Talk:Biblical inspiration

message: The article should more overtly point out the logic or lack thereof of "the Bible is the inspired word of God and the evidence for this is that the Bible says it is". The logic behind the arguements for Bible inspiration should be more clear and discussed critically so that people can be more informed as to their decision to base their life on such logic.Pacojam 
Hello all. I think the inspiration article looks very good. It inspired me to tryto cleanup the inerrency article.. which I started with clear definitions of the above terms. If youhave it in you, please drop by and help me clean it up. Any help to that page from you would bemost appreciated.--DjSamwise 01:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inspiration vs infallibillity vs inerrency

message: What does the Catholic view say about the manuscript traditions? Is the Bible inspired only in its original autographa (as per the Evangelical view), or is the transmission of that document also assured in Catholic doctrine? If the latter, is it only inspired in the manuscripts incorporated into the Vulgate? This sort of thing should be dealt with briefly in the Catholic section. (Note that I deleted the bit about circularity since we're talking here about the doctrine of inspiration proper, not sola scriptura or presuppositional apologetics.) --Flex 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic view

message: Hello, soon I am going to edit the Evangelical view section to reflect (with sources) the general concensus the self proclaimed evangelical leaders came up with as documented in the Chicago statement. I think it will be more precise and accurate as to what they teach.. Peace. --Home Computer 15:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary sources are good. Go for it! Some references to Warfield would also be apropos, as he is one of the most famous defenders of the doctrine. --Flex 18:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the lead.. unfortunately I am getting really burnt out. I took on more than I could chew at Bible. I'm probably going to take a break for a whil but when I come back this will be a focus point. Also, Giesler and Nix have a ton of respected material on the matter and I've allready got the links written so I'll be using some of that. Peace. --Home Computer 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's shockingly simplistic that there is a section on "The" Evangelical view, as though there were only one. GPeoples (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on Protestant views is totally inadequate. I can't change it at this moment, but I want to post notice that I intend to do some major rewriting. I'd rather talk about it here than have an edit war.::::Atterlep (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Evangelical view

message: Thank you for this article.  Is there a precedent to consider the Commandments of God and the words of Jesus (as recorded by others) to be (obviously) divinely inspired scripture, but to view "The Bible" as a collection of writings which was later approved by the early Catholic Church?  Is there a term for this view (other than perhaps the politically charged term "Red Letter Christian")?  I am not trying to sell anything here, just asking if there is another theory of Biblical Inspiration. Repentance 16:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this section to the bottom of this page per WP:TPG#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages: new sections should be at the bottom. As for your question, there are certainly a number of precedents. The Jefferson Bible tried to separate the true sayings of Jesus from the false ones, Bultmann demythologizes the Bible to remove the husk and locate the true teachings of Jesus, and, less radically, the antilegomena are a collection of NT books that have at divers times and by various eminent Christians (e.g., Luther) been considered of secondary value in the canon. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. Repentance 19:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scripture vs "The Bible"

message: I asked User:PiCo to explan this edit deleting the Catholic view. PiCo replied: 
:The piece that I deleted is quoting as its source the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, from Leo XIII, 1893. (There's a boxed quote also from Vatican I, but the primary quote is Providentissimus Deus). This represents a period in Church history when Leo was attempting to reject all modernity - you'll recall the famous quote to the effect that the Church has no need to accommodate itself to the modern world. The Church never directly disavows any encyclical, but it can come awfully close. It did this in 1943 with the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII, which effectively reversed Leo's directives on the subject of biblical scholarship and, inevitably, biblical inspiration. Divino Afflante says in effect that the bible has many authors and that Catholic scholars should study the times in which they lived and the context in which they wrote - a far cry from Prov.'s insistence on the purely divine origins of scripture. As I mention, the Vatican never expressly contradicts earlier pronouncements, and so the language of Afflante is a little obscure - it speaks of "the biblical author," for example, leaving open the possibility that there is but one author - but in the context of the times (1943) it was clearly intended as a move beyond Leo's obscurantism. So far as I know, there's been no subsequent encyclical on the subject, and Afflenate represents the Church's current stance on the issue. (You're free to revert my deletion if you wish, I don't want to get involved in an edit war over this minor matter) PiCo (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic view redux

message: I am going to "be bold" and rewrite some of the first paragraph in the section "Views of the doctrine". First of all, I am putting a new header for this paragraph, namely "2 Timothy 3:16", as it seems to be exclusively about this text. Secondly, I am (in my opinion) making some of the language more objective. And, finally, I'm adding a few links to the English versions mentioned, and giving an additional reference backing up the "conservative" view. Please let me know what you think about this. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views of the doctrine 

message: I've skimmed through Dodd's book for the page numbers for the three citations given, but have only found one of them, which I've added with an Rp template. Could someone supply the missing page numbers? TomS TDotO (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations to Dodd 

message: This 2006 revision  looks better at first glance than the latest. The lead is direct and objective, rather than waffling and apparently rich with original research. The body is better structured and lists primary sources less. The current section on the "inspiration" etymology actually fails to initially explain what it is talking about, unlike that randomly selected old revision. What happened? Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert? 

