I am very much a Christian and I contradict nothing. As I said upthread, the RCC also believes this. I won't put words in your mouth — what do you make of their position?
>>If these are facts as you say, then you received them from something other than the Bible. The Bible says that God formed man from the dust of the ground and gave him life through His own breath and not from evolving man from an animal. Call Human Evolutionists false or call the Bible a lie. Make your choice, the two are not, and never will be, compatible.
The Bible was designed to speak to the theological needs of Man, not as a science text. Unless you have read it in its original language, you really can't make the assertion (I am sorry, my friend, it does not even rise to a contention) that it was ever meant to be literal. Even then you cannot ken the reasoning behind it, nor can you speak to its purpose.
The Bible is alliteration, not denotation. Science leads where the facts lead. God provides the basis for those facts. He would not mislead us.
I am sure you are a very good person, but you are neither theologian nor scientist. Just a (I assume) nice guy with some opinions.
But, to assist in the thread I leave these question (so there can be no misunderstanding):
1. Is the RCC wrong in its interpretation of the Bible and all RCCs are not Christian since they follow that?
2. Have you read the Bible in all its original languages? If so, can you list those languages and where they are used?
3. Please explain why the Bible in Genesis I and Genesis II conflict? The conflict is clear and yet suggest that a literal interpretation is problematic.
4. OOps — are you a theologian or a scientist? Maybe I was making assumptions too quickly. If so, I can ask a few question more deeply in each area. If I was wrong, please accept my apology in advance.
Thanks and I hope you have a lovely and blessed evening.
btw: I made it to my workplace city, and the plane was only an hour late. I am pleased we can have this discussion.