Point Two of What is a Fundamentalist

[DeaconDean]

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, day means a literal 24 hour day in Genesis 1. I didn't pull that out of then air, I've done extensive studies on the subject and guess what, day means day in Genesis 1.

So have I. Just because the Aramaic Hebrew in rendered as "day", still does not mean a "literal 24 hour day".

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I think it's safe to say that we as fundamentalists take the canon of Scripture as the standard by which all sound doctrine is measured against.

Sure, it's a careless way to express it but not objectionable on it's face.

We'll come back to this.

Here's what our brother John Mark has to tell us:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:6)
Funny he would fail to mention that failure to be baptized results in condemnation, that's not very nice. Or maybe, he wanted us to be baptized because we believe it's a profession of faith, and wants to put the heart of the emphasis on that crucial point of doctrine. A text without a context is a pretext, it's kind of rare to the the context of the proof text ignored so deliberately but perhaps you have a larger point to consider.

Or, as any student of "textual criticism" would point out, that was a text "added" some time after Mark wrote his text.

B.H. Carroll wrote:

"The first thing I have to say on Mark 16:16 is that it is very doubtful whether it is a part of the word of God. Certainly if you were in the Vatican library in Rome, and they were to hand you the old Vatican manuscript of the New Testament and you were to read Mark's Gospel you would not find in it the last twelve verses of chapter 16. And if you had before you the Sinaitic manuscript, discovered by Tischendorf, and which is supposed to be the oldest manuscript, you would find that this last paragraph of twelve verses is not in it. On that account I never preach from any part of those twelve verses. I never preach from a passage where it is really questionable as to whether or not it is a part of God's Word, and especially would I not attempt to build up a doctrine on it."

The Theory of Baptismal Regeneration, B.H. Carroll

And here:

The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1948).

vv. 9-20. This section is a later addition; the original ending of Mark appears to have been lost. The best and oldest manuscripts of Mark end with ch. 16:8. Two endings were added very early. The shorter reads: "But they reported briefly to those with Peter all that had been commanded them. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them from the East even to the West the sacred and incorruptible message of eternal salvation." The longer addition appears in English Bibles; its origin is uncertain; a medieval source ascribes it to an elder Ariston (Aristion), perhaps the man whom Papias (c. A.D. 135) calls a disciple of the Lord. It is drawn for the most part from Luke, chapter 24, and from John, chapter 20; there is a possibility that verse 15 may come from Matthew 28:18-20. It is believed that the original ending must have contained an account of the risen Christ's meeting with the disciples in Galilee (chs. 14:28; 16:7).

Also:

A Commentary on the Holy Bible, edited by J.R. Dummelow (New York: MacMillan, 1927), pages 732-33.

9-20. Conclusion of the Gospel. One uncial manuscript gives a second termination to the Gospel as follows: 'And they reported all the things that had been commanded them briefly (or immediately) to the companions of Peter. And after this Jesus himself also sent forth by them from the East even unto the West the holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal salvation.'

Internal evidence points definitely to the conclusion that the last twelve verses are not by St. Mark. For, (1) the true conclusion certainly contained a Galilean appearance (Mark 16:7, cp. 14:28), and this does not. (2) The style is that of a bare catalogue of facts, and quite unlike St. Mark's usual wealth of graphic detail. (3) The section contains numerous words and expressions never used by St. Mark. (4) Mark 16:9 makes an abrupt fresh start, and is not continuous with the preceding narrative. (5) Mary Magdalene is spoken of (16:9) as if she had not been mentioned before, although she has just been alluded to twice (15:47, 16:1). (6) The section seems to represent not a primary tradition, such as Peter's, but quite a secondary one, and in particular to be dependent upon the conclusion of St. Matthew, and upon Luke 24:23f.

On the other hand, the section is no casual or unauthorised addition to the Gospel. From the second century onwards, in nearly all manuscripts, versions, and other authorities, it forms an integral part of the Gospel, and it can be shown to have existed, if not in the apostolic, at least in the sub-apostolic age. A certain amount of evidence against it there is (though very little can be shown to be independent of Eusebius the Church historian, 265-340 A.D.), but certainly not enough to justify its rejection, were it not that internal evidence clearly demonstrates that it cannot have proceeded from the hand of St. Mark.

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.

16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.

So it's almost like Peter is saying you should be baptized because you received the message of the gospel. I wasn't exactly a straight A student in Bible college but I do try hard to let the Scriptures speak for themselves. Let me see if I got this one straight. You believe the gospel, receive the Holy Spirit of promise and then you get dunked in water as an expression of faith in Christ. Did I miss anything? I'm kind of puzzled, how do you think this contradicts Hebrews 9:22 again?

No, what I did say is that Mk. 16:16 adds a "condition" to salvation, and that as far as Acts 2:38 is concerned, there is no remission of sin, nor is there indwelling of the Holy Spirit without baptism. And that, is just a plain reading of the two scriptures.

