How was Bible inspired?

[awareness]

I've pointed out a few times that the Bible was written by men. And not just men, but Jewish men. If the Bible was inspired by God, why are only Jews inspired?

I've struggled with this notion for a long time : What means, the authors of the books of the Bible were inspired?

I've come across explanations, like God dictated to the authors, like God spoke in their ear, like God entered into them with His Spirit, and guided their hand, like divine auto-writing, i.e. automatic writing

I don't find any of these explanations convincing.

Anyone else know how inspiration works?

[Ohio]

Why keep bringing this up when you reject all the answers?

We've circled this mountain far too many times bro.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why keep bringing this up when you reject all the answers?

We've circled this mountain far too many times bro.

We have not. There's been plenty of proclamations, that, the Bible is inspired by God, but to my knowledge no one has explained it.

And maybe I'd entertain a real explanation, other than God spoke in their ears, etc.

One answer can be found in Revelation :

Rev 1:1b "he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John"

And :

Rev_1:10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day..."

Are there more of these?

[OBW]

First, there is at least one non-Jew in the writers . . . Luke. But at least part of his writing is repeating of accounts he did not personally observe (accounts provided by Jewish men . . . and maybe Jewish women).

As for asking how the Bible is inspired, there are many who have given much ink to the subject. But too many of them are in the camp that suggests that God somehow moved their hands (or made them speak — in the days when it was oral retelling rather than writing) without altering the general nature of their normal speech. (In other words, he didn't force a farmer to speak with a Harvard-like grasp of language.)

But I think it is not so simple. I realize that Paul's statement was that all scripture was inspired by God. Sometimes that might be little more than a sense to write down what just happened. Or to begin to tell the story of how the family came to be where they are "today." (Abraham, for example, as well as his offspring.) Unless we are to deny the accounts, there are also times when God spoke directly to the "writers." Such as on Mt. Sinai. And to some of the prophets.

It might be that the inspiration was merely the sense to include one of the observations of what Jesus said or did, and how much detail to include. And the lack of consideration for telling another story. (Luke said there was too much to write.)

And the result is something "profitable." For teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Not for finding answers to every question ever asked.

It is mostly accounts of events (some exceptions). Every word in the account is not necessarily meaningful in the way that those who speak of inerrancy think. It is mostly narrative. The choice of word used was the writer's. A different writer might have recorded it differently. But as narrative, that would be OK.

The Bible does not make statements about science. It speaks in the manner (and within the knowledge) of the people who wrote it. If they misunderstood the place of Earth within the universe, it did not correct them. It told of creation in movements, using the terminology of days to separate the movements. The point was God. And that He created. Not that it happened in 6 days (or 6,000 years). Note that in at least one place, God spoke and the earth "brought forth" vegetation. And he said "let the land produce living creatures . . . ." An interesting statement for the One who is said to have created it all.

It provided the teaching in righteousness to change the thinking of the people from slaveholders to outlawing slavery, but did not force the issue. Same for many other issues, including the equality of Jews and Gentiles, men and women, and others we have not yet realized.

It is the continuing story of God and his people. And we consider the official story now closed. I believe that there is still much story being written. But with no link to God. The ones who wrote the 66 are almost entirely those who had very specific encounters with God in some form — covenant/visitation, burning bush, provision of strength, spoken to by God, spent time with Jesus. . . . Those since can make no such claim. That may not make their "story" any less true. But we have less assurance of the faithfulness to be considered "the Word of God."

[awareness]

Sorry for the delay brother OBW. Been working on this off and on for a couple of days, while working on my well pump. Now that the water is running, and toilets flushing, I can finish it up. Sorry if it's messy.

Your response was well rounded, and appreciated. Thanks.

Originally Posted by OBW

First, there is at least one non-Jew in the writers . . . Luke. But at least part of his writing is repeating of accounts he did not personally observe (accounts provided by Jewish men . . . and maybe Jewish women).

Concerning Luke, we don't know. Some scholars say he was a Greek physician, some that he was a Hellenic Jew, some a god-fearer.

But actually you expose my outlandish claim that all the books of the Bible were written by Jews.

We don't know of the author of what eventually came to be called Luke, nor any of the other gospels. So my claim can't be proven either way.

I don't know why the authors of the NT books, except Paul, didn't put their name to the books, but that's the case. Were they Jews or Greeks? They did write in Koine Greek, if that tells us anything.

