You totally misread the whole of my question. I wanted to know what LT thought. You continue to look at the miniscule and miss the obvious.
I was addressing your motivation for incessantly asking a question about my posts and wondering what connection your question had with what I had just posted and LT's response. Forgive me for asking questions of my own about why you were so curious about this. The question originally wasn't "What does LT believe", as a simple inquiry of LT's faith but "Is Leo really upholding the scriptures". That's quite different, and that was your response to both my post and LT's approval of it. And by saying that I "continue to look at the miniscule and miss the obvious," is this meant as a criticism of my posts? If so, let's talk about the evidence I cited and what you feel is factually or interpretively incorrect (which is of course entirely possible). Or is this only an ad hominem?
But lady, your general tone is anti-Bible.
This sounds like a generalizing label to me. And one that appears to misrepresent my view of (and love for) biblical literature. Is trying to understand individual Bible books in their original social/intellectual context, how they were composed and compiled, what message they are trying to convey, etc. anti-Bible? I'm not sure what you mean by this label?