Furthermore, in light of what Mk. 16:16 and Acts 2:38 says, we must also conclude that although the thief on the cross with Christ, even though he confessed, and believed, and had Jesus' promise, he never made it to heaven because he was NEVER baptized.

I don't really get the point but I've always liked the literary features of the ancient Hebrew. If God washes me, I will be whiter then snow, that doesn't mean he makes me snow. I will be clean the way clothes are clean when washed in hyssop, notice the metaphor is qualified, as is true of all figurative language in the Old and New Testaments.

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

"Believes whatever the bible says is so" that entails believing that you can be purged, washed white as snow with hyssop.

Yes, and they are not mythical unicorns and I know you realize that. You do realize that the exact meaning of unicorn in those passages is unknown right, what exact animal it refers to is a mute question because it's not talking about a mythical unicorn, the suggestion is laughable to say the least.

From the OP:

"Believes whatever the bible says is so"

Ergo, unicorns are real.

2,008x out of 2,287 times day means day, including the passage in Genesis 1. So apparently day means day, wow, I wasn't even a straight A student and I can see that one.

So apparently, "day" does not always mean "day" as in 24 hours. Thank you for helping to prove that.

Or maybe just brush up on our exegetical studies a bit. Not really ready to rush out and get converted to Catholicism because a verse taken out of it's natural context. I'm a little stubborn about that sort of thing and not a big fan of leaps of logic like this.

Ask any Catholic on Acts 2:38, and they'll tell you the same thing.

Wow, I didn't realize the Fundamentalist Handbook actually supports justification by grace through faith, thank you for bringing that to my attention. I would just love to know what their exposition of Genesis 1 is but I'm going way out on a limb here and suggesting they probably think day means day in the Genesis 1 account, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually, it agrees with you. But in admitting that, the handbook of Fundamentalist theology also argues for a "literal" translation of the Bible. With the exception of baptism as a requirement for salvation as in Mk. 16:16, and for remission of sins in Acts 2:38.

Your a victim of leaps of logic resulting in a regretful equivocation fallacy, nothing more. We all fail in our logic at one time or the other, it's a common mistake. I think you really need to work on your expositions a little bit, because this one was subpar. Just saying...

No sir, what I expressed is if "Believes whatever the bible says is so" then Mk. 16:16 would contradict even Fundamentalist theology. We are baptized from obedience to the command, not "in order to" be saved. And that is exactly what Mk. 16:16 says.

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:27)

Purely semantics but you left out:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:"

But being as the Trinity is one, I'll not argue that.

I still, from my own studies, do not accept a "literal" 6, 24 hour creation timeline.

You quote this:

St. Thomas Aquinas even said creation wasn't in a day, it was in an instant.

And argue for a 24 hour "day".

If it that long for God to bring into being all creation, then is not as "omnipotent" as we believe.

I've said it hundreds of times here, the importance of the creation account has never been on how long it took. The importance of the creation account is about "who did it to begin with"!

If God IS omnipotent, then is NOT possible that the creation could have taken place in 6 nano-seconds? Evidently not. And, the logical conclusion is God is not as omnipotent as we believe.

I could care less if it took 6 nano-seconds, or 6 seconds, or 6 minutes, or 6 days, or 6 months, or 6 years, or 6 1000 year days for creation. What is important for me is to take out of the text, who it was that did it to begin with. And it was "science".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[mark kennedy]

So have I. Just because the Aramaic Hebrew in rendered as "day", still does not mean a "literal 24 hour day".

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Without a single reason I should accept such a conclusion except you don't like it, for whatever reason.

We'll come back to this.

Ok

Or, as any student of "textual criticism" would point out, that was a text "added" some time after Mark wrote his text.

B.H. Carroll wrote:

"The first thing I have to say on Mark 16:16 is that it is very doubtful whether it is a part of the word of God. Certainly if you were in the Vatican library in Rome, and they were to hand you the old Vatican manuscript of the New Testament and you were to read Mark's Gospel you would not find in it the last twelve verses of chapter 16. And if you had before you the Sinaitic manuscript, discovered by Tischendorf, and which is supposed to be the oldest manuscript, you would find that this last paragraph of twelve verses is not in it. On that account I never preach from any part of those twelve verses. I never preach from a passage where it is really questionable as to whether or not it is a part of God's Word, and especially would I not attempt to build up a doctrine on it."

The Theory of Baptismal Regeneration, B.H. Carroll

And here:

The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1948).

vv. 9-20. This section is a later addition; the original ending of Mark appears to have been lost. The best and oldest manuscripts of Mark end with ch. 16:8. Two endings were added very early. The shorter reads: "But they reported briefly to those with Peter all that had been commanded them. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them from the East even to the West the sacred and incorruptible message of eternal salvation." The longer addition appears in English Bibles; its origin is uncertain; a medieval source ascribes it to an elder Ariston (Aristion), perhaps the man whom Papias (c. A.D. 135) calls a disciple of the Lord. It is drawn for the most part from Luke, chapter 24, and from John, chapter 20; there is a possibility that verse 15 may come from Matthew 28:18-20. It is believed that the original ending must have contained an account of the risen Christ's meeting with the disciples in Galilee (chs. 14:28; 16:7).

