Inspiration of the Scriptures

[dms1972]

I want to try and understand this better. According to some christians when the Bible writers wrote the Bible, they were being given the words supernaturally by dictation from God. This sound like a mechanical process that bypassed the writer's personality, just as if a boss asked his secretary to take a letter, she would write down just the words he said verbatim, not put it in her own words, at least that is my understanding of dictation. I have some reservations at the moment about this theory of inspiration if it involves bypassing of the writer's personality, mainly because when the authorship of a letter in the New Testament is disputed, the arguments about whether or not its by Paul or someone else are said to be based on style differences - its not Paul's style. What they mean by its not Paul's style, if they mean more than that he didn't sign it, I am not sure? Anyway is it possible for divine inspiration to involve the personality of the writer, or is the personality bypassed - like they are "beside themselves" while they are inspired, if so could this be something similiar to what Plato has called "divine madness"?

 

[d taylor]

-​

NKJV
Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.

NIV
Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

 

[concretecamper]

I want to try and understand this better. According to some christians when the Bible writers wrote the Bible, they were being given the words supernaturally by dictation from God. This sound like a mechanical process that bypassed the writer's personality, just as if a boss asked his secretary to take a letter, she would write down just the words he said verbatim, not put it in her own words, at least that is my understanding of dictation

I don't think it is dictation. It is inspiration.

 

[Fireinfolding]

This says,

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

And similarly a couple examples in these also

Jeremiah 36:1 And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,

Jeremiah 36:2 Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.

Jeremiah 36:4 Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.

And here

Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.

Isaiah 8:2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I don't think we're ever going to pin down exactly what is meant by "inspiration" in this case.

I chanced upon a comment a few days ago about a chemist deriving the theory of the circular benzene molecule when he had a reverie or day dream.

August Kekulé - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Kekulé's dream​

Kekulé's benzene ring in modern form, and the alchemical ouroboros symbol of a snake eating its tail
The new understanding of benzene, and hence of all aromatic compounds, proved to be so important for both pure and applied chemistry after 1865 that in 1890 the German Chemical Society organized an elaborate appreciation in Kekulé's honor, celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of his first benzene paper. Here Kekulé spoke of the creation of the theory. He said that he had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail (this is an ancient symbol known as the ouroboros).[15]

As far as I'm concerned this was a form of "inspiration". We don't know if God gave him the 'day dream' or 'reverie' or if there was some more natural explanation. No doubt he'd been mulling over the problem in his mind beforehand, probably at some length. But so were the prophets of ancient Israel before they 'wrote' the books named after them. They were in a particular situation and would have been thinking about it long before they wrote about it. They didn't live in a vacuum.

When St. Paul was struck blind by the light from heaven, he'd previously been a witness to the stoning of St. Stephen. He would have seen Stephen's face shining like an angel, and also heard his plea for God to forgive his persecutors. I think Saul would have been mulling over these things even as he rode to Damascus in order to persecute the Christians there. The voice said "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

He'd have reported his experience to St. Luke, who recorded it. God wouldn't have needed to dictate the event to Luke. He had a first hand witness right next to him, who'd been involved in persecuting Christians before his conversion. But the chuch needed an explanation as to where Saul fitted into the scheme of things in light of the fact he would ultimately write most of the New Testament.

God "inspired" Luke to write a history of the very early church to put this event into context, yet the thoughts he had and the words he used were his own creating a fairly polished piece of Greek text according to what I've heard around and about.

 

[trophy33]

I think that a good way to identify the biblical inspiration is to compare gospels to each other. Many verses about the same things are significantly different, sometimes even essentially, producing different doctrines.

After many years, I concluded that Bible is inspired regarding monotheism and salvation. On this, it seems pretty consistent.

The inspiration of various passages or books are of different levels, there is no standardized inspiration for all the text. On one place, Paul argued based upon a singular vs plural (seed vs seeds), on another place even the Our Father prayer is not preserved identically.

So I would not try to define it too strictly or rigidly.

 

[FireDragon76]

There is no evidence for verbal inspiration in the Bible, because we find authors writing not only with their own voice, but also with unique theological and political perspectives.

Verbal inspiration is a doctrine that didn't take full shape until the late 19th century, in American Fundamentalism.

