Let’s take a good hard look at it all.

Many folks would probably just shrug, when asked such a question. They believe in the Bible, because they believe in the Bible, and they never really thought all that much about it... they probably don't read the "boring" or "hard" parts anyway! However, is mere habit a good enough, logical enough reason? In addition, what does that imply for the basis of understanding what one reads in the Bible? "I believe what I believe because that's what I believe" is hardly a basis for interpretation.

Some folks might then say, "but I believe the Bible because it stirs me. It is inspiring. I instinctively understand it's message because of how I feel when I read it..." - I am sorry.... Some bits really are boring... the "begats" come quickly enough to mind! Some parts are dry as a bone sitting in the desert sun, bare military reports in archaic language... not "moving" at all. That it is "inspiring" in places is not a doubt, but there are millions of secular books that can move the spirit, and light a fire in the soul as well. Inspiring, moving, even meaningful message, is not a good measure, then.

Martin Luther had a test of the inspired nature of the different books of the Bible. He believed that those that "had the power" to bring men to the assurance of forgiveness through Christ were inspired. Yet he never explained how once could be definitively certain, for all believers, that this would be true.

John Calvin had a test as well, very similar to that of many today. He wrote in his Institutes, "The word will never gain credit in the hearts of men till it be confirmed by the internal testimony of the Spirit". In other words, relying on subjective feelings. By that rule, the Chronicles of Narnia should be considered Scripture, and 1 and 2 Chronicles, or most of the book of Numbers, should not!

Ok, then, what about the Bible itself? What does it say about itself? Some will exclaim now, "But the Bible itself says it is the sole rule of faith!"

John 5:39 – "You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf".

Taken out of context, one might think that they were being exhorted to comb the Scriptures to prove every Christian truth. However, taken within context, actually, the message is quite different. Jesus was actually rebuking those that didn’t believe in him, and pointing out that their searching of Scripture was, in fact pointless, since they will not come to Him, to have life, that is believe in Him, to have eternal life.

Others will cite Acts 17:11 – "… for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so. "

This verse describes what many do today. In context we can see that the Bereans, the people being spoken of, had heard orally the Word of Christ, and were checking against the Old Testament to see if its claims were true. Finding that what they had heard agreed with the Old Testament, they were happy, and became believers. This verse does not at all mean one should use the Bible as a kind of glorified checklist for all Christian doctrine. If that were so, then the Old Testament alone would be sufficient, the New Testament would be unnecessary!

What the Bible actually DOES say about itself, is that it does not, in fact cannot contain all Christian truths. "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

Logically, that would mean there must be some other source for Jesus' teaching. What does the Bible identify as this other source?

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

"Word of mouth", that is, spoken orally. Given straight from the pulpit, by an authority. We will look at the origin of that authority in a moment. Jesus didn't pass out books and tell people to read. No where does the Bible say that the blind and illiterate (or uneducated) are doomed to hell because they do not read the Bible.

Until the development of an educated middle class and the invention of the printing press, the vast majority of people were illiterate and didn't make enough money to purchase books of any kind (before the printing press, books were laboriously copied entirely by hand). So, the Scriptures were (and still are) read from and preached in the Mass. In this manner, no one is ever excluded from the faith - not the poor, not the illiterate, not the uneducated, not even the blind. This is one facet of the Church being "Catholic" (universal).

In fact, there is one Scripture that emphatically states that an interpreter, and authoritative teacher is desperately necessary. So much so, in fact, that the Lord sent an angel to ensure it! We read in Acts, Chapter 8: 26 - 31

In no place does a writer actually literally claim that the Holy Spirit told them to write down anything, except in Revelations. And since it was a dream, that makes perfect sense. I do the same thing, if I want to remember a dream for more than an hour...

Even if every single solitary book began with the notice that "This is an inspired book" - that would hardly be valid reason to think it truly inspired. The Koran does exactly that. So does the Book of Mormon, the writings of the Christian Scientists, and many eastern religions. Simply stating and laying claim of divine inspiration is no guarantee of its validity.

