It is a Twain quote, Twain was very hostile to Christianityadd : The quote by Twain was intended to bash the Bible
Still we have these threads which talk about Biblical inerrancy. Or we have these threads which debate the one true Biblical translation. But in all of this discussion do we actually read the Bible that we are seeking to defend and say that is without error. Such discussions remind me of two men who get into an argument over which handgun is the most effective. One will argue that the Glock pistol is more effective than the 9 millimeter. The other one will argue the 9mm is more effective than a Glock pistol. Only to find out that both men have never fired the pistols in questions.My use of firearms is not to convey that I approve of the use of firearms and that would be another whole thread. But only to illustrate a point.So I ask again do we read the Bible that we seek to defend and debate.Bro Blaine
Much of it is a very moot point. The "problem passages" have little or nothing to do with the main themes and import of the Bible, i.e. The way of salvation, sanctification, waking by the Spirit, growing in ones relationship to Christ, etc. Many Christians are so hung up on absolute inerrancy that their whole faith would seem to crumble if one error was found. This is an untenable position but explains why some are so insistent on absolute inerrancy. I do not hold to 100% inerrancy but it's pretty close- probably 99.5%. But no errors(if they exist) would affect any of the major and important themes I noted above.
_________________Todd
"3. Critical Inerrancy" "RE ...This view allows the cautious use of critical methodologies in interpretation."Historical Criticism is rooted in humanism despite how pious or spiritual or logical sounding men may cloth/present it or how subtly they mix it. It ultimately ever so subtly and craftly is whispering : "hath God said"Through Scholasticism pagan rational knowledge was mixed with the Bible.",..it was assumed that man requires the wordly wisdom of paganism right along side Gods Word in order to make real intellectual progress. Gods Word was reduced to just one of two focal points for determining wisdom and knowledge. The Bible came to be regarded as authoritative only in those areas touching on redemption and the Christian life. Aristotle, in contrast, became the source of all knowledge of the world, that is, for the realm of natural sciences, social analysis, and so on. in other words, Gods Word was no longer regarded as reliable for these areas of knowledge.....HumanismAt the beginning of modern thought stands the frightful decision, which was carried out by the forces of intellectual leadership, to circumvent God's Word and to seek direction instead in pagan antiquity. Humanism made the decision to make man the measure of all things. That was a decisive renunciation of God, even if such humanism usually adopted a thoroughly pious deportment and constantly mouthed God's Word. What was said about God no longer sprang from Gods revealed Word but rather from the human spirit...."from : Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology: Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical by Eta Linnemann 24,25
"God's disclosure about Himself and the nature of reality are always inerrant."www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/biblical-inerrancy/
_________________David Winter