Earlier people had a naive and premodern understanding of the Bible, they didn't think about inspiration in great detail. Luther at times seems to support the notion of verbal inspiration, but at other times he seems to not support it. That's because people were not as steeped in critical thought about religious matters. How could they be? They still executed people over religious matters, even in Luther's time. When asking questions gets you killed, you learn not to ask them.

 

[Rev. Aftab Yunis Hakim]

I want to try and understand this better. According to some christians when the Bible writers wrote the Bible, they were being given the words supernaturally by dictation from God. This sound like a mechanical process that bypassed the writer's personality, just as if a boss asked his secretary to take a letter, she would write down just the words he said verbatim, not put it in her own words, at least that is my understanding of dictation. I have some reservations at the moment about this theory of inspiration if it involves bypassing of the writer's personality, mainly because when the authorship of a letter in the New Testament is disputed, the arguments about whether or not its by Paul or someone else are said to be based on style differences - its not Paul's style. What they mean by its not Paul's style, if they mean more than that he didn't sign it, I am not sure? Anyway is it possible for divine inspiration to involve the personality of the writer, or is the personality bypassed - like they are "beside themselves" while they are inspired, if so could this be something similiar to what Plato has called "divine madness"?

The answer lies in the investigation of the prophets as well writers of the Bible. [T]the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully (1 Peter 1:10). The Old and New Testament prophets investigated the truths before proceeding them further. The same goes for the writers of the Bible. If we see the writings of Luke, "With this in mind since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning" (Luke1:3). So, the writers were not imposed, neither they were puppets nor they were just dictators to write. And by no means as Plato said, divine madness. Rather they were humans like you and me to immerse themselves in the words of God for finding Life in them.

God has empowered us to think and respond missionally. | Missiological Thinking(MT)

Empowering Communities through Missiological thinking. The gifts and talents we are gifted with are for empowering and equipping this world.

www.missiologicalthinking.com

 

[Rev. Aftab Yunis Hakim]

Missional Understanding of the Bible: Taking the Text of the Bible Seriously | Missiological Thinking(MT)

Reviewing Any Book through Missional Reading

www.missiologicalthinking.com

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

I want to try and understand this better. According to some christians when the Bible writers wrote the Bible, they were being given the words supernaturally by dictation from God. This sound like a mechanical process that bypassed the writer's personality, just as if a boss asked his secretary to take a letter, she would write down just the words he said verbatim, not put it in her own words, at least that is my understanding of dictation. I have some reservations at the moment about this theory of inspiration if it involves bypassing of the writer's personality, mainly because when the authorship of a letter in the New Testament is disputed, the arguments about whether or not its by Paul or someone else are said to be based on style differences - its not Paul's style. What they mean by its not Paul's style, if they mean more than that he didn't sign it, I am not sure? Anyway is it possible for divine inspiration to involve the personality of the writer, or is the personality bypassed - like they are "beside themselves" while they are inspired, if so could this be something similiar to what Plato has called "divine madness"?

By "style", scholars mean sentence construction, choice of words, and the thought that a particular author is using. So for example, 1 Peter was pretty much accepted as authored by Peter very early on. At the end of 1st Peter, he says, "With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it." So we know that from Acts 4:13 (When they [the Sanhedrin] saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus), Peter is considered uneducated and might even be illiterate or semi-literate. This would be normal for a fisherman. However, in 2nd Peter, there is no mention of a scribe but Peter uses some oddly Greek terms such as Tartarus rather than Sheol or some Hebrew or Aramaic word. As a result, 2 Peter was considered as inauthentic by some church fathers. However, others did consider it authentic and authoritative so eventually, it was included as canonical or used in church services.

 

[Rev. Aftab Yunis Hakim]

Thank you for your reply. I want to encourage you to read Acts 1 as well before saying Peter was illiterate. Peter was illiterate in scribes' understanding because He was not theologian of his time accoridng to scribes sense. This is the reason the next point refers to his relation with Jesus. The religious leaders were well aware of Jesus was the great teacher. It is also important to understand here that Jews were by no means freed from the teachings of Torah. It was the greater obligations of any Jew to teach their kids Torah. So, this does not make any sense to perceive him uneducated.

