Talk:Biblical inspiration

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Bible Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (assessed as Mid-importance). Theology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article should more overtly point out the logic or lack thereof of "the Bible is the inspired word of God and the evidence for this is that the Bible says it is". The logic behind the arguements for Bible inspiration should be more clear and discussed critically so that people can be more informed as to their decision to base their life on such logic.Pacojam

Hello all. I think the inspiration article looks very good. It inspired me to tryto cleanup the inerrency article.. which I started with clear definitions of the above terms. If youhave it in you, please drop by and help me clean it up. Any help to that page from you would bemost appreciated.--DjSamwise 01:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "inerrancy" is the traditional position re: inspiration...it is the conservative opinion. When was the word inerrancy first used regarding Scriptural inspiration? What groups or theologians affirmed it (a majority, presumably, if we're calling it traditional)? I'm thinking to edit this stuff, but thought I'd consult the community first. KHM03 21:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reinterpretation of the traditional Protestant idea of sola scriptura, in the vernacular of the concepts and terminology of Enlightenment epistemology. This interpretation summarizes Mark Noll's conclusion (I think), in Between Faith and Criticism, and for Evangelicals at least, it seems to be the prevailing way of looking at it (contra both, Woodbridge, and before him, the Barthians Rogers and McKim). George M. Marsden speaks for most, I think, in looking to the

Scottish Common Sense Realism ^{link correction requested} ; but he wasn't saying that it was their invention. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

\

Roman Catholicism does not have the idea of inerrancy at all by their own account; and in fact, teaches that it is theologically impossible to reconcile with Biblical anthropology. "Infallibility" much more nearly expresses their view of Biblical authority; and can be applied with similar effect to both, Tradition (including the statements made by popes and councils) and Scripture. However, the word "error" is a problem here: Luther was excommunicated for teaching, among other things, that the councils contradict one another, and "err". Eastern Orthodoxy, being less oriented toward engagement with Enlightenment categories, is harder to figure out, since they seem to avoid the issues of "authority" and epistemology in their typical efforts to evade the Western morass. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So inerrancy is not "the most" traditional way of approaching Scripture, particularly if its rooted in the Reformation and the Enlightenment. I'm not suggesting doing away with the section which talks about inerrancy; I'm suggesting it shouldn't be listed as the traditional way of talking about Biblical inspiration...it's only one traditional way. KHM03 00:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least, it's certainly not the most traditional way of speaking about the traditional way of approaching Scripture. I suppose that it's a matter to be debated, whether it is the most correct way of speaking about it. Until the recent eruption of post-modernism in its evangelical manifestation, I think that it was the evangelical consensus that it is the correct way: in fact, it might have been the ONLY evangelical consensus, the single most defining article of evangelical faith. What evangelicalism is, now that this consensus has fallen away, is anybody's guess. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, evangelical Wesleyans have really never used it. It's associated primarily with fundamentalists and Calvinists (and there are fundamentalist Wesleyans, but they aren't really "mainstream"). Of course, this is the tradition I know best...but it's a misunderstanding that inerrancy is something all evangelicals share. AUTHORITY...yes...even infallibility regarding doctrine and practice matters. But not inerrancy. That's my problem with it as used in this article. KHM03 00:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My off-topic point there, is that evangelicalism is, to a certain extent, a constructed identity that had inerrancy as the watershed (Harold Lindsell's famous term in The Battle for the Bible). There is no distinctive "creed" for the old alignment of evangelicalism, if this is not the creed. There is no Church of Evangelicalism. Although, there is a kind of intuition, a gestalt sense of belonging to and with one another that evangelicals persist in trying to define, with increasingly less definiteness. As this has happened, more mainstream types have felt the tug to pile into the "evangelicalism" ark (for, Evangelicals have done the tugging), so that gradually the idea of the Bible that they share is developing the same tensions that brought about the Fundamentalist-Modernist split in the first place: although this time, the alignments are very different and, sometimes, a little ironic. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought Lindsell's thesis to be flawed. I prefer Oden's definition(s) of evangelicalism, delineated beuatifully in his Systematic Theology trilogy. KHM03 02:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've only read his Requiem. Very interesting. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, can you elaborate or rephrase this sentence for me: "other traditionalists have sought to guard against the inference that the Bible is comparable to a modern scientific way of knowing or describing thing." I think I know what you're trying to say about enlightenment assumptions, but just to be sure.... --Flex 14:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Keith might be the better one to refer to here, because the "Paleo-orthodox" approach is one example of what I have in mind, there. Contrast it with Hodge's approach to the Bible, as providing the brute data of a scientific systematization. The idea of inspiration that might underlie this particular view might be expressed as saying that, every particular statement of the Bible is a "fact", and theology is the systematization of those facts.