Also:

A Commentary on the Holy Bible, edited by J.R. Dummelow (New York: MacMillan, 1927), pages 732-33.

9-20. Conclusion of the Gospel. One uncial manuscript gives a second termination to the Gospel as follows: 'And they reported all the things that had been commanded them briefly (or immediately) to the companions of Peter. And after this Jesus himself also sent forth by them from the East even unto the West the holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal salvation.'

Internal evidence points definitely to the conclusion that the last twelve verses are not by St. Mark. For, (1) the true conclusion certainly contained a Galilean appearance (Mark 16:7, cp. 14:28), and this does not. (2) The style is that of a bare catalogue of facts, and quite unlike St. Mark's usual wealth of graphic detail. (3) The section contains numerous words and expressions never used by St. Mark. (4) Mark 16:9 makes an abrupt fresh start, and is not continuous with the preceding narrative. (5) Mary Magdalene is spoken of (16:9) as if she had not been mentioned before, although she has just been alluded to twice (15:47, 16:1). (6) The section seems to represent not a primary tradition, such as Peter's, but quite a secondary one, and in particular to be dependent upon the conclusion of St. Matthew, and upon Luke 24:23f.

On the other hand, the section is no casual or unauthorised addition to the Gospel. From the second century onwards, in nearly all manuscripts, versions, and other authorities, it forms an integral part of the Gospel, and it can be shown to have existed, if not in the apostolic, at least in the sub-apostolic age. A certain amount of evidence against it there is (though very little can be shown to be independent of Eusebius the Church historian, 265-340 A.D.), but certainly not enough to justify its rejection, were it not that internal evidence clearly demonstrates that it cannot have proceeded from the hand of St. Mark.

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.

16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.



No, what I did say is that Mk. 16:16 adds a "condition" to salvation, and that as far as Acts 2:38 is concerned, there is no remission of sin, nor is there indwelling of the Holy Spirit without baptism. And that, is just a plain reading of the two scriptures.

Furthermore, in light of what Mk. 16:16 and Acts 2:38 says, we must also conclude that although the thief on the cross with Christ, even though he confessed, and believed, and had Jesus' promise, he never made it to heaven because he was NEVER baptized.

I have no idea what your point is here, I'm not entirely sure you do.

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

Well yea, of course, because that's how I do a Biblical exposition. It's not like I would consult an occasional lexicon or something random like that.

"Believes whatever the bible says is so" that entails believing that you can be purged, washed white as snow with hyssop.

A qualified metaphor, nothing more.

From the OP:

"Believes whatever the bible says is so"

Ergo, unicorns are real.

Unicorns defined as what exactly?

So apparently, "day" does not always mean "day" as in 24 hours. Thank you for helping to prove that.

In Genesis 1 it means a normal day, that much is clear to all those who manage to learn the exegetical details. You obviously can't be bothered.

Ask any Catholic on Acts 2:38, and they'll tell you the same thing.

I'm not a Catholic, your not either, your point?

Actually, it agrees with you. But in admitting that, the handbook of Fundamentalist theology also argues for a "literal" translation of the Bible. With the exception of baptism as a requirement for salvation as in Mk. 16:16, and for remission of sins in Acts 2:38.

I have no problem with the handbook of Fundamentalist theology, still wondering how you connect that with the Genesis account of creation.

No sir, what I expressed is if "Believes whatever the bible says is so" then Mk. 16:16 would contradict even Fundamentalist theology. We are baptized from obedience to the command, not "in order to" be saved. And that is exactly what Mk. 16:16 says.

No sir, it does not, it says all who don't believe are condemned. You have abandoned the text again.

Purely semantics but you left out:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:"

But being as the Trinity is one, I'll not argue that.

I still, from my own studies, do not accept a "literal" 6, 24 hour creation timeline.

Because you haven't bothered looking into the meaning of the word, 'day', in Genesis 1, or just don't believe what the passage says.

You quote this:

St. Thomas Aquinas even said creation wasn't in a day, it was in an instant.

And argue for a 24 hour "day".

Yes

If it that long for God to bring into being all creation, then is not as "omnipotent" as we believe.

You are arguing against something I never said, so much baloney.

I've said it hundreds of times here, the importance of the creation account has never been on how long it took. The importance of the creation account is about "who did it to begin with"!

Words mean things, semantics are a vital point of doctrine with regards to doctrinal discussions. But ignore the meaning of the words used, because that's a great hermetical approach.

If God IS omnipotent, then is NOT possible that the creation could have taken place in 6 nano-seconds? Evidently not. And, the logical conclusion is God is not as omnipotent as we believe.

I could care less if it took 6 nano-seconds, or 6 seconds, or 6 minutes, or 6 days, or 6 months, or 6 years, or 6 1000 year days for creation. What is important for me is to take out of the text, who it was that did it to begin with. And it was "science".

God Bless

Till all are one.

