According II Tim. 3:16, the scriptures are inspired by God.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God,This scripture raises the problem of inspiration of scriptures:
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness." (II Tim. 3:16 KJV)
In the King James Version (KJV), the noun "inspiration" occurs twice: Job 32:8, and II Tim. 3:16, quoted above.
"But there is a spirit in man;In II Tim. 3:16, the word "inspiration" translates the Greek word theopneustos which literally means "God-breathed". So some modern English versions translates it.
and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." (Job 32:8 KJV)
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting, and training in righteousness." (II Tim. 316 NIV)."Every Scripture is God-breathed - given by inspiration -
and is profitable for instruction,
for reproof and conviction of sin,
for correction of errror and discipline in obedience,
and for training in righteousness
[that is, in holy living, in conformity to God's will
in thought, purpose and action]," (II Tim. 3:16 Amplified)
Although the word "inspiration" occurs infrequently in English versions and paraphrases, the conception affirms that the living God is the author of the Scriptures and that the Scriptures is the product of His creative breath, as was the creation of universe (Psa. 33:6) and the creation of man's spirit (Gen. 2:7). This biblical sense is different from the modern tendency to assign the term "inspiration" merely to dynamic or functional significance, largely through a critical dependence on Scheiermacher's artifical disjunction that God communicates life, not truths about Himself. Geoffery W. Bromiley (the translator of Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics) points out that whereas Barth emphasizes the "inspiring" of the Scriptures -- that is, its present use by the Holy Spirit towards the hearers and readers of the Scriptures -- the Bible itself begins further back with the very "inspiredness" of the scared writings. The writings themselves, as the end product, are asserted as God-breathed. It is precisely this conception of inspired writings, and not simply inspired men, that sets the biblical conception of inspiration clearly over against the pagan representation of inspiration in which heavy stress is placed on the subjective psychological mood and condition of those individuals overmastered by the divine afflatus. [1]
This passage from Paul's writing ( II Tim. 3:16) indicates not only the nature of inspiration but also the extent ("all scripture") of God's inspiration of the Scriptures. By the Scriptures, Paul here is referring to what we now call the Old Testament. Although Paul is the only New Testament writer that uses this word "God-breathed", the other writers in referring to the Scriptures claim that they are the word of God. The words "God said" introduce many of the passages of the Old Testament Scriptures that are quoted. Both Jesus and His Apostles assert of the Old Testament Scriptures that they are the word of God. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus declared that even the tiniest detail of the Scripture, as it anticipated the completion of God's redemptive work, would be fulfilled.
"17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets;The Apostles also claimed that what they wrote was divinely inspired. In I Corinthians 4:1, the Apostle Paul declared that he, like the other Apostles, had been appointed to be a steward, or a dispenser of the truths which God was pleased to reveal to men.
I did not come to abolish, but to fulfil.
18 For truely I say unto you,
until heaven and earth pass away,
not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished." (Matt. 5:17-18 NAS).
"This is how one should regard us, as servants of ChristIn I Corinthians 2:13, Paul asserted that he set forth these revelation truths in words which were selected by the Holy Spirit.
and stewards of the mysteries of God." (I Cor. 4:1)
"And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdomHere Paul is claiming to be verbally inspire, for he is saying that he was divinely enabled by the Holy Spirit, not to set forth in his own words the ideas which God had given him through the Holy Spirit, but to use the very words God wanted used for setting forth divine truth. Now this verbal inspiriation is to be distinguished from mechanical dictation - an inspiration by dictation - in which the writer's own personality and style would be set aside as he simply writes down the sentences God gave him. Paul speaks in his own distinctive way in his epistles, as do the other Biblical authors in their particular writings, but as Paul insists, he speaks with the very words that the Holy Spirit gives him. Hence, verbal inspiration means that Holy Spirit selected those words and thought forms from Paul's vocabulary and style which will be best suited for setting forth revelational truth.
but in words taught by the Spirit,
interpreting spiritual truths in spiritual language." (I Cor. 2:13 ERS)
Thus the Bible definitely claims to be the word of God. Some theologicans make the claim that because the scriptures never say that the Bible is the Word of God, that the Bible is not the Word of God. And of course, at the writing of the New Testament books, our Bible did not yet exist, but was in process of being written. Therefore, the New Testament books never say that the Bible is the word of God. But that does not mean that the Bible is not the word of God. Later, the Christian community after the books of the New Testament were written recognized it as the word of God and asserted it to be such. (See the discussion of the formation of canon later in this chapter for discussion of this development.)
The usual line of argument against the doctrine of verbal inspiration has two prongs. The first prong says that since verbal inspiration is equal to mechanical dictation, then verbal inspiration is false because there are differences of style, vocabulary and individual backgrounds between the different writers of the Bible. Since books dictated by a person would have similarities in vocabulary, style, and background, then if God dictated all the books of the Bible, then they all should have similarities of styles and vocabulary in the different books, which they do not have. Therefore, according to this line of argument, verbal inspiration is false.