message: Substituted at 09:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Biblical inspiration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212170522/http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jan1975/v31-4-article2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050405231834/http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwauthority.htm to http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwauthority.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204093809/http://www.aomin.org/THEOPNEU.html to http://www.aomin.org/THEOPNEU.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I recently added a bit to the Protestant subsection under the Views section. I left the original single paragraph unedited, but it certainly needs work. The first and only paragraph about Luther and Calvin’s views relies entirely on 19th century works by Frederic Farrar. Although I am not familiar with Ferrar or his works, but his assessment that Luther believed that “the acual writing was a human not a supernatural act” is contrary to Luther’s own statements. I will find the sources for this later, but Luther wrote, “The Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, written and (as I might say) spelled out and set forth in letters, just as Christ is the eternal Word of God veiled in human nature.” Later, he also wrote, “... You are so to deal with the Scriptures that you bear in mind that God Himself is saying this...” 
I will look for sources regarding Calvin’s statements as well, and I will work on the changes needed for this article. I’ll read through Ferrar’s works, but they seem to be incorrect. I felt I should give my reasons for greater changes here beforehand, so anyone can agree or object before or after changes are made. Thanks. Samfoe (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protestant Views 

message: I have the impression that this may not be a reliable source.  I suggest if possible to instead cite scholar books or other encyclopedias with peer review.  It may possibly be usable as a primary source for Baptist-specific material.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. My aim was more toward updating the '92 Lea & Griffin and '87 Myers sources, but I agree this website is not the best by any means.  Samfoe (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  baptistbiblehour.org 

message: Tge current section titles Criticism quotes C. H. Dodd which affirms "There is indeed no question about the original implications of the term: for primitive religious thought the "inspired" person was under the control of a supernatural influence which inhibited the use of his normal faculties."
This statement is an original opinion with its encyclopedic relevance, but it is completely POV. No other sources are quoted about that. Christians believe the Evengelists talked personally and directly with God, but without loosing their humanity: on the contrary, while writing in their natural Greek spoken language, they confirm to be inspired without being "controlled" or possessed from God against their human freedom. They freely choose to serve Him and did so not only with their hands but also by way of their minds.
Probably, we have to find another more traditional source saying that divine inspiration is perfectly compatible with the human freedom and intellect. This is also what in a different way is believed to be true and possibile by the Muslims which affirm the Quran was inspired to Muhammad by the Archangel Michael.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" - C. H. Dodd 

message: I added the MOS and original research boxes because this article is rather a mess. The first section should be deleted outright, but I've left it for someone else to do that. The problems there (completely original research, poor/no citations, etc.) continue throughout the rest of the text. Overall this is scarcely an article and more of a blog post atm. (PS, looks like this article has been in this poor state for 10-15 years. Lol.) Qwo (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your work on this article. I haven't reviewed most of your edits, but the ones I have looked at seem like certain improvements. I continue to see OR issues; the first example being the 'Writers' internal claims' section. All biblical interpretation should be done by reliable, secondary sources and not us editors. In general, we should see far less biblegateway links and far more citations to scholars. Speaking of links, WP:EL suggests that we shouldn't be seeing external links in the body. If a bible quote is helpful, it should probably be cited with a commonly-used footnote style, enclosed in <ref> tags. You may want to use a highly-rated WP:WikiProject Bible article like Gospel of John as a guide. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

text: I've restored the MOS and original research boxes because I think there's still some improvement to hope for; in particular, criticisms from as fsr back as 2009 (or earlier, see above on this page) still stand and the whole article remains disjointed. The article might benefit from a large section dedicated to discussing biblical inspiration in broadest possible and academic terms. As of now, the article is just a sequence of disassociated viewpoints. I think the boxes help highlight for casual readers and editors alike that the whole article isn't up to the standards of other religious studies articles. I'll leave it to more seasoned editors or topic experts to make the final determination. Hopefully over time the boxes will attract attention, even if it takes another 10-15 years lol. Qwo (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

text: If you have an issue with my conduct, I suggest you follow the conduct dispute policy. As for this article, if you have any reliable sources that support the claims made in the proposed Basis section, please cite them. Merely citing bible verses and then interpreting them is textbook OR. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mess 

message: ____________are not passive secretaries or stenographers they writ freely as they utilized their abilities but they inspired by the holy spirit that their  writings may conform to the revelation of God 120.28.189.245 (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian living 

message: There is a basis section that keeps on getting re-added that is neither on point nor properly cited. This section seems to have been written in a highly unprofessional / non-scholarly manner and reads more like a blog post from a website from the fringe. I wonder if this article needs to be locked. 173.72.130.245 (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing it out. I'll try and keep a closer eye out for re-addition. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 08:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basis Section 

message: The redirect Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Veverve (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]