All of those elements were also in the EGW quote I posted here from that link.

God is the author in the sense that, if it were not for God inspiring them to write what they wrote in their own words, there wouldn't be a Bible.

That's true. It's not something made up by man.

A question comes up in how God wishes that the Bible be used. As one person asks, is it a code book, or a case book?

God is the author of all knowledge. Why are we so intent on giving this book of Jewish history a preeminent place?

Darius,

Unless you will participate more intelligently without simply making the same kind of statements that you alway make, you will also be exempt from further participation in this forum of MSDAOL.

Explain why it is unintelligent to say that God is the source of all knowledge, or to suggest that there is a problem when we unquestioningly accept claims that a certain set of books alone qualify as the Word of God. It is easy to show that all knowledge comes from the Creator of the universe but no one can provide any evidence to suggest that God holds any particular book of knowledge as superior. If adherence to that universal truth earns me your displeasure I have nothing to complain about.

God is the source of all knowledge as well as all wisdom, which is why He gave this knowledge and wisdom to those who wrote the various books that make up the Bible today, both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Of course, God didn't dictate to them what they would write, however, He did inspire them to write in their own words the knowledge and wisdom He gave them in the writing of the Scriptures.

Christ also acknowledged the authors of and the authority of the then only existing Scriptures by quoting some of the words that they wrote in the Scriptures.

That's the problem we continue to have, Daryl. Like most people you do not wish to acknowledge that EVERYONE writes their understanding of the knowledge and wisdom of the Creator that has been made available to all. It is not only the biblical writers who did this.

If they had also been inspired by God through thought inspiration, then why didn't Christ quote from any of them?

Who Christ quoted from doesn't determine what should be in the canon. I think Jonah was the only minor prophet Christ quoted. That doesn't mean the others shouldn't be there. Jude quoted from the book of Enoch, yet that's not in the canon.

(btw, I'm not agreeing with Darius' position, just pointing out that who quotes from whom is not a good argument as to whether a given book was inspired or not).

If Christ had quoted from the book of Enoch, I believe the book of Enoch would most likely have been included in the canon.