Oh, the document means perfectly what it says. But your little "translations," were profoundly different than the words that were clearly written.
One example,
The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human.
Translation: the incarnation implies that the Bible is a mixture of Divine Truth and human error. To insist on an inerrant Bible is to deny the "incarnation" (which is probably true, and another reason why Fundamentalists should be Noachides, though they refuse to rethink their groundless devotion to J*sus).
I have no idea how you were able to read the underlined conclusion into the text that you quoted above.
And you really didn't see the condemnations of Fundamentalists for rejecting "historical criticism?"