This line of argument assumes that there is only one theory of verbal inspiration and that it is mechanical dictation. It does not recognize that there are other possible views of verbal inspiration (as set forth above) besides mechanical dictation. Thus this line of argument has set up a straw man for the purpose of easily defeating the orthodox concept of verbal inspiration. Verbal inspiration is not necessarily equal to mechanical dictation. There are similarities between verbal inspiration and mechanical dictation. Both see God as the author of Scripture. Both acknowledge man is an agent involved in inspiration. Both agree that the result is a perfect and infallible text in the original manuscripts. Both hold that the words of Scripture are inerrant. On the basis of these similarities, many have concluded that verbal inspiration and mechanical dictation are equal. But this conclusion ignore the differences between verbal inspiration and mechanical dictation. The crucial difference between the two is the balance between the human and the divine. Mechanical dictation overbalances in the direction of the divine. A perfect book is the result, but at the expense of man's full involvement. The varying vocabularies and styles of the writers are by-passed -- God simply used the writers as passive tools, as a man would use a typewriter. But, a proper understanding of verbal inspiration fully balances the human and the divine, and yet produces a perfect text as the result. God, by His full power, used man in his full powers and thereby guaranteed a reliable text without error.
The second prong of the line of argument against verbal inspiration is that the infallibility and inerrancy claimed by verbal inspiration cannot exist because there are obvious errors in the text of the Scriptures. (Some the supposed errors will be dealt with in the section of this chapter on the inerrancy of the Scriptures.) But theologians have erred in their judgment when they conclude that the Bible is full of errors. There are problems because of our lack of knowledge, but this does not give one the right to jump to the conclusion that such gaps in knowledge are errors. Competent scholars have already answered some of the alleged errors. Other supposed errors are still being considered as more understanding of the problems come to us. Careful and patient research will bring answers to many of the alleged errors in Scripture.
On the basis of these two prongs of the argument against verbal inspiration, it is concluded that verbal inspiration is false. This conclusion opens the door for a substitute, more liberal view of the Bible and its inspiration. This view says that the "truth" in the Scriptures is inspired, but not the individual words. This dynamic view, as it sometimes called, solves the problem left by the mechanical dictation theory by allowing for a difference in styles and vocabulary of the various biblical writers. The claim is made that this dynamic view also gives a proper balance between the divine and human in the revelational encounter. And in addition, the dynamic view is said to solve the problem of errors in the Bible by acknowleging that there are errors, while still safeguarding the truth of the Bible. That is, the errors of the Bible do not negate the truth of the birth, life, death, and the resurrection of Christ. Although the Bible has errors in it, it still contains infallible doctrinal truth.
But this dynamic concept of inspiration has many weaknesses. How can doctrinal truth be expressed verbally when verbal errors may occur? And the claim that the dynamic concept best balances the human and the divine in inspiration of Scripture is not true, since its allowance of error in the original text overbalances the human and divine in the inspiration of Scripture in the direction of the human, since the divine cannot prevent the errors from occuring. Like the mechanical dictation theory of verbal inspiration, the dynamic concept overbalances the human and divine in the inspiration of the Scriptures, but in the opposite direction to the dictation theory; whereas the dictation theory overbalances in the direction of the divine, the dynamic concept overbalances in the direction of the human by allowing for errors in the original text. Now this overbalance is a fatal error in both the dictation theory and the dynamic concept of inspiration. A true understanding of verbal inspiration sees full divine power employing man's full powers, both working in complete cooperation to produce a perfect text without errors. This gives a proper balance between the human and the divine in inspiration of the Scriptures, yet without errors.
To summarize, comparing these three views:
(1) The dictation view does not balance the human and divine in the
inspiration of the Scriptures; it overbalances in the direction of the
divine, producing a perfect book without errors, but at the expense
of the human full involvment.
(2) The dynamic view also does not balance the human and divine in the
inspiration of the Scriptures; it overbalances in the direction of the
human because errors are claimed to be in the Bible. Thus the dynamic view
claims that the Bible speaks inerrant truth through erring words.
(3) The verbal view balances the human and divine in the inspiration
of the Scriptures in a perfect balance in which both God and man are involved,
yet without error. Thus the verbal view claims that the Bible speaks inerrant
truth through unerring words.
[1] C. F. H. Henry, Bible, Inspiration of in
Walter A. Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984), pp. 145-148.
Richard R. Belcher, A layman's guide to the INERRANCY DEBATE,
Forward by W. A. Criswell
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1980, second printing, 1981).
Daniel P. Fuller, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible,
Four Messages delivered by Daniel P. Fuller
on the Old Fashioned Revival Hour
(no publisher or publication date given).