God has empowered us to think and respond missionally. | Missiological Thinking(MT)

Empowering Communities through Missiological thinking. The gifts and talents we are gifted with are for empowering and equipping this world.

www.missiologicalthinking.com

 

[St_Worm2]

There are some basic thoughts about the topic of Biblical inspiration in the following short article (which can also be listened to below or read) on the inspiration of the Scriptures. The title says it all in this case, Simply Put

​

6 minutes​

​

Transcript​

When we talk about the inspiration of Scripture, we’re not using the word in quite the same way that you and I usually speak of inspiration.

I might say (for example) that I felt “inspired” as I wrote a book or composed a piece of music. And all I would be saying is simply that I felt particularly animated or motivated or fired up as I worked.

But when we say that the writers of Scripture were “inspired,” we’re saying much more than that. The King James Bible translates 2 Timothy 3:16 like this:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God.

This is what theologians are referring to when they talk about the “inspiration” of Scripture: the idea that God “breathed into” the biblical writers. He did this by His Spirit: “Spirit” being the Greek word pneuma,meaning “breath.” So when God “breathed into” the writers of Scripture in this way, God was ensuring that what they wrote was what He wanted to say—and nothing else.

In other words, if we really wanted to hear God speaking, we should open our Bibles. The English Standard Version gets even closer to the original Greek when it says that:

All Scripture is breathed out by God.

That translation nicely captures the reality that what we have on the page has come directly from God, and therefore each word carries the weight of His authority.

That phrase “all Scripture” is also significant. Because all Scripture is breathed out by God, it means that all of it is completely trustworthy. This is what theologians mean when they talk about the “plenary” inspiration of Scripture—plenary meaning “full” or “complete.” There are no particular bits of Scripture that are more or less God-breathed than other bits. Red-letter Bibles, when they put Jesus’ words in red, can imply that Christ’s words are more authoritative than the surrounding ones, that they carry particular weight—but that is not the case at all. All Scripture is God-breathed. All of it has the authority of God and of His Christ.

That’s because every word was inspired by the Spirit. Second Peter chapter 1, verse 21, puts it like this:

No prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

And this is true for the New Testament as well as the Old.

By the way, the inspiration of Scripture needn’t imply some kind of mechanical “dictation” from God, as if the minds and personalities of the biblical authors were somehow hijacked and overridden by God. On the contrary, the varying personalities and writing styles of the biblical authors do come through in Scripture.

At the same time, the concept of the inspiration of Scripture extends to what theologians call “verbal” inspiration. It’s not that God gave the biblical writers a general impression of the kind of concepts He wanted them to include and then told them to run with it. God’s inspiration actually extends to the very words they chose.

The teaching of Jesus shows this principle in action. Think about the way He debated His opponents. Often, Jesus’ argument depends on a single word—or even on the tense of a particular word—in Scripture. If God’s inspiration of Scripture did not extend to the specifics of individual words and tenses, then Jesus’ appeal to them would have been meaningless.

You see the principle of verbal inspiration again when the Apostle Paul argues in Galatians:

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

Again, if the Holy Spirit had not inspired the biblical writers to the extent of ensuring the use of a singular word rather than a plural, then Paul’s argument in Galatians would be meaningless.

So that is the inspiration of Scripture. When we open God’s Word, we can be sure that what we’re reading was breathed out by God. Not just in general, but right down to the specifics.

--David

 

[St_Worm2]

I want to try and understand this better. According to some christians when the Bible writers wrote the Bible, they were being given the words supernaturally by dictation from God. This sound like a mechanical process that bypassed the writer's personality, just as if a boss asked his secretary to take a letter, she would write down just the words he said verbatim, not put it in her own words, at least that is my understanding of dictation. I have some reservations at the moment about this theory of inspiration if it involves bypassing of the writer's personality, mainly because when the authorship of a letter in the New Testament is disputed, the arguments about whether or not its by Paul or someone else are said to be based on style differences - its not Paul's style. What they mean by its not Paul's style, if they mean more than that he didn't sign it, I am not sure? Anyway is it possible for divine inspiration to involve the personality of the writer, or is the personality bypassed - like they are "beside themselves" while they are inspired, if so could this be something similiar to what Plato has called "divine madness"?

