Is the Bible the Inspired Word of God?

It has been asserted by great a many Christians, particularly of the inerrantist variety, that it is so. Whether or not it is, historian and Bible scholar, Bart Ehrman offers some insightful thoughts on the question. The following quotes are taken from the introduction section of his book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible and Why, which I am still currently reading at the time of this writing.

From page 6:

On a deeper level, however, the experience of learning Greek became a bit troubling for me and my view of scripture. I came to see early on that the full meaning and nuance of the Greek text of the New Testament could be grasped only when it is read and studied in the original language (the same thing applies to the Old Testament, as I later learned when I acquired Hebrew).

This to me is a fair observation. It has been heard time and again that the Bible is God’s “love letter” (or simply message) to mankind. But if the full extent, force, profoundity, and meaning of God’s message is not accessible to the common folk…

From page 7:

If the full meaning of the words of scripture can be grasped only by studying them in Greek (and Hebrew), doesn’t this mean that most Christians, who don’t read ancient languages, will never have complete access to what God wants them to know? And doesn’t this make the doctrine of inspiration a doctrine only for the scholarly elite, who have the intellectual skills and leisure to learn the languages and study the texts by reading them in the original? What good does it do to say that the words are inspired by God if most people have absolutely no access to these words, but only to more or less clumsy renderings of these words into a language, such as English, that has nothing to do with the original words?

I would have to agree. But it can also be argued that, perhaps, God’s “main point” is still ultimately accessible to the common man, this being how to be saved and the portrayal of God’s love for humanity (Disputable, yes, but let us set that aside for the moment). But still, the common man is only getting a portion, no matter how large it may be, of the full essence of God’s message. Does it take one to be wealthy and intellectually capable to be “worthy” of being able to completely grasp the goodness of God’s word in its enriching original fullness? Unless God wants parts of his message to be cryptically hidden to the average person, but why would He? Sure, we can study the scriptures in its original parlance, but again not everyone has the intellectual prowess and financial means to do so.

Hebrews 4:12 (RSV)
“Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.“

But I guess we would never know the life and sharpness of God’s words to its full extent nor the full potency of it which “divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow” and “is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Those veiled intended meaning by God will be lost to us, laypersons.

Some may argue that those “hidden” meanings are insignificant. I disagree as, often, the “apparent” meaning of certain passages actually changes when you analyze it in its original language form. But even disregarding this objection aside, it is still God’s word, and every word of Him is purportedly “living and active” and this includes the clandestined ones. We are going to simply miss a lot.

Furthermore Bart Ehrman reinforces this point:

From Page 11:

If one wants to insist that God inspired the very words of scripture, what would be the point if we don’t have the very words of scripture? In some places, as we will see, we simply cannot be sure that we have reconstructed the original text accurately. It’s a bit hard to know what the words of the Bible mean if we don’t even know what the words are!

The statement, “we simply cannot be sure that we have reconstructed the original text accurately” remains to be seen for I have not yet finished the book. But if there are indeed cases in some parts of the Bible where we do not even know what the words actually are, then this is indeed detrimental to the supposed plenary nature of the Bible. And besides, one would wonder why God failed to preserve his words in its full unadulterated, uncorrupted form. Of course it could be argued that, perhaps, what we currently have today are the only ones which are inspired. These “inconstructible” words were deliberately muddled by God as He deem it to be uninspired and not to be included among his set of inspired words. They were rendered inaccessible and irreparable for a reason you know. Ad hoc I know, but remains possible nonetheless.

Mmmmm. And the “lost” meaning, hidden in the nuances of the Greek, which the masses have no easy access to, could also be not inspired. So only the interpreted meaning which the English translations are able to convey from the original, is inspired instead of the autographs (original manuscripts) in its original, less ambiguous (at least for the Greek speaking world of the Greco-Roman era) language? Highly unlikely for any inerrantists to accept this alternative.

It could also be that both are inspired in the sense that each of them has their own special use and unique purpose. The manuscripts of antiquity are especially inspired by God for the ancients as the current English versions are particularly inspired for the modern crowd. Indeed one could assume possibilities all day long.

Of course it remains to be considered those passages that are constructible but nevertheless still in dispute on whether they should be lumped together with the Bible or not. Should we automatically include them by default since God did not seem to deliberately made these debatable passages “inconstructible”? Even the inerrantists disagree among themselves concerning this matter.

Continued from Page 11:

This became a problem for my view of inspiration, for I came to realize that it would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place. If he wanted his people to have his words, surely he would have given them to them (and possibly even given them the words in a language they could understand, rather than Greek and Hebrew). The fact that we don’t have the words surely must show, I reasoned, that he did not preserve them for us. And if he didn’t perform that miracle, there seemed to be no reason to think that he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring those words.

Indeed. Why not just give the words in a language that each one of us could understand, rather than just Greek and Hebrew (the latter, interestingly and worth noting, being a dead language already)? This way, everyone would have equal chance to experience God’s words in its full, complete, and maximal power.

Well, perhaps, the deeper meaning of God’s words hidden in the nuances of the archaic languages, though hardly accessible now to the masses, will be ultimately revealed and explained to them in the afterlife by God Himself. Meanings which are otherwise concealed to us in this earthly life.

And, of course, another nagging alternative exists. The Bible is simply a human book. Conceived and produced by human authors who lived in different times and each influenced, affected, and even “inspired” by the varying socio-economic-political conditions, philosophical ideas, religious themes and cultural thought prevalent during the time each of them began writing each fragment of what we now collectively and holistically known as, the Bible.

Regardless, I agree with Bart Ehrman on how we should properly understand the Bible.

From Page 12:

Many of these authors no doubt felt they were inspired by God to say what they did, but they had their own perspectives, their own beliefs, their own views, their own needs, their own desires, their own understandings, desires, understandings, and theologies informed everything they said. In all these ways they differed from one another. Among other things, this meant that Mark did not say the same thing that Luke said because he didn’t mean the same thing as Luke. John is different from Matthew — not the same. Paul is different from Acts. And James is different from Paul. Each author is a human author and needs to be read for what he (assuming they were all men) has to say, not assuming that what he says is the same, or conformable to, or consistent with what every other author has to say.

Treat each book in the Bible in its own right for they are usually distinct, separated, and independent from one another. Unless given a good reason to connect one to another, forcing and assuming harmony among the different books in the Bible as if they are one unified whole will lead one to unnecessary mental gymnastics, and creative (in many cases, absurd) rationalizations and harmonizations of its resulting contradictions arising from its presupposed harmony.