That's it, who cares what the text says, it doesn't matter because I don't care how long it took or what the words used mean? Really? No self respecting fundamentalist would reduce himself to this, shame on you.

Have a nice day
Marki

 

[DeaconDean]

I have no idea what your point is here, I'm not entirely sure you do.

Point is, B.H. Carroll shows us Mark 16:16 is spurious. Along with my other sources.

You apparently accept Mk. 16:16.

I reject what it teaches.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

A qualified metaphor, nothing more.

Nope, to show that just because the Bible says it, dont necessarily mean it.

So that motto "Believes whatever the bible says is so" is not necessarily correct.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

In Genesis 1 it means a normal day, that much is clear to all those who manage to learn the exegetical details. You obviously can't be bothered.

No, using your own words, proved that day don't always mean "day".

Your words, not mine.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Because you haven't bothered looking into the meaning of the word, 'day', in Genesis 1, or just don't believe what the passage says.

No, I believe that it was/is within God's power, to have created everything in a nano-second. "Omnipotent".

And you apparently forget that "time" was put in for our sake, not His.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Words mean things, semantics are a vital point of doctrine with regards to doctrinal discussions. But ignore the meaning of the words used, because that's a great hermetical approach.

I don't. However, here, your overemphasizing it.

That's it, who cares what the text says, it doesn't matter because I don't care how long it took or what the words used mean? Really? No self respecting fundamentalist would reduce himself to this, shame on you.

Have you studied how Fundamentalism came into being?

Evidently not.

Fundamentalism, came into being because of the teachings of Darwinism for one. And a denial of "creationalism".

I believe the creation account 100%.

I just do not accept that it took God that long (24 hours) to bring it about, if, God is truly "omnipotent".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[mark kennedy]

Point is, B.H. Carroll shows us Mark 16:16 is spurious. Along with my other sources.

You apparently accept Mk. 16:16.

I reject what it teaches.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I accept it, just don't think there is anything in the context indicating water salvation.

 

[mark kennedy]

Nope, to show that just because the Bible says it, dont necessarily mean it.

So that motto "Believes whatever the bible says is so" is not necessarily correct.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I also said it's a careless wording, which it is. I prefer a sound exposition to pedantic rationalizations. The Scriptures are the only basis for sound doctrine, the canon of Scripture always goes back to the original language. According to Jesus, 'the Scriptures cannot be broken' (John 10:35).

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't. However, here, your overemphasizing it.

I don't think so, the text is unambiguous and clearly describing a normal 24 hour day.

Have you studied how Fundamentalism came into being?

Evidently not.

Fundamentalism, came into being because of the teachings of Darwinism for one. And a denial of "creationalism".

I believe the creation account 100%.

I just do not accept that it took God that long (24 hours) to bring it about, if, God is truly "omnipotent".

God Bless

Till all are one.

Yes I've studied funamentalism

Lyman Stewart, mobilizing a network of conservative evangelical writers into a movement in defense of the inspiration and authority of the Bible and the core doctrines of traditional Christian faith. The 12-volume series of book-length journals contained 90 essays commissioned from leading theologians and religious leaders broadly representing conservative and evangelical Protestantism. (The Untold Story of the Fundamentals, Biola University)​

I saw a definition of, 'evangelical', once in a Websters Dictionary it said that evangelical is an attempt to have one's thoughts begin and end with the Scriptures. At the time I thought is was a pretty apt description of a Christian but over the years I've come to realize that Christian scholarship has drifted further and further from the Scriptures as the standard for doctrine, discipline and most importantly, redemptive history. To me evangelical theology is the idea that the gospel is more then a social theory but the collective prophetic and Apostolic witness regarding God's sovereign rule in the affairs of man since the beginning. I have spent a great deal of time dealing with Liberal Theology, Darwinism and the modern bias against anything remotely supernatural. What I have learned is that modern academics demeans and deprecates the Scriptures at every turn and the final straw for me was when I learned that most Christian seminaries are soaked with a naturalistic philosophy put in theological terminology.

A hundred years ago there was a network of Bible believing scholars who exposed the bias behind, 'Higher Criticism', the famous JEPD theory. These are echos from that time when naturalistic philosophies were starting to pass themselves off as Christian. The strangest part for me as a Christian is that so much of our scholarship has defected to this profoundly worldly philosophy.

The dominant men of the movement were men with a strong bias against the supernatural. This is not an ex-parte statement at all. It is simply a matter of fact, as we shall presently show. ( (The History of the Higher Criticism, Anti-supernaturalism)​

What we think of as supernatural is perfectly natural for God. The Incarnation, Resurrection, miracles of the Bible and the epic panorama of redemptive history seems little more then myth and legend to the modern mind. So how does Christian theology get inundated at the dawn of the twentieth century with the naturalistic assumptions of modern academics? Apparently the trail leads back to the French rationalist Spinoza, who was an unapologetic pantheist. Pantheism is the idea that everything is God so what does that have to do with the rise of Higher Criticism?

