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

No problem in regards to the delaying of the round and four rounds I think is better for me anyway. I appreciate the points that you have raised and think that they are good points and of course I will be responding to those in the next round, but for now I will present the reasons why I think that it makes more sense to take the fundamentalist approach to biblical theology rather than a modern liberalism approach that you are arguing for. Point #1: The fundamentalist approach makes more sense of Christian theology The first point that I would like to raise is that Christianity teaches that God is omnipotent and omniscient, that He is All-Powerful and All-Wise. This remains with the approach I am arguing for as it presents the case of a God who through His wise and powerful nature, through men inspired the word of the text to be presented to all of humankind as the Divinely inspired word of God, for all to follow, for a means of peace and salvation. The modernist approach makes if very difficult to remain Christian because of the very questioning of God's nature and attributes, for how can a God of this nature reveal through men to humankind a book so erroneous and contradictory internally and externally, for the pro liberal approach would concede this much and this brings into question the very nature and essence of the God the bible is trying to present. Thus, I would say that in fact the pro liberal approach to biblical theology implies that God isn't all-knowing or all-wise and that in fact he is capable of making mistakes and errors. Point #2: The fundamentalist approach makes sense of the bible holistically This approach I would argue also seems to make more sense because it allows you to believe in a God who revealed the text through men as being Divinely inspired throughout. Now the modernist approach raises the question of, which parts do you take literal and which don't you? It seems to me that in fact this approach is really picking and choosing at its own convenience and that it is really a cop out to avoid some of the things I have mentioned about Gods omnipotence and omniscience. The fundamental approach makes sense of the bible as a whole and can argue away contradictions in various alternative ways rather than admitting that God makes mistakes or that He isn't all that perfect after all, which is the impression I get from a pro liberal theology. 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. Point #3: The fundamentalist approach makes sense of God's will and intentions This approach to biblical theology also makes sense of God in terms of what He would have wanted and intended to do in revealing a text to mankind. It 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, if you take the fundamental approach then you can come to know God for who He is as mentioned in the text, if you are pro liberal then, you raise the question of why would God have revealed it in this way, surely He could have done a bit better? Point #4: Pro Liberal theology is offensive, fundamental theology is full of praise What I mean here is that fundamental theology really acknowledges God in His true nature and is praiseworthy of God because it believes in all His attributes as told in the bible and for that is full of praise, which of course God deserves. However, with pro liberal theology I would argue that what you say about God is to Him maybe offensive and some what degrading, for it implies God makes mistakes, He is not perfect and is somewhat flawed, is this really God and is this what God would want of people to take this approach to Him and His Divinely inspired text, to question Him and accuse Him of making errors, mistakes and taking human knowledge and wisdom over His own. Point #5: What next? I think that one of the other issues with taking the pro liberal approach that you are arguing for is that it raises the issue of what next are you going to try to change or modernise just because it appears problematic, for example you may try to argue that in fact God is not all good to get pass the problem of evil just because it seems problematic, the issue is here that although it might work from a theological and philosophical perspective where talking about the Creator of the universe, you cannot create lies about Him, His nature, essence, revelation and so on. So I hope I have raised enough points to get you thinking and would also that you to really clarify your position, do you really believe in an erroneous bible, full of errors and contradictions and how do you reconcile this whilst believing in the God of Christianity.