HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!


The Church regards a book allegedly created by God through men as infallible on faith and morals.  That book is the Bible and its words though not dictated by God all the time (though there are many examples of dictation) are regarded as being the same as God's words.  Even those who deny verbal dictation hold that even if the Bible is not all the words of God its words in practice amount to the same thing as being God's actual words and that this is God's teaching. The inspiration of the Bible is best thought of as follows: The Bible is what God would write if he were holding the pen. This is not dictation but dictation or not, the Bible is as good as a dictated Bible would be.  God is the principle origin and author of holy writ.  Whatever you are to think about this the teaching is clear about one thing.  Even if not dictated by God the book still has the same authority as it would have if it were.


"Thus says the Lord" appears a lot in the Bible but especially in the first five books, the savage Torah where God gives one barbaric command after another.  That is significant.  The expression in the Bible is not the author reporting what God said as in hearsay. It is the author getting dictation from God about what was said.  It is idolatry, the evil of bibliolatry, to extol such a dreadful and cruel volume as the word of God or even as the top special book.  The religious use of such a book is gravely vile.  Believers should worry that there might be a God who will be furious at that.

Greek philosophy, particularly that of Socrates, Parmenides and Empedocles was allegedly given to these men by divine beings.  Plato argued that the gods guided Socrates in his thinking and his philosophy. The notion of information coming from a god is nothing new.

It is felt that if God dictated the Bible then there is no point in studying its context and its times or its text.  But there is nothing wrong with God speaking to a time within the context of the time!!  It does not matter who or what dictates anything - it still needs studying.

Divine inspiration was a popular concept in Bible times so it is no surprise if the Bible claims to be divinely inspired or perhaps the only divinely inspired scripture.

The Bible in the Old Testament often uses Thus Says the Lord and emphasises the importance of the words being God's.  God would not put his words in a book amid material that might not be divinely inspired at all.  That raises the question, are the words really God's or have they been basterdised and even invented?  Though believers say the Bible is all equally from God it is hard to deny that the most important bits would be the dictated bits.  God would have meant those to be taken with outmost seriousness.


Christians claim that the Bible has God for its ultimate author. Some Bible books say they are God's books. The apostle Paul wrote that all scripture is breathed out by God and enough for a thorough training in Christian life - in other words it is 100% from God. Christians say that somehow it is 100% from man too. But it is clear that the main thing being claimed is infallibility - the Bible does not err for God does not err.
If God wants to write a book but doesn’t write it himself but does it through men then theologians say he can do one or more of the following.
Control the men like robots - the dictation theory.
Inspire the men and let them write it down their way - the illumination theory.
Or he can work with them in such a way that they freely write without compulsion but still write with him so that he is the author as well - the verbal theory.
We will examine these options to see if any of them make sense. We will see that none of them do! Divine inspiration is a trick to get you to accept the ideas of men as the ideas of God. You obey the men under the illusion that it is really God you obey.
All of the theories imply that there must be no doctrinal or moral or factual error in the Bible. The notion that God used one or more of those methods but has suspended inspiration when the author writes about history or science is a cop-out. Its an excuse for trying to believe in a Bible that has historical and scientific errors. It is teaching that the Bible is partly inspired. If every religion did that, it would follow that we have all those rival scriptures and have no way of finding out which one is really from God.
Against this you have the theory of plenary inspiration. It asserts the Bible is entirely the word of God.
Karl Barth claimed that the Bible is not God's word but when you read it God inspires you to learn from it. This teaching contradicts the Bible assertion that it is the word of God. And it would follow that what you feel like believing is to be taken as the word of God! What a recipe for chaos in the psychiatric unit!
It is said that nobody said the Bible was factually correct and without error until a Protestant book made this claim in the 1600's (page 25, Speaking Christian, Marcus J Borg, SPCK, London, 2011).
It is stated that Luther was not a Bible literalist for he considered dropping the epistle of St James and the Book of Revelation from the Bible (ibid page 25). But that proves nothing. A Bible literalist might think the other books are literally true and could be excising a book or two because they do not belong in the Bible. 
Luther is said to have not been a literalist because he refused to take the Bible literally when it spoke of God walking in the Garden of Eden. But if he merely thought this was the authors poetic way of saying God was in the Garden then he was still a literalist. A literalist does not necessarily have to pretend that there is no poetry or symbolism in his Bible. The historical-metaphorical approach is opposed to literalism and is said to be a recent development like literalism is (page 26, ibid).
It is the case that Christianity though it never talked about literalism in practice it was literalistic. Literalism was always the policy. The Church always called the Bible the word of God. Word means communication. By implication, the word is the words of God. Jesus claimed absolute infallibility and spoke of his words as being the unerring message of God in the gospel of John. This gospel calls him the Word of God meaning that as a person he was the word of God because his words were the words of God.