1670, Spinoza came out boldly and impugned the traditional date and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and ascribed the origin of the Pentateuch to Ezra or to some other late compiler. (The Fundamentals, Torrey)​

Ezra was the scribe who returned with thousands of Jews from Babylon, during that time the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt and complete under the authority of Nehemiah. The Old Testament canon was closed around that time, the last books of the Protestant Old Testament were composed including the Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Malachi would be the final installment but the modern scholar goes further then that. They believe that the entire Old Testament was somehow complied at that time. Thousands of years of redemptive history is dismissed as just so stories. This did not start with Christian or Hebrew scholarship, this began with the musings of a European rationalist who was really just a philosophical atheist. This goes through stages from the French-Dutch, German and then finally British American theologies that were becoming increasingly naturalistic in their orientation.

1. They were men who denied the validity of miracle, and the validity of any miraculous narrative...
2. They were men who denied the reality of prophecy and the validity of any prophetical statement…
3. They were men who denied the reality of revelation…constructed on the assumption of the falsity of Scripture.

That's the gist of it and I can tell you from personal experience that it is alive and well and passing itself off as Christian on an epic scale. An answer to Darwinism was just one part of a much larger body of work confronting Liberal Theology. So if you have a problem with the ending to Mark, so be it, many a Calvinist does as well. The creation account is another matter entirely, the text is historical narrative and a literal interpretation is always preferred not withstanding hyperbole and figurative language. The Genesis 1 account of creation week is not only historical narrative, it is memorialized in the fourth commandment. What is more dismissing the obvious language of the text sets a pretty obvious hermetical precedence I find incompatible with modern fundamentalism and traditional evangelical theology as embraced by the Reformation. I don't know if you were aware of this but those are my concerns about Liberal Theology and why I embrace the reaction of Fundamentalism wholeheartedly. So yea, I've studied a little bit.

Anyway, thanks for the exchange.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[DeaconDean]

The creation account is another matter entirely, the text is historical narrative and a literal interpretation is always preferred not withstanding hyperbole and figurative language. The Genesis 1 account of creation week is not only historical narrative, it is memorialized in the fourth commandment. What is more dismissing the obvious language of the text sets a pretty obvious hermetical precedence I find incompatible with modern fundamentalism and traditional evangelical theology as embraced by the Reformation. I don't know if you were aware of this but those are my concerns about Liberal Theology and why I embrace the reaction of Fundamentalism wholeheartedly. So yea, I've studied a little bit.

What I have a problem with, is the strict "Dispensational" view of Fundamentalism in regards to the scriptures.

Can you tell me what this word is:

"

"

Yes, Ezra was the first "scribe" to come back and start translating the scriptures, but are you also aware that Ezra "changed" some of the text?

"
Nehemiah was allowed to return to Jerusalem to begin rebuilding. Critical point here, Ezra came back, rather came out of Babylon around 458 BC. Scripture records that the Edomites (future Samaritians) offered to help and were rejected. The Edomites are direct descendants of Esau. We also know that from 458 to 445 BC, Ezra took along with 13 others who could read and write ancient Hebrew and began to translate Paleo-Hebrew into a "Assyrian" type of language. (Aramaic as it came to be known) A language that was written in "block form". Very similar to modern Hebrew.

It is at this time, a "proto-Masoretic" text developed. Here is the catch from what I have read. Because of the turmoil between the Edomites and Ezra, certain "changes" were made to the Paleo-Hebrew language.

What eventually happened was this, because of the turmoil, Ezra developed the "Quattuordecim" (445 BC) and the Samaritians developed their "Samaritan Pentateuch" (610 BC).

What seems to be "anti-Samaritan" sentiments, Ezra appears to have made several changes in the "Torah".

Deut. 27:4, appears to have changed Gerizim to Ebal.
Deut. 12:5,11,14, etc, (there are 21 texts total) Ezra changed future tense for "past tense".
Lev. 26:31, "sanctuary' changed from singular to plural.
Deut. 11:30, Mt. Gerizim and Ebal are opposite Gilgal, beside the "oak" of Moreh" it appears Ezra deleted "opposite Shechem"

This reflects changes contrary to The Samaritan Pentateuch:

Deut. 27:4 "Joshua will build an altar on Mt. Ebal"
Deut. 12:5,11,14, etc: "God will choose a place for the name of God to dwell"
Lev. 26:31: "sanctuaries" (plural- i.e.: Joshua's altar, Shiloh, Jerusalem)
Deut. 11:30: "Mt. Gerizim and Ebal are opposite Gilgal, beside the "oaks" of Moreh opposite Shechem"

And, are you aware that ancient Hebrew and proto-Masoretic are two different languages?

We know also that Ezra was called "a teacher well versed in the Law of Moses" (Ezra 7:6), and "the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven' (Ezra 7:12), why would he have had to change scripture?

It can also be shown from the MT, that Ezra did in fact, change at least 30 verses in the Torah.

