevers can hear Drew?
did you know Storms can hear?
did you know stones can cry out?
did you know the ground can hold a curse in it?
did you know the clouds can vex you and withhold their rain?

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isa 55:10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Isa 55:12 For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.
Isa 55:13 Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree: and it shall be to the LORD for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.

did you know mountains have ears?

Whatever the Word says to these things, they hear, and obey. The Mountains shall sing it's peaceful now. Come. The tree's shall clap for you, saying come, there is blessing in this place. Everything came out of God, life itself.

If the Word says rocks can cry out, Fevers can hear, and Mountains sing, then it's right. It's not dependent on how spiritually dense you are.

 

[Drew]

The Word has no Culture setting, it was given to man, all of them in the earth.

I may need to explain more. When writers of scriptures took quill to papyrus, they used words and concepts from their own cultural setting. So, for example, when Paul uses the word "works" we need to carefully consider what he meant given how that word was used in his world. And I suggest the reformation blundered in this respect - they misread "works" as "good works" and a lot of somewhat mistaken theology was the result.

An even better example: in the Jewish world in which the Bible was written "end of the world" language - stars falling, the moon turning red, earthquakes, etc - was routinely used as a metaphorical way to denote socio-political change; the writers did not intend these images to be taken literally.

And they usually are and, again, a lot of really misguided theology has resulted.

If the Word says rocks can cry out, Fevers can hear, and Mountains sing, then it's right. It's not dependent on how spiritually dense you are.

Very, very few people believe this, I assure you.

 

[KevinK]

Hello,

question for you...
you state that you believe the bible is "mostly true", so, would you mind telling us which parts are not true, in your opinion?
Im assuming that when you use the word "most" that you mean "mostly true but not all of it is true".

Well, first of all, in this case I am using the word "true" in the sense of "literal", whilst the opposite of "true" will have meanings like "mistranslated, parabolic, symbolic, conflicting, incomplete, etc.", depending on the situation. I don't know and hope there aren't actual instances of fabrication.

As far as actual examples, I'll have to do a little digging for a bit. Bear with me awhile.

 

[Kidron]

As far as actual examples, I'll have to do a little digging for a bit. Bear with me awhile.

np

 

[Drew]

Well, first of all, in this case I am using the word "true" in the sense of "literal", whilst the opposite of "true" will have meanings like "mistranslated, parabolic, symbolic, conflicting, incomplete, etc.", depending on the situation. I don't know and hope there aren't actual instances of fabrication.

As far as actual examples, I'll have to do a little digging for a bit. Bear with me awhile.

I politely suggest you may be unintentionally rigging the game here a bit. You seem to think that if something is symbolic, it is not "true". I suggest that is not correct - the Bible is full of "true" statements that are made using the literary device of symbol. Clearly, most of the parables do this - the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not about life after death, it is a symbolic way for Jesus to critique the Jewish leadership of his day. But what Jesus says through the use of the symbols in that parable is still "true".