Questions about Christian Fundamentalism

[Spiffor]

As much as I like trolling fundamentalists , I created this thread to ask two serious questions about Christian fundamentalism.

As I understand it, "fundamentalism" is the strict obedience to the "fundaments", i.e the words of the Book. As such, as I understand it, "Fundamentalists" are the ones who consider both Old and New Testaments (as defined in the Nicaea council) to be true words of God, that should be followed literally.

The first question I'd like to ask is about the translations of the Bible. Since we don't have the original word of Jesus in Aramaic, we have to rely on translations. English-speaking fundies obey either King James' Bible or the modern translation, themselves translations from Latin versions, itself translation from ancient Greek, itself a translation of the original Aramaic message.

Now, what happens when there are discrepancies between translations? Say, what happens if the Spanish translation says something completely different than the English translation at some point? Who is more "right"? What version has the real truth, and which one is making a mistake? Does it shake your perception of the book as being perfect?


The other question is about the Law, as stated in the Old Testament. According to the Old Testament, the Law comes from God himself, and it is supposed to never change. Or decadent society is far from the word of God, and the fundies strive naturally to bring it closer: being against homosexuality, being against extramarital sex etc. are logical positions for the fundies.
But are you fundamentalists ready to follow the Law in its entirety? Do you strive to have raped women stoned to death, provided they didn't scream loud enough? Are you against pillows? Do you want adult males to be worth 50 shekels and adult females 30? There are tons of Laws that can be deemed absurd, yet they are the words of God. To put the question simply, what is your position towards them?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Can I add onto your second question?

Why don't fundies keep kosher? The Law (Leviticus 11, IIRC) clearly prohibits eating pork, shellfish, and of course yummy, yummy rock badger (New Standard translation). Christ himself insists (Matthew 5, IIRC) that he has come not to overthrow the Law, but to enforce it. It's St. Paul who insists that Christians need not follow Jewish dietary laws, in flat contradiction of Christ (as well as the Jerusalem branch of the apostles, led by James). So why has Paul's version of Christianity won out over Christ's?

[DaShi]

Well, if I remember correctly. When St. Paul made that statement, there were a whole lot of gasps and, "Ooooh, you're going to get it now"'s. But nothing happened, so everyone just carried on eating pork and such as usual.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Yeah, Christ knew what it took to make a great religion. But Paul knew what it took to sell a religion. Too bad for JC.

[Jamski]

The fish ain't biting Spiff I was keeping a eye on this thread for an hour - I thought it might be fun.

-Jam

[Ben Kenobi]

Spiffor:

I'm tired, and your questions do not lend well to a short and snappy explanation.

I'll reply tomorrow, when I'm not so tired and rather more sharper.

A short answer is this:

Even within Fundamentalism, there can be different interpretations without taking away from the text, particularly with difficult passages.

The translation issue illustrates the importance for biblical scholars to go back to the Greek for the NT and the Hebrew for the OT to get the precise meanings of some words nailed down. It's not so much as an error in the translation, but in differences between languages, one bold example being the word 'love' in English can represent 4 different greek words. Going back to the Greek clarifies which love is intended.

Rufus:

"What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean, but rather what comes out of it."

Paraphrasing Christ, this is the reason why Christians are not required to keep Kosher.

Your larger issue merits a more lengthy response, as to the interactions between the OT and NT.

[Spiffor]

Ben:
Thanks for the short answer. I'll be less present on 'Poly for a week, but I'll keep an eye on this thread.

Jamski:
Well, I didn't want to create a "let's bash the fundies" this time. I expcet this thread to turn into a pseudo-theological thread once the original question has been answered

[Bosh]

It's St. Paul who insists that Christians need not follow Jewish dietary laws, in flat contradiction of Christ

Mostly because the number of people who wanted to convert to a religion that required their little friend be snipped (as James etc. required) were rather few, so Paul's recruiting went a hell of a lot better.

[Jamski]

So you're saying Paul was the first NON-Fundementalist Christian?

