Evidence for God from Science

In my Survey of Theology class, we're spending the next three weeks looking at bibliology. Of course, inspiration is a big issue, so I wanted to see what you guys thought. Please note, this is not so much about inerrancy. If that comes up, we can deal with it, but the inspiration of the Bible is a subject all on its own. Most of the points I bring up here come from Charles Ryrie's Basic Theology, chapters nine through eleven.

That said, according to Webster, the English word "inspiration" literally means:

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>

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.

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:

[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.

This leads to the basic question: how far does inspiration go? A look at the relevant passages is quite revealing:

(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

I agree with what you have written. Was there a question involved, or was it just a statement of belief?

Well, the post itself was sort of a statement of belief. If anyone wants to comment on it, obviously, they can feel free. Inspiration, I'm surprised to say, is a pretty heavily debated issue . . . what exactly is it? What does it mean? How active were the human authors? To what extend is the Bible inspired (books, ideas, thoughts, words, etc.)? These are all questions that come up when seriously considering the doctrine of inspiration.

As a side note, I've come to the conclusion in the past three weeks that I don't like the word "inspire" at all, as it implies that the Bible is somehow imbued with some supernatural powers. That's not exactly right, in my view. Rather, it is the product of supernatural powers. In other words, these aren't some words that God put His seal of approval on. These are some words that God Himself brought into existence. The NIV has a good translation here. It simply reads "God-breathed." It's not worth too much fuss, though. It's just semantics :p

So yeah, to answer your question, I wasn't really asking a specific question in the OP. That is my view, and comments and criticisms are, of course, welcome. In general, though, I was just looking for other people's thoughts on the doctrine.

Not sure where I exactly heard this but it's a good guess that it came from a sermon by Ray Comfort. Analogy:

When you're writing a research paper or theological article, who or what is actually doing the writing - you or the pen? I've never heard anyone argue that the pen is doing the writing so I'll presume you'll take the same stance. Now shift it into the divine inspiration perspective. God is sharing His words with the world, who is actually doing the speaking/writing - Him or us? Well, it's almost like before yet we have become the pen that God uses to write (or speak) with.

Some people are offended at the thought of being belittled into the position of a simple utensil. Yet, looking at Romans 9:21, "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" I don't know too much about predestination, but I believe there is always room for humility in our lives. Job 1:21 faithfully remains my favorite verse of scripture, "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." I've heard people ask, why would you allow that to happen to Job, God? Or, why did you kill Ananias and Sapphira? Don't you think that a better question to ask would be, O' Lord, why have you not done that to me, a sinner? Great is His mercy above the heavens. Give Him praise today!

Why God used people in those confined regions to write his books and no evidence occurred in other isolated regions?
Another aspect we should question is that why there was no writtings before and after that time God used people to write. Why there is no older scripts? Also, why there is no newer scripts?

hmmm... He is the orginal author. If you believe in Him and He wrote, then He should be able to write unlimitedly.

beancurb wrote:Why God used people in those confined regions to write his books and no evidence occurred in other isolated regions?
Another aspect we should question is that why there was no writtings before and after that time God used people to write. Why there is no older scripts? Also, why there is no newer scripts?

hmmm... He is the orginal author. If you believe in Him and He wrote, then He should be able to write unlimitedly.

Well, I'm not all that familiar with the actual origins of the book sof the Bible, but I believe that the OT books are spanned over quite some time. Really throughout history until Jesus and then the Apostles. But that's not really either here or there.

The Bible is given to us as the foundation of our Faith - it starts us off and keeps us grounded. There are a few reasons off the top of my head that I can think of about why God doesn't continue to write more of the Bible.

First we're told all we need to be told in the Bible that we have. We know the origins of our existance, the history of man, the nature of God, the plan for times to come (for all eternity, btw), and most of all we're told of God's gift of grace given to us through Jesus - the ultimate key to our salvation. God has revealed all that must be revealed to us in order that we can make a choice of whether or not to follow Him.

