Originally, I was going to post this in my Dr. Ehrman's "Problem" Verse topic, but I didn't want to get too far off track, and this post is about divine inspiration in general, so I decided to give it a thread of its own. I welcome comments.
1. Translations are not referred to as inspired. Yet the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures written before the time of Jesus, was quoted in the New Testament. To me, that legitimizes this translation, and since the wording in the verses is different, what does that do to the choice of words? Some people make much of the significance of the use of particular words. What should we make of it when the wording is changed and it is still considered inspired?
2. In 1 Cor. 7:10-11, Paul gives the Corinthians an instruction he states is from the Lord. Then, he follows with this in vss. 12, 13 (NIV):
To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
Here he makes it a point of letting the reader know that this instruction comes from him, not the Lord, at least not directly. It looks like he is giving his own advice, albeit as one who is an apostle and has the Spirit of God. So this raises the question, "Is this the only instance where a writer of what was to become a Biblical text has included a personal instruction or piece of advice (i. e., something from the writer, not from God)?" Does this present a problem for someone who considers all the texts to be words from God (rather than words approved by God)?
3. No place in the Gospels is Jesus quoted as saying anything like, "Write these things down." There is no evidence that Jesus instructed his words or actions on earth to be recorded for any reason. (I think it is only in Revelation that the hearer is instructed to write). The apostles were told to teach others, and Jesus said his words would never pass away, but not specifically by writing.
If a Gospel writer had included an instruction he received from Jesus to write, wouldn't that give a lot of support to his account? Plus, we would especially expect the words to be accurate and authoritative. Instead, it appears that writing down the accounts was spurred by necessity and expediency. Paul indicated why he wrote his letters: he wanted the churches to have his instruction and encouragement when he could not be present, and the word could have a wider audience. Those reasons probably figured into the writing of the Gospels, along with the fact that the apostles were dying off and original teaching needed to be preserved, especially in view of the introduction of new, variant teachings. Only in the introduction of Luke and near the end of John do the writers state their motivations, and in neither case is it stated to be commanded by the Lord.
So, it appears that the actions of recording, preserving, and canonizing the scriptures were human-based to save and pass on what were considered sacred teachings and history. What are we to make of this?