There are a number of biblical texts that have been rejected by scholars as later additions to the text. This seems to be a legitimate attitude when there is a strong basis for it, such as that the passage is missing from the earliest manuscripts. It's also personally convenient if the passage is theologically controversial or politically incorrect, such as Paul's supposed writings against women speaking in church, or the famous [Johannine Comma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma) . But what if it is a beloved scripture, such as the story of the [Woman Taken in Adultery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery) , which apparently does not start appearing into relatively late in the manuscript tradition. Or, in the case of 1 Cor. 13, what if one becomes convinced that it is not actually a writing of Paul but that a later editor has inserted it. (See [this question](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/99098/is-i-cor-13-an-insertion-by-a-later-editor) for details.) Does the fact that a beloved scripture was not part of the original text mean that it is not holy scripture?

### Background Protestants believe that all scripture is infallible (that it is incapable of error) and that it is inspired by God (that it is God-breathed and the words of God). In 1st Corinthians 7:10-13 (NRSV) Paul gives two commands. In the first command, Paul says that it is "**from the Lord**". In the second command, Paul interestingly says that it comes from himself and "**not [from] the Lord**". > To the married **I give this command—not I but the Lord**—that the wife > should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does separate, let > her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband) and that > the husband should not divorce his wife. > > **To the rest I say—I and not the Lord**—that if any brother has a wife > who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he should not > divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever > and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce the husband. ### Question Do Protestants believe that the command that Paul explicitly says is "not from the Lord" is both infallible and inspired? Is this portion of 1st Corinthians considered scripture by Protestants?

In the Bible, certain individuals are described as having exceptional skill in craftsmanship. For example, **Noah** was able to construct the ark with precise dimensions and structural complexity (Genesis 6:14–16). Later in the Old Testament, **Bezalel** and **Oholiab** are said to have been "filled with the Spirit of God" and given wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and skill in all kinds of craftsmanship to construct the tabernacle and its furnishings (Exodus 31:1–6). This raises an important theological and interpretive question: **Were these abilities supernaturally imparted by God at the moment of calling, or were they natural talents that God chose to use and bless for His purposes?** Additionally, how should we understand the language of "filled with the Spirit of God" in this context—does it imply sudden divine empowerment, or a sanctified use of already existing skills? I'm interested in how various Christian traditions and biblical interpretations understand this dynamic between divine inspiration and human ability.

It is my impression that across denominations that [compatibilism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) is the dominant position and answer to the question of divine sovereignty and human free will. The main alternative is [libertarian free will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)) , which states that humans have totally free wills with no control (or maybe even no influence) by God. (The other alternative to compatibilism is total determinism, but that is not generally considered compatible with Christianity.) When it comes to the Bible, Christians have historically believed that God [inspired the writing of the scriptures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration) , but in a way that left the human author utilising their full creative capabilities. This has been called the "dual authorship" of the scriptures: when we ask who wrote the Bible, we can truly say both its human authors and God. This doctrine fits perfectly with compatibilism; it can be seen as just one particular application of how divine and human wills coexist. So how do those who reject compatibilism explain the inspiration of scripture? Can they also uphold the dual authorship of scripture? Can they uphold the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy/infallibility, or do they say that only when the Biblical authors wrote down a direct divine revelation (such as Habakkuk 2) is the text without flaw?

My question comes in two parts, the second being a direct result of the first. **Is the Bible infallible?** I have often heard that it is, but the most conclusive proof that I have heard essentially states that, since it is inerrant, it must be infallible. This makes no sense as it is inerrancy is necessary due to infallibility, not the other way around. When bringing into question the infallibility of The Bible. I am not asking about The Canon, or the books selected, but rather the actual content of scripture. **If The Bible is not infallible, then on what grounds do we say it is inerrant?** Assuming that The Bible cannot be proven infallible, can we at least say it is inerrant? The Bible certainly is proven legitimate with historical evidence and its teachings are proven true in practice. This points to the conclusion that it is inerrant, but does it conclusively and certainly prove its inerrancy? Is there any way to show that, without a doubt, The Bible is inerrant? **EDIT:** To clarify what I’m asking further, I am defining - **Infallible**: Without ability to err - **Inerrant**: Without error - **The Bible**: The actual, original content of widely accepted Scripture and its meaning My first question can also be examined as a question of Divine Inspiration. Is every word a product of God’s Will?

My pastor mentioned the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit, through man. Where does this concept come from (rather than just written by wise or experienced men)? Other than direct references to Jesus, how do we know the rest is not just man's ideas and are indeed God inspired or "written"? Is there a chapter in the Bible that states this or is it tradition?