"Masoretic Chronology like Seder Olam, is an extreme compression of real Jewish history so that every descendant of Noah down to Abraham (except Peleg), was alive when Abraham was born. This means that Noah, Shem, Pachshad, Shelah, Eber, Rau, Serug and Nahor may have attended Abraham’s first birthday party and might have helped Abraham blow out his one birthday candle. Every descendant of Noah after the flood not only lives to see Abraham, but in some cases outlives Abraham!" (Source)

According to Jewish Tradition based upon Ezra's "proto-Masoretic" text, the creation happened around 3761 BCE. Ezra began to re-write the ancient Hebrew in 458 BCE. That is some 3303 years. Over three millennia after the text was originally written.

We also know that:

"From Adam to Moses was about 2500 years." (Source)

We also accept this axiom:

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." -2 Pet. 1:21 (KJV)

I have been doing a study in "Textual Criticism" (New Testament) for the last 8 years. Now, I'm starting in the Old Testament. And so far, I have found some "ir-regularities" within the MT of the OT.

Like I said, when Fundamentalism was coming into its own, they said:

"The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts."

Source

Is Ezra's (458 BCE) the "original manuscripts"?

Or, are they just like NT MSS, a copy?

Now Moses may have written by "inspiration", but there are no scriptures which say that.

If you believe "day" in the Genesis account "literally" means a 24 hour day, fine, God Bless you.

I find it hard to accept that an "omnipotent: God would need that long. (24 hours)

If an "omnipotent" God, can take a handful of dust and breath into it, and it became a living soul, did it also take 24 hours for that to come to completion, or was it instantaneous?

Historically, "Fundamentalism" has its roots, its foundation in the South. While its history may be longer, it literally sprang up because of one certain specific event in the 1870's. You may want to read up on a man named "Crawford Howell Toy".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[mark kennedy]

What I have a problem with, is the strict "Dispensational" view of Fundamentalism in regards to the scriptures.

Can you tell me what this word is:

"

"

Yes, Ezra was the first "scribe" to come back and start translating the scriptures, but are you also aware that Ezra "changed" some of the text?

"
Nehemiah was allowed to return to Jerusalem to begin rebuilding. Critical point here, Ezra came back, rather came out of Babylon around 458 BC. Scripture records that the Edomites (future Samaritians) offered to help and were rejected. The Edomites are direct descendants of Esau. We also know that from 458 to 445 BC, Ezra took along with 13 others who could read and write ancient Hebrew and began to translate Paleo-Hebrew into a "Assyrian" type of language. (Aramaic as it came to be known) A language that was written in "block form". Very similar to modern Hebrew.

It is at this time, a "proto-Masoretic" text developed. Here is the catch from what I have read. Because of the turmoil between the Edomites and Ezra, certain "changes" were made to the Paleo-Hebrew language.

What eventually happened was this, because of the turmoil, Ezra developed the "Quattuordecim" (445 BC) and the Samaritians developed their "Samaritan Pentateuch" (610 BC).

What seems to be "anti-Samaritan" sentiments, Ezra appears to have made several changes in the "Torah".

Deut. 27:4, appears to have changed Gerizim to Ebal.
Deut. 12:5,11,14, etc, (there are 21 texts total) Ezra changed future tense for "past tense".
Lev. 26:31, "sanctuary' changed from singular to plural.
Deut. 11:30, Mt. Gerizim and Ebal are opposite Gilgal, beside the "oak" of Moreh" it appears Ezra deleted "opposite Shechem"

This reflects changes contrary to The Samaritan Pentateuch:

Deut. 27:4 "Joshua will build an altar on Mt. Ebal"
Deut. 12:5,11,14, etc: "God will choose a place for the name of God to dwell"
Lev. 26:31: "sanctuaries" (plural- i.e.: Joshua's altar, Shiloh, Jerusalem)
Deut. 11:30: "Mt. Gerizim and Ebal are opposite Gilgal, beside the "oaks" of Moreh opposite Shechem"

And, are you aware that ancient Hebrew and proto-Masoretic are two different languages?

We know also that Ezra was called "a teacher well versed in the Law of Moses" (Ezra 7:6), and "the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven' (Ezra 7:12), why would he have had to change scripture?

It can also be shown from the MT, that Ezra did in fact, change at least 30 verses in the Torah.

"Masoretic Chronology like Seder Olam, is an extreme compression of real Jewish history so that every descendant of Noah down to Abraham (except Peleg), was alive when Abraham was born. This means that Noah, Shem, Pachshad, Shelah, Eber, Rau, Serug and Nahor may have attended Abraham’s first birthday party and might have helped Abraham blow out his one birthday candle. Every descendant of Noah after the flood not only lives to see Abraham, but in some cases outlives Abraham!" (Source)

According to Jewish Tradition based upon Ezra's "proto-Masoretic" text, the creation happened around 3761 BCE. Ezra began to re-write the ancient Hebrew in 458 BCE. That is some 3303 years. Over three millennia after the text was originally written.

