i agree with you on both being irrational. and i agree that “inspiration” does not mean innerrancy. but just because it’s not “innerant” doesn’t mean that it’s not inspiring, right, or true. to me it makes it more true that it is written in a specific cultural context, by a specific person. that God would allow weird eccentric people to tell their stories of how they related to God and He to them is such a better alternative than some robotic dictation or dropping it pre-made down into their laps.

and i agree that you can’t apply science to every passage. it can certainly inform the interpretation. but it is intimately connected to the mysterious and faith at the same time. too many people want to use one method without the other. it’s both/and.

mystery and common sense are both valuable things. those without mystery end up explaining away miracles. while those without common sense end up with fairy tales.

I do think the Bible was inspired, but it was also written by men. Not an either/or, but a both. So the scientific worldview of the writer is evident whenever scientific topics come up.

But because it is also inspired by God (“God-breathed” as Timothy puts it), there are subtle scientific truths in there as well. But for the most part, when the Bible describes something like “pi = 3″ (which it does), we have to understand that the passage wasn’t trying to relate the value of pi.

Similarly, we need to be careful about applying certain levels of scientific emphasis on other passages that do not require it.

There is also a huge difference between what is related before Abraham in Genesis and everything else, both in terms of writing and style and in terms of history. The Abraham account is the beginning of Israel’s history, whereas everything before that is more like a prologue, the ancient myths (be they true or not) that inform Israel about God and his relationship with man. They are essential to the story, but they are not the essential story. The story begins with Abraham.

Anyone who can believe that life can just “evolve” out of nothing is irrational. Similarly, anyone who can believe that life can just be “created” by God, out of nothing, is irrational. Neither can be discretely explained and precisely defined. So evolutionary theory is not really that different from creationism or intelligent design. The primary difference is that they can look at nature and still deny that God exists.

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)

i wouldn’t necessarily say that it is the created order—or the way that God intended for things to be from the beginning, but it doesn’t just mirror itself in creation but in our own personal everyday lives. i think this is why jesus subverts all that stuff and tells us that it’s our job to live in the paradox—last will be first, first will be last; etc. it’s like jesus is telling us not only to do this in our own everyday lives, but by doing so how would that change creation? how would that begin to bring the kingdom and change the way that things are now?

i’m a little groggy, so that might not make sense…