The Bible

The Bible's Purpose
To me, the Bible's primary purpose doesn't seem to be to serve as a history or science text, although at least some of its challenged messages seem plausible as historical fact and consistent with science's findings. Rather, the Bible seems intended to convey an understanding of God, the God/human relationship, and the cause of and solution for social issues.

Teaching The Bible
To me, teaching the Bible's description of God and the God/human relationship seems primary. The ark seems part of the Bible kit of anecdotes, precepts, poetry and (apparently-suggested) prophecy intended to convey that primary point to people with sufficient life experience to recognize the information's apparent relevance. Those people might then allow God to direct them in conveying the primary message and the value of the Bible as a tool for conveying the primary message to children and the more life-experienced who are newly developing their God/human relationship.

The Bible's Trueness
Responds to: https://twitter.com/reasonandlogic/status/728974259524120576

I don't seem to claim to have irrefutable proof that all of the Bible's anecdotes are historical fact, and that all of the Bible's suggestions are consistent with contemporary science's findings. However, to me, both (a) the existence of God as described by the Bible, and (b) the Bible's apparent message that the key to optimal human experience is individual acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, seem consistent with science's findings.

The key issue seems to be whether figurative expression or limited, period, technical understanding of physical nature discredit a writing intended to demonstrate God as the key to optimal human experience.

To me, they do not seem to because the Bible's apparent focus does not seem to be primarily physical nature, but rather, the nature of the God/human relationship. The nature of that relationship, perhaps like that of many other relationship types, seems independent of whether, for example, the earth is a disc or sphere.

The Inerrant Word Of God
My perspective regarding the Bible's content might differ in some ways from popular Judeo, and/or Judeo-Christian thought. For example, the Bible as a total work seems reasonably suggested to be inspired by God because it seems to me to present the most useful guide to understanding the path from and to optimal human experience that I have encountered; and an apparently powerful tool for helping restore its apparently-suggested God/human relationship and the quality of human experience. Discussion with other texts' apparent advocates seems to confirm this suggestion.

To me, the Bible seems intended to depict various aspects of the God/human relationship via depiction of the apparently-suggested God/Israel relationship. As a result, the Bible as a literary work seems reasonably suggested to possibly include thought resulting from varied levels of inspiration. To me, however, those thoughts, when assembled into a "big picture", seem to effectively articulate the Bible's apparent message: the key to optimal experience is God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

The Bible And Other Texts
With all appropriate respect to other texts and their enthusiasts, to me, the Bible seems the most useful guide to the human experience. It seems to explain the cause of and solution for all social issues via various literary tools including anecdote, guideline, poetry, and apparently, prophecy. The Bible's anecdotes seem to portray and therefore address both the positive and negative potential of the human experience, even among those who consider God to exist, perhaps to demonstrate how human experience quality deteriorates when humans attempt to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. In addition, the Bible's apparent explanation for the cause of and solution for social issues seems consistent with science's findings.

To me, personal discussion with other texts' enthusiasts seems to confirm this perspective.

Biblical Suggestion Not Considered To Be Substantiated By Science
I don't seem to claim that the suggestion to which this comment responds (a) represents common occurrence, (b) is substantiated by science's findings to date, or (c) is historical fact. However, God's apparently science-substantiated role as the source of all other existence seems to provide sufficient window to logically propose the suggestion's viability.

To propose apparently relevant context, phenomena apparently facilitated by science's findings might be considered magic by an observer unfamiliar with the phenomena and its mechanics, and might be considered illogical by a recipient of report of the phenomena. The reporter's apparently likely lack of language with which to describe the phenomena and its mechanics might increase the likelihood of the report recipient's categorization. Video on a smart phone might serve as an example.

Abraham's Test
To me, Genesis 22 might be more accurately titled "Abraham's Test" than "Abraham's Sacrifice" since (a) God seems suggested to have halted Abraham from going through with God's apparently-suggested sacrifice, and (b) the point of this experience seems to have been God allowing Abraham to experience maintaining God as primary relationship and sovereign authority when reason to behave otherwise might have seemed preferable. This experience seems to have been another step toward Abraham's becoming the starting point for God's apparently-intended illustration, via the nation of Israel, of human experience with God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

To me, the value of maintaining God as primary relationship and sovereign authority even when reason to behave otherwise seems preferable seems portrayed by Genesis 2-3, where Eve and Adam seem to have introduced adversity into the human experience by abandoning God as primary relationship and sovereign authority in pursuit of an apparently preferable option.

Ten Commandments: Relevance
To me, your post seems to suggest that only two of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17) have been incorporated into laws. Unsure of the range of territories to which the comment refers, this response addresses territories within the U.S.A.

To me, every verse of the Ten Commandments seems implemented to some extent in U.S.A. territory law, rather than only two commandments being incorporated..