We also know that:

"From Adam to Moses was about 2500 years." (Source)

We also accept this axiom:

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." -2 Pet. 1:21 (KJV)

I have been doing a study in "Textual Criticism" (New Testament) for the last 8 years. Now, I'm starting in the Old Testament. And so far, I have found some "ir-regularities" within the MT of the OT.

Like I said, when Fundamentalism was coming into its own, they said:

"The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts."

Source

Is Ezra's (458 BCE) the "original manuscripts"?

Or, are they just like NT MSS, a copy?

Now Moses may have written by "inspiration", but there are no scriptures which say that.

If you believe "day" in the Genesis account "literally" means a 24 hour day, fine, God Bless you.

I find it hard to accept that an "omnipotent: God would need that long. (24 hours)

If an "omnipotent" God, can take a handful of dust and breath into it, and it became a living soul, did it also take 24 hours for that to come to completion, or was it instantaneous?

Historically, "Fundamentalism" has its roots, its foundation in the South. While its history may be longer, it literally sprang up because of one certain specific event in the 1870's. You may want to read up on a man named "Crawford Howell Toy".

God Bless

Till all are one.

For one thing, have you read the KJV 1611? I find it incomprehensible. Some details in the text are altered slightly but it's normal text variation. The premise that the OT was written after the exile was started by a pantheist, Spinoza catering to Frech atheistic ariatocrats. I've seen endless rationalizations about lanfuage, grammar and subtle details and bothing indicating the Pentetauch wasn't complete before Joshua crossing the Jordon or most of the NT being conplete before 70 AD.

 

[tkolter]

Fundamentalists generally support three basic principles:
1. Any diligent translation of the texts will be accurate due to the intervention of God through His Holy Spirit.
2. That the scripture is adequate in and of itself and the Truth literal as to the history of His actions on Earth and that it has no critical errors at least and its not unacceptable to belief its flawless, I for one feel that differing writers and perspectives may cause some minor issues. The whole is what matters.
3. That the Lord is our teacher not man, so by reading and reflecting on the Holy Writing of the Bible of a suitable translation one learns what God wishes therefore no higher or deeper study is needed. Some though gain a greater understanding and have a calling to do His work in teaching this under ones reflection to test them with the Holy Spirit guiding them.

Most Fundamentalists vary but most fall into these general points.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I can tell you have not done any study whatsoever in regards to "textual criticism".

To be precise:

"the following sections will deal with the Law from the perspective of the “J, E, D, and P” theory, or as it has became known, the “Documentary Hypothesis” theory.

The documentary hypothesis proposes that the first five books of the O.T. represent a combination of documents from originally independent sources. According to the version formulated by Julius Wellhousen (1844-1918), there were four main sources:

• The “J”, or Jahwist, (Yahweh) written around 950 BC in the Southern Kingdom of Judah.
• The “E”, or Elohist, written around 850 BC in the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
• The “D”, or Deuteronomist, written around 621 BC in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
• The “P”, or Priestly, written around 450 BC by Aaronic Priests."

The Christian and the Law, A 21st Century Look at the Law, By: me, Section 1: The Meaning of the term Law,Sub-Section B: The Understanding of the Law in the older Historical Books.

If you want, it can be found here.

Also, if you believe God, the Maker of all things, who is described as "omnipotent", perhaps you would care to explain to me why it took as long as "24" hours to make the earth?

The omnipotent God I serve, could have created the earth in a nano-second. As soon as He spoke it, it could have come into being.

Also, if you want to take for granted that "day" means a literal 24 hour period, that can't be right because we also know on one certain day, it was longer than 24 hours. (cf. Jos. 10:12-14)

The importance of the creation account is not how long it took, rather who did it to begin with!

Here again, if:



There is no hope for remission of sins or even indwelling by the Holy Spirit unless you submit to baptism. (cf Acts 2:38)

In fact, you can't even be saved without it! (cf. Mk. 16:16)

God Bless

Till all are one.

Please consider reading the books by Richard Elliott Friedman. Such as

• who wrote the Bible.
• The Bible with source is revealed.
• The hidden book in the Bible.

His major revision of the documentary hypothesis as summarized by you above. Is that the priestly source P was written under the reign of and during the religious reforms of King Hezekiah in about 700. BC.

The documentary sources JE&P actually continue on into subsequent books of the Bible. Like Joshua and judges. J continues all the way into first Kings 2. When the Kingdom was secure in the hands of King Solomon. The historical material after that may have been heavily redacted. But. J&E contain allusions in the surviving. Strands which reach forward in time as late as the reign of King Joram in about 850. BC.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Regarding the document tree hypothesis. Everyone accepts that the New Testament Gospel of Jesus comes to us from 4 separate sources who superficially up here to contradict each other occasionally. But all contradictions are resolvable once one realises that for example, Luke wrote chronologically in order whereas mark and Matthew wrote thematically.

Jesus spoke in the first century. We have no surviving documents from that ancient era. But we do have surviving traditions. That come to us. Through 4 separate sources, which work together. To create a more glorious harmony.

