According to the Random House Dictionary, the word inspire means "to infuse an animating,
quickening, or exalting influence into, or to communicate or suggest by a divine
influence." This definition indicates, when applied to the scripture, that the stories
and writings in the Bible did not come solely from the minds of the respective authors,
but rather from a divine source. This suggests that the authors were scribes, reproducing
what was instilled in them by God. This idea is strengthened by looking at distinct
examples from the scripture that show that scripture is inspired, and not made up. By
using the form of criticism known as literary criticism, we can analyze certain
installments of the scripture and use them to prove that the scripture is, in fact,
inspired, not a collection of false statements.
There are times in the Bible and in Biblical history that the prophets themselves are
confronted with people doubting the validity of the scripture, and trying to discredit
it. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and
training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every
good work." Here Timothy is relating a charge given to him by Paul. As a story that is
being told, it can be easily inferred that Paul had confronted opposition to the belief
that scripture was in fact inspired by God, and therefore valid. Using literary criticism
allows us to stay on the surface of what is being said, and not necessarily have to dig
behind it to find the true meaning (we'll leave that to historical criticism) and
therefore by looking at the phrase "scripture is God-breathed" we can further say that
God breathed His word into the authors, and they recorded it. God can be viewed as an
indirect author, and the inspiration for scripture.
"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and the
comings of our Lord Jesus Christ but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty." "Above all
you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet's own
interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from
God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." From the standpoint of a literary
critic, these two passages represent the question at hand as to whether or not scripture
is inspired. Literary criticism looks at the passage as a whole, and reads what it says,
just as a normal person would. Using this method, we see easily that scripture is in fact
inspired, because it states that there were no cleverly invented stories, but rather
God's own words. God's plans for his people are carefully laid out, and there is much
doubt that He would entrust average people to teach others about His word without careful
explanation as to exactly what it is, and how it came to be. This is why much of the
Bible, especially the Pentateuch, tells the historical story of the Israelites and there
great escape from Egypt. God needed to be sure that exactly what He wanted to be in what
was to be called His word was there, and nothing was added or falsified. In this sense,
God can be seen as the editor of the Bible.
Historical criticism says that if only facts are reliable, than find facts in the Bible.
Historical critics are forced the differentiate between fact and myth, leaving quite a
bit of room for human error. Due to this weakness, historical criticism is the least
compatible method of proving that scripture is inspired. Historical criticism seems to
ignore the fact that scripture is also literature, and to use their method of historical
criticism, you must take apart the Bible, thereby destroying the literary flow. Literary
criticism looks at the scripture in a way that is similar to how the average person reads
it. Historical criticism is traditionally elitist, and not available to anyone except the
academy. Also, is using historical criticism, complete objectivity is never achieved,
because one cannot observe without influencing the object being observed. Many times when
scholars are using historical criticism to try and explain certain things about the
Bible, the Bible becomes irrelevant to the Church, therefore killing the entire reason
for the Bible's existence; the teaching of God's word. Lastly, the Bible itself says that
none of its contents are interpretations of God's word, but rather an unadulterated
version of the truth; God's word verbatim. Historical criticism uses a historical
interpretation to try and prove its point, thereby disproving its own validity. If
historical scholars use a method that does not apply to the Bible, then it becomes
irrelevant itself. This irrelevance is displayed using the Hermeneutical circle, because
the circle implies that there is a cycle and a relationship between history and the
content of the text, and while there may be in certain parts, that does nothing to prove
that scripture is inspired, and only says that scripture has a possibly factual
background.
|