Liberal Theology (Pro) Vs. Fundamentalist Theology (Con)

Rebuttal #1: God is Omniscient; The Bible Cannot Be Perfect.In regards to my opponent's first point, I would most certainly like to make a clarification: at no point do I believe that I am bringing the omniscience and omnipotence of God into question. In fact, it is much the opposite - I concede that the Bible is fallible, and that it does indeed contain marks of human error, but as a result, I believe that such a Bible is proof that the omniscient and omnipotent God of christianity could not have possibly written such a text. In reverse, I might argue that to say the Bible literally is the word of God would be an embarrassment to Him, because clearly the Bible is not perfect.As an added point to my rebuttal, I would like to point out another problem, and this is that the Bible is believed to be the perfect, Infallible Word of God - but this is just not possible. We as finite beings could not possibly comprehend what is perfect. To say that the Bible is perfect would mean to say that it is without room for improvement. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines perfection as "1.having no mistakes or flaws 2. completely correct or accurate." Philosophically, I would argue that perfection is an infinite property, because as long as something is finite, it can always be more than it already is. Mathematically, it can be argued logically with inequalities: 1<2, 2<3, 3<4, 4<5, 5<6,...1,000<1,001, 1,001<1,002... 1,000,000<1,000,001...As you can see, there is always a finite number greater than the first, so every number is flawed because it is not as good - or at an equal or greater than value - as the next number. However, this can easily be changed with the integration of a different variable:1<∞, 2<∞, 3<∞...1,000<∞, 1,001<∞... 1,000,000<∞, 1,000,001<∞...What this all has to do with the perfection of the Bible, is to say that as long as the Bible is finite - and I argue that it is - it cannot possibly be perfect. Even more, a finite human being created by God is unable to comprehend such an infinite perfection; to say this is possible would mean to argue that a finite human being could comprehend God, but of course this is impossible. So, the very fact that humans are capable of reading and comprehending the Bible, must mean that the Bible is finite, or in other words, imperfect. We could not understand it otherwise.Rebuttal #2: The liberal theology approach views the Bible in the context of an ancient document.My opponent raised the concern that the approach of liberal theology to the Bible could be a cop out to - what I'm assuming - some verses in the Bible, alongside a cop out to God's omniscience and omnipotence. I've previously rebutted the latter, so I will argue the former.I would like to introduce a verse from the Bible, which is Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which states: 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (NIV) http://www.biblegateway.com... I ask, is this a verse which christians should take literally today? Or should we take the liberal theology approach, deem that this verse is part of an ancient text, and go on to say that it no longer applies? "The fundamental approach makes sense of the bible as a whole and can argue away contradictions in various alternative ways"Perhaps - if so, I would be interested if my opponent could rationalize Exodus 31:18 and Malachi 4:4 in his/her next rebuttal, and even more convincingly, some other alleged contradictory verses in the Bible as well."Consequently you also have to question all aspects of the bible for when God says He is a jealous God and you have to worship Him alone is this whole passage literal or is it metaphorical, which parts are literal, which are metaphorical and what is your criterion to determine this."I think that, from what can be examined, the God of the times referenced to in the Bible may be more likely than other gods, but this is my opinion alone. Therefore, if the God of this ancient text is the true God, then it would make more sense to worship this God than any other. As with any ancient text, I would say looking for consistency and motifs is most likely the best bet for exegeting accurate information from the books compiled in the Bible.Rebuttal #3: God Authored the Bible?"It [fundamentalist theology] suggests that God, through men inspired the word in which people can rely on and take as their inspiration and guidance. For if God wanted to reveal a text to man why would He do it in such a manner that it has contradictions and errors, well of course He wouldn't, rather God would have intended to give a text to people that they can trust and rely upon rather than one that almost questions the texts very origins..." (emphasis mine)I believe my opponent may have philosophically arrived at the conclusion I have arrived at here, albeit my opponent does believe in fundamentalist theology at this point as far as I am aware. I am arguing that, because the Bible is imperfect, God must not have authored it. Perhaps such a perfect guide would be nice, as my opponent argues, but I would argue that a perfect document, a perfect guide of life, would just not be feasible, logically or philosophically. As stated before, we as finite beings could not possibly comprehend perfection, so in order for the Bible to be comprehensible, as it is, it must, therefore, be finite.Rebuttal #4: The View of GodI think I already rebutted much of this in my first rebuttal, but I will briefly cover this view nevertheless. Liberal theology is very expansive on views of God, as there is no grouping of denominations based on fundamental theological approaches, so I cannot speak for the whole of liberal theology; and I would also like to mention that there are many views of God under the fundamentalist christian umbrella as well. However, I will reaffirm that, on account of the Bible being imperfect, saying that an omnipotent and omniscient God had authored such a flawed document could make fundamentalist theology to be a kind of embarrassment to God, in a sense. Liberal theology looks at the Bible, and denies that such an all-knowing, all-powerful God would have authored such a text.*Point #5: What next?This point which my opponent raised is, I concede, a very good point; but not necessarily in a bad way. Of course, I do not believe that the liberal approach to the Bible will eventually condemn God in any way on account of the problem of evil, because liberal theology is more based in criticism of the Bible rather than criticism of God - the two are hardly the same, after all! But "what next" is indeed a good question. Will evolution be discovered by a liberal christian? Will an end to discrimination and prejudice be put forth by a liberal christian? If we are to look at many parts of the Bible as ancient and outmoded, it opens up the future for whatever is required in order to learn more scientifically or socially. I do want to clarify though, that I do not believe this creates lies concerning God's "nature, essence, and revelation", et al, as my opponent argues.I await my opponent's rebuttal.