Likewise, Moses wrote more than 1000 years earlier still. We have no documents from that Archaic era. But we still have surviving traditions. The documentary hypothesis merely states that the words of Moses have come to us through 4. "Mosaic Gospel Writers" If you will. What we have is a Moses Gospel harmony like the Didache

the means by which ancient traditions survived does not mean that what was written in the separate documentary sources was wrong. As long as what was written was truthful and accurate. It's valuable. The documentary hypothesis by its Lonesome Self does not undermine. Biblical inerrancy. per say.

 

[DeaconDean]

Please consider reading the books by Richard Elliott Friedman. Such as

• who wrote the Bible.
• The Bible with source is revealed.
• The hidden book in the Bible.

His major revision of the documentary hypothesis as summarized by you above. Is that the priestly source P was written under the reign of and during the religious reforms of King Hezekiah in about 700. BC.

The documentary sources JE&P actually continue on into subsequent books of the Bible. Like Joshua and judges. J continues all the way into first Kings 2. When the Kingdom was secure in the hands of King Solomon. The historical material after that may have been heavily redacted. But. J&E contain allusions in the surviving. Strands which reach forward in time as late as the reign of King Joram in about 850. BC.

Let me say this also, 1&2 Kings as well as 1&2 Chronicles were considered as one (1) book until sometime later.

But in the end it don't matter. I was raised as a Fundamental Baptist in the early 1970's.

Yet here, I don't know what I'm talking about.

Oh well, I broke my promise.

Just wanted to say that.

Anyhow, I'm outta here.

Unsubscribing.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[EmmaCat]

Sometimes it takes a more prayerful stance, a more reflective view, to truly understand fundamentalism. Sometimes it is a way of thinking, and yet also a way of life; to believe and to live right. That's how we are as Fundies.

Then I met a so-called Fundie at the hospital. He was wearing an aluminum foil tent on his head and said he was getting messages from aliens. Maybe this was mean, but I was in the same area with a kidney transplant as he and I asked him what the aliens thought about transplants.

That didn't work well. He said the mother ship was assessing my situation.

I didn't get taken away so I guess I'm good.

Life is so good with you folks.

All good things
Emmy

 

[AthensToJerusalem]

By the way, Allah means God. There is no other word for God in Arabic. So Arabs who are Christians use the word Allah when speaking about God. Even the Catholics in Malta say Alla.

 

[Newtheran]

A Fundamentalist Christian is a born again believer in Lord Jesus Christ who:

2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;

No believer in the Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis, or the JEPD theory of Bible interpretation can be a biblical fundamentalist, or as I prefer, a “Biblicist.” These unbelieving scholars have come up with a science falsely so-called known as “higher criticism.”

The term “higher” criticism is a misnomer. It is a term invented by destructive Bible critics (mainly in Germany, 1700-1900) which they applied to themselves to make you think they were able to correct the “holy scriptures.” Among these “heady, highminded” (II Timothy 3:4), egotistical sapheads were: Kuenen, Bleek, Vatke, DeWitte, Graf, Wellhausen, Strauss, Reus, Buhl, Hoffman, Herder, Semler, Paulus, Scholtz, Lessing, Eichhorn, et al.

“J” means a writer who wrote “Jehovah.”
“P” means a writer who wrote about the Priesthood.
“E” means a writer who used “Elohim.”
“E” and “D” wrote of Mt. Horeb instead of Mt. Sinai.
A phantom “H” was added to account for and explain the genealogies in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. That makes five aliens from nowhere.

So, these folks need not pretend to be fundamental-anything.

A Bible-believing fundamentalist believes what the Bible says about a six-day creation. He doesn’t try to twist each day of creation into geologic ages that over billions of years resulted in the beginning. God said it, we believe it, and that settles it. Some do believe that the universe is older than 6,000 years—that’s fine—as long as they agree that when God created the earth, it happened in six days.

A Bible-believing fundamentalist believes that Jonah was swallowed by a literal whale, not some “great fish.” Whether whales are known to swallow a human whole is not important, this one did, because God said it. We believe whatever the Bible says is so.

We believe if the Bible said something happened after a miraculous manner, then that is exactly how it happened. We don’t use human logic to explain away Joshua’s long day, or Hezekiah’s sun-dial, or the parting of the Red Sea in the Exodus. We do not try to insist that it was really a place called the “Reed Sea” and was only a couple of feet deep and Israel waded across. Nope, we believe they went over on dry land and dry shod. At any rate, I’d like to hear these “scholars” explain how Pharaoh’s entire army, including himself, all drowned in 2-4 feet of water.

We reject anyone that claims to hold the title of “Fundamentalist” that denies these truths. You’d be better off posting in the liberal forum. In these days, even a murderous thug thinking he is doing the will of Allah is called a “fundamentalist.”

The Bible makes a distinction! You either believe the Book or you don’t! If you don’t, you don’t belong here until you do!

I get the sense that textual criticism is starting to fall out of favor. Most of the same people who promoted it a handful of decades ago are firmly in the camp of dismissing scripture entirely and saying "I shall be like the most high!"