Having considered three views of inspiration, let’s dive a little deeper to consider the extent of inspiration.

The first consideration in the extent of inspiration is about Partial vs. Plenary Inspiration. Proponents of partial inspiration insist that portions of Scripture are not inspired. Those who dismiss portions of Scripture usually claim that some portions are scientifically incorrect, because they insist that said sections were pertinent only to the culture of the original writer/recipients, or that they are the personal opinions of the authors, and therefore not inspired or authoritative. Proponents of plenary inspiration agree with Scripture that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16). If we are going to pick and choose which parts of Scripture are inspired, by what authority dare we do so? Once we dismiss one verse, where do we end?

Partial inspiration is incorrect. Plenary inspiration is correct.

The second consideration in the extent of inspiration is about Thought Inspiration vs. Verbal Inspiration. Proponents of thought inspiration allege that God inspired the thoughts and allowed the writers to concoct their own presentation. Verbal inspiration, which is the orthodox view, insists that every word, though written by men from their own vocabulary and literary style, is the exact word that God chose.[1]

This becomes important when translating Scripture. Proponents of thought inspiration readily employ the “thought-for-thought” or “dynamic equivalency” method of translation. Those who insist on verbal inspiration understand the importance of a “word-for-word” method of translation. This is important when choosing a Bible translation to read and study. It is safest by far to use only “word-for-word” translations for study.

Thought inspiration is incorrect. Verbal inspiration is correct.