Scriptural fundamentalism & literal interpretation

[reba]

I believe there are different intellectual levels of people and that includes Christianity. .. I cant speak like a guy with a PHD..
Joh_4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
It does not take intellect to have the faith of a child.. Yet i do wish i was more intellectual.. the same in music.. My singing is fingernails on a chalkboard so i really like this verse
Psa_98:4 Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise.

 

[th1b.taylor]

In another thread (End Times, topic, 'The two-minute salvation'), a poster used the language of 'scriptural fundamentalist'. Do you know what such a Christian believes?

What is your approach to interpretation of any text, whether that be reading your local newspaper, C S Lewis's Mere Christianity, Shakespeare's Henry IV, or reading the Bible?

Do you engage in literal interpretation or do you use some other method of interpretation? When you read this post, are you using literal interpretation or not in your attempt to understand the meaning of what I write?

Oz

Oz,
I'm sorry I avoided this one so long. I am a Scriptural Fundamentalist. I know not what the other person meant but from a week or so after my salvation, I have called myself a Biblicist because if the Bible says it, I believe it. But there is one error in your question.

The Bible has been interpreted for all but a hand-full of languages and in English, there can be no more interpretation, that is over. I was recently informed that no man can know God's will but I informed him that is not true and it is not.

Over the past twenty-six years of study, God, through the Holy Spirit has taught me everything I know of the scriptures. When I was nearing my time of submission I purchased a small KJV and, on my own, tried to read it. Except for chapter three of John, the dumb thing was gibberish!

The night I walked off stage and I knew that a Spirit had just entered into my life, everything changed. After I had stowed my Amp and my Guitars I opened the little book and it fell open, as I recall it, to Isaiah 53, Isaiah's Gospel, as it is known and I fell on my face in worship... what had been impossible to comprehend, the Holy Spirit had just made as clear to me as "See Dick run."

I, now, pray for understanding and at some point, in a variety of manors, the Spirit teaches me what I cannot understand. But, and lad, what a but with only a single T. But I can read a given passage and I can understand perfectly what the Spirit has taught me and then He will teach me something else.

This can be disconcerting but after doing as the scriptures teach us and meditating and praying over the Word, the Spirit of God teaches me how they fit, hand in glove like. This has taught not to act to stupid to quickly but rather to seek understanding before I blow up on a bloke.

To this day I teach folks to give up the perfectly stupid practice of interpreting God's Word, save the former English Witch Ic led to the foot of the cross that now, a linguist, translates the scriptures for tribes in Africa.

 

[Malachi]

Till the last breath leaves my body, I will be opposing this secret, esoteric knowledge that supposedly lies beneath the surface of the words of the Bible.

There is spiritual truth which lies beneath the surface, but it is not necessarily secret or esoteric. For example how did Abraham know that God would provide Himself a Lamb? Abraham is deemed to be a prophet, and while he may not initially have been aware of a lamb caught in a thicket beside him, he was aware of the Lamb of God slain from before the foundation of the world. He also looked for a city which has foundations, who builder and maker is God, yet this is not disclosed in the OT. How did Abraham know that even if he killed Isaac, his beloved son would be resurrected in order to fulfil the Abrahamic Covenant? How did Abraham rejoice to see Christ's day?

 

[for_his_glory]

Why didn't you deal with the content of what I wrote about literal interpretation. Seems as though I could be wasting my time in preparing extended explanations of the meaning of literal interpretation.

Your explanation about spiritual things likened to literal things and vice versa sounds awfully like contemporary Gnosticism in action. See 'Gnosticism & the Gnostic Jesus' by Douglas Groothuis.

Oz

Sorry, but I thought I was dealing with the content of what you wrote. Likened is also used as a metaphor of relating the literal to that of another literal or that of the spiritual. Take for instance the literal and spiritual Tabernacle of God. It was literal like in Abraham setting up the literal Tabernacle of God here on earth, Exodus 33:7-10, but also spiritual in heaven, as all things are spiritual there, being the tabernacle of God, Rev 11:9. We are now that spiritual tabernacle of God as His spirit dwells in us, 1Corinthians 3:16. This is scripture I was talking about being literal where it needs to be and spiritual where it needs to be for our understanding. Not all is literal and not all is spiritual in scripture.

 

[for_his_glory]

That's what I've been doing with your promotion of 'spiritual revelations' and 'esoteric knowledge' - and you don't like it.

I happen to be a Spirit-filled person who rejects the extra-biblical revelation of esoteric, subjective knowledge. My answer is in the Bible See 2 Tim 3:16-17 (NIV).

