A fundamentalist, literal approach is the belief that the Bible is word-for-word the complete Word of God. Fundamentalists will apply the laws and principles of the Bible as much as they can, and believe that the Holy Spirit has preserved the Bible from any human error. In effect, the writers received a message that they transcribed with utmost faith and accuracy.
If we take into consideration the view that literalists hold regarding creation; that it is a historical account of the beginning of the world, there are sections of the bible that informs the reader that Genesis is symbolic, and therefore may be interpreted. However, a literalist may disregard no single part of the Bible, and thus, this can cause difficulties when there appears to be conflict between biblical passages. There are further examples of conflict, with Moses giving the right to revenge, yet Jesus condemning violence. Furthermore, there are two accounts of creation, both of which in Genesis, yet they are not identical. This means an interpretation of both passages must be made so that it can account for both versions.
Literalism, also, cannot be verified (Ayer). It isn’t possible for anyone to verify the accounts in the New Testament, as no modern scholar was in existence at the time of Christ and the experiences felt by others around him. This, naturally, has led many to believe that since it is not possible to verify the account, it is not logical to believe they are true, yet it also cannot be falsified (Swinburne). The falsification principle is based on the idea that if conditions cannot be presented where the theory would not work, then it must be accepted as true.
If we are to assume that people cannot present ideas against the new testament, seeing as there is no scientific evidence against the existence of God, we must accept that everything held in the New Testament is true, as, once again, no-one can say that Christ was not the Son of God, and the New Testament is focussed on the actions of Christ, christocentric soteriology and Christology.
Furthermore, as mentioned before, there are contradictions in the bible, and the New Testament is not exempt from this.
In Acts of the Apostles, Christians are told of St Paul’s religious experience on the road to Damascus. Yet, there are two separate accounts of this conversion, which vary heavily. Luke, in Acts of the Apostles, and St Paul in his epistles do not portray the same events, leading some scholars (Kummel, Marshall) to believe that Acts is a more historical and accurate text, and yet others believe that Paul’s Epistles are historical truths, and Acts is simply a theological text (Vielhauer, Ludemann, Haenchen). Similarly, St Paul’s own Epistles do not contain the same message throughout, and many of his key theologies do change dependant upon the audience to which the letter is addressed. Whilst some may argue that Paul was “everything to everyone”, it does still present problems for literalist Christians.
A fundamentalist approach has also been considered as being too narrow, and has been accused of disregarding, or failing to see any hidden purposes in the texts, for example authorial purposes. It is believed by many that the had many different purposes when writing Acts, ranging from apologetic against Christian dissents to promoting anti-Semitism. Also, the bible tends to anthropomorphise God, with the intent of simplifying the ideas and making the concept of God a much more accessible ideal, yet it throws up problems in doing so. God is portrayed as being a rock, as having a voice, and walking on earth. Also, if we were to use genealogy dating back from 2 Kings, creation would be around the time of 4004BCE. Fundamentalists find difficulty in accommodating the scientific belief that the universe is over 15 billion years old.
A fundamental interpretation of the bible renders the words infallible, and those words are accepted without doubt, yet it is difficult to reconcile with many of the theories of modern science, particularly those theories which deal with the origins of the universe and the origins of humanity.
Additionally, the New Testament is not a single text, but a collection of 27 books. These different books give clear evidence that the human authors played some part in the writing. There are many moods, many styles, many different pictures of the nature of God, and different responses to life; there are many different kinds of literature, with poems, history, songs, stories and genealogy used. It is difficult to accept a view which does not take into account the part played by the wide variety of authors and the nature of religious language: symbol, myth and metaphor.
Yet, some may argue that the problem of schisms may have been stopped if the only people who were considered to be Christians were those who took a fundamentalist view; if this is the case there may have been fewer disagreements and differences of belief, and when they occur they could often be resolved by reference to the Bible. Although, an attempt to interpret the Bible as a single inspired infallible creation raises more questions than answers. It is far more logical to assume that four different authors each used their own sources to write their own understandings of the importance of Jesus than believe God dictated each of the Gospels in turn, with some differences in detail in the stories. It is difficult to bring together the apparent contradictions in the Bible with the belief in a literal approach.
Many people dispute that it is not circular to use the Bible as evidence for the truth of the Bible, and that other supporting evidence must be found beyond the text itself.
James Barr argues that a fundamentalist approach to the Bible does harm, in that it often distorts the original intention and meaning of the biblical writer. For instance, if the biblical writer expressed his experience of God in poetry, then it is wrong to take the words at face value and not look for poetic meaning or symbolic meaning. Barr continues to say that Christians should try to work alongside non-Christians, but a literal approach makes this difficult. Literalism often holds a negative view of other religions, as the bible contains the truth of God, it is infallible, yet others do not believe it. If this is the case, non-Christian religions do not carry any truth of God, and are therefore wrong.
In the twentieth Century, Rudolf Bultman argued that we should demythologise the Bible, thereby removing the miracles and stories, so we might find the objective kerygma, leaving faith to validate the authority of the Bible. On these grounds, he was able to meet some of the critics who argues that miracles were anachronistic, and those who reported them no more than ignorant citizens of barbarous nations. Yet some modern scholars were less harsh than Bultman. Wiles argued that the bible is neither prpositional nor non prepositional, as God could not intervene in any aspect, as that would make him arbitrary, and go against the traditional interpretation of God. Wiles believed that we can never know the numina only the phenomena; Faith is all that is required. For Wiles the Bible would appear to be no more than stories.
The literal interpretation of the Bible does not carry any more faults or truths than any other interpretation of the texts. A person may not argue for or against the interpretation of any text, because it is merely that; an interpretation. The scholar E.P. Sanders argues that there is a problem of interpretation, meaning that we cannot fully translate from the original greek or Aramaic. If one is to agree with the Sanders view, then all interpretation of the Bible is deemed un-necessary, as we will never be able to understand the complete meaning of any text, as biblical scholars have merely been guessing at English translations of unknown words, which will inevitably lead to human errors being found in any text, regardless of whether the original author was divinely inspired or not. A person’s blik is also heavily influential on any decision regarding advantages and disadvantages, as for a literalist, there will be no disadvantages, yet for a liberal, there may be many.