If you begin with the basic assumption, as most who think this way do, that the Bible is inspired, then using circular reasoning, upon reading it, they find things in the Bible that seem to support inspiration. In an oroborotic fashion, it then, the head swallowing the tail, it "proves" itself to them. (Which they knew anyway)

Like the paranoid, who we all joke about... who finds conspiracy wherever he looks... if you've already decided it's there, you'll find it. However, basic concepts of logic indicate that you cannot use an object to define itself. Using the definition to define the word is no definition. It doesn't work. Circular logic is no logic at all.

So, most folks say, the Holy Spirit tells me. How is one to truly, and without a shadow of a doubt, going to be able to separate that out from one's own thoughts and fancies, dreams and wishes, personal experiences, cultural biases, outright delusions and preconceived ideas? They claim the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Yet, if the Holy Spirit truly were each believer’s personal guide, then each would understand the same things from any particular verse, since God, that is the Holy Spirit, cannot teach error. Personal experience alone will show that such is not the case. It is clear that with all the arguing that goes on, the Holy Spirit is, in fact, not enlightening each individual believer and the sacred texts cannot be interpreted individually.

The Bible as History, and other ideas –

My Church, the Catholic Church, however, takes a different stance towards the Bible, which, by the way, we DO hold to be inspired. We take this stance towards ANY miracle, in fact. Well, lay aside your preconceived ideas about my church. Let's just use a little logic, shall we? Using logic and starting from the assumption that it is NOT divine in origin, so we cannot be accused of finding what we expect to find, let us first approach the Bible as any other ancient literary work.

Then, from textual criticism and historical verification we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient document. In other words, we can be more certain of the Bible than we can be of the works of Plato, Virgil, Ovid, Socrates, or any other ancient writer. From simply the actual manuscripts themselves, we have the beginnings of veracity.

You may be shocked to learn that many of the ancient authors that we take for granted have no existing copies of their works closer to their own times than approximately 500 years after they died. We not only have documents pertaining to the Bible that are far closer in time to the time of Christ, but documents that pertain to the oldest books of the Bible that are far more ancient than any existing copy of any other ancient text. And, in addition, there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, and other languages. We therefore can be sure that we have an accurate text, and we can work from it in confidence.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history book, tells us. It has been shown repeatedly, from archeological evidence, that the Bible is accurate in its history. Then, of course, there is the New Testament, which is even easier to verify. The times and events are documented from numerous external sources. Romans were fanatics about keeping records. We know for a certainty that there was a Roman census, just as the Bible reports. We know of King Herod, and of Pontius Pilot. Nevertheless, many will say, there is not one document, aside from the "histories" of Josepheus, which speaks of Jesus. And many claim that Josepheus was not reliable. Well... let's take a look at that then... Why would someone believe in Jesus?

Basically, using what we know of human nature, we must conclude that Jesus was just what He claimed to be--God--or He was crazy. (The one thing we know He could not have been was merely a "good man" who was not God, because no merely good man would make the claims He made.)

We are able to eliminate his being an insane lunatic not just from what He said -- since no lunatic ever spoke as He did, nor for that matter, did any sane man... but also, from the evidence of his followers. So, now we speak of basic human behavior.

There is a good deal of evidence, external to the Bible that the Jews of the time were under the rather annoying bedevilment of many a "false prophet". Many wandered the fringes, begging and claiming prophecy, and just before Jesus was on the scene, there had been several other "messiahs". Why then, would He be believed?

Also from extra biblical sources, it is clear that the coming of the Redeemer was indeed looked for, but that many, if not most, mistakenly thought He would be a temporal leader, a warrior, like David, who would destroy their enemies like Moses. Why then would a man who taught peace and love be believed?

Simon Magus had a loyal following. They thought He worked many miracles. We know that many a miracle was actually worked by many a man of that time, including the Apostles, but they did not proclaim them to be the Savior. So why did they believe Jesus? The empty tomb? The Sanhedrin and the Romans spread rumors that this too was a hoax. So, why did they believe? After Jesus was gone, there were only the Twelve. Why believe them any more than believing Simon Magus?

