juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
First, I want to say thank you very much to Dor for providing this information. I was not aware of this set of…parameters…to indicate Christian Fundamentalism.
Before I continue, I want to address this in as delicate a way as I can. I admire Dor and Faithfulservant, I respect them and appreciate their contributions. They have been very good sports in light of the razzing some inconsiderate people can level, ignorantly, at Christian Fundamentalism.
CYBERPI said:
That said, I do want to look at this list in a scholarly manner if at all possible. I think Cyberpi hit on the essence of my questioning attitude.
For the sake of polite argument, I will go down the list quickly.
Biblical Inerrancy:
This is probably the underlying foundational point, without which the others do seemingly come into question. No doubt, this is the motivation behind many “anti”-Christian scholars attempting to undermine the faith, and equally the cause of concern and consternation among those who uphold these tenets. I am very sensitive to this, so please do not consider my series of questions as an assault, they are not. They are an exploration. I believe G-d is real. I also believe that because G-d is real, He can handle questions, and being questioned. I also do not consider this an affront to G-d Himself by challenging the traditions of mere mortal men. That is, afterall, precisely the issue here…looking at a particular tradition collection, nothing more. In that light I will begin.
Inerrancy is a toughie to boldly state without something concrete to back it up. I am not familiar with the collection of essays alluded to, but I have a little working knowledge of some of the linguistic and translational issues. The first place I would begin is by asking, “which Bible” is inerrant? A blanket statement like, “well, all of them, of course,” would simply not be true. There are a multitude of English translations alone, and quite honestly they do not all say the same things, even in different ways.
So, for simplicity, I will stick with the King James Version. The KJV is the version I am most familiar with, it is the one I have read pretty much cover to cover, and it seems to be the one most commonly referenced by outside sources. Now, it should be apparent I am a big fan of the KJV, so let’s remove that tired argument from the beginning. I have no need to undermine my own faith. Now, if the KJV is inerrant, then everything in it should be unquestionably true, yes? In that case, unicorns exist as real living creatures. I forget where just now, but a cursory look through the Strong’s Concordance will immediately bring up a couple of references to unicorns in the Old Testament. Now, I haven’t ever taken the time to pursue this (shame on me), but I have always suspected it was referring to an animal that Europeans, or at least the specific Englishmen translating the Textus Receptus, were not familiar with. Then again, there might be some translational issue that factors in. And then there may be a valid and truthful reason that escapes my reasoning. Either way, one little matter like this is sufficient to suggest that the Bible is *not* inerrant.
Now, let us be absolutely clear, not being inerrant is not cause to dismiss the Bible or its teachings. And it is certainly important to note, that the error here that I just pointed to is a human error, one that may well not exist in the original text. (In fact, that would be the direction I would immediately lean towards) But it does make a pretty clear case against the English translation about absolute inerrancy.
Another point worthy of note with translational application, is that Jesus, Paul and the rest of the gang did not speak English. The New Testament was not composed in English. Therefore, the grammar, context and nuance are decidedly not English. Subtle things, like the word virgin, have historically and culturally different definitions than we tend to automatically assume coming from a European point of view.
The divinity of Jesus
In fairness, my jury is still out on this one.
The virgin birth
It wasn’t intentional on my part, though maybe it was a subconscious connection to the subject that made me point to the issue of the word “virgin” having a different meaning in the source culture from which the story of Jesus’ birth came. I would dearly love to hear BananaBrain chime in on this, but it is my understanding that Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was considered “virgin” even if they may have been having pre-marital sex (which contrary to prudish Christian tradition should not have been). In light of certain teachings of Paul included in the canon, along with the Mother Church’s inordinate emphasis on Mary’s motherhood at a much later point in history, pre-marital sex and prudish virginity became a matter of orthodox doctrine that had to be edited for and politically defined (of necessity). But this is a cultural issue among Christians, not Jewish culture, of which Mary, Joseph and Jesus all were culturally Jews.
The belief that Jesus died to redeem man
Now, this to me is a non-issue, in that, without Jesus’ sacrifice, what purpose does Christianity serve? In my mind, none. Ergo, this had to be at least a significant portion of Jesus’ purpose and ministry, if not the defining purpose. Textually and culturally I find nothing yet to refute it.
An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return of Jesus Christ to initiate his 1000-year rule on the earth
Now, I haven’t any issue directly with this either, as I see the Time of Jacob’s Trouble written of in the Book of Revelations as the threshold defining event(s) leading into the promises of Isaiah. Now, contextually and linguistically, I see this as directly translated, even if some of the events in both Revelations and Isaiah may well be metaphorical and illustrative rather than literal. The distinction I make because I do not see evidence of the tradition called “rapture.” This is covered in depth elsewhere, but this teaching is rather new, dating only to about 1820 or so coming from England. Rather, I see the return of the Messiah to set right what the adversary and humanity have polluted.
I must stop for now, I think there are sufficient talking points. I will try to return to the balance later.
As always, respectful comments, even if they disagree, are welcome. But lets keep in mind these are teachings that are central and, well, fundamental, to a great many people, some of whom we count as friends here. So please guys and gals, lets be mindful of this as we make our points of discussion.