-Jam

[Bosh]

Paul was a bit of a nutcase generally, Christianity would've been far better off without him.

[Jamski]

Its debatable if Christianity would ever have become more than just another Jewish messiah-cult if it wasn't for Paul "spreading the appeal" to non-Jews.

-Jam

[Ben Kenobi]

Rufus:

Lagging 'Poly server ate my first reply.

The citation for my quote would be Mark 7:15

"Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "

I encourage you to read all of Mark 7, which you can find here.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=Mark+7&x=8&y=10

SO this would make it valid for Paul to say that a Kosher diet is not required based on Christ's earlier teachings.

Now, as for your second quote, you do not remember the wording correctly.

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. "

What does fulfill mean? To bring to completion. How does Christ bring the Law to completion? Through his atonement for all sins, past present and future on the cross. This is why the OT sense of cleanness and uncleanness no longer makes sense as the old sacrificial system was the only way for people before Christ to receive atonement for sin.

Therefore, the standard now becomes one not of consumption, but of conduct.

[SlowwHand]

I can't say any terms relating to anatomy, nor can I speak as to the legitamacy of your birth.

Nothing can stop me from thinking what you know I'm thinking though.

[Ben Kenobi]

Spiffor:

Here is my promised reply:

Your definition of a Fundamentalist is a good starting point, though even fundamentalists will not interpret the entire bible literally. If this were true, than the only Fundamentalists would be Catholics, since communion would not be a symbolic event.

A better definition would be taking the word as is, without looking at the context of the times, a word you will hear often in a more liberal church. Fundamentalists believe that the words of the bible are true for all cultures and times and places.

The first question I'd like to ask is about the translations of the Bible. Since we don't have the original word of Jesus in Aramaic, we have to rely on translations. English-speaking fundies obey either King James' Bible or the modern translation, themselves translations from Latin versions, itself translation from ancient Greek, itself a translation of the original Aramaic message.

Okay, here's why your portrait is misleading. We have access to very early NT bibles, originals in about 200 AD or so, in Greek. So any interpretation in English would go back to the earliest Greek sources, and not through intermediaries such as the KJV, or Latin translataions.

So we would only have on step, from English to Greek. Secondly, there are a great deal of translations done, so any discrepancy becomes very easy to document and must be defended by the translator.

For the OT, we do have the Dead Sea scrolls, written as originals at around the time of Christ. After they were discovered, there were a few, though not many changes that needed to be made. So again, we really see only one step, from Hebrew to English, although with a much different time scale from the originals.

Now, what happens when there are discrepancies between translations? Say, what happens if the Spanish translation says something completely different than the English translation at some point? Who is more "right"? What version has the real truth, and which one is making a mistake? Does it shake your perception of the book as being perfect?

First, you to have to take into account that different languages say the same thing in different ways. If there appears to be a conflict, all that needs to be done is to go to the Greek to decide which one is correct. I would seriously doubt that any widly distributed translation would have undocumented translation errors.

But are you fundamentalists ready to follow the Law in its entirety? Do you strive to have raped women stoned to death, provided they didn't scream loud enough? Are you against pillows? Do you want adult males to be worth 50 shekels and adult females 30? There are tons of Laws that can be deemed absurd, yet they are the words of God. To put the question simply, what is your position towards them?

First, since you cite a case for the law, you must cite these passages. No lawyer is required to cite evidence against himself.

Secondly, if we take your assessments to be correct, my position can be taken to two forms. These laws were given to God to the people of Israel ruled under a King appointed by God and not the people. Until we are under such a situation, these laws cannot be enforced.

My second argument comes from Christ's assessment of the two greatest commandments, to love God and to love your neighbour as yourself. According to Jesus, these commandments take precedence.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
.

"What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean, but rather what comes out of it."

Paraphrasing Christ, this is the reason why Christians are not required to keep Kosher.
.

IIUC, this was in the context of questions of eating food that had not been correctly tithed, and related issues of purity, NOT the commandments about forbidden species etc.