If this be the true view, there seems to be no plausible reason why a new Bible should not be possible to-day. And yet no individual, however extreme his claims to inspiration may be, has even ventured such a task.
c) Mechanical, or Dynamic Inspiration. (See Verbatim Eeporting, page 198.)
This theory ignores the human instrumentality in the writing of the Scriptures altogether, and claims that the writers were passive instruments mere machines, just as insensible to what they were accomplishing as is the string of the harp or lyre to the play of the musician.
How, then, do we account for the differences in style of the various writers, the preservation of their individualities, their idiosyncrasies?
It seems evident that Scripture cannot be made to harmonize with the application of this theory.
d) Concept, or Thought Inspiration.
This theory claims that only the concepts, or thoughts, of men were given by inspiration. It will be examined more fully later. Concept Inspiration is opposed by
e) Verbal Inspiration.
Here it is claimed that the very words of Scripture were given by the Holy Spirit; that the writers were not left absolutely to themselves in the choice of words they should use. (See page 204.)
f) Partial Inspiration.