When I was researching about the deuterocanon (or the apocrypha, as most Protestants call them) I stumbled upon the notion that God was silent during a period of 400 years between the end of the Old Testament (after the Prophet Malachi) and the beginning of New Testament time (namely the appereance of John the baptist). From a Protestant point of view where the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books are not considered scripture, there is indeed a 400 year gap in revelation -- no prophets, no inspired writings, nothing. From a Catholic, Orthodox and Assyrian Churches, point of view however there is scripture written and inspiration taking place during that period and there is no gap (at least not that long) in Gods revelation. Now, when looking for reasons why christians consider the deuterocanon/apocrypha inspired or not I am sometimes told that those writings originated in a period where God was silent and thus cannot be considered scripture (like here , here or here ). To me this is: 1. A circular argument (apocrypha are not scriptural -> God was silent 400 years -> in those 400 years no inspired scripture was written -> apocrypha are not scriptural) or 2. There must be another reason to believe God was silent for that period. This reason would break the circle in (1) and make the stated argument valid. **My Question: What biblical basis give adherents of a large time of Gods silence between the Prophet Malachi and John the Baptist beside the (perceived) fact of missing inspired scripture in that period?** A best answer could simply cite the prophet X in saying: "Listen, God will be silent for 400 years before the fulfillment of time." and then stating that this fulfillment of time has come with Christ. But there may be more to say to that matter ...

Simple question: What are the best arguments for the divine inspiration of the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), according to believers in its inspiration? These are examples of articles presenting arguments *against* Mark 16:9-20's inspiration: - [Why I Will Not Be Preaching the Longer Ending of Mark](https://g3min.org/longer-ending-mark/) - [Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?](https://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html) Answers rebutting these articles will be highly appreciated. ____ A related question illustrating why the question about inspiration is important: [Are the signs mentioned in Mark 16:17-18 universally expected of all true believers?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/59009/38524)

I was recently reading Hebrews 3:7 and was struck by how remarkble it is that the author attributes Psalm 95 directly to the Holy Spirit. Similarly, Hebrews 1 attributes many other OT passages to God directly. And most famously, 2nd Timothy 3:16 says that all Scripture (presumably referring to the OT) is "God-breathed". Modern Christians (including myself) of most denominations would be perfectly comfortable saying similar things of the NT, either that it is divinely inspired or quoting it as "the Holy Spirit says..." **I am wondering, when was this belief in divine inspiration of the NT explicitly stated?** To be clear what I mean by "explicit", I am not referring to the inference that might be made from 2nd Peter 3:16 and 1st Timothy 5:18 calling other parts of the NT "Scripture". I am also not referring to the belief that the quotations of Jesus are spoken by God, as that would be an affirmation of his divinity (or at the very least, his status as a prophet) and not of the divine origin of the Bible itself. I am looking for some instance where a Christian writer expressly says that some part of the New Testament was spoken by God or the Holy Spirit, when (in context) it is not a quotation from God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. Something akin to the example either of Hebrews 3:7 with a specific statement, or 2nd Timothy 3:16 with a blanket declaration of divine origin and authority for some or all of the NT. ***Edit in response to some confusion:*** This is a historical question, not a theological question. I am not asking *whether* the NT is inspired, nor am I asking what in the NT leads the reader to believe that, but rather I am asking when (that we have direct evidence of) this inspiration was first recognized.

What is the doctrine in the Eastern Orthodox Church related to non-Eastern Orthodox Christians having personal spiritual experiences? Do Eastern Orthodox Christians believe people not of their faith can experience God's spirit in a positive/uplifting way? Or is any spiritual experience of a non-Orthodox immediately suspected of prelest?

The New Testament makes several references to "Scripture" or "the word of God", but without specifying a concrete canon: | Passage (ESV) | Content | | - | - | | Acts 17:11 | Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining **the Scriptures** daily to see if these things were so. | | 2 Timothy 3:16-17 | 16 **All Scripture** is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.| | 2 Peter 1:20-21 | 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of **Scripture** comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. | | Hebrews 4:12 | For **the word of God** is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. | How do Latter-day Saints decide whether a given manuscript (or a copy of a manuscript) should be considered "Scripture," and how does this approach contrast with that of other faiths like Catholicism and Protestantism? Furthermore, considering the divergences in canon determination among different traditions, what are the merits of the Latter-day Saint method? What critiques can be leveled against the processes followed by other traditions, and what makes the Latter-day Saint method of canon determination preferable? --- See also: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101393/61679