From their utter conviction. From they way they behaved in the face of threat, torture, and death. No one who had not experienced, truly, the presence of God would allow the cruelties inflicted upon them that were inflicted upon the followers of Christ. Those Roman record keepers again, kept careful track of executions. We know many documented facts about the early Christians, who died for their faith. You do not find people dying of their own free for a hoax. No sane person is going to allow themselves to be ripped apart by lions, or in be stoned, crucified, daubed in pitch and burnt as a human torch, etc. etc. ad nauseum for something that they don’t have utter faith in. Remember, they had the opportunity to recant, and live. Yet, they chose to die for their faith. The historical fact that Christianity spread and grew in the face of such fierce persecution is evidence that there was a strong and certain faith, a conviction beyond any torture, in those believers.

Therefore, the result of this line of reasoning, using history and our knowledge of human nature, is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead and that he was, therefore, God. So, what do we know of God?

Well, being God, one must conclude that He meant what he said and did what He said He would do. One thing He said He would do was to found a Church. A Church that would stand throughout all time, until He came again, no matter what assailed it. Imperishable. That He did, as He promised, and that Church still stands today. Historically, logically, it cannot be denied. Theologically speaking, it is impossible for God, that is, Jesus, to lie. Therefore, what He said He would do, He did, and what He said would stand firm, has stood.

In addition, the Church has its authority from Him, because He established it, and thus, it has it’s authority through Him and in Him, we can accept that authority as divine. Logically, Jesus is God. Moreover, logically, and historically, we can see that He founded a Church, and granted it His authority. Having Christ's authority, it is infallible.

So, at this point in the logic chain, the Church (and for those that have a problem with the Catholic Church, just call it the Christian Church of, say, 90 AD, which is the time the Christian Church decreed which books of the Torah would be considered official canon of the emerging Christian Church), now tells us the Bible is inspired. With authority given by God, who is infallible, we can take the word of the Church for it.

This is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the infallibility of the Church and the Church's infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument!

On the first level, we argue to the reliability of the Bible as history. From that, we conclude an infallible Church was founded. Then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).

This kind of thinking tends to give people headaches... and most do not go through it. They rely, quite comfortably on either custom or habit, or "feelings". However, although such methods may be psychologically satisfying, they are not logical. Reason and logic give a complete answer.

Maybe most folks will now say, ya, well, who cares? We both say the Bible is inspired, right? Correct. However, the basis for one's belief in its inspiration directly affects how one goes about interpreting the Bible. Wasn't that the original question?

The Catholic believes in inspiration because the Church tells him so - that is putting it bluntly - and that same Church has the authority to interpret the inspired text.

Some believe in inspiration, claiming the proof of their "feeling" that the Holy Spirit leads them, but they truly have no interpreting authority other than themselves. They may be extremely sincere, and have an overwhelming feeling of certainty in the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit, but that does not make it a truism of Christian doctrine. Perhaps it could be considered a private revelation, but not a universal truth. Claiming interpretive authority on the basis of "feelings" from the Holy Spirit cannot be justified, since those are subject to change, not only from person to person, but from moment to moment within the same person, and thus, cannot be trusted. What can be trusted is the authority of Christ.

Since there are so very many different interpretations, from church to church, never mind from person to person, it is easy to see that as a document, the Bible is written in an irregular, inconsistent, and even incomplete fashion. It is entirely improbable that it would, or even could contain the whole of the revealed Word of God. It is actually unreasonable to demand that the Gospel writers write a complete document that would contain a complete scriptural foundation for Christian doctrine. Christ established His Church for that, and the inspired writers knew and depended on that. It is clear that in many cases they took for granted that certain concepts were already understood, or events were known to the readers, and beliefs of the writers and events were thus often presented without additional comment or clarification.

Cardinal Newman put it this way in an essay on inspiration first published in 1884: