----- Original Message ----- From: "Trent Shipley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:29 PM Subject: Re: Definition of a Christian Fundamentalist ? How can you not be a literalist and pick one over two? > > > > Dan M. > > One could pick one over two and not be a literalist if one were a believer in > a verison of inerrancy. > > You need more options. > > Except for an historically rooted definiton, any definiton of "fundamentalist" > is arbitrary. > > It *IS* valid to equate literalism with fundamentalism. But you just create > another problem. > > There are flavors and grades of literalism. You need to be more specific > about what constitutes that literalism that you will gloss as > "fundamentalist".
OK, let me quote some numbers:
Where are these numbers from?
"I'm going to ask about a few stories in the Bible. [See below.] Do you think that's literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word; or do you think it's meant as a lesson, but not to be taken literally?"
.
"The story of Noah and the ark in which it rained for 40 days and nights, the entire world was flooded, and only Noah, his family and the animals on their ark survived."
Literally True 60% Not Literally True 33% No Opinion 7% .
"The creation story in which the world was created in six days."
Literally True 61% Not Literally True 30% No Opinion 8% .
"The story about Moses parting the Red Sea so the Jews could escape from Egypt."
Literally True 64% Not Literally True 28% No Opinion 8%
1) The Bible is the actual Word of God. 42%
2) The Bible is the Word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally. 37%
3) The Bible is a book written by men and is not the Word of God." 14%
How about something like "The Bible is the Word of God as it was revealed to prophets who wrote it down in their own language according to their own understanding in language that could be understood by their intended audiences. In particular, none of its English translations were ever intended as a 21st-century textbook of science or secular history"?
4) Don't Know 6%
Considering a lot more people take Genesis literally than choose #1 (almost 50% more), I'd argue that folks who choose #1 are very literal in their interpretation and don't just agree with Pius XII who said "The Bible is inherent insofar as it teaches those truths essential to salvation."
"Inherent" or "inerrant"?
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
