1. Originated in the 1900s A.D.
2. Formed as a response to the apostate church that came before them.
3. Presuppose that the apostate church to which they responded has some legitimacy.
In contrast, the godly kind of Navaros a.k.a. the real church of God:
1. Originated at the dawn of mankind, with Adam.
2. Is not a response to the apostate church. In fact, the opposite is true - the apostate church is a [evil, debased, corrupted] response to the real church of God a.k.a the godly kind of Navaros.
3. Fully and unequivocally renounces all apostasy, and does not afford even the smallest iota of legitimacy to the apostate church.
Therefore, contrary to your implications, your attempt to label me as a "fundamentalist" is a fail. They may have some similarities to me in that I believe in the Bible and they do too, but they also have major differences to me (which I've just described) that distinguish them as not quite up to par to God's standards, in contrast to myself, who is as perfect of a representative of God as has ever been on the earth after the time of the Apostles.