First of all there is no fear. That's kind of a silly thing to claim. You completely misunderstand the issue and the position.
Well, I don't know anyone's heart, so I can't say what your specific motivations are. But I believe that for at least some literalists, fear is part of the equation. That's not to say that it's the sole motivation, or that it's a necessary component of believing in bible literalism.
I don't know what you mean by the complexities of scripture. Are the scriptures that complex? No they aren't. I'm not sure where you get the idea they are.
There are books upon books which go into various interpretations of scripture. If scripture wasn't complex, theology as we know it wouldn't exist. People go to churches to have a (hopefully) trained preacher dive deeper into scriptures so they can gain a better understanding of their meaning. Bringing scriptures back to their original language will often reveal greater depth and things which weren't immediately apparent (or apparent at all) in the translated text. Understanding cultural context and Jewish custom also adds to the understanding of scripture, far above and beyond what is immediately apparent in the text.
Sure, there are parts of scripture which can be easily understood through a "plain reading" of the text. Love your neighbor as yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But the "plain reading" principle cannot be applied to every part of the bible (I would say it cannot be applied to large parts of the bible), and someone who has studied biblical scholarship I assume would understand that. I would say that the story from Samuel that was referenced by Graham falls firmly into the realm of text from the bible which cannot be understood at face value - because it raises questions about the nature of God, the cultural context in which it was written, etc.
Another perfect example are the verses in 1 Timothy which forbid women from speaking in the church. Understanding the circumstances in the Ephesian church at that time can provide great insight into why Paul may have said some of the things that he said, and why some of his words appear to be in conflict* with other parts of scripture. These things are not immediately apparent when the text from 1 Timothy is taken at face value.
When Paul wrote his letters, he didn't know that they would be assembled into a book and interpreted by some as universal church law. With those thoughts in mind, don't you think it is quite disingenuous to say that the cultural context should not be considered, as some interpretations of the text promote? To say that the cultural context should not be considered is to suppress knowledge and God-given intelligence and inquisitiveness. It is only an attempt to control.
And to be clear - I don't know what your position is on women speaking and teaching in the church. But it is a prime example of how the complexities of scripture can lead to different interpretations, and how more closely examining the text (rather than simply taking it at "face value") can provide more clues to the underlying purpose, meaning, and implications of what was being said.
Secondly inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts and does not apply to all translations. However that cannot be used to disavow what we do have. We literally have thousands of ancient manuscripts that clearly set to rights that what we have is very close to what was written and there is little to dispute.
Certainly translation from the Greek or Hebrew can lose a bit of clarity when translated into other languages. We all know that translating from one language into another is not always accurate to the original words. One of the best examples of this comes from Christ's questions to Peter. "Do you love me" and Peter's responses. The Greek words are different and offer real clarity. Yet they are simply translated as love. The thing is we have scholars and linguists today that help us with these things.
I think you're contradicting yourself when you say that scripture is not complex and can be understood through a plain reading, but then you say we have scholars and linguists for translation and interpretation. Which is it? Scholars and linguists aren't needed for books that can be understood through a plain reading.
We can ve assured that what we do hold in our hands is an accurate representation of the inerrent scriptures and doesn’t alter significantly from originals. Not enough anyway to say that it cannot be trusted.
You also misunderstand the literalist view. The literalist view simply holds that we understand scripture literally unless it clearly isn't. Its actually takes into consideration all the elements of language and writing. A literalist will not say everything in scripture must be taken literally. That actually violates literary rules and understanding. When Christ said he stands at the door and knocks, we know he's not actually standing at a literal door and knocking. When God says he gathers his children under his wings we know that it does not mean God has actual wings with feathers etc.
Literalists (or more accurately, fundamentalists) believe that every word in the bible was basically sanctioned by God, as if He were holding the pen Himself, do they not? That is where the difference lies. The bible makes much more sense when you view it as writings made by people, which depict how a culture developed and wrestled with their religion and their relationship with God over time, ultimately culminating in the coming of His chosen one, who would show the true way.
Don't you think it is very possible that in the bible, God lets the people tell the story?
I don't know what you mean by interpretation. What do we need to interpret? Does not scripture speak for itself? I don't understand this my interpretation is different than your interpretation stuff. That makes no sense.
I think there is actually more fear from the liberal side of biblical interpretation. A side that says we cannot trust scripture to be inerrant or literal because it messes with our worldview and I personal belief systems. The world might laugh at us or make fun of us or reject us because we actually believe what it says. That puts you in a position to out more stock into a fallible man's belief rather than an infallible God.
I don't think worldview needs to be even considered to see the fundamentalist's interpretation as being flawed. The bible itself begs to be interpreted in a manner which is contrary to the fundamentalist view. A bible that is interpreted through the lens of fundamentalist inerrancy is rife with contradictions - with the violence that the OT claims to be sanctioned by God being a prime example. When you put the fundamentalist view aside and interpret the bible on its own terms, you begin to see the story of a people and how their view of God developed over time.
*Link here, since it wouldn't let me put it in the middle of the text:
The 1 Timothy 2 passage is not a general ban prohibiting women from teaching and having authority in the church. Paul does not say “I never permit”.
juniaproject.com
