Another thing I observed is that, people have been in the grand mission to try to disprove religious tenets using science, whereas I think the two should go hand in hand. IMO.

Nice post jhay.

a water melon

To the first question, maybe Peter didn’t know that there were ice back then.

Second, maybe Peter knew there was ice, that’s why he tried his luck. He sank because he was too heavy? Anyways, the difference between science and religion is that the former is objective while the latter is highly subjective.

Recalling my theology classes, stories from the Bible were not accounts of actual events that happened in the past, rather they were stories hyped up to appeal to the imagination and heart of those who will read the sacred text – whose primary purpose was to win over new converts.

So everything had to be hyped up to increase the marketability of the Bible and in itself, Christianity, wherein Jesus was the star.

So the story about Jesus walking on water while his disciples, besides being too heavy or oblivious to the fact that there were ice (scientist have already proven this via as mentioned in the article) but as the Bible says so itself, were ‘lacking in faith’ was intended to project Jesus as one awesome, powerful dude that everyone else should follow and worship. Quite a mindful isn’t it?:lol:

But to question the scientists theory, if there was indeed ice, how come Peter was hesitant to go out of the boat? Second, why did Peter sink and almost drowned? If there was ice, then the other disciples could have also gone out of the boat and walked on the ice.

The problem with scientists is that they try use their own human knowledge and understanding in trying to prove theories including those that involve religion.