If God can preserve an inerrant Bible despite the fallibility of the humans who transmitted it, shouldn't He also be able to ensure an inerrant interpretation of that Bible despite human fallibility? Yet, disagreements on interpretation persist among Biblical inerrantists. After all, we only have access to our understanding of the text, not the text itself. So, what's the point of presupposing that we have an inerrant manuscript if its interpretation is prone to error? Take, for instance, the dispute between Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists over Genesis 1-11. Why presuppose the inerrancy of Genesis if interpretations are likely to be flawed? Similarly, consider debates about miracles, like [whether we should expect miracles from God or only those of Satan in the end times](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100994/61679) . Or the debate between cessationists and continuationists on the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13. Or disputes over how to interpret certain writings from Paul, with implications on the role of women in ministry. What's the use of assuming textual inerrancy if most interpretations are bound to be fallible and ambiguous anyway? How do Biblical inerrantists make sense of this prevalent phenomenon of exegetical disagreements? According to Biblical inerrantists, why hasn't the God who inspired an inerrant Bible also inspired an inerrant interpretation thereof?

This question (and two related sub-questions) is directed towards **those who believe that the Bible is inspired but not inerrant**. I understand inerrant to simply mean "without error". "Inspired" tends to have more nuances in it's meaning and so a valid answer should include a short definitional statement describing "inspired" as well as one regarding "inerrant" if it is taken differently. If the Bible is not inerrant, i.e. if it contains errors, and yet is inspired by God does this not mean that the errors are inspired? 1) How and why would God inspire error without being deceptive or fallible? 2) Without an inspired and inerrant listing of Biblical error, how can one reliably discern Biblical error and should one make the effort if the error is inspired?

During Religious Ed. last night the review book had a question that we didn't see explained in the text (using [Faith and Life Series](http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/faithandlife/index.htm) for 7th Grade). It asked, "what part of scripture was not inspired?" The kids were like, "um, Judas?" and I thought that was a good answer, but said we do learn a thing or two from him. The answer key however, said "the literary style" is not inspired. I did not understand this and couldn't explain it to the kids. I just told them, the fact that some of it is poetry and some of it isn't is not in it self inspired. I can't for the life of me see how this tidbit will help them to understand the Bible or even how thinking that a poem can be inspired in and of itself. What does it mean that the literary style is not inspired and why is it not inspired? This is asked from a Catholic perspective, but I think any tradition that doesn't hold that the literary style was in fact inspired (whatever that means) could help me answer this question.

I understand the inspiration concept, but I don't understand how to consider a quote if it's inspired from God [then we consider it God's Words], or if it explanations by the the apostle or prophet? Is there any verse in the Bible says that the whole Bible is inspired, and not absolute-human-talk?

Is it not true that the place of this book in the Jewish bible was not established until sometime in the early Christian era? If that is so, is it not presumptuous to deem it as being among the so-called "Writings" and so equate it with Ecclesiastes, Job, Proverbs and Psalms? Is it not an incoherent erotic poem? What is inspired about that?

Catholics, Orthodox, and other denominations hold that the definitions produced by accepted ecumenical councils are protected from error by the Holy Spirit. What is the manner of this inspiration? Does that mean these definitions should be treated with the same authority and reverence as accorded for Scripture?

A. The Bible is the Word of God.
(means, all the words we read are the Words of God) B. The Bible contains the Word of God.
(means, not all the words we read are the Words of God) C. other than A and B.
---------- Example :
> I decided that while I was with you I would forget everything except > Jesus Christ, the one who was crucified The speaker is human, the Apostle.
The question is : *are those words above the words of God ?*
To me, the answer is no. Those words are the words of human not the words of God. If I say that those words are the words of God, ---> then (X) the "I" in those words means God himself ----> Then (Y) it become : *through the mouth of the Apostle, God tell the hearers/readers that He (capital H) decided while He was with them, He would forget everything except His Second Person of His Trinity, the one who was crucified.* Because X and Y to me feel awkward, I conclude [not all the words we read in the Bible are the Words of God]. Then it's B. But this is only my own logic. That's why I would like to know :
*according to the ELCA is it A ? B ? or C?*
If C, what is it ? Thank you.

Inspired by [my previous question on the divine inspiration of the Bible](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83868/what-are-the-strongest-arguments-for-the-belief-that-the-bible-was-supernaturall) , I would like to ask a similar question on the Book of Mormon: According to Latter-day Saints, what are the strongest apologetic arguments for the divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon? What evidence do we have to be confident that the Book of Mormon was supernaturally inspired by God? *Note: the counterpart question can be found at [What are scholarly objections to the divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83906/50422)* _____ Related - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-believing-in-the-book-of-mormon - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89274/50422

I heard that some of the Church Fathers referred to the Gospels using terminology which indicates maybe they didn't think they were "inspired". Is there any statement by one of them that indicates that they thought of the Gospels as just writings that were not inspired?