Oz

Is God literal that we can physically see Him or is He spirit that we can only understand who He is by metaphors that are used to describe His attributes? If all things are literal in scripture why do we need the Holy Spirit to teach us of spiritual things of Gods word if they are just all literal. Even our carnal mind cannot understand the literal in scripture so how could it ever understand the spiritual heavenly things that Jesus has already taught us. John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

 

[Edward]

It's a metaphor:
"9For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?12If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?" (1 Corinthians 9:9-12 NASB)

Paul, especially, gives us the precedent for gleaning deeper spiritual truths out of literal understandings. My relationship with God is full and vibrant and meaningful because of these spiritual insights. If I was locked into just the face value of the words of the Bible I'd be nothing more than a Pharisee probably.

I'll buy that. The entire Bible is full of that sort of thing. That's prolly why people debate so much about it. One sees one thing and another sees another.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No, it's not a matter of taking the Bible at face value only. What do you want to do? You ADD to what the Bible says at face value and that ADDING, in your words, is 'to discern the greater spiritual truths that God wove into those plain words'. These ADDED 'spiritual truths' are your form of the New Gnosticism.

Am I a Gnostic (large 'G') by suggesting that much more than just literal scales fell from his eyes when Ananias laid hands on him?

"17So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; 19and he took food and was strengthened." (Acts 9:17-19 NASB)

We know Jesus came to open the eyes of the blind (Isaiah 35:5 NASB). He did that quite literally, but he also did that quite spiritually. Do you disagree with my esoteric, gnostic interpretation of Acts 9:17-19 above? Do you feel it has zero Biblical support for me to discern and interpret it that way? (Actually, I'm not totally certain that later in Acts Paul himself does not refer to this being a spiritual eye-opening encounter).

Don't you think a pastor could make a spiritual application of Paul's experience of having his literal eyes opened, and taking in literal food and being literally strengthened after having Ananias pray for him? Like for_his_glory pointed out, Jesus himself set the precedent for using the literal natural things we know well to teach unseen, not so easily understood spiritual things. In fact, John 3:8,12 NASB is probably the single best place in the Bible that gives me the confidence to do that.

 

[Edward]

Wow, what a thread. As has been posted, spiritual matters are spiritually discerned. The Holy Spirit helps us with this. Scriptures back this up.

The worst thing one could do is to reject the esoteric revelations of the Holy Spirit. Personally, I'd be scared to reject the Holy Spirit.

The only reason that the Holy Spirit would reveal spiritual insight to a believer, is because they're ready for it. To receive it, to grow, to mature.

To outright reject the works of the Holy Spirit... is to reject the scriptures too. It's arrogant, and seems like it'd be a slap in the face of the Holy Spirit.

It's like Jethro said. Scriptures are both literal and metaphor. For our Lord to write it this way was necessary, as well as being conducive to our personal growth of faith in Him.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Wow, what a thread. As has been posted, spiritual matters are spiritually discerned. The Holy Spirit helps us with this. Scriptures back this up.

The worst thing one could do is to reject the esoteric revelations of the Holy Spirit. Personally, I'd be scared to reject the Holy Spirit.

The only reason that the Holy Spirit would reveal spiritual insight to a believer, is because they're ready for it. To receive it, to grow, to mature.

To outright reject the works of the Holy Spirit... is to reject the scriptures too. It's arrogant, and seems like it'd be a slap in the face of the Holy Spirit.

It's like Jethro said. Scriptures are both literal and metaphor. For our Lord to write it this way was necessary, as well as being conducive to our personal growth of faith in Him.

You have summed it up very well.

 

[JohnDB]

Now I could be wrong...
But what I see OZ is stating is that people are reading into scriptures things that scriptures do not contain...and that they are going beyond what scriptures have stated...so much to the point that they are actually contradicting what other scriptures point out clearly all the while claiming that the Holy Spirit has taught them this "truth".

And to that point...I am going to agree with the OP on this one.
Paul makes a case for this in his writings..."Let us do Evil so that grace can abound more. Their condemnation is justified" (my loose and inaccurate recitation of Paul)

So...we must have a point at which we can start to understand about God because if we do not...we are creating a false god...one of our own making. And that god is far inferior to the God which really exists. Our hearts are very deceptively wicked. A very small inaccuracy in a small part of a ship (the rudder) and the whole voyage is not going to arrive at the destination of choice. and this slight variation can end up with huge and drastic consequences.
The Apostles at Jerusalem were very hesitant to place any requirements on Gentile believers of the vast traditions and ordinances that they practiced...for a reason. They didn't want to go beyond what Jesus had told them.

