Uninspired: The Human Origins of Bible Doctrines

As we have seen, the Bible contains human errors in morality and science. These errors cannot issue from an all-knowing, perfect being. Thus, the Bible must be a more human work than divine. The Bible seems to gloss over statements of enormous import without going into detail about all the questions we are left desperate for an answer for. For example, who can make sense of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 without knowing the ancient, pre-scientific reasoning that Paul was using? Or can any person fully understand the letter of Romans? Certainly, no two people can agree on Romans. The Bible doesn’t answer all life's questions by a long stretch: What is the purpose of the book of Numbers, for example, if God could be answering our more pressing questions? It seems more likely that the Bible was ancient man's best attempt to define God, rather than the revealed, inspired word of God. The Bible certainly contains ideas which I can imagine God agreeing with, but I think considering its errors...

Paul’s directions for the women’s head covering in 1 Corinthians 11 presents us with a concrete example of a biblical precept that wouldn’t apply today- nor does it represent God’s view- since it is based on a flawed scientific understanding. It is not possible that God would base his morality in scientific error, being all-knowing, and the ultimate architect of our world. In the passage about head coverings, Paul uses the word “ nature ” in a sense that ultimately refers to these misinformed scientific beliefs, rather than God’s design. When we come to examine Romans 1, Paul appeals to “ nature ” again to condemn gay sex. He uses the same Greek word “ phusis ” here that he uses in 1 Corinthians 11. We have contended that “ nature ”, or “ phusis ”, in 1 Corinthians 11 refers to the flawed science of Paul’s day, though Paul intended to make his argument based on what he thought was scientific and true, equating “ nature ” with God’s design. If “ nature ” in one area of Paul’s work doe...