Is the bible inspired?

jwfacts

I am trying to determine if it can be proved that the bible is inspired, and was wondering if most people here believe it is or is not.

I am writing a document on proof of inspiration, but it has ended up more of an article that shows the bible can not be proven to be inspired. I will be interested in what people think about it when it is finished. However i am worried that posting such an article may alienate those on JWD that believe the bible to be Gods word.

Daunt

It's impossible to concretely prove that the bible is divinely driven, because frankly we don't know what the spiritual world is, let alone if it exists or not. So no I do not believe it is inspired. It is filled with too much by primitive humanity to suggest that it comes from an intelligent deity.

Quotes

Here are several articles dealing with the problems in the bible: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/.

To answer you question, IMO, nope.

~Quotes, of the "telling it the way I see it" class

willy_think

The Catholic Church canonized the bible; (after it is said to have gone apostate) that is its origin. A pope said it is inspired and on his authority we know it is inspired. Jesus gave us a church the church gave us a book that is good and useful for teaching. The book itself does not say it is inspired nor does it claim any authority.

That said no I don’t think the bible is inspired it is only a part of the catholic Tradition. The bible can not give us anything not can it save a single person who studies it.

Leolaia

Here are some other questions to think about:

What is meant by "inspired"? Is the concept one of God dictating every single word? Or do men write from a human perspective while being "guided" in some particular way by God? Would God's spirit fact-check what such people write from a human viewpoint, so that inspired writings are "inerrant", or would the Spirit guide the "spiritual" revelation without being concerned about the details of the non-spiritual parts? Or would "inspiration" be the spiritual catalyst for writing but not guide what is written? Or could "inspired scripture" involve combinations of all these possibilities?
Is the entire body of "scripture" in the Bible "inspired"? Is all of it God's Word, or does it contain God's Word, or is this concept meaningless? Could the Bible include writings that are not "inspired"?
At the same time, could there be writings outside the Bible that are "inspired"?
The Bible canon was fixed many centuries after the books were written. Were the people who decided which was "inspired" and what was not "inspired" themselves "inspired"? If not, how do we know they made the right choices?
Although in Protestantism (and in JWism) "inspired" writings = "scripture" = authoritative = canonical, this was not necessarily the case among the people who decided what went into the Bible. For many early Christians, there were "inspired" books outside of the canon, and "scripture" that was not felt to be "authoritative" and thus canonical.
2 Timothy 3:16, in one of the pastoral epistles, does not refer to the NT when it says "all scripture is inspired". It only refers to OT books, and yet the OT canon was not fixed until sometime in the second century (such that Esther and Ezekiel remained questioned by some rabbis until quite late). So is it right to apply this verse to the NT, which did not even exist at the time as a compilation? And if there are some "inspired" books outside the OT, could these be considered "scripture" tho not in the inspired canon. 2 Timothy, for instance, refers to a tradition of Jannes and Jambres not found in the OT, tho a Book of Jannes and Jambres did exist. Similarly, the epistle of Jude explicitly quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 and labels it as "prophecy" -- a term that clearly presumes "inspiration". So does a book in the Bible regard a book that is now outside of the Bible as "inspired"? There are several other citations of "scriptures" in the NT which are not found in the OT.
And aside from the circular problem of using a verse from the Bible to prove its inspiration, how can "inspiration" be otherwise objectively assessed and identified?

JCanon

You know, it depends upon if you have the right interpretation or not. If, for instance, you've been deceived by revised ancient records and think that Jerusalem fell at the revised date instead of the correct date and you use that to try and see if Bible prophecy works out, which is one way the Bible uses to establish that it is "inspired" (i.e. by predicting the future accurately), then it seems the Bible might be wrong. But if you have the correct information and correct interpretation, then the Bible will amaze you with it's accuracy.

I for one, being a strict "Biblicalist" and following the Bible closely have found the Bible indeed must be inspired. Bit that's my personal experience, as you requested. Some people don't like debating with me because they don't like my interpretation, but my interpretation works out for the Bible so it really doesn't matter. If you try and twist things to make the Bible false that does't count.

JC

Narkissos

I'm reading Chuang Tzu these days, and that made me think again of inspiration and revelation.

The narrow and shallow concepts of Biblical inspiration / revelation -- as if there were some "truth" out there which could be meaningfully imported into human language -- has, imo, obscured and limited the ageless and universal flow of wisdom in Judaism and Christianity (and consequently in the modern world). Of course there is a lot of wisdom in the Bible (especially in the sapiential texts which precisely claim no revelation or inspiration, and certainly no exclusivity) but it is to be searched deep under the the massive dogmatic assertions of special revelation to Israel (or the Church), divine-led history, etc.

The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. Try to enclose it somewhere (in a definite book, for instance) and it suddenly disappears. Open the window again and it is here as well as there.

steve2

Try to write all you want or can on this interminable topic, but the question about the Bible's inspiration will just keep going round and round and round and will often crumble into different sides hardening their views. It can either be fun and stimulating going round and around and round or it can be mad-making - it depends on your perspective. Personally, I found it liberating to drop the whole topic and make room for ambiguity. But it takes a while for the dizzy feeling from going round and round to subside. Some people are addicted to the need to go round and round.

peacefulpete

Outside our tiny JW Fundementalist worldview are billions of people who look upon the Bible as a piece of litertaure, nothing more. Reading it without the deep personal investment into the belief that somehow, dispite all evidence otherwise, suffering has some lofty purpose and that we are specially chosen by an invisible God, the Bible fails to impress. There simply is no evidence that the book was authored, sponsored, or revealed by invisible entities with knowledge or love beyond ours. Claims otherwise have been thoroughly debunked for centuries.

Honesty

I can remember believing it is God's word when I was 4 or 5 years old.. I don't have any proof to support my belief other than something inside of me tells me it is. I've read many books on the subject such as New Evidence That Demands a Verdict and the arguments for inspiration do not convince me. The arguments against inspiration do not convince me either. But when I read the bible it comes alive like nothing I have ever read. It also motivates me to action. Insipired? Who knows but I still believe it is God's word.

Is the bible inspired?

Share this