This is not a new theory, but it doesn't seem to be well known among many people (Christians or non).
Its called the dynamic inspiration. Dynamic inspiration says that the Word of God was revealed to men throughout history. Those men wrote down their experiences/observations in their own words in the scriptures, just like you or I would write down something.
The alternative view is called the plenary view. It says that the Bible itself is the Word of God and therefore every word has to be inerrant.
I'm a Christian who believes in the dynamic view. What's fascinating to me about the dynamic view is that if one just takes the Bible and reads it from a historian's perspective, one can't explain its claims away.
For example, you have four writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke & John who all write about Jesus's life ministry. They all agree that He performed miracles, even resurrected from the dead. They agree on the essentials of His teachings, they just differ on details that are inconsequential (details like whether or not Jesus told the Disciples to take money bag and cloaks with them when they went out two by two).
This (along with the witness of the other books of the New Testament) is enough for the object observer to NOT be able to conclude that the Bible is a product of a grand conspiracy. After all, the writer's gained neither power or money from their claims. In fact they were mostly martyred.
And one can't claim that the author's were delusional because delusions don't hit collectively and in sync with one another to such a degree of specificity.
The burden of proof, as I see it, is for a nonbeliever to try and explain away the text.
What was the motive of the writers? Why DOES the Bible exist?
I've never heard a nonbeliever give a credible alternative. The best that I've heard is that the church (which didn't even come into power until Constantine) wrote it as a justification for their power. But if that was the case, given that this church was what we would call Catholic, why was one central hallmark of the Protestant reformation the fact that this church would seemingly discourage your average lay person from even reading the Bible?
This Divine inspiration thing is a distracting red herring. Believing it to be the words of men is enough for me to believe in Christ and His teachings. And yes, I believe in the Word of God. But I believe that when the Bible speaks of the Word of God (ex: Psalm 119:105 "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet") it is not talking about the scriptures, but rather God's word as He has revealed it to men. We can SEE this in the scriptures but that's different than them BEING the Word of God.
I can even see this idea in the words of Jesus. Notice in the Gospels, that He will often say, "Did not Moses write?" Why wouldn't He instead say, "Didn't God say?" if He held to the plenary view.
BTW, for more information on dynamic vs. plenary inspiration, check out this link:
Error 404 - Not Found
Edited by gregrjones, : No reason given.
Edited by gregrjones, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
