Are You a Fundamentalist?

[jasonc]

No one language can be literally word for word translated. The hebrew word for everlasting is like greek aeon which is an age to age.,non stop.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

1 Samuel 17:45-47 (NIV)

45 David said to the Philistine, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied.46 This day the Lord will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel.47 All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”

Now I might not be well studied on the orginal text, in it's original language, nor that well studied on translations and which ones are the best or not. But there seems to be an easy explaination. David killed Goliath with a stone. That is evident to us reading these passages, but possibly not evident to those watching the fight. So David cut off his head to prove he was dead. The first death was Goliath being dead. The second death is a confirmation that yes he's really dead.

I could be wrong but that seems to fit the sitution in my opinion.

 

[ezra]

http://www.gotquestions.org/fundamentalism.html

 

[Sinthesis]

For the purpose of this thread, fundamentalist = literalist (interpretation of scripture).

Then by that definition I am not a fundamentalist. However, I don't believe literalistic interpretation is a Christian fundamental.

OK, folks, you knew this was coming. Another famous Biblical contradiction is 1 Samuel 17:50-51.

50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

So how could David have slain Goliath twice? Is there a fundamentalist explananation for this contradiction?

My personal answer is that it doesn't matter that there's inconsistencies in the Bible. The main messages of the Bible are still intact, for example salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and in the end that's all that matters.

The above passage is not a contradiction. It simply states that David smote Goliath, and then killed him. The reader would naturally ask themselves 'How could David kill Goliath without a sword?' The passage goes on to explain that David killed Goliath with Goliath's own sword.

Any perceived contradictions or inconsistencies in the bible can be resolved if you do your part in the act of communication to try to understand what God is saying.

 

[Sinthesis]

Good morning, everyone.

My point in pointing out these admittedly minor discrepancies is simply to explain why I do not subscribe to a fundamentalist (100% literalist) interpretation of the Bible. I feel you must work a bit harder to understand the essential truths contained in scripture, and that's really a good thing. The vast majority of the Bible is true; it's our life work to figure out what it is.

The entirety of the bible is true. Just because one hasn't resolved it completely doesn't make the bible false, it only illustrates our limited understanding. I believe that insisting on a fundamentalist (100% literalist) interpretation of the bible hinders hinders our ability to understand the essential truths contained in scripture.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Does someone who isn't a fundamentalist Christian, but still a Christian, belong on a site like this?

Does it bother you? If the community accepts you even if there are disagreements, then the community accepts you. If you accept the community even if there are disagreements then you accept the community.

Regardless what the issues are, whether it's accepting the bible as literal, the trinity as real, accepting or rejecting certain theories of science, or the changes in culture to be acceptable or an abomination. There are many issues that people can have. And people can let them divide us, as well as communities keep out those who disagree. This is true regardless of the kind of issue, as long as it's important enough to some one, or important enough for the community.

So I want to reverse the question. Does it bother you if this forum has a decent population in it that hold the bible literally?

As for me, I'm use to different beliefs, perspectives, and rationelle talking to one another. One more in my opinion would be fine. Chances are the differences will help us understand one another and possibly understand more about the world, or about truth as best that we can discern it. What matters to me though is not the differences, but the squabbles. If a person only wants to fight, I'll lose a notch or two of respect for that person.

Either way, if your asking for a vote to be welcome in this website, this is my vote. A member does not have to be literal in accepting the bible, even if I strive to do so. Please do me a favor and answer the reverse question. Would it be a problem for you to accept being here, if a portion of the conversations is likely to have someone in them accepting the bible as literally as they know how to?

 

[KevinK]

Then by that definition I am not a fundamentalist. However, I don't believe literalistic interpretation is a Christian fundamental.



The above passage is not a contradiction. It simply states that David smote Goliath, and then killed him. The reader would naturally ask themselves 'How could David kill Goliath without a sword?' The passage goes on to explain that David killed Goliath with Goliath's own sword.

Any perceived contradictions or inconsistencies in the bible can be resolved if you do your part in the act of communication to try to understand what God is saying.

I going to still have to disagree. The word "slew" means "killed". It does not say David smote Goliath, then killed him (with his own sword, which was never an issue). That may be what happened, but that is not what's written. It says that David killed Goliath, then ran up to him and killed him.