A contrasting view might be that the Bible was given in a context, not of words (alone), but of God's faithfulness and covenant, and his peoples belief and unbelief, faithfulness and unfaithfulness, courage and cowardice, trust and rebellion, and so on. These are the terms in which the Bible is better thought inerrant - thus the different word, infallible, which is less loaded perhaps, with the notion of "data". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the current edits...I just have a problem (as a Methodist, a paleo guy, a narrative guy) with "inerrancy" being determinative for evanegelicals. That is, in my view, a relatively new innovation. I commend Oden's work to you - solidly evangelical, and his systematic theology trilogy is the absolute best ecumenical evangelical in print (maybe ever). Definitely worth a look and something you both would very much enjoy. KHM03 13:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it online in whole or in part? :-) --Cheapskate

The Tower of Bable shows the bible is a story book *At least some of the time) and not Infalliable!

What lame excuses do fundamentalists use to try and justify the absurd idea that primative man built a tower 100 km around the base and 70KM high! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.91.4 (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does the Catholic view say about the manuscript traditions? Is the Bible inspired only in its original autographa (as per the Evangelical view), or is the transmission of that document also assured in Catholic doctrine? If the latter, is it only inspired in the manuscripts incorporated into the Vulgate? This sort of thing should be dealt with briefly in the Catholic section. (Note that I deleted the bit about circularity since we're talking here about the doctrine of inspiration proper, not sola scriptura or presuppositional apologetics.) --Flex 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, soon I am going to edit the Evangelical view section to reflect (with sources) the general concensus the self proclaimed evangelical leaders came up with as documented in the Chicago statement. I think it will be more precise and accurate as to what they teach.. Peace. --Home Computer 15:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are good. Go for it! Some references to Warfield would also be apropos, as he is one of the most famous defenders of the doctrine. --Flex 18:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lead.. unfortunately I am getting really burnt out. I took on more than I could chew at Bible. I'm probably going to take a break for a whil but when I come back this will be a focus point. Also, Giesler and Nix have a ton of respected material on the matter and I've allready got the links written so I'll be using some of that. Peace. --Home Computer 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's shockingly simplistic that there is a section on "The" Evangelical view, as though there were only one. GPeoples (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Protestant views is totally inadequate. I can't change it at this moment, but I want to post notice that I intend to do some major rewriting. I'd rather talk about it here than have an edit war.::::Atterlep (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this article. Is there a precedent to consider the Commandments of God and the words of Jesus (as recorded by others) to be (obviously) divinely inspired scripture, but to view "The Bible" as a collection of writings which was later approved by the early Catholic Church? Is there a term for this view (other than perhaps the politically charged term "Red Letter Christian")? I am not trying to sell anything here, just asking if there is another theory of Biblical Inspiration. Repentance 16:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this section to the bottom of this page per

ex (talk|contribs) 19:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much. Repentance 19:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Paul's disclaimer ==

What about the bits where Paul says "this is my own opinion; it is not from the Lord"? — Omegatron 23:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

apparently there re also some difficulties with the book of Job being quoted by nt writers also.wrong speakers in Job, condemned by God in same book, presented as inspired by NT writers. not to worry. Benny the wayfarer 00:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked User:PiCo to explan this edit deleting the Catholic view. PiCo replied:

