The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #82318   Message #2062505
Posted By: John Hardly
28-May-07 - 02:12 PM
Thread Name: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf....
Subject: RE: BS: No Dinos in the bible? wtf....
"Then what is the fundamentalist view regarding the literalness of the bible."[sic]

Just as there are many who accept evolution, but misunderstand and wrongly describe it by examples of grey and/or white moths, or by some fish's "want to" causing it to grow legs so it could explore the land...

...there are fundamentalists who do not understand, nor can they correctly explain the finer points of "verbal plenary inspriration".

To reject evolution because some lay people so thoroughly butcher the explanation of it, is as stupid as describing fundamentalism as "taking the Bible literally".

What they believe is that the Bible is the inspired word of God -- a book of grace whereby God communicated to man through man.

They believe that the actual, flawless scripture would be the first one written. Therefore, though they would contend that the various versions contain the word of God, no one translation or version is perfect.

They would say that proper interpretation of scripture would accept cultural context -- that the scripture, to be best understood would have to first understand that much of it was written to a specific recipient.

They would say that proper interpretation of scripture would also accept historical context -- that some of what was written will not be understood if explained into the wrong timeframe.

They would say that that which is meant to be literal, and theological/ethical/moral principle, is, indeed, to be taken literally -- don't steal, don't murder, don't listen to Billy Ray Cyrus.

They would say that that which was written as poetry is meant to be read as poetry.

They would say that that which was written as symbolism is meant to be read as symbolism.

And they would say that no part of what is the accepted canon should stand on its own -- if it seems not to fit with the rest of scripture, the principles of the rest of scripture should supercede. Thus, you wouldn't likely take one small part of scripture and safely assume a whole new cult around that small part -- especially if it seems to contradict the rest of the word.