As we have already seen, if we reject the claim of the Bible to historical accuracy, then we are beset with an imposing set of difficulties arising from the interpenetration of Biblical history with secular history, both in the past and in the present. History does not take place in a vacuum. The Bible claims that its accounts are not legendary. If this claim is rejected, then one must find some way of explaining the inexplicable. If the Bible is legend, then one must explain the existence of a body of literature which, although falsified, corresponds, down to its minutest details, to all that is known about the history with which it claims to be contemporaneous, and which, if it had not taken place, leaves unexplained the myriad of effects that have ostensibly occurred as a result of the events that it describes.
If we accept the Bible's claim to historical accuracy but reject its claim to be, in its entirety, the very words of God, we are still beset with very serious difficulties. If we accept as accurate the events recorded in the Bible, then we are forced to accept its claim to be the very words of God, because many of those events are descriptions of the very process by which God inspired the Scriptures.
The very principle which forces us to accept all of the events recorded in the Bible as historically accurate also forces us to accept the Biblical doctrine of inspiration. As we have seen, we cannot escape the historicity, even of the miracles recorded in the Bible. They are too closely woven into the fabric of history. Yet this is as true for the miracle of Biblical inspiration as it is for everything else recorded in the Bible. If we reject the Bible's claim to be the written record of the words of God, there is too much left for us to explain for which there is no adequate explanation, other than that which is given to us in the Scriptures themselves. For those of us who have seriously pondered this question, it is evident that is would take far greater faith to reject the Biblical claims than to accept them. Too may difficult questions arise if we do not take the Bible at face value. To much is left unanswered.
If we do not accept the Biblical view of its own origin, we must come up with an alternative explanation as to the origin of the Bible. Such an explanation would have to take into account the fact that all of the authors of the Bible claimed this divine inspiration, not only for themselves, but for all of the Biblical authors who had written before them. Could they perhaps have been lying, or might they have been deceived? If so, can we take anything they have said seriously? If not, how are we to explain what is? If they were lying, could that be consistent with what is manifestly the case with respect to their character? If they were deceived, then what criteria are acceptable for the determination of truth? Can we be sure we are not deceived ourselves? How can we be? Can there be such a thing as truth at all?
It is certainly impossible to accept the Scriptures as authoritative for some purposes, but then to reject the claims of those Scriptures concerning themselves. If the Scriptures are suspect in their repeated claims for themselves, then on what basis can it be said that they have integrity on any other matter? If we are going to say that mankind has any basis for optimism, and if we base this statement upon the fact that we have the Judaeo-Christian Bible, then if we are going to have any integrity at all, we will have to accept the claims that the Bible consistently makes for itself. To do otherwise is do violence to the integrity of the foundation for that optimism and to throw the entire matter into serious question.