 

[reba]

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Mar 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Mar 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

 

[JohnDB]

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Mar 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Mar 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Now...you know that verses 17-20 of that section of Mark is highly contested. Not all of the Mark manuscripts contain those verses.
And it wasn't just because it was on the last page either and the page got destroyed.
Which is the exact point that the OP is making. Where at one time that teaching was likely highly popular and repeated...and became a note at the bottom of a page...and eventually got accidentally included as scripture and then became an ongoing copy as others hand copied someone's personal scripture copy.

At some point...someone read this into scripture. Then it became written right next to the scriptures. Then it became scripture. And now if you don't include those verses people look at you through one squinted eye.

 

[reba]

The question becomes which scholar are we to believe.? But then these' maybe Scriptures 'agree with these and more..

Mat_10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
1Co_13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
Act_2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Luk_9:2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
Luk_10:9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Act_19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Act_5:15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
Jas_5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Jas_5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

 

[JohnDB]

The question becomes which scholar are we to believe.? But then these' maybe Scriptures 'agree with these and more..

Mat_10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
1Co_13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
Act_2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Luk_9:2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
Luk_10:9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Act_19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Act_5:15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
Jas_5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Jas_5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

I'm not saying that these contested scriptures didn't accurately describe Paul or the other apostles and disciples actions recorded in scriptures.
And in fact that is likely the reason the note got included as scripture. It appeared to be scripture.

Maybe the purposeful accident was caused by God. But then again why do we know that these verses are contested?

But since today we have more information than ever before and our modern translations can be made more accurately than before in human history.... why then is it so difficult for us to really use the hard and fast rule of not going beyond what scriptures really say?

Why "read in" extra requirements for ourselves when the basics are so difficult to attain to begin with?

I'm sorry but even though I have what is considered to be a strong faith mine is still weak by comparison to where I wish it to be.

And ultimately what the OP is referring to is the fear/respect for the Holy. God spent many gallons of his faithful followers blood to make sure that we have the most accurate scriptures possible. Maybe just reading them and taking them as they are is all God wants . Reading "extra" into them and going beyond what they say or intend is how such things as slavery, polygamy, or misogeny has been licensed as being Godly.

Today we are having such things as sexual perversion and other behavior licensed by those who have been told by the Holy Spirit that they are perfectly acceptable to God... regardless of their direct condemnation by scriptures.

And...
If you think that we can drink poison because scripture in Mark says so...well I'll drink a cup of poison out of the cup you drank some first...k?

 

[reba]

Simple to me one believes the Scriptures are they dont.. ... as far and temping God by drinking poison to make a point
Mat_4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
What of these verses
Mat_10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
1Co_13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
Act_2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Luk_9:2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
Luk_10:9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Act_19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Act_5:15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
Jas_5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Jas_5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

 

[reba]

Why "read in" extra requirements for ourselves when the basics are so difficult to attain to begin with?

Who here has?

 

[Jim Parker]

nowhere in my post did you see me 'insisting', but rather, what I do and what works for me.

The "insister" is a hypothetical reader.

Yep. Good thing we have a concordance to get into the original language with.

It helps. But a concordance is only a help. Language does not exist in a vacuum; it has a cultural content as well which colors the meaning of language.

It might if the (KJV) reader didn't have a concordance.

I don't know anyone who reads his Bible and looks up every word in a concordance. People tend to use a concordance only when they run into a phrase or word of unclear meaning.

Again...where did I insist anything.

I didn't say "you." I said "many."

And what's your point?

It is what I stated: "Many, not realizing the impediments to understanding which they have not even noticed, let alone overcome, are happy to insist that their "literal" understanding is 'right there in the (KJ, of course) Bible.'"

That you don't want to even try word studies?

I said nothing even vaguely suggesting that.

That any obstacle to metaphors be removed so that you can insist on metaphors all throughout?

I said nothing even vaguely suggesting that either.

 

[JohnDB]

Who here has?

OK.
You know these things but aren't connecting the dots.

There are the denominational differences that divide us....from the one cup, no musical instruments COC to the Saturday worshippers to the tongue demanding groups. Even to the point of demanding what clothing the priest shall wear (collars). They all have gone beyond what scriptures have said.



And the OP is correct in his assessment that it's fractured the church to where to the outside world we look like idiots in the things we demand of adherents.

We have gone a long way from"faith of a child" by thinking too much like fear filled adults.

 

[reba]

the question asked was "Who here has?"

 

[JohnDB]

the question asked was "Who here has?"

By "here" I thought you meant the website as a whole instead of this thread.

And now are you sure you want names? (Even if they have made no demands in this particular thread)
Didn't think so.
It's not considered polite to call people out on denominational differences and label them as Gnostic or worse yet "unbeliever" for their "added to scriptures" doctrines...which they would take as insulting as they firmly believe in their doctrines are rooted in scriptures.