We've shown that they are neither 1) similar, nor 2) the same.
What's the problem?
It sounds like a play on words. Being a fundamentalist is someone who lives by book, chapter, and verse; this is the N.T. church that we read about, the pattern by which we live by. R we conservative, for the most part....yes.
Going back to ur question....there is no problem.
In addition, most people would get easily lost in the Old English used in the 1611 edition. I am glad the first Bible I read all the way through was a KJV, but I needed a commentary to help me along the way.
Just curious because I have read about them and they seem similar.
What do You think of recent New Testament commentary sets by one author that cite the KJV and have mostly modern day Christian living/some counterpoint examples plus application as content? (The author probably believes that the earth was created in 6 literal days, but probably doesn't believe in the young earth creationism as the university he went to doesn't but does purport literal 6-day creation.)
As has already been mentioned here, there are nuances that separate fundies from conservatives, but possibly one of the biggest differences is the issue of the authority of Scripture over tradition, etc. There are people within the conservative camp who hold to (T)radition over all else, such as in the RC and Eastern Orthodox churches. And there are those who hold personal experience/revelation as equal authority to Scripture, which would also potentially put them in the conservative camp, but not fundamentalist.
Here are the basics of fundamental doctrine:
A Fundamentalist Christian is a born again believer in Lord Jesus Christ who:
Thus a Fundamentalist can be from quite a few Protestant denominations, even nondenominational. Those that defer to a view that sacred tradition is equal to scripture (not sola scriptura) would not. For more information, see Fundamentalism.
- Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
- Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
- Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";
- Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
a. The doctrine of the Trinity
b. The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
c. The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
d. The resurrection of saints to life eternal
e. The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
f. The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;
- Practices fidelity to that faith, and endeavors to preach it to every creature;
- Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and
- Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.
- Therefore, Fundamentalism is a militant orthodoxy with a soulwinning zeal. While Fundamentalists may differ on certain interpretations of Scripture, we join in unity of heart and common purpose for the defense of the Faith and the preaching of the Gospel, without compromise or division.
My dear friend desmalia was nice enogh to show what is the definition as far as Fundamentalists are concerned here on christianforums.com.
What she did not do, I will.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7395085/
Here is the difference between Fundamentalists and Conservatives:
As it was originally written, the 1878 Niagara Creed for Fundamentalists said:
14 point creed of the Niagara Bible Conference of 1878:
1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.
2. The Trinity.
3. The Creation of man, the Fall into sin, and total depravity.
4. The universal transmission of spiritual death from Adam.
5. The necessity of the new birth.
6. Redemption by the blood of Christ.
7. Salvation by faith alone in Christ.
8. The assurance of salvation.
9. The centrality of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures.
10. The constitution of the true church by genuine believers.
11. The personality of the Holy Spirit.
12. The believers call to a holy life.
13. The immediate passing of the souls of believers to be with Christ at death.
14. The premillennial Second Coming of Christ.
Source
Nowhere is it stated that Fundamentalists believe "church tradition to be a source of authority".
God Bless
Till all are one.
A fundamentalist follows the bible, a conservative follows a socio-political idea?
Before 1881 the KJV was "THE" Bible for all English-speaking Christians worldwide. Even the Geneva Bible (which is very close) did not hold that position. So you might have a misunderstanding about the time from which the KJV became an issue. And yes, today, a true Fundamentalist would have no choice but to hold to the KJV-only position.And they would be wrong. The Statement of Faith says nothing of a KJV-Only requirement. If so, everyone before 1611 would be in Hell.
This is a strawman argument. I have a reprint of the 1611 edition and other than spellings and some minor differences, the words are identical. The so-called "revisions" were to bring conformity to more recent lnaguage usage.Within the KJV-Only Body of Believers there's an argument about which King James Bible is the true one. It has gone through many revisions since 1611.
There are a few passages where the old English usage needs clarification (through the use of a Concordance). But overall this is really not the issue it is made out to be.In addition, most people would get easily lost in the Old English used in the 1611 edition.
And that's perfectly fine. The real issue is that the Greek manuscripts supporting the modern versions have attacked Bible doctrines, and changed thousands of words to "emend" the text. The Hebrew text has been "emended" on modernisitic lines.I am glad the first Bible I read all the way through was a KJV, but I needed a commentary to help me along the way.