Hello again dms1972, assuming that the following link will open for you (it should), here's one part of a 16-part teaching series (called, Thus Says the Lord) that addresses some of the questions and problems that you just mentioned about the "theory of inspiration". It's called:

The Transmission of Scripture by Dr. R. C. Sproul​

​

To play the audio teaching, just click on the little > that you'll find just below the giant graphic for each part of the series.

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - I believe that the entire 16-part teaching series, Thus Says the Lord, may be available for you to listen to for free right now. Click here to go there if you'd like to find out (or here): The Authority of Scripture by R.C. Sproul from Thus Says the Lord.

 

[Fervent]

Regarding Paul, there is certainly a personality issue in his writings as noted by Peter in 2 Peter 3:16. From what I've seen, no two people seem to understand inspiration in exactly the same way and it tends to be something that is affirmed rather than fleshed out. When a scholar speaks of Paul's style, they mean not only vocabulary choices and sentence construction but also the particular flow of the letter. The ones that are universally considered authentic all have a similar argument construction where there is a very tight movement with few genuine tangents. The letter from beginning to end has a single central thought that is developed in stages and things that appear to be tangential or off track eventually are brought into the overall argument. The disputed books tend not to have the strong central thesis that is developed over the course of them but move from topic to topic without bringing them all together.

There are a number of issues for a verbal plenary theory of inspiration, but again everyone seems to have a different understanding of what that means exactly so it really can only be discussed regarding specific theologians and how they have developed the idea. What complicates matters is that verbal plenary inspiration is often confused for something similar to an Islamic view of the qu'ran where it is seen as something entirely independent of its historical context and circumstance and is in fact a reproduction of a document that exists eternally in heaven and cannot be changed or even translated. So to understand what is meant by verbal plenary inspiration, you'd need to interact with each individual who holds the theory to know what they mean by it as there are few broad agreements.

 

[St_Worm2]

......to understand what is meant by verbal plenary inspiration, you'd need to interact with each individual who holds the theory to know what they mean by it as there are few broad agreements.

Hello Fervent, actually, in 1978 there was a conference where hundreds of Biblical scholars from all over the world gathered together to discuss and define inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration, and what they produced is called The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (the history of which is summarized for us in this very short article here).

So, there is actually no need to interact with individuals out here to find out what each of their opinions are, rather, just point them in the direction of the above document, at least as a point of reference

God bless you!!

--David

 

[St_Worm2]

Additionally, I believe that The Chicago Statement for Biblical Inerrancy is the basis for the 16-part teaching of Dr. Sproul's that I just mentioned a couple of posts back, Thus Says The Lord, which I believe that you can listen to for free right now here.

--David

 

[Fervent]

Hello Fervent, actually, in 1978 there was a conference where hundreds of Biblical scholars from all over the world gathered together to discuss and define inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration, and what they produced is called The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (the history of which is summarized for us in this very short article here).

So, there is actually no need to interact with individuals out here to find out what each of their opinions are, rather, just point them in the direction of the above document, at least as a point of reference

God bless you!!

--David

Care to point out where inspiration is elaborated upon, rather than simply stated as an affirmation? Because I see little to no clarification on the mechanics of inspiration within that document, only affirmations about the substance and sufficiency of Scripture.

 

[ARBITER01]

I want to try and understand this better. According to some christians when the Bible writers wrote the Bible, they were being given the words supernaturally by dictation from God.

The prophets who wrote their scripture scrolls were given the words by dictation. This was done through the use of the word of wisdom operated by The Holy Spirit. Not every prophet wrote scripture obviously, but those ones that did were writing the words as GOD gave them to them. You see that in certain books where the prophet says: "and The Lord said."

This was not the case for the NT writers, but they still wrote by revelation/inspiration of The Holy Spirit. If you could see behind the words, you would see the glorious imprint of The Holy Spirit behind every word. I've seen it at times, it's remarkable.

This sound like a mechanical process that bypassed the writer's personality, just as if a boss asked his secretary to take a letter, she would write down just the words he said verbatim, not put it in her own words, at least that is my understanding of dictation. I have some reservations at the moment about this theory of inspiration if it involves bypassing of the writer's personality, mainly because when the authorship of a letter in the New Testament is disputed, the arguments about whether or not its by Paul or someone else are said to be based on style differences - its not Paul's style. What they mean by its not Paul's style, if they mean more than that he didn't sign it, I am not sure? Anyway is it possible for divine inspiration to involve the personality of the writer, or is the personality bypassed - like they are "beside themselves" while they are inspired, if so could this be something similar to what Plato has called "divine madness"?