Multiple perspectives seem to exist on how Exodus 20:2-17's apparently 16 verses are separated into 10 principles, so perhaps I might optimally attempt to parse the passage by verse, rather than by commandment.

A theory of mine regarding the Ten Commandments' purpose might be helpful. To me, the Ten Commandments don't seem originally intended to serve as the sovereign, real-time, decision-making authority, but rather, they seem likely intended to clarify key differences between (a) the social and religious culture of the Hebrews'/Israel's ex-enslavers, and (b) the human experience as God designed it.

Exodus 20:2-11 seems to address the sovereignty of God/human relationship. The U.S.A.'s constitution seems to contain a law barring governmental administration of the God/human relationship.

Exodus 20:12 seems to me to call for respect for parents. In general, U.S.A. law seems to allow parents to administrate this principle, and seems to acknowledge the general jurisdiction of parents over the decision-making of minors, while reserving for government the right to intervene when it deems necessary.

Exodus 20:13 seems to prohibit killing, and U.S.A. law seems to attempt to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate killing, and prohibit the inappropriate.

Exodus 20:14 seems to prohibit adultery, and seems suggested to exist as law within certain U.S.A. territories.

Exodus 20:15's prohibition on stealing seems relatively common in U.S.A. law.

Exodus 20:16's prohibition on bearing false witness seems commonly prohibited as perjury.

Exodus 20:17 seems to prohibit covetousness, or apparently in other words, wanting other people's resources rather than the appropriate acquisition of one's own. I don't seem to recall U.S.A. law prohibiting wanting other people's resources, however, intent seems to be legislatively considered an important factor in determining criminal guilt. In addition, government seems suggested to delve into addressing intent to prevent harm before it occurs. Perhaps guidelines for doing so might exist within U.S.A. law.

Slavery Guidelines
Response to: https://twitter.com/RobOpie/status/730093902007504896

To me, in light of (a) the Bible's apparent central guideline to love God with all of your, heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love others as your self, and (b) God having just liberated the Hebrews from slavery, passages related to slavery management seem most likely attributable to the human administrative body apparently suggested by Jethro in Exodus 18, rather than to God. That body seems reasonably suggested to have become acclimated to possibly centuries of enslavement, and might have considered their liberation an opportunity to fine-tune slavery, rather than eradicate it.

Distinguishing God's Guidelines From Humans'
Previously "Distinguishing God's Guidelines From Man's
Response to https://twitter.com/GrahamMundie/status/730542786848641025

To me, the Bible seems to suggest a central message regarding God and God's design for the human experience that, so far, might serve as an attribution plumbline: God and God's design for the human experience is all good until free-will behavior warrants otherwise (Genesis 1, Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:28-33, Luke 10:25-37). That seems to rule out God acting inappropriately.

The account regarding Adam, Eve, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the serpent seems intended to demonstrate that God's supreme benevolence might not always be recognizable to limited human perception, but is the sole suggested benevolence that is optimally assumed to be.

Leviticus 11
Leviticus 11 seems suggested by some to substantiate suggestion that the Bible is invalid because of certain statements that seem to conflict with contemporary science.

Firstly, Leviticus 11:6 seems to read "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud". The criticism seems to suggest that rabbits don't chew their cud. However, although rabbits might not move food between internal chambers as cows seem to, rabbits seem suggested to eat and digest their food twice. That seems sufficient to reasonably warrant the relevant co-categorization.

Lastly, the King James Version seems to use the term "fowl" to describe a list that includes bats. However, contemporary science seems to suggest that bats are not members of the apparent bird classification.

This apparent conflict seems misleading, because the term "fowl" seems clearly, consistently and reasonably used within the text to refer to "winged life forms". Using "fowl" to refer to "winged life forms" seems appropriately acknowledged as differing from contemporary usage, but word usage changes seem generally accepted as commonplace throughout human history. The issue of the scope of such usage during the writers' time period seems non-germaine since the meaning seems clearly, consistently and reasonably used within its context. In addition, suggested conflict with scientific life form classification seems non-germaine since the passage's apparently clear contextual meaning seems clearly unrelated to any scientific classification.

In light of the above, Leviticus 11:13-23 doesn't seem reasonably considered to substantiate suggestion that the Bible is invalid.

Interpreting The Bible
Communication seems generally considered to be subject to interpretation, and therefore, misinterpretation. An apparently important feature of SIDP discussion seems to be scrutiny of the logical basis for interpretation choice.

Apparently, like other communication, the Bible might have one correct interpretation, and multiple reasonable but incorrect interpretations. To me, individuals seem responsible for requesting God's interpretation guidance, under the assumption that God is supremely interested in the individual gaining the understanding that God knows to be optimal for that individual.

For those that have not accepted God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, reading the Bible and allowing time to clearly understand one's questions about it might be helpful. The Bible seems to contain a large library of concepts presented through its various literary forms, and conclusions drawn from one passage might be modified by conclusions drawn from another.