Maybe I'd be more accurate if I claimed all the NT writings were Hellenized, and at least greatly Jewish influenced. The OT is certainly quoted plenty, like they had no other references. The Jews claim it as their book.

Originally Posted by OBW

As for asking how the Bible is inspired, there are many who have given much ink to the subject. But too many of them are in the camp that suggests that God somehow moved their hands (or made them speak — in the days when it was oral retelling rather than writing) without altering the general nature of their normal speech. (In other words, he didn't force a farmer to speak with a Harvard-like grasp of language.)

I've mention this before, God couldn't tell them E = mc².

As to God auto-writing, or some such, there are interesting verses in both the NT and OT.

I didn't quote all of Rev. 1:10, that reveals, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet.

And after telling how great he (the voice) is the voice tells John of Patmos : "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;"

That's certainly one way the Bible is inspired. It strikes me as far fetched, but it's there. And it's hard to trust someone writing down what they see.

And examples from the OT.*

Daniel : 2Sa 23:2* "The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue."*

And Ezekiel:

Eze 2:2* "And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me."*

I suppose these are examples of the possible ways the books of the Bible could be inspired : God can put is word on their tongue ; the spirit can enter into them, angels can come down and help. Basically, God animates them.

Originally Posted by OBW

But I think it is not so simple. I realize that Paul's statement was that all scripture was inspired by God. Sometimes that might be little more than a sense to write down what just happened. Or to begin to tell the story of how the family came to be where they are "today." (Abraham, for example, as well as his offspring.) Unless we are to deny the accounts, there are also times when God spoke directly to the "writers." Such as on Mt. Sinai. And to some of the prophets.

There you go, more ways God could inspire the writers.

Originally Posted by OBW

It might be that the inspiration was merely the sense to include one of the observations of what Jesus said or did, and how much detail to include. And the lack of consideration for telling another story. (Luke said there was too much to write.)

However, the gospel books show no signs of divine intervention. Angels didn't appear to the authors, shouting like a trumpet, no claim that He but His word on their tongue, etc.

Originally Posted by OBW

And the result is something "profitable." For teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Not for finding answers to every question ever asked.

Even atheists value Jesus' moral teachings. But like Thomas Jefferson, don't believe the miracles.

Originally Posted by OBW

It is mostly accounts of events (some exceptions). Every word in the account is not necessarily meaningful in the way that those who speak of inerrancy think. It is mostly narrative. The choice of word used was the writer's. A different writer might have recorded it differently. But as narrative, that would be OK.

That would explain the differences in the gospels, and some of their errors.

Originally Posted by OBW

The Bible does not make statements about science. It speaks in the manner (and within the knowledge) of the people who wrote it. If they misunderstood the place of Earth within the universe, it did not correct them. It told of creation in movements, using the terminology of days to separate the movements. The point was God. And that He created. Not that it happened in 6 days (or 6,000 years). Note that in at least one place, God spoke and the earth "brought forth" vegetation. And he said "let the land produce living creatures . . . ." An interesting statement for the One who is said to have created it all.

But since now we know of the formation of new stars, black holes, and all, God must still be creating. And given the expanse, I doubt He's had time for much rest.

Originally Posted by OBW

It provided the teaching in righteousness to change the thinking of the people from slaveholders to outlawing slavery, but did not force the issue.

I've been reading about slavery during the Roman times, it was so pervasive that everyone thought of it as a given. Which explains Paul's ambiguity toward it.

Originally Posted by OBW

Same for many other issues, including the equality of Jews and Gentiles, men and women, and others we have not yet realized.

I think I've already quoted, somewhere, the forgotten creed in Galatians 3:28. But in real everyday life, that creed never played out. Inequality in those days was pervasive.

Originally Posted by OBW

It is the continuing story of God and his people. And we consider the official story now closed. I believe that there is still much story being written. But with no link to God.

True, God is no longer inspiring like in those ancient days.

Originally Posted by OBW

The ones who wrote the 66 are almost entirely those who had very specific encounters with God in some form — covenant/visitation, burning bush, provision of strength, spoken to by God, spent time with Jesus. . . . Those since can make no such claim. That may not make their "story" any less true. But we have less assurance of the faithfulness to be considered "the Word of God."

I guess, God done it, and rested. Then turned to creating more of the universe. The entire universe is continually being inspired by God. And God inspired our early scientists, who opened it up to us.