Could God have used fallible people to write an infallible book?

The objection points at something real: the Bible carries human fingerprints on every page, in its vocabularies, its styles, its moods. The question is whether that rules out God's superintendence or is exactly what superintendence would look like.

1. Fallible means capable of error. A fallible person is one who can err, not one who always does. Nobody is claiming God used men who got things wrong; the claim is that God kept them from error in what they wrote. 'Fallible authors' and 'an infallible book' only collide if you quietly redefine fallible to mean errant.

2. Inspiration is not dictation. Paul writes that 'All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching' (2 Timothy 3:16), and Peter says 'no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit' (2 Peter 1:21). Notice the grammar: men spoke. Both texts put the human beings inside the sentence rather than replacing them.

3. The human fingerprints are the evidence. Luke opens his Gospel by describing his own research: 'it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account' (Luke 1:1-4). That is not the preface a dictation machine would write. The text shows us the process, and the church received the result as God's word.

4. Providence governs genuinely free actions. Joseph's brothers freely chose their betrayal, and Joseph still tells them, 'you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good' (Genesis 50:20). Scripture also says the Lord turns a king's heart 'wherever he will' (Proverbs 21:1). If God can steer a free human decision to a fixed end without cancelling the chooser, he can steer a writer's free composition to a true text.

5. The claim is narrower than the caricature. Inerrancy, carefully stated, means Scripture is without error in all that it affirms. That leaves room for paraphrase, round numbers, varied Greek, and different genres, which is why the careful defenders spend so much time on genre in the first place. Most supposed counter-examples assume the Bible is making a precision claim it never makes.

6. Your standard indicts you too. To know that the Bible errs, you would need independent, error-free access to the events it reports, which the objection's own view of human knowledge says nobody has. And 'a fallible book cannot be trusted' is itself a confident truth claim made by fallible people. Run that standard consistently and it dissolves the argument holding it.

7. Christians disagree about the scope. Some confess inerrancy in the strict sense; others hold infallibility, meaning Scripture cannot mislead on faith and practice while allowing errors in incidental detail. Neither position appears in the ancient creeds. That disagreement is real and should be stated plainly, because pretending the details are simpler than they are is its own kind of dishonesty.

8. The alternative has its own cost. Drop divine superintendence and you are left with ordinary religious literature, which then has to carry the weight of the resurrection claim and the coherence of sixty-six books across a millennium and a half. You also lose the ground for trusting the Jesus material itself, since it reaches you through the same channel. The skeptic's version is not obviously the cheaper option.

The objection assumes that divine action and human action compete for the same space, so that more of one means less of the other. The biblical picture runs the other way: God's action is what makes the human action possible and fruitful. A book written by real men, kept true by the God who made them, is not a contradiction. It is what you would expect.

Sources: Michael J. Kruger; Canon Revisited; Norman Geisler; Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics; Daniel B. Wallace.

Related challenges:
• IF God exists, He’s maniacal. If He WANTED to forgive sin, He’s 'all-powerful' and 'all-loving' – He could just, SHAZAM, forgive sin. Instead, He sends down His only Son to be slaughtered and murdered to take care of the sin problem. Now THAT’S evil!
• I hear a lot about “intelligent design.” Has this now proven God and falsified evolution?
• How would you respond to Victor Stenger’s stinging assertion that religious argument leads universally to dismal failure and untold suffering?