However, I have to say I am very much in about the same camp you are. I grew up with the “scripture is inherant in all points” camp, and prided (yes, I’ll admit it) in being able to “explain” all the juxtapositions found within the Bible.

However, in recent years I’ve come to accept that some things in the Bible are simply not completely true. There is poetic and prophetic imagery that describes (with limited knowledge) how things in nature work (storehouses of snow, for instance, or a “home” for the sun). If these kinds of things can be used to describe nature, cannot these same kinds of things be used to describe God and how He works. And if you admit that possiblity, then you can admit that scripture is not perfect, as God is. Scripture gives us our BEST picture of God, and certainly of Christ. But it is not the be all and end all of truth. Why? Because it it was, we really wouldn’t need true faith. Faith is the assurance of things NOT KNOWN. If we can KNOW absolute truth from the word, then we wouldn’t REALLY need faith, except for faith in a book. That’s NOT the kind of faith that God is looking for, and I hope nobody would argue with me on that point.

This puts to rest those who say they can’t believe in the perfection of the Bible, therefore they won’t/can’t believe in God. God is revealed in so many more ways than JUST scripture. People need to see Him in those ways as well. However, when they are looking for specific truth (doctrine), the Bible is certainly the best place to look FIRST. The Bible is good for many things. But it is NOT God, it merely reveals some of His truth. And I’m OK with that.

I suppose that many Christians don’t believe they are theologians or biblical scholars. Yet they, rightfully, engage with God’s revelation in Scripture. I now realise that philosophical epistemology and presuppositions are connected to our understanding of truth, which is found in Scripture. So I am trying to somewhat engage with it.

You know as well as I do that I’ve not claimed that inspiration meant that God gave someone a download.

I realise that. But, from what I can tell, I think that to argue that Scripture is absolute, rather than God alone is absolute, must somehow entail that God gave a divine download, rather than accommodate for humans to grasp something of him.

By the way, to say what motivates someone when you do not know is a form of ad hominem

Ad hominem seems more about character deficiency. You have the utmost of character and integrity. But, and you can say this doesn’t apply to you at all (kind of like nothing ever applies to Rey when I approach certain issues around continuationism), but I have heard enough arguments from people that show they have an underlying modernist epistemological approach. I think you are working from that and I think it can cause problems in engaging with the text God has actually given to us.

Regardless of human fallenness and finitude, man can still do some things right. “ScottL is a nice guy.” I just made a statement that is correct, though I am a finite and fallen person.

I am not negating that truth can come forth from fallen and finite people. Even objective truth could and can come forth, in some sense. But, I have to ask if God-breathed means absolutely and directly God, or from God? I have to ask if ‘carried along’ refers to an absolute objective giving of God’s revelation? Something can come from finite and fallen humanity and remain very much true. But that does not mean it has to be recognised as an objective absolute.

yet inspiration means that the very words were God’s Words.

This is where I might argue that Scripture does not clarify on what it means for Scripture to be from both God and man. Of course, I understand that is how you understand inspiration must work. For me, that sounds very much like dictation (or download). I think God-breathed and carried along communicate something outside of what you have posited.

I’m not getting frustrated with you that much. I am not keen on your approach. I am not here to misrepresent you. You should know I don’t desire to do so, though that does not keep me from doing so. It’s just that all of your arguments I could run to Grudem’s or Geisler’s words. But they don’t satisfy. They leave me believing they have described the text they wish they had rather than the one we actually have been given. I know it sounds so much more evangelical to agree with Grudem and Geisler and others. But I have come to the place where I cannot be satisfied with such an approach. It is found wanting in my small perspective.

Blessings.