That said, according to Webster, the English word "inspiration" literally means:
The word is from the Latin in + spirare (meaning, "to breath"), so the word literally means "to breath in." The second definition above reflects this.1 a : a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify him or her to receive and communicate sacred revelation b : the action or power of moving the intellect or emotions c : the act of influencing or suggesting opinions
2 : the act of drawing in; specifically : the drawing of air into the lungs
3 a : the quality or state of being inspired b : something that is inspired <a scheme that was pure inspiration>
This yields an important insight, because if the Bible is "inspired," then it literally draws its meaning from God Himself. This completely undermines eisegetical hermeneutics that put the emphasis on the reader as the key to interpretation. Without getting into a discussion on interpretation, we can safely note that any effective hermeneutic must take the author's intent, the audience's receptivity of the idea, and both the historical and soteriological contexts of the passage. What we, as interpreters, must do, is decide which of these gets the most weight. An understanding that the Bible is "inspired" means that the meaning comes from God, not men.
Secondly, I think it is important to note that the Bible is a record of special revelation. Unlike general revelation, which can be seen by all, special revelation is "revealed" revelation that does come from observation by rather only by the actions of God to disclose certain unknowable information. To put these together means that the Bible contains information about God, from God, that would otherwise be unknowable by any other means.
If this is understood and accepted, we can agree with the general statement, "I believe in the inspiration of the Bible." But, what exactly does that mean? To quote from Ryrie:
This leads to the basic question: how far does inspiration go? A look at the relevant passages is quite revealing:[W]hen some did not extend inspiration to the words of the text it became necessary to say, "I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible." To counter the teaching that not all parts of the Bible were inspired, one had to say, "I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible." Then because some did not want to ascribe total accuracy to the Bible, it was necessary to say, "I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant inspiration of the Bible." But the "infallible" and "inerrant" began to be limited to matters of faith only rather than also embracing all that the Bible records . . ., so it becaue necessary to add the concept of "unlimited inerrancy." Each addition to the basic statement arose because of an erroneous teaching.
(note: a fideist will insist that Scriptures are self revealing, and thus, if the Scriptures say they are inspired, they are inspired. It is, of course, in danger of becoming a circular argument, but if the initial assumption that they are autopistic is, in fact, true, then it is not circular at all. On the other side, empiricists seek to confirm various aspects of the Bible, and, as such, inductively conclude it to be inspired axiopisticaly. Both approaches can be valid, in my opinion)
2 Timothy 3:16: In this verse, Paul states that all Scripture is inspired by God. The word from which we translate "inspired" is theopneustos, and comes from theos (God) and pneo (to breath). So, we get the familiar definition for this word as "God-breathed." What we want to know is what is "Scripture." This particular word (graphe) is used fifty-one times, always in reference to some part of the Bible. Sometimes, it refers to the entire Old Testament (Luke 24:25), sometimes to a particular OT passage (Luke 4:21), sometimes to a particular NT passage (1 Tim. 5:18), and sometimes to the larger portion of the NT (2 Peter 3:16).
Concerning the last two references, 1 Tim. 5:18 is very important. The first part, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," is a quote from Deut. 25:4. The second part, though, "The laborer deserves his wages," are the words of Jesus, and while the sentiment is also found in Lev. 19:13 and Deut. 24:15, neither Luke nor Paul was drawing from this particular passage (the emphasis there is on withholding wages overnight). So, here, Paul has joined a canonical OT passage with the Gospel of Luke, calling it all Scripture (and there had probably been no more than six years difference between these two writings). 2 Peter 3:16 is familiar. Peter labels Paul's writings as Scripture. Of course, one could argue that only those books written by Paul at the time of this particular letter are Scripture, which would exclude 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, and all of John's writings. This, it seems to me, is reaching a bit, as Paul says that all Scripture is inspired, and these other books eventually came to be recognized as Scripture. The only way to discount them, then, would be to argue that they are not Scripture and therefore not inspired, but that is based on a rejection of the inspiration from the beginning!
A final note on this verse is interesting as well. It is traditionally translated "All Scripture is inspired by God . . ." Some, seeking to limit the inspiration of the Bible, translate it, "All Scripture inspired by God is . . ." This translation IS valid, as the term "is" is not found in the original texts, but supplied in the English to clarify. Both positions include an "is," but the question is, do we include it once or twice? ("All Scripture is inspired by God and is also profitable," or "All Scripture inspired by God is profitable"). Ryrie offers three reasons do adopt the traditional translation:
1) The traditional interpretation makes the words "profitable" and "inspired" both predicate adjectives and thus more natural.
2) The connective word, though it can be translated "also," is usually translated "and."
3) A similar construction occurs in 1 Tim. 4:4 where both adjectives are predicate adjectives.
If the above is accepted, then the entire Bible is inspired.
2 Peter 1:21: In this verse, Peter tells us a good deal about what it means to be "inspired." He says that the Holy Spirit "carried along" the men who spoke prophecy. The word here is the same one used in Acts 27:15 where the wind overpowered the ship and ultimately wrecked it. The word is actually used twice in 2 Pet. 1:21, first in reference to the Spirit driving the writers, but also in reference to the source of the inspiration: "For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will." ("Made" is the word of interest here). So, the Holy Spirit both inspired and carried along the men who spoke the message. In other words, God both authored the message and supervised its delivery.
1 Corinthians 2:13: Here, Paul compares says the words come not form men, but are taught from God. It is not such a leap, especially given the previous discussion, to see that even the words of the text are inspired.
Therefore, given the above, I would hold that the Bible, all sixty-six canonized books, is inspired even to the original wording, that God Himself authored the message, and that God Himself superintended the process of delivery.
(note: I realize we only looked at the textual evidence, and thus this claim comes across quite fideistic, but in the interest of space, I thought it best to discuss collaborative evidence separately as needed. In this first discussion, I simply limited my evidence to what the Bible says about itself.)
God bless
hmmm... He is the orginal author. If you believe in Him and He wrote, then He should be able to write unlimitedly.
). You asked three questions, and, overall, I think Felgar pretty much dealt with them. But, just to add my own thoughts, since I'm sort of replying to the entire thread . .. 