Christianity, Islam, Mormonism and many other cults have books that they get their doctrines from which are reputedly inspired by God.

The theologians say that there are two kinds of inspiration. One is spiritual, God putting the thoughts in you letting you find the words yourself, and the other is actually inspiring the words of a text, or putting the words in your mind.

In the spiritual variety, if God makes me realise that adultery is wrong then he can leave it up to me to express this in my own words. If I put it down badly he will keep at me until I do it right or get somebody else to do it. The most striking absurdity in this is that a sensible God would choose good writers but much of the Bible is so badly and unclearly written that even the author of Second Peter complained about Paul’s epistles.

The spiritual theory is most popular among those who feel that there are minor errors of grammar and history in the word of God. They say that this does not make God a liar for he did not inspire the words but the meaning and his purpose was to give us light in faith and morals.

If a book claims to be inspired then it must be held that it is saying that God has sanctioned every word in it for you cannot separate the words from the meaning. They are different but not separate. A blue plastic toy is a toy and it is blue. Blue and toy and different but are the same thing when you can’t have one without the other. The thought cannot be conveyed accurately without the words so the inspiration of the Bible must be plenary (page 19, A Summary of Christian Doctrine).

The spiritual or mental theory is indeed a mental theory for God must inspire you to write some of the words for most thoughts come to you in the form of words and you mentally talk to yourself in words all the time. The theory implies that God has to inspire the words because he needs some control over the words used to get the idea expressed clearly and properly. If I write, “Adultery is bad”, because I feel or sense that God has told me it is sinful then that is no use for I could mean that it is unpleasant but not immoral. God will have to tell me to put the word immoral where bad is. God approves of the words of the text which is all that matters though some claim that they don’t accept that he does. The theory of spiritual inspiration is ridiculous so verbal inspiration is the only possibility it seems.

When God inspires some words then he might as well inspire the rest. Why not?

The universal Christian consensus that God let the Bible writers write as they pleased but without error or inserting what God did not want them to include so that the words of scripture are as much the words of man as they are God (page 9, Know What You Believe; page 21, Set My Exiles Free). The Bible does not sanction this absurdity. It’s a contradiction though religion says it’s a paradox.
When we need to believe in a paradox to believe in the Bible’s divine inspiration there is something wrong. You cannot assume that the paradox exists on the grounds that the Bible shows evidence of divine inspiration and was also freely composed by man. It is irrational to assume paradoxes where there is no need for there is no shortage of philosophies that have contradictions that they pretend are paradoxes. Better to assume that they were like divine typewriters or if the Bible teaches the paradox then to scrap the Bible. God should not make paradoxes where there need to be none and if the Bible requires one like this then it is not the word of God at all. Also paradoxes are serious business for they might be contradictions so you need absolute proof that the seemingly conflicting components of a paradox are true. For example, you must prove that the Bible is inspired by God first before you can believe in the paradox of inspiration. The Bible cannot provide that kind of evidence. There is a paradox in it regarding divine sovereignty and human freedom (page 28, Know What You Believe). To avoid a paradox, divine sovereignty or human freedom or both should be denied for paradoxes are inherently undesirable and are only tolerated under extreme conditions. You would need to prove that God controls all things as divine sovereignty claims as much as you can free will. You cannot so God, and God must be in control of all things and be causing them to come to be to be God, has to be done away with for to forsake his sovereignty dogma is to forsake theism.

