1) Dispotation about the Inspiration of Scripture
I personally am a fundamentalist in question of Scripure understanding. The confession of faith of Brethern church says: We believe that the Scripture is infallible witness about God's self-reveal. The Holy Scripture has two dimensions: The first one is God' dimension, the second one is man's dimension. The God one is infallible truth, th man's dimension is man's language, man's formulation and handing-over of the message. (My translation) But there is no word that the man's dimension is mistakeable.
If I write a letter than I can use many pens: The red one, green one, blue one. I as writer know the character of this pens and I can use it according my plan. I can use f.e. the blue one for common text, the red one for highlighting of important sections and green one for citation. I can say that my letter has two dimension: My one and pen's one. But this does not mean that I am not responsible for every word what I wrote. If I do a mistake, it is my fault, no fault of pen. If the character of some pen is not sufficient for my plan then I can use another one which is sufficient. This is my responsible to use the pen which's character is sufficient for my letter. If I use wrong one it is my mistake, not a pen's mistake. The chemist knows chemical compounds, he knows how the compound react in relation with onether one in advance, he calculates it in his plan. If at the end of process he does not get what he wants then it did not a mistake of compound but of his plan.
But God does not make a mistake. From this point od view there is no different between the "dictate" theory of inspiration and "supervisor" one. If director commands the secretary to write a business letter and then he reads it and signs it than he takes the responsibilty for every word of the letter. If the letter contents any mistake of secretary than he cannot say anything because he signs it. The fact that the Scripture contents the both God's and man's dimension is not a reason to state that the man's dimension can content any mistake.
If it contents any human's mistake than this is not the mistake but God's word to us because the Holy Spirit sings it.
Yes, we have to respect genres of Bible's books but we have to respect the writer rules of these genres too: We cannot impose our rules of genres to Bible's writer. Yes, the bible can cite the man's mistake trully, see f.e. Job's wife advice. But the Scripture has a right that it was said contently but not in the message of this cite. Somebody can be totally wrong when he says, that if the autor of Genesis does not want to describe the precise cosmology-science description of God's creating than we have not to consider serriously about six days creation. But I think we have to ask the more important questions: At first – Did writer believe in six days creation? Answer is: Probably yes. At second – and what about the first readers, do they beleive it? We can asnwer: Yes, surely, we have their confession about it in the decalogue. And last one – do Christ and his apostles trust this message in written meaning? We can say: Probably yes, we can read many verses of Bible which probably confirm it. The question of opening chapters of Genesis is not only a question of this opening chapters but a question of all Bible
2) The relation between the old and new testamens.
There is one wrong opinion which is very broadened on the Church. It says that Christ on the mount preaching presented only new (o.k. better) interpretation of the Law. I think this is wrong explanation. Christ said something more: He did not present new interpretion of the Old Testamen, he gave the new testament: It is himself. Himself is the new testament. (f.e. Isaiah 42,6) The czech ecumenic translation translates the 1Cor 9,21 by the following way: My Law is Christ. Christ is Law and everything he says belong to new testament because himself is new testament. If the cited opinion is right than it would mean that the mount preaching is not related to our obedience because "we are not under Law." But we are under Christ: he is our King, he is our Owner, he is our Majesty. What Owner says is the command for his subjects. Consequences about this different meaning we can see f.e. in the discuss about the Church restitution.