Examine different responses to the idea that the Bible is inspired by God but written by
human beings (10)
Evangelical Protestants would have reservations about saying the Bible is “written by
human beings” because it implies that the content of the Bible comes from humans and
therefore has the possibility of errors. They see the Bible as inerrant because it comes
from God who is perfect. When an evangelical protestant describes the Bible as “inspired
by God” (2 Timothy) the verb they use actually means “God-breathed” implying God
dictated to the writers the exact words he wanted them to write. Therefore the Bible
writers are not so much authors but more like scribes. 2 Peter says that no prophecy
comes from the writer’s “impulse” or “interpretation” meaning they could and did write only
what God permitted them to.
Catholics believe the original Bible was inspired by God and humans wrote down what the
Holy Spirit guided them to write. However, over time, through imperfect copying and
mistranslations some details have changed and they require interpretation by the
Magisterium. Indeed, where God chose the human authors and inspired them to write
scripture, they equally used their own faculties to write God’s message. To interpret
scripture correctly, it must be read as a unity and read within the living Tradition of the
Church. This means that the interpreter must also be attentive to the analogy of Faith;
this is exemplified when Pope Pius XII (1951) no longer presented Genesis 1 as literal
truth, but instead accepted the Big Bang Theory. Tradition therefore allows the Pope to
have the authority to find new interpretations of the scripture, and address modern
situations. It is understood that the development of the original Bible results in God’s
inspiration being ‘buried’ within false interpretations - it is the Magesteriums’
responsibility (with the Holy Spirit active within the Church) to recognise authentic
Christian Doctrine. Their ‘sensus fidei’ means that the whole body of the Catholic faith is
inerrant.
The Neo-Orthodox response would be that the Bible is a human document; the words
aren’t inspired by God but a religious experience caused by reading the Bible might be.
This means that the Bible itself is not inerrant; many parts of the Bible are suggested to
be contradictory, others completely false (Genesis, for example, is simply a rewrite of a
Babylonian myth). Moreover, Karl Barth holds the argument that the Bible is not the
word of God, but contains the word of God. He maintains this idea by stating that, where
other religions are humanity’s attempt to reach God, Christianity is God’s attempt to
reach humanity. Despite this, the Bible is no more than a vehicle for a religious believer
to experience God. Therefore, the Bible is a written document which causes Christians
to recognise their own sinfulness - they look to Jesus the forgiver (‘the Word made
flesh’) as a result. Only when the presence of God is felt can the message of scripture
become meaningful and authoritative.
human beings (10)
Evangelical Protestants would have reservations about saying the Bible is “written by
human beings” because it implies that the content of the Bible comes from humans and
therefore has the possibility of errors. They see the Bible as inerrant because it comes
from God who is perfect. When an evangelical protestant describes the Bible as “inspired
by God” (2 Timothy) the verb they use actually means “God-breathed” implying God
dictated to the writers the exact words he wanted them to write. Therefore the Bible
writers are not so much authors but more like scribes. 2 Peter says that no prophecy
comes from the writer’s “impulse” or “interpretation” meaning they could and did write only
what God permitted them to.
Catholics believe the original Bible was inspired by God and humans wrote down what the
Holy Spirit guided them to write. However, over time, through imperfect copying and
mistranslations some details have changed and they require interpretation by the
Magisterium. Indeed, where God chose the human authors and inspired them to write
scripture, they equally used their own faculties to write God’s message. To interpret
scripture correctly, it must be read as a unity and read within the living Tradition of the
Church. This means that the interpreter must also be attentive to the analogy of Faith;
this is exemplified when Pope Pius XII (1951) no longer presented Genesis 1 as literal
truth, but instead accepted the Big Bang Theory. Tradition therefore allows the Pope to
have the authority to find new interpretations of the scripture, and address modern
situations. It is understood that the development of the original Bible results in God’s
inspiration being ‘buried’ within false interpretations - it is the Magesteriums’
responsibility (with the Holy Spirit active within the Church) to recognise authentic
Christian Doctrine. Their ‘sensus fidei’ means that the whole body of the Catholic faith is
inerrant.
The Neo-Orthodox response would be that the Bible is a human document; the words
aren’t inspired by God but a religious experience caused by reading the Bible might be.
This means that the Bible itself is not inerrant; many parts of the Bible are suggested to
be contradictory, others completely false (Genesis, for example, is simply a rewrite of a
Babylonian myth). Moreover, Karl Barth holds the argument that the Bible is not the
word of God, but contains the word of God. He maintains this idea by stating that, where
other religions are humanity’s attempt to reach God, Christianity is God’s attempt to
reach humanity. Despite this, the Bible is no more than a vehicle for a religious believer
to experience God. Therefore, the Bible is a written document which causes Christians
to recognise their own sinfulness - they look to Jesus the forgiver (‘the Word made
flesh’) as a result. Only when the presence of God is felt can the message of scripture
become meaningful and authoritative.
