Replies

>>After reading your post I now see clearly how you feel. You see the Bible how you see it and not literally. That explains a great deal to me.<<

I am pleased you understand.

>>Peter was a fisherman. Would he be qualified to speak of theology in your opinion? If you feel this way about the Bible, then that is your choice. If I wanted to believe Human Evolution, I would take that stance as well.<<

Well, you have staked out a position that suggests you are either a theologian, since you say that your understanding of the Bible provides a dichotomous interpretation; or a scientist since you say the scientific interpretation is in conflict with the Bible — or both.

Peter was one of Jesus’ chosen and schooled at His knee — He made it clear what He wanted to be said and it dealt with men’s souls, not their understanding of the physical universe. Nowhere in the Gospel of Peter does it say one word about Evolution or science in General. Theology is the study of religion, as is Science the study of the physical world.

It is a bit ironic that you choose Peter, who found the RCC, as your forensic gladiator. It is the church he founded that agrees with me (or me, it, I suppose).

But this is getting to be interesting — thanks for continuing to be open to discussion.

"scientific interpretation is in conflict with the Bible — or both."

False Human Evolution science is in conflict with the literal Bible, not science itself is not in conflict with Bible. Apparently, you are of the persuasion that the Bible can say whatever you want it to say. That is neither scientific, nor theological. It is arrogance and ignorance.

"Peter was one of Jesus’ chosen and schooled at His knee — He made it clear what He wanted to be said and it dealt with men’s souls, not their understanding of the physical universe. Nowhere in the Gospel of Peter does it say one word about Evolution or science in General. Theology is the study of religion, as is Science the study of the physical world."

After that answer there is no doubt you would ask Peter for his academic credentials when speaking of theology. I asked if he were qualified to speak of theology, not science. The Bible never mentions evolution in any way in the entire Book, thank you for pointing that out as well.

"It is a bit ironic that you choose Peter, who found the RCC, as your forensic gladiator. It is the church he founded that agrees with me (or me, it, I suppose)."

You seem to be obsessed with Catholics for some reason. I don't care if the whole world agrees with you, you disagree with the Bible and therefor I disagree with you. You pretend like the Bible is not literal, but it is literal. You'll find out just how literal it is one day I promise you that.