The piece that I deleted is quoting as its source the encyclical

Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII, which effectively reversed Leo's directives on the subject of biblical scholarship and, inevitably, biblical inspiration. Divino Afflante says in effect that the bible has many authors and that Catholic scholars should study the times in which they lived and the context in which they wrote - a far cry from Prov.'s insistence on the purely divine origins of scripture. As I mention, the Vatican never expressly contradicts earlier pronouncements, and so the language of Afflante is a little obscure - it speaks of "the biblical author," for example, leaving open the possibility that there is but one author - but in the context of the times (1943) it was clearly intended as a move beyond Leo's obscurantism. So far as I know, there's been no subsequent encyclical on the subject, and Afflenate represents the Church's current stance on the issue. (You're free to revert my deletion if you wish, I don't want to get involved in an edit war over this minor matter) PiCo (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Assuming its accuracy, that's useful information. A full account of the Catholic view would include both Leo XIII and Pius XII, and I'd like to see it sourced and incorporated into the article rather than just deleting the half-truth that was there formerly. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone working on this "Biblical inspiration" article that is so inclined is welcome to harvest as much as you think is worthwhile from the subsection Authority in the article on the New Testament. The sub-section is entirely out of place in the article on the New Testament, and is slated to be removed, so feel free to use what you can from it before the page is updated.

I am going to "be bold" and rewrite some of the first paragraph in the section "Views of the doctrine". First of all, I am putting a new header for this paragraph, namely "2 Timothy 3:16", as it seems to be exclusively about this text. Secondly, I am (in my opinion) making some of the language more objective. And, finally, I'm adding a few links to the English versions mentioned, and giving an additional reference backing up the "conservative" view. Please let me know what you think about this. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've skimmed through Dodd's book for the page numbers for the three citations given, but have only found one of them, which I've added with an Rp template. Could someone supply the missing page numbers? TomS TDotO (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st cite is p. 15. It's ref is now a cite web to an online copy. The second cite was deleted for being identical to the third cite & it's from pages 35-36. Please, put in a request for closure of this (decade long) discussion. Jikangire (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This 2006 revision [1] looks better at first glance than the latest. The lead is direct and objective, rather than waffling and apparently rich with original research. The body is better structured and lists primary sources less. The current section on the "inspiration" etymology actually fails to initially explain what it is talking about, unlike that randomly selected old revision. What happened? Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Biblical inspiration/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following

Last edited at 04:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 09:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Biblical inspiration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212170522/http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jan1975/v31-4-article2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050405231834/http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwauthority.htm to http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwauthority.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204093809/http://www.aomin.org/THEOPNEU.html to http://www.aomin.org/THEOPNEU.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added a bit to the Protestant subsection under the Views section. I left the original single paragraph unedited, but it certainly needs work. The first and only paragraph about Luther and Calvin’s views relies entirely on 19th century works by Frederic Farrar. Although I am not familiar with Ferrar or his works, but his assessment that Luther believed that “the acual writing was a human not a supernatural act” is contrary to Luther’s own statements. I will find the sources for this later, but Luther wrote, “The Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, written and (as I might say) spelled out and set forth in letters, just as Christ is the eternal Word of God veiled in human nature.” Later, he also wrote, “... You are so to deal with the Scriptures that you bear in mind that God Himself is saying this...”

I will look for sources regarding Calvin’s statements as well, and I will work on the changes needed for this article. I’ll read through Ferrar’s works, but they seem to be incorrect. I felt I should give my reasons for greater changes here beforehand, so anyone can agree or object before or after changes are made. Thanks. Samfoe (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Samfoe: I have the impression that this may not be a reliable source. I suggest if possible to instead cite scholar books or other encyclopedias with peer review. It may possibly be usable as a primary source for Baptist-specific material. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My aim was more toward updating the '92 Lea & Griffin and '87 Myers sources, but I agree this website is not the best by any means. Samfoe (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tge current section titles Criticism quotes C. H. Dodd which affirms "There is indeed no question about the original implications of the term: for primitive religious thought the "inspired" person was under the control of a supernatural influence which inhibited the use of his normal faculties."

This statement is an original opinion with its encyclopedic relevance, but it is completely POV. No other sources are quoted about that. Christians believe the Evengelists talked personally and directly with God, but without loosing their humanity: on the contrary, while writing in their natural Greek spoken language, they confirm to be inspired without being "controlled" or possessed from God against their human freedom. They freely choose to serve Him and did so not only with their hands but also by way of their minds.