 

[KevinK]

Does it bother you? If the community accepts you even if there are disagreements, then the community accepts you. If you accept the community even if there are disagreements then you accept the community.

Regardless what the issues are, whether it's accepting the bible as literal, the trinity as real, accepting or rejecting certain theories of science, or the changes in culture to be acceptable or an abomination. There are many issues that people can have. And people can let them divide us, as well as communities keep out those who disagree. This is true regardless of the kind of issue, as long as it's important enough to some one, or important enough for the community.

So I want to reverse the question. Does it bother you if this forum has a decent population in it that hold the bible literally?

As for me, I'm use to different beliefs, perspectives, and rationelle talking to one another. One more in my opinion would be fine. Chances are the differences will help us understand one another and possibly understand more about the world, or about truth as best that we can discern it. What matters to me though is not the differences, but the squabbles. If a person only wants to fight, I'll lose a notch or two of respect for that person.

Either way, if your asking for a vote to be welcome in this website, this is my vote. A member does not have to be literal in accepting the bible, even if I strive to do so. Please do me a favor and answer the reverse question. Would it be a problem for you to accept being here, if a portion of the conversations is likely to have someone in them accepting the bible as literally as they know how to?

No, I'm not "bothered", by either being a non-fundamentalist, or by hanging out with those who are. I just want to know if my being here is a problem. If it is, I will gladly leave, no hard feelings.

 

[Sinthesis]

I going to still have to disagree. The word "slew" means "killed". It does not say David smote Goliath, then killed him (with his own sword, which was never an issue). That may be what happened, but that is not what's written. It says that David killed Goliath, then ran up to him and killed him.

1Sa 17:49 - And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
1Sa 17:50 - So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.
1Sa 17:51 - Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.​

You are choosing to interpret the situation as if Goliath died from the stone, but it doesn't actually say that. The problem is resolved if you choose to accept that Goliath was killed by his own sword as he lay unconscious from the stone.

 

[KevinK]

You are choosing to interpret the situation as if Goliath died from the stone, but it doesn't actually say that.

But it does actually say that:

So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him

 

[Sinthesis]

But it does actually say that:

That is something you have inferred. One can just as easily infer that he was only smitten by the stone, then he was slain. Verse 51 explains how he was slain.

 

[KevinK]

That is something you have inferred. One can just as easily infer that he was only smitten by the stone, then he was slain. Verse 51 explains how he was slain.

That interpretation isn't possible. In verse 50, David does not yet possess a (Goliath's own) sword. It clearly says that ("but there was no sword in the hand of David"). It says that Goliath has been slain, yet David does not pick up a sword until verse 51, where he is slain a second time.

Reviewing the sequence:

1. David deploys his sling, scoring a direct hit on Goliath's forehead.
2. Goliath is now slain, i.e. dead. At this point it specifically says David does not yet possess a sword, therefore Goliath was killed by the stone projectile.
3. David runs up to the fallen giant.
4. David takes Goliath's own sword, and decapitates him.
5. Goliath is now slain again, the second time today.

 

[turnorburn]

That interpretation isn't possible. In verse 50, David does not yet possess a (Goliath's own) sword. It clearly says that ("but there was no sword in the hand of David"). It says that Goliath has been slain, yet David does not pick up a sword until verse 51, where he is slain a second time.

Reviewing the sequence:

1. David deploys his sling, scoring a direct hit on Goliath's forehead.
2. Goliath is now slain, i.e. dead. At this point it specifically says David does not yet possess a sword, therefore Goliath was killed by the stone projectile.
3. David runs up to the fallen giant.
4. David takes Goliath's own sword, and decapitates him.
5. Goliath is now slain again, the second time today.

If you put it into context it makes perfect sense there are no discrepancies, what was Goliath's challenge?

tob

 

[ezra]

i call this gnat straining .facts are David took Goliath out with a rock in the name of the Lord .he then cut his head off how much theology does that take?
40 Then he took his staff in his hand; and he chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in a shepherd’s bag, in a pouch which he had, and his sling was in his hand. And he drew near to the Philistine. 41 So the Philistine came, and began drawing near to David, and the man who bore the shield went before him. 42 And when the Philistine looked about and saw David, he disdained him; for he was only a youth, ruddy and good-looking. 43 So the Philistine said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. 44 And the Philistine said to David, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field!”

45 Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword, with a spear, and with a javelin. But I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you and take your head from you. And this day I will give the carcasses of the camp of the Philistines to the birds of the air and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. 47 Then all this assembly shall know that the Lord does not save with sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord’s, and He will give you into our hands.”

48 So it was, when the Philistine arose and came and drew near to meet David, that David hurried and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine. 49 Then David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone; and he slung it and struck the Philistine in his forehead, so that the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the earth. 50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him. But there was no sword in the hand of David. 51 Therefore David ran and stood over the Philistine, took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it.

 

[Pizza]

This is not a personal inference. This is a well-known Biblical contradiction. I did not make it up myself. Google it; a lot will come up.

David killed G with one shot, then walked up to him and cut off his head. G died once, the fact that David killed G was repeated, but I've never read the passage to mean that he killed G twice, but that the repeating of the statement simply was a product of translation and a desire on the writer to emphasize that little David killed the Giant.

Seems simple to me.


As to "funamentalist" - ah, labels. I have no clue if I'm a fundamentalist or not. I beleive in the fundamental foundation of salvation in Christ, but other than that, I probalby don't fit into hardly any real label.

 

[Pizza]

Change my answer to post 114's point, thanks.

 

[KevinK]

I understand the larger context of the story of David and Goliath (if that's what some of the last few posts are referring to; I can only guess based on what information has been provided thus far). Yes, it is not merely a contest between unlikely combatants with an unexpected ending. It is a confirmation of God's commitment to protect the Israelites from her enemies, as formidable as they may appear.

That's not the point I'm making, and it doesn't change the point I'm making. My point is that even a single, small, and insignificant discrepancy in a written work by definition disqualifies it from being literally perfect, and that's why I'm not a fundamentalist. That does not mean the entire Bible is wrong; I believe that most of it is accurate, in fact the vast majority of the work. The Bible is a vehicle for the transmission of God's word, but it is a man-made vehicle and therefore subject to human error. There is no need to toss the baby with the bathwater, as it were. I hope no-one thinks that way.

 

[KevinK]

Change my answer to post 114's point, thanks.

Well, I'd like to answer your 115 anyway. I actually wanted to interpret the passages that way. But try as I could, that scripture does in fact delineate a person being killed twice. It can not be taken as some kind of internal cross-reference to itself, if that makes sense. Acc. to the Bible, Goliath died twice.

 

[turnorburn]

I understand the larger context of the story of David and Goliath (if that's what some of the last few posts are referring to; I can only guess based on what information has been provided thus far). Yes, it is not merely a contest between unlikely combatants with an unexpected ending. It is a confirmation of God's commitment to protect the Israelites from her enemies, as formidable as they may appear.

That's not the point I'm making. My point is that even a single, small, and insignificant discrepancy in a written work by definition disqualifies it from being literally perfect. That does not mean the entire Bible is wrong; I believe that most of it is accurate, in fact the vast majority of the work. The Bible is a vehicle for the transmission of God's word, but it is a man-made vehicle and therefore subject to human error. There is no need to toss the baby with the bathwater, as it were. I hope no-one thinks that way.

Its not a man made vehicle..and there are no discrepancies...

II Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

tob

 

[Pizza]

It is a translation and the old testament was written in the midst of a whole 'nother culture. There is no error here, I am sure of that.

Consider, for example, Japanese. If you ask a Japanese person, such as my daughter-in-law, "Yuki, do you want more coffee?" It is not unusual for them to respond (particularly if speaking in Japanese in a formal situation) for them to say something like, "No, coffee exists."

While that sounds like it does not answer the question, it does. In their culture, speaking about oneself is often seen as rude, so they eliminate reference to themselves and simply indicate that they need no more coffee by saying that "it exists"....

To us, it sounds nutty and odd. But to them, it is proper and respectful. When you read the old testament, you are reading things written in other, old languages, from old cultures. With the drive to change little and translate accurately, I can see how such oddities enter the Bible. I am confident that, in the original text, a person knowledgeable of the language would have no issue at all reading the verses.

What does the verse really say? It says that David stood on God's promises in great faith and bravely faced the giant. It says that David was victorious. And it says it all thru a translation, and thru centuries of cultural and intellectual change.