Some of the NT books contain some of the Hebraic thought of the writers, their personalities in some ways.

 

[St_Worm2]

Care to point out where inspiration is elaborated upon, rather than simply stated as an affirmation? Because I see little to no clarification on the mechanics of inspiration within that document, only affirmations about the substance and sufficiency of Scripture.

Hello again Fervent, remembering that the Chicago Statement is just that, a "statement" (which I believe by definition means that it is not a thorough treatment of the subject matter, even to the degree that a Confession or Catechism most often is), here you go (remembering too, the plain words from the Statement concerning the Biblical "mystery" .. cf Deuteronomy 29:29 that we have here, particularly with regard to the "mechanics of inspiration" .. which is where the true mystery is found, of course):

The Short Statement (inspiration excerpt)

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning .. cf 1 Corinthians 2:12-16.


The Full Statement (inspiration excerpt)

ARTICLE VI​

• We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
• We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

ARTICLE VII​

• We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
• We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

ARTICLE VIII​

• We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
• We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

ARTICLE IX​

• We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
• We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

ARTICLE X​

• We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
• We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of biblical inerrancy invalid or Irrelevant.

ARTICLE XI​

• We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
• We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

I've begun to listen through Dr. Sproul's 16-part teaching series that is based on the full Chicago Statement (found here: Thus Says The Lord) as it is, in point of fact, an expanded/detailed explanation of and discussion about what the Chicago Statement chose to say concisely (and, at least for now, it appears to be available to listen to for free ).

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - it occurs to me (though this is purely conjecture on my part at this point) that our Maker is responsible for all of the things that make us unique, particularly from birth .. e.g. Psalm 139, including our personalities so (if this is indeed the case) how hard would it have been for Him to speak through the human authors' personalities, leaving them (their personalities, that is) intact and (thereby) a part of the words that they wrote?

Hopefully something in the teaching series Thus Says The Lord will speak to this! We shall see (Dv)

 

[Fervent]

Hello again Fervent, remembering that the Chicago Statement is just that, a "statement" (which I believe by definition means that it is not a thorough treatment of the subject matter, even to the degree that a Confession or Catechism most often is), here you go (remembering too, the plain words from the Statement concerning the Biblical "mystery" that we have here, particularly with regard to the "mechanics of inspiration" .. which is where the true mystery is found, of course .. and a verse like Deuteronomy 29:29 that speaks to such mysteries):

The Short Statement (inspiration excerpt)

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning .. cf 1 Corinthians 2:12-16.


The Full Statement (inspiration excerpt)

ARTICLE VI​

• We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
• We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

ARTICLE VII​

• We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
• We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

ARTICLE VIII​

• We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
• We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

ARTICLE IX​

• We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
• We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

ARTICLE X​

• We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
• We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of biblical inerrancy invalid or Irrelevant.

ARTICLE XI​

• We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
• We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

I've begun to listen through Dr. Sproul's 16-part teaching series that is based on the full Chicago Statement (found here: Thus Says The Lord) as it is, in point of fact, an expanded/detailed explanation of and discussion about what the Chicago Statement chose to say concisely (and, at least for now, it appears to be available to listen to for free ).

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - it occurs to me (though this is purely conjecture on my part at this point) that our Maker is responsible for all of the things that make us unique, particularly from birth .. e.g. Psalm 139, including our personalities so (if this is indeed the case) how hard would it have been for Him to speak through the human authors' personalities, leaving them (their personalities, that is) intact and (thereby) a part of the words that they wrote?

Hopefully something in the teaching series Thus Says The Lord will speak to this! We shall see (Dv)

I read the statement, and I still fail to see where you believe it elaborates what inspiration meant with regards to the how of it. The entire statement seems to be focused on what was produced, without any clarification upon the processes involved. It leaves to the interpreter mechanical questions regarding how God inspired the writers, using vague terms like "superintended" rather than giving any kind of explicit operational language.