The Bible authors could have been used by God like typewriters which felt free but who were not. This is not refuted by the fact that the authors studied and did research for what they had to write. God got them to know what to write and then he gave them the words to write with. This view is simple and avoids the improbable mystery of how God could get free agents to freely write only what he wants.
Why can’t he get us to freely do what he wants all the time? The theory contradicts the existence of God which depends on us having free will to get God off the hook for doing evil. It is blasphemous to teach this inspiration mystery as being true when the Bible says we are biased against holiness which is true. It is blasphemy because if God could control us without imposing on our free will then he should not let us sin so much. The Bible can’t be trusted when the devil’s men wrote it freely.
The Bible assumes that we have commonsense so it implies that we should not create mysteries where none need be. No verse says that people were free to write what God wanted. Implication is one of the ways that the Bible says it had to have been written by men used like typewriters.

Any sinful fraud could say that God made them write new scripture. Trusting their work is not a matter of trusting God but them even if God did write through them for we don’t know the difference.  There is a lot of merit in claiming God controlled you to write, but if the person claims to be free we have far less reason to trust them.  Besides, you only have the fraud’s word for it that he was not free so it doesn’t help much. But it makes more rational sense to believe the person who denies his freedom and that God was really the only author. We don’t have any affidavits from Bible writers that they were not free when they wrote so we have no right to believe that God wrote the Bible.

Spiritual inspiration needs verbal inspiration to work. If you want to believe God wrote books then believe the authors were his typewriters.
It may be objected that any scripture allegedly verbally inspired by the same God would have the same style but all such books show different styles showing that the books can’t be or claim to be verbally inspired. But God could imitate the writer’s style. If he had not the sceptics would say that the New Testament or whatever was forged by one author. God is not like humans that he tends to stick to the same style. 
The spiritual theory of inspiration often means that the Bible stories are thought to be a divinely inspired myth. Here is an example. We read in the book of Genesis that God made Eve from Adam's rib. The reader might say that God is only indicating that woman needs man and the literal story is not to be taken seriously. The story is only a parable.
But the story could have been meant literally. There is no hint given that we are to impose our own meaning on it.
The myth approach leads people to invent their own interpretations and declare them the word of God. Only a hypocrite says he believes in the Bible as the word of God and then makes his interpretations the real word of God. That is the person that scoffs at the believer in the literal interpretation and labels him a fundamentalist! The worst fundamentalist is the one who says his fantasies about the Bible word of God are the Bible word of God. Better to be the humble literalist!
Think about God's alleged true meaning, that woman needs man. The story would indicate that better by saying that God made Eve from Adam's heart. Why a rib? Its an insult to woman to say that God had to make her from something that could be done without such as rib! And no women believe that men and women need to be bodily or genetically related. And Adam had to be asleep for the rib to be taken. Thus he missed out on a chance to see this creature being built from a part of him. He had to depend on God telling him that he made him from him. That makes this a bit more impersonal.
The myth approach promotes the fundamentalism of telling people lies about the Bible.


The Bible claims to be verbally inspired in several places. Here is the main text. As scripture is entirely inspired it follows that the words are inspired.
2 Timothy 3:16-17, All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.  New American Standard Bible (NASB) - literally it says that all scripture is breathed out by God
The Bible claims that every word in it is a word from God.


The writings and writings are made of words claim to be the very breath of God.  Other texts show light on this subject.  In Exodus 4:12 we read, “Go, and I, even I will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say”.  Ezekiel is told “Son of man, go to the house of Israel. Take into your heart all my words which I shall speak to you, and listen closely . . . and speak to them” (Ezekiel 3:4, 10-11).


1 Thessalonians 2:13 says that the word of the apostles is really the word of God and is not to be accepted as a human message. This is pretty clear that liberal Christians who water down the Bible's teaching into something vague and open to too wide of an interpretation are frauds.


The Bible in several places gives Gods teaching and starts off with, "Thus says the Lord."  It is wrong to take the text as reporting what God says.  It is but it is more than that.  It is also claiming that God is choosing the words that the human author is putting down.

We can prove that if a book is really inspired it must be fully inerrant. God is the principal author of the Old and New Testaments and because of that they must be true which requires that they be without error or contradiction (page 19, Set My Exiles Free).