Probably, we have to find another more traditional source saying that divine inspiration is perfectly compatible with the human freedom and intellect. This is also what in a different way is believed to be true and possibile by the Muslims which affirm the Quran was inspired to Muhammad by the Archangel Michael.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Dodd quotes in this article are harmful misinformation. Unless & until somebody takes the time to refute this quote, please, delete it. (By the way, don't Muslims allege Gabriel, instead of Michael?) Jikangire (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added the MOS and original research boxes because this article is rather a mess. The first section should be deleted outright, but I've left it for someone else to do that. The problems there (completely original research, poor/no citations, etc.) continue throughout the rest of the text. Overall this is scarcely an article and more of a blog post atm. (PS, looks like this article has been in this poor state for 10-15 years. Lol.) Qwo (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out issues. I think I've corrected all MoS & OR issues. If I've missed anything, please, fix it because that'd be simplest. Otherwise, please, be more specific so I understand what the issues are. & that way, if it's OK with you, maybe I could help fix any issues. If I don't hear from you after a few days, I'll just remove the 2 boxes & recommend this discussion for closure. Thanks again, in advance. Jikangire (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this article. I haven't reviewed most of your edits, but the ones I have looked at seem like certain improvements. I continue to see OR issues; the first example being the 'Writers' internal claims' section. All biblical interpretation should be done by reliable, secondary sources and not us editors. In general, we should see far less biblegateway links and far more citations to scholars.

Speaking of links,

WP:EL suggests that we shouldn't be seeing external links in the body. If a bible quote is helpful, it should probably be cited with a commonly-used footnote style, enclosed in <ref> tags. You may want to use a highly-rated WP:WikiProject Bible article like Gospel of John as a guide. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I've restored the MOS and original research boxes because I think there's still some improvement to hope for; in particular, criticisms from as fsr back as 2009 (or earlier, see above on this page) still stand and the whole article remains disjointed. The article might benefit from a large section dedicated to discussing biblical inspiration in broadest possible and academic terms. As of now, the article is just a sequence of disassociated viewpoints. I think the boxes help highlight for casual readers and editors alike that the whole article isn't up to the standards of other religious studies articles. I'll leave it to more seasoned editors or topic experts to make the final determination. Hopefully over time the boxes will attract attention, even if it takes another 10-15 years lol. Qwo (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers and Qwo are vandals. They refuse to identify any specific issue in support of their false claim. Please, block their accounts. There's no original research in the Basis section. A list of fulfilled propecies is not original research - it's the main point of this article. Everybody, especially admins, please keep restoring the Basis section & delete the manual of style box & the original research box that Qwo, the sock puppet, put at the top of this article. BijLeidseplein (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with my conduct, I suggest you follow the

conduct dispute policy. As for this article, if you have any reliable sources that support the claims made in the proposed Basis section, please cite them. Merely citing bible verses and then interpreting them is textbook OR. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Looks like BijLeidseplein may have outed themselves as the one using a few IP sockpuppets. Compare their language, tone, and interests above to that in a few revert-war edit summaries lately. It's not a huge concern and it's an easy enough thing to keep reverting; just wanted to make a note here in case behavior persists. PS, I think without that first wholly-OR 'Basis' section, the article looks substantially better, if not altogether cohesive, so thanks to editors' attentions. Qwo (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a final note, I figured it would be helpful to translate content from the French or German wiki articles, as those articles seem to be more cohesive. However, I noticed that basically all of these foreign language articles hold mutually contradictory or confusing views when compared to each other. The topic of biblical inspiration is highly semantic, after all, making it difficult for a non-expert to translate. If anyone's looking for a basic structure for a more centrally readable article, I put my unfinished translation of French/German article content at User:Qwo/sandbox. Please cannibalize and use if needed. It would benefit from multiple sections derived from the bulleted list now found under the Evangelical section. Qwo (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

____________are not passive secretaries or stenographers they writ freely as they utilized their abilities but they inspired by the holy spirit that their writings may conform to the revelation of God 120.28.189.245 (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a basis section that keeps on getting re-added that is neither on point nor properly cited. This section seems to have been written in a highly unprofessional / non-scholarly manner and reads more like a blog post from a website from the fringe. I wonder if this article needs to be locked. 173.72.130.245 (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. I'll try and keep a closer eye out for re-addition. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 08:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 6 § Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]