Their Method Of Historical Criticism example essay topic

The Bible and the Word 'Inspire " According to the Random House Dictionary, the word inspire means 'to infuse an animating, quickening, or exalting influence into, or to communicate or suggest by a divine influence. ' This definition indicates, when applied to the scripture, that the stories and writings in the Bible did not come solely from the minds of the respective authors, but rather from a divine source. This suggests that the authors were scribes, reproducing what was instilled in them by God. This idea is strengthened by looking at distinct examples from the scripture that show that scripture is inspired, and not made up.

By using the form of criticism known as literary criticism, we can analyze certain installments of the scripture and use them to prove that the scripture is, in fact, inspired, not a collection of false statements. There are times in the Bible and in Biblical history that the prophets themselves are confronted with people doubting the validity of the scripture, and trying to discredit it. 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. ' Here Timothy is relating a charge given to him by Paul. As a story that is being told, it can be easily inferred that Paul had confronted opposition to the belief that scripture was in fact inspired by God, and therefore valid. Using literary criticism allows us to stay on the surface of what is being said, and not necessarily have to dig behind it to find the true meaning (we " ll leave that to historical criticism) and therefore by looking at the phrase 'scripture is God-breathed' we can further say that God breathed His word into the authors, and they recorded it.

God can be viewed as an indirect author, and the inspiration for scripture. 'We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and the comings of our Lord Jesus Christ but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. ' 'Above all you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. ' From the standpoint of a literary critic, these two passages represent the question at hand as to whether or not scripture is inspired. Literary criticism looks at the passage as a whole, and reads what it says, just as a normal person would.

Using this method, we see easily that scripture is in fact inspired, because it states that there were no cleverly invented stories, but rather God's own words. God's plans for his people are carefully laid out, and there is much doubt that He would entrust average people to teach others about His word without careful explanation as to exactly what it is, and how it came to be. This is why much of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch, tells the historical story of the Israelites and there great escape from Egypt. God needed to be sure that exactly what He wanted to be in what was to be called His word was there, and nothing was added or falsified. In this sense, God can be seen as the editor of the Bible. Historical criticism says that if only facts are reliable, than find facts in the Bible.

Historical critics are forced the differentiate between fact and myth, leaving quite a bit of room for human error. Due to this weakness, historical criticism is the least compatible method of proving that scripture is inspired. Historical criticism seems to ignore the fact that scripture is also literature, and to use their method of historical criticism, you must take apart the Bible, thereby destroying the literary flow. Literary criticism looks at the scripture in a way that is similar to how the average person reads it. Historical criticism is traditionally elitist, and not available to anyone except the academy.

Also, is using historical criticism, complete objectivity is never achieved, because one cannot observe without influencing the object being observed. Many times when scholars are using historical criticism to try and explain certain things about the Bible, the Bible becomes irrelevant to the Church, therefore killing the entire reason for the Bible's existence; the teaching of God's word. Lastly, the Bible itself says that none of its contents are interpretations of God's word, but rather an unadulterated version of the truth; God's word verbatim. Historical criticism uses a historical interpretation to try and prove its point, thereby disproving its own validity.

If historical scholars use a method that does not apply to the Bible, then it becomes irrelevant itself. This irrelevance is displayed using the Hermeneutical circle, because the circle implies that there is a cycle and a relationship between history and the content of the text, and while there may be in certain parts, that does nothing to prove that scripture is inspired, and only says that scripture has a possibly factual background..