Are You a Fundamentalist?

[KevinK]

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

Merely repeating one's position over and over is a ToS violation, just fyi. As for the scripture, you can't use a literary work to validate itself. That's like saying, "If you don't believe me, ask me".

 

[KevinK]

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.

I can appreciate cultural differences that affect accurate translation. For example, in your example the response to the question "Yuki-san, kouhii ga mou ippai wa ikaga desu ka" might be something like "Iie, kouhii wa arun' desu kedo". An English-speaking person might react, "I know that coffee exists! I asked if you wanted some more." In Japanese, however, it is a way to deflect the negativity of a direct response.

Yes, "oddities" exist in the Bible, and that's all I'm saying as well. That only explains why I'm not a fundamentalist; I'm a findamentalist, who searches for the truth that the Bible does hold.

 

[ezra]

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.

agreed

 

[brother Paul]

(Post removed, Tos 2.4: "Please refrain from taking a thread too far off topic." The topic of this thread is NOT which English translation of the original text of scripture is considered the best. Obadiah)

 

[turnorburn]

I can appreciate cultural differences that affect accurate translation. For example, in your example the response to the question "Yuki-san, kouhii ga mou ippai wa ikaga desu ka" might be something like "Iie, kouhii wa arun' desu kedo". An English-speaking person might react, "I know that coffee exists! I asked if you wanted some more." In Japanese, however, it is a way to deflect the negativity of a direct response.

Yes, "oddities" exist in the Bible, and that's all I'm saying as well. That only explains why I'm not a fundamentalist; I'm a findamentalist, who searches for the truth that the Bible does hold.

The bible contains all truth it is the word of God lets see what the word of God has to say..

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

tob

*edit: remove last sentence..

 

[ezra]

i see this solo scripture a lot and i agree solo scripture . my question is whose interpretation. no disrespect to ward any one in today,s Church world we have humteen denominations each one feel they are correct for instance a general baptist preacher would not be allowed to preach in a southern or independent , missionary baptist . the Pentecostals believe solo scripture my self i am more evangelical..bust mostly saved by grace through faith

 

[ezra]

The bible contains all truth it is the word of God lets see what the word of God has to say..

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Why are you searching for something other than the word of God?

tob

bingo i like that answer :amen

 

[KevinK]

The bible contains all truth it is the word of God lets see what the word of God has to say..

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Why are you searching for something other than the word of God?

tob

I'm not, (Edited. Obadiah)

 

[turnorburn]

Merely repeating one's position over and over is a ToS violation, just fyi. As for the scripture, you can't use a literary work to validate itself. That's like saying, "If you don't believe me, ask me".

What is your bottom line here Kevin, i said earlier if you don't understand ask the Lord, if you think something is a discrepancy its not Gods word its our inability to understand it..

tob

 

[turnorburn]

(Post removed. Response to deleted portion of a post. Obadiah)

 

[Pizza]

What is your bottom line here Kevin, i said earlier if you don't understand ask the Lord, if you think something is a discrepancy its not Gods word its our inability to understand it..

tob

Inability? That is being kind.

Again, I find few problems with the Bible compared to a lot of people - concentrating on issues like "Did he really stay in that fish for that amount of time"? Or "how old is the earth" or any number of such questions are interesting things to talk about - but I spend more time asking myself, "What do(es) this(these) verses have to say to me?" "What does God want me to get from this?"

Often, the answer to those two questions are rather easy to answer:

Did Jonah spend all that time in a fish? I don't know, I think he did, but I don't know. I DO know what was being taught - and I know where Jonah went wrong, it is my job to not go wrong in the same way.

How old is the earth? I don't know - but I do know what the Bible tells me - that God made everything, and that all of creation speaks to Hid handywork.

 

[Free]

I think some people need to be honest and admit there are errors in our translations, although I don't see the current issue as one of them.

 

[ezra]

(Post removed. Response to a deleted post. Obadiah)

 

[Pizza]

(Post removed. Response to a deleted post. Obadiah)

 

[KevinK]

(Post removed. Response to a deleted post. Obadiah)

 

[turnorburn]

(Post removed. Response to a deleted post. Obadiah)

 

[KevinK]

(Post removed. ToS 2.4, taking a thread off topic. Obadiah)

 

[Free]

Locking this for clean-up.

 

[Obadiah]

OK, as you can all see I come back from a wonderful 4 days in the wilderness fellowshipping with our Lord, and I get met with this and have to make a bunch of deletions and edits (including several only because the post they were responding to is no longer here). I will re-open the thread, but am only doing so with this admonition to everyone:

1. Before posting anything further, go back and read the very first post. This is the subject of this thread. Any further attempts by anyone to take the thread off of this topic will result in an official warning for violating Terms of Service section 2.4, and can (and probably will) include infraction points. If you wish to discuss a different topic, start a different thread. If you start that thread in the A&T forum, read the A&T Guidelines for Original Posts of threads first AND follow them (which, by the way, the OP of this thread does not. Maybe it was a mistake to let it stand afterall.) If you can't format your Original Post to fit within those guidelines it probably needs to be posted in another forum where it does fit.

2. Knock off the personal insults and bickering. The next one I see doing this will get a warning, probably with an infraction point. If this continues beyond this post for ANY reason, this thread will be permanently closed. If asking members to follow the rules and act like Christians to each other means no one wants to continue this thread, then so be it.

3. Do NOT teach, argue, or debate AGAINST our doctrinal statement. This states in part: "We believe that the Bible is inspired by God in its entirety, and is without error in the original autographs, a complete and final written revelation from God." Be sure any statements made about perceived errors in the Bible are worded in a way that makes it clear you are talking about an error in the translation, or perhaps even a cultural misunderstanding, but NOT an error in the original autographs. Appearing to be teaching, arguing, or attempting to persuade others to believe the original autographs were in error is to say that God was wrong and will not be tolerated, so please know what is meant by "original autographs" and "translations", and be very clear when discussing this.

 

[KevinK]

Very nice write-up, Obadiah. Let me say for the record, it was never my intention to attack the forum's doctrinal statement. I wanted only to state my belief structure, explain why it is so, and determine whether a person like me belongs on a forum like this (by asking if there are other non-fundies here also). I'm a Christian, I always have been, I have seen Hell in a vision, but I'm not a fundamentalist. If this site is only for "literalists", I will gladly move on.