PROBLEM #3: 'WHICH' WORDS ARE THE WORDS OF GOD??
If you read the Christian tradition, the Bible is truly from the hand of God. 'Every single word' has long been the faith.
Ok. Well, there's some logical problems with that innocent statement. 'Every single word' meaning every single hebrew word, aramaic word, greek word, latin word or just the vernacular ('our' word)? Let's be honest here. Each of these languages do have differing words. So, let's answer this with 'every single word in the original language'. OK. Now here's where the problem gets a bit messier. WHICH manuscript? Believe it or not, there's hundreds of really old manuscripts of all or parts of the Bible. Which one? So, let's answer this one with 'every single word in the original language of the original manuscript'. OK. Now, the issue becomes a theological one. Does 'someone' ... HAVE this 'original manuscript' or the 'real' word of God?
ART! Sedona used to be known as an 'artist colony' and it still values its art. Pick your favorite and you will be delighted, both here and nearby Jerome.Imagine for a moment a bunch of older white-haired men (mostly). Sitting in a room in England (for example), chit-chatting about (a) which manuscript to use and (b) what is the equivalent translation into (english, german, french, ... pick one). Discussing nuances in other passages. And the comments of early 'church fathers'. And arguing, sometimes quite noisily.
That, my friend, is the reality of 'every single word divinely inspired'.
So, maybe 'every single word' should be 'the meaning of every single word'? That would make us a little 'less' conservative. Indeed even 'liberal'. Because ... once you leave a 'word' and move to a 'meaning', you have just entered the land of unending 'discussions'. "What DID he really mean???". Oh, if we only knew! And thus ...
There IS a solution. 'Almost' all the variations in the original languages don't amount to any significant theological shift in meaning. I say almost. But overall , the differences are mainly 'copying' differences (looks like). And 'explanation' differences (scribes adding short explanations. Actually, some of the 'explanations' might have started out as margin notes which got copied into the text itself). Sooo ... maybe having the 'exact' word of God isn't that critical?
Some people have a real problem with this alternative. It 'implies' that God isn't really 'in charge' of the Bible. God plus all those little changes. But in my mind, that presumes you know God. Met him last Thursday at the diner? Or maybe your insistance on the exactness of all these little words is your insistance .. not his? Frankly I haven't a clue. The manuscripts certainly have a lot of variations (more than there's words in the Bible). But I also know that modern folks do indeed insist on exactness. It's in our culture. We love it (actually mainly men). So, who knows? We'll research this issue a little later.
BY GOD HIMSELF!
PROBLEM #4: WHERE'D THE BIBLE ACTUALLY COME FROM?
Actually the problem of 'inspiration' is not just the specific words of God. It's also the 'books' of the Bible.
WHERE did all those books COME from. How do we KNOW they're from God? No UPS receipt, mind you. And those early writers couldn't swear on a pile of Bibles, could they?
If you've spent much time teaching Christianity, here's where you're going to have a real problem with this issue. Because you really don't KNOW. I don't KNOW.
If you track back, we are mostly dealing with generations of believers. The earliest Christian witnesses we have are about 150 years AFTER the books were written. Think back 150 years ... hmmm ... that would be ... 1850 or so. Who wrote 'Charge of the Light Brigade'? You DO remember, don't you? But who inspired Henry to write 'Charge of the Light Brigade'? Ah, now you have a problem. You need some local 'witnesses' to attest about Henry.
In the case of the Bible, you are mainly dealing with jewish traditions (the Old Testament) and local Christian traditions (the New Testament). In the latter case, there were lists (varying lists, but mainly the same lists) from the 2nd and 3rd centuries of 'ok-books'. Indeed we read of bishops (church leaders) who instructed their congregations on the ok-books (which presumes not-ok books). So maybe your trust is in those bishops. At least absent some more discoveries, that's where we're at. Some bishops you've never heard of. And absent anything else, those bishops are your witnesses.
As a Christian leader, you'll likely switch to 'consistency of the message'. If not the provability of the books, then what's in the books. But that's a bit of a slippery slope. Theology proving the message of theology. Hmmm. If you read the religious press, that's exactly what much of the discussion is about. They even assign words to all the various relationships and theological constructions, so they can keep track of who's where. Very similar to a merry-go-round, with some of the writers falling off periodically (and younger ones getting on).
You'd really like a 'comfort zone', right?