I am not sure my friend is into Barth or not, but I have been running into people that are.
Admittedly, there wasn't much to go on when I made that remark, i.e., he may
hold to some
degree of neo-orthodox doctrine re: the doctrine of Scripture. I got that from your quoting his words below, which btw are very contradictory:
He said he believes the word "inspired" should be taken in the same manner that someone would be inspired to write someone’s life story. In this case God "inspired" the writers of scripture to write what they are told down, in their own words and with their own human faults.
1. In the first sentence, he redefines "inspired" to mean "motivated", which clearly is NOT what the Scripture nor the Church's historic doctrine of Scripture teach. His definition is what Barth and neo-orthodoxy teach; the writers were simply 'witnesses' of the truth and thus they are fallible as is their record of their experiences.
2. The second sentence is more akin to the biblical/Church's view, which does include elements of dictation, something which he apparently rejects.
At best, your friend is rather confused about the historic teaching on this matter. And, he has certainly put himself in a precarious position with this distorted view he holds. It is akin to putting a screen door in a submarine.
In His grace,