Three Theories about extent of infallibility
If you believe in Bible inspiration or infallibility then there are only three options.

1. You may believe that the Bible is right on all its religious teaching but may be wrong in reporting other things.
2. You may believe that the Bible teaches false religious doctrine and is infallible only in the doctrine that you need to know to enter Heaven.
3. You may hold that the Bible is free from religious and every other kind of error.

Finding out which one of these we have to accept if we believe in the Bible should prove interesting. 
Infallible on doctrine alone

If we are going to believe a book that errs when it reports miracles we ought to believe every miracle tale with flaws including the dubious miracles of the Hindu man-god Sai Baba. It would be the sin of irrationality and bigotry not to.

We should all be aware that it is the vice of credulity to believe in stories about miracles when the book that tells them errs. It would be credulous to believe in the doctrines of an erring Bible and it would be putting guesses in front of what God may really teach.

If I rewrote the Bible and expunged the errors and contradictions and added new bits I would have a bigger right to call my bastardised Bible the word of God.

If I wrote a book that seemed devoid of error it would have a stronger claim to be God’s word.

If the theory is right then we have no evidence that the Bible is reliable and so we will be agnostic in relation to it if we have any integrity. If it errs in non-religious matters then we cannot trust its doctrines either. Only a crank would believe in a book that errs when it speaks of miracles that are questionable. It would be the vice of gullibility. It would be blasphemous to proclaim a fallible book the word of God. Anyone who writes a better holy book would have more right to call his work the only word of God. If one should all should so God would want confusion. The Church of Rome and the other Churches that have abandoned Christianity in their biblical theology are just saying that the Bible is the word of God because they want it to be and that is not on.

We cannot claim that if the Bible withstands philosophical investigation it must be inspired for lots of books can do that. Wisdom only means that the writers were wise not that they were inspired. We would not need scripture if we could get by with philosophy.

For some Roman Catholics to argue as they do today that Moses did not write the Torah, that the story of the garden of Eden was a revision of an ancient Babylonian myth as was the flood and Jonah was not swallowed alive by a whale and lived to tell the tale all of which contradicts Jesus who swallowed each and every story hook, line and sinker according to the Bible (Matthew 12,24:37; Mark 10:3; John 6:49, 7;19) and then to say that the pope is infallible is really to make the pope more infallible than Jesus (page 8, The Church of Rome and the Word of God). It is ludicrous to suggest that Jesus could have been wrong about these things and still have been the plenary revelation of God because somebody like that would be unconvincing. Also, Jesus never said that he took the stories as myths and since everybody in his day took them literally he most probably did too so they have to accuse Jesus of error. And it would be doctrinal error as well because the Bible presents the stories that are universally rejected by critics now as miracles. If the flood never happened and was a myth so was the resurrection.

God would not inspire a Bible that errs for he can easily inspire the authors to make no errors at all. The theory is just nonsense by those who won’t admit that the Bible is unworthy of credence. 
Infallible only on essentials?

Christians agree that you don’t need to know every doctrine to enter Heaven. But you do need to know that you are a sinner, that repentance is necessary for salvation, that God is love and that Jesus is God and your merciful saviour. You can believe in all that God has revealed without knowing much about what he revealed. Only deliberate unbelief is a sin.

Some Christians and many Catholic theologians teach that Bible infallibility is limited only to those basic doctrines. They delight to prove that the Bible commands many immoral things.

This theory makes it impossible to disprove the inspiration of the scriptures of any other religion of a book for it could be said of them that they are only infallible when they preach the doctrines that need to be known for salvation too and when they make sense. It makes religion arbitrary. Religion would just be picking one inspired book or system out of many to obey just because it feels like it.

The theory takes away any hope you have of proving that you have evidence for your faith. It makes faith blind. And blind faith is certainly a grave evil.

Now God cannot be comprehended by human nature. His ethics often cannot be either. The theory takes away God's role as teacher and puts the opinions of men in his place. They have to pick the doctrines they imagine are required for salvation like tickets out of a hat.