Second, with men so easily corrupted and mislead, it was probably prudent that God preserve the santity of His word by leaving it unchanged for so long. I've posed the question "Is God not powerful enough to protect His Word from corruption?" The answer is yes, and perhaps one way He does that is to not let it be changed. Some have tried (Muslims come to mind) and you see where that led. Plus the writers of the NT were there with Jesus - witness to those events, and unquestionably some of the most Holy men that have lived. How much more would the Bible be questioned if it were written 200 years ago by some priest or monk. Not the same validity I dare say.

And third there are no new instructions for us. Our mandate is to believe in Jesus and tell others the message of the gospel until His return.

It should also be noted that just because God does not continue to write His Word for us, does not mean that He is not alive and present today. Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit, the Counsellor of Truth. We have fellowship with Jesus through the Holy Spirit and that walk with Him is certainly sufficient to help guide our lives. When we seek Him we are guided according to God's plan for us - He is an active part of our lives and is every bit as real to us as we are to each other. God's not been hiding for 2000 years - He is alive - believers will testify to this.

Jac,

I agree with your statements pretty much in their entirety. Esspecially the part about accepting the whole Bible as one - ignoring parts of it is foolish and ultimately causes us to lose our way. We have been shown this through history.

Premo: I get what you were saying, but I'd be careful there. I'm not "offended" at the idea of being reduced to a mere utensil at all, but I don't think that's really how it works. Where Ray's analogy fails, I think, is that a pen is not a living being. I believe in divine inspiration (or, maybe better, divine expiration?), not divine dictation!

We have to ask: is inspiration in the man or the pen? My above answer would probably indicate I believe the former, but I don't think that's exactly right either. That's why I used the word "superintended" to describe God's role in the process. God inspired Paul to write about a certain topic (c.f. Jude 3), and then "bore him along" as per the discussion on 1 Peter 1:21. If this wasn't the case, then how to we explain the personalities of the various authors coming through?

Beancurb: (interesting SN ). 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 . ..

1) God only used the Jews because of the way in which He was establishing His covenant with the nations. This is called special revelation, as discussed previously. You may as well ask why God calls some to be preachers rather than just appearing before every human being in all of His glory! In short, God used (what was supposed to be) a missionary nation through which He would reveal His will and ultimately bring the Messiah to atone for sin.

2) All writing had to begin somewhere, and, regardless, you ignore the fact that there had been much special revelation prior to the writings of Moses. Depending on who you ask, Noah lived a very long time before the Exodus Generation, and before that we had such men as Enoch, Seth, and Adam. The point is that there was some oral tradition that we have to keep in mind. In any case, also look again to the previous point: God was revealing His will progressively through a certain group of people. The OT, in fact, is really the history of those people and how God used them.

3) God does not inspire any more Scripture today because His will has been revealed. There are no more covenants. In the OT, we can clearly see the Adamic Covenant->Noahic Covenant->Abrahamic Covenant->Mosaic Covenant->Davidic Covenant->New Covenant. Each of these covenants required Scripture to legalize and solidify them. The New Covenant is everlasting, and it will not be superseded by any other. We are, therefore, still under it. There is no need for new Scripture. Therefore, we do believe that God is capable of writing unlimitedly. There was no limit--He wrote what was necessary: that which revealed His Good Will.

Felgar: glad you agree. That means you are right (haha, j/k)

See the subtle differences in views on inspiration?

Jac3510 wrote:3) God does not inspire any more Scripture today because His will has been revealed. There are no more covenants. In the OT, we can clearly see the Adamic Covenant->Noahic Covenant->Abrahamic Covenant->Mosaic Covenant->Davidic Covenant->New Covenant. Each of these covenants required Scripture to legalize and solidify them. The New Covenant is everlasting, and it will not be superseded by any other. We are, therefore, still under it. There is no need for new Scripture. Therefore, we do believe that God is capable of writing unlimitedly. There was no limit--He wrote what was necessary: that which revealed His Good Will.

Yeah, this is what I was trying to saying with point #1. Your teaching background shows through in that you present the idea more clearly than I have...

Except... Will not the 1000 year reign be a new covenant, and then enternity (new heaven and Earth) another new (and final and perfect, btw) covenant? My thinking is that there are 2 more covenants, or two more changes in the nature of the relationship between God and man. Thoughts?