Quote:
|
Originally Posted by William James
...if our theory of revelation-value were to affirm that any book, to possess it, must have been composed automatically or not by the free caprice of the writer, or that it must exhibit no scientific and historic errors and express no local or personal passions, the Bible would probably fare ill at our hands. But if, on the other hand, our theory should allow that a book may well be a revelation in spite of errors and passions and deliberate human composition, if only it be a true record of the inner experiences of great-souled persons wrestling with the crises of their fate, then the verdict would be much more favorable.
|
Good old William James. He sure did nail it. He expresses the reason I still love the Bible ; even if it is errant. The Bible has soul. It doesn't have to be inerrant. The fundy's seem only concerned with it on the surface. Or maybe they are just in bad need of the certitude of declaring it factual. They defeat their own arguments about it by that need ... and bring it down.