The theory puts you at the mercy of theologians and popes. It has to endorse all kinds of slavery for it presupposes that enslaving and dominating are lawful.

This theory is the worst of the bunch. Who decides what the essentials are?
Is verbal inspiration the one?

We have in mind the view that God inspired all the words of the Bible here. This doctrine is sometimes called plenary inspiration.

God must have inspired the very words of the Bible if it is inspired because the alternative theories are hopelessly inadequate.

The Bible would need to be totally inerrant if miracles prove that God has spoken like it says for then its miraculous inerrancy shows it’s true.

The biblical view is that there is no error or deception in the Bible because it is wholly God’s word.

That this must be the true view if the Bible is God’s word is clear from the fact that the previous two, which deny full inerrancy, make no sense.

There are many books that pretend to prove that there isn’t a single contradiction in the Bible. They say all those authors writing over a long period of time and being so different from each other and without disagreeing with one another is a clear miracle. This miracle for such a complex book with such a complex history shows that it is God’s book. To merit belief the book must be a miracle for signs are necessary. Or so we are told. The compilers of the Bible had long enough to pick out what books and alleged prophecies matched what went before. They had a big enough selection. They weren’t always right but if they had been there is no need to suppose there was a miracle.
A miracle Bible is necessary – to expect us to believe in the miracles it speaks of it would have to be a miracle itself. The Bible is not a miracle for the believers engage in tactics of making contrived reconciliations of contradictions and ignore contradictions that they cannot refute.

If God has inspired the Bible then he has done so to prove that he cannot lie so that we can have rational confidence in him.
If you get confused and wrongly think that you have this faith without the Bible it is no good to God for you are not thinking straight so any prayers and requests for salvation you make are invalid because your consent is invalid. Belief in Bible infallibility is necessary for faith which is necessary for salvation.

The Bible claims to be God’s word which is a denial that it merely contains it (2 Timothy 3:16). It is infallible if it is for God cannot err for he knows and rules all creation.


The wonderful thing about verbal inspiration is that all you have to do is prove one grammatical mistake, obscurity, historical or scientific error or contradiction in their printed idol and their entire religious construct collapses. Atheists must encourage religion to restore the theory, which will make their work of destroying faith a lot easier. Religions that abandoned it only did so because they were afraid of the critics and wanted to cover up the stupidity of their doctrines.

The gates of Hell have prevailed over the Vatican and her prostitute daughter Churches so they are not the true Church (Matthew 16:18).

They are antichrist for they deny faith in the Father and the Son by denying the Scriptures whether they realise it or not (1 John 2:22,23). The Catholic Church is not a Christian communion and neither is any other Church that shares her low opinion of scripture.

Remember the absurdity of any theory other than plenary verbal inspiration. Any book of so-called scripture, be it the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita or the Book of Mormon, is to be used to light the fire if it contains so much as a single mistake.

The doctrine of plenary inspiration forces Christianity to beg the question. “The Bible is always right”, they say, “because it is infallible and it is infallible because it is always right”. That is fanaticism. How do you know that when the gospels say Jesus was offered sour wine on the cross that they were right? Maybe somebody misremembered or misinterpreted what they saw? Only the Devil would call for faith based on such bad logic. Logically, the Christians can only say that most statements in the Bible are right and suspend judgment on the rest for they can’t verify everything. That is true even if they can verify that the authors of the Bible were sincere. But they arrogantly refuse to withhold judgement. It is not the Bible they are concerned about but themselves.
It is arrogance to claim your book is right when you cannot know it. It is okay to say you think it is right but to go further than that is bigoted arrogance.

