According to this theory, the inspiration of the Bible writers was the same as has characterized Christians of every age; the ordinary Christian of to-day is inspired as much as was the Apostle Paul. 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. The favorite way of expressing this theory is, "The Bible _contains_ the Word of God." This statement implies that it contains much that is not the Word of God, that is, that is not inspired. A serious question at once arises: Who is to decide what is and what is not inspired? Who is to be the judge of so vital a question? What part is inspired, and what part is not? Who can tell? Such a theory leaves man in awful and fatal uncertainty. g) Plenary, or Full, Inspiration. This is the opposite of Partial Inspiration. It holds all Scripture to be equally inspired, as stated on page 200. It bases its claim on 2 Tim. 3:16. The Revised Version translation of 2 Tim. 3:16 is erroneous. The reader might infer from it that there is some Scripture that is not inspired. If Paul had said, "All Scripture that is divinely inspired is also profitable, etc.," he would virtually have said, "There is _some_ Scripture, _some_ part of the Bible, that is _not profitable, etc.,_ and therefore is not inspired." This is what the spirit of rationalism wants, namely, to make human reason the test and judge and measure of what is inspired and what is not. One man says such and such a verse is not profitable to him, another says such and such a verse is not profitable to him; a third says such and such is not profitable to him. The result is that no Bible is left.