The Church says the Bible is inspired therefore all it says is right. Should we be saying instead that the Bible is right and therefore it is inspired? Then why the Bible only? Why not consider any book where it contains correct statements to be inspired? A statement being right does not mean its inspired.
And if a book is right does it need to be inspired? God could inspire Moses. Moses can write a book based on what he has learned. That book could be right though not inspired because it is based on what God taught Moses. And suppose Moses learned some mundane way? Again the book would not need to be divinely inspired.
Inspiration is just a scam to get you to accept a book as the truth BECAUSE its teachings are suspect.
Divine inspiration of prophets and scriptures is impossible. It is so absurd that it is plainly a scam by men to get you to believe that their writings or the writings they want you to submit in obedience to, to do what they want.  However the doctrine is the only way to distinguish between a religion that claims to be from God and one that is from man and doesn't seem to care.
A Summary of Christian Doctrine, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1971
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania, Undated
Answers to Tough Questions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Scripture Press Bucks, 1988
Attack on the Bible, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1965
Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press, New York, 1985
But the Bible Does Not Say So, Rev Roberto Nisbet, Church Book Room Press, London, 1966
Catholicism and Christianity, Cecil John Cadoux, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1928
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988
Creation and Evolution, Dr Alan Hayward, Triangle, London, 1994
Does the Bible Contradict Itself? Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986
Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982
Essentials, David L Edwards and John Stott, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1990
Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol 1, Josh McDowell, Alpha, Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995
Free Inquiry, Fall 1998, Vol 18, No 4, Council for Secular Humanism, Amherst, New York
God and the Human Condition, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London, 1967
God Cannot Lie, David Alsobrook, Diasozo Trust, Kent, 1989
God, Science and Evolution, Prof E H Andrews, Evangelical Press, Herts, 1985
God’s Word, Final Infallible and Forever, Floyd C McElveen, Gospel Truth Ministries, Grand Rapids, 1985
How and Why Catholic and Protestant Bibles Differ, Carolyn Osiek, RSCJ and Donald Senior, CP, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1983
How to Interpret the Bible, Fergus Cleary SJ, Ligouri Publications, Missouri, 1981
In Defence of the Faith, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene Oregon, 1996
Inspiration in the Bible, Fr Karl Rahner, Herder and Herder, New York, 1966
Jesus and Early Christianity in the Gospels, Daniel J Grolin, George Ronald, Oxford, 2002
Jehovah of the Watch-tower, Walter Martin and Norman Klann, Bethany House Publishers, Minnesota, 1974
Know What You Believe, Paul E Little, Scripture Union, London, 1973
Know Why You Believe, Paul E Little, Scripture Union, London, 1971
New Evangelicalism An Enemy of Fundamentalism, Curtis Hutson, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1984
None of These Diseases, SI McMillen MD, Lakeland, London 1966
Our Perfect Book the Bible, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1958
Proof the Bible is True, Rev JMA Willans BD, Dip.Theol. Vermont Press, Larne, 1982
Radio Replies Vol 3, Radio Replies Press, Minnesota, 1942
Reason and Belief, Bland Blanschard, London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1974
Return to Sodom and Gomorrah, Charles Pellegrino, The Softback Preview, New York, 1995
Science and the Bible, Henry Morris, Moody Press, Bucks, 1988
Science Held Hostage What’s Wrong With Creation Science and Evolutionism, Howard J Van Till/Davis A.Young/Clarence Menninga, IVP, Downer’s Grove, Illinois, 1988
Science Speaks, Peter W Stoner and Robert C Newman, Moody Press, Chicago, 1976
Set My Exiles Free, John Power, Logos Books, MH Gill & Son Ltd, Dublin, 1967
Testament, The Bible and History, John Romer, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1988
The Authority of the Bible, Ambassador College, Pasadena, California, 1980
The Bible is the Word of God, Jimmy Thomas, Guardian of Truth, Kentucky
The Bible, Questions People Ask, A Redemptorist Pastoral Publication, Liguori Publications, Missouri, 1980
The Canon of Scripture, FF Bruce, Chapter House, Glasgow, 1988
The Church of Rome and the Word of God, Rev Eric C Last, Protestant Truth Society, London, Undated
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Edited by Raymond E Brown, Joseph A Fitzmyer, Roland E Murphy, Geoffrey Chapman, New York 1990
The Theology of Inspiration, John Scullion SJ, Mercier, Cork, 1970
The Unauthorised Version, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
Verbal Inspiration of the Bible, John R Rice Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1943
What is the Bible? Henri Daniel-Rops, Angelus Books, Guild Press, New York, 1958
Why Does God..? Domenico Grasso SJ, St Pauls , Bucks, 1970