Yes, teach all THREE ideas...if honesty is the policy.

"Day" in Hebrew means ANY duration of time. The Christians know this. Peter said a YOM is a 1000 years to the lord.YOM = DAY = Era of millions of yearsTeach this interpretation of Genesis and the Fundamentalists, and the scienctific. Let the truth be in the mind of the children. Equal handedness is HONESTY:Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God, (The Universal Power) created the heaven and the earth.Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God, (the Natural Laws) moved upon the face of the waters.Gen. 1:5 And God, (The Universal Power), called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first YOM,( the Azoic Era). (1)Gen. 1:8 And God, (The Universal Power) called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second YOM, (the Archeozoic Era). (2)Gen. 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third YOM, (the Proterozoic Era). (3)Gen 1:14 God, (The Universal Power ), said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and for (24 hour) days, and (365 day) years:
Gen. 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth YOM, (the Paleozoic Era). (4)Gen. 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth YOM, (the Mesozoic Era). (5)Gen. 1:31 And God, (the Universal Power), saw every thing that it was good and that was the evening and the morning of the sixth YOm, (the Cenozoic Era). (6)Gen. 2:3 And God, (the Universal Power), blessed this present YOM, (7)
and God, (the Universal Force), rested, (no more evidence of evolution apparent)....see what I'm saying?[This message has been edited by kofh2u, 04-06-2004]

Yes, that's my suggestion. 'Teach all the present concepts so no one will get their toes stepped on! That's the ticket.The Pope for instance, in 1998, stated that there is just too much support for Evolution to maintain an argument from Genesis. An argument which actually acknowledges a step by step unfolding of an evermore complexity in living things. Close enough. The Jesuits will attest to their concurrence in this, also.That a large body of the membership in other twelve major denominational churches do not dispute the process of God in the context of Evolution should be expressed in the classroom. These church people are still able to maintain that God, ultimately through Natural law, is the founder of the creations we investigate in Evolution.It should be emphasized as strongly, that it is the minority opinion of the Fundamentalist who see Creationism as truthful. These are bible people who most recently, in the last century, developed the concept of Literalism as a means to argument concerning scriptural differences with others,.With this said, the article you bring to my attention supports the idea on "yom" being defined by the use within the context of the sentence.The suggestion and argument concerning the intransient denotation of yom, that whenever a number is associated with it MUST mean 24 hours, seems weaken by the fact, that EXACTLY where the "yom" definitely infers 24 hours, no number IS used.And, more important, in the context of that verse, Genesis 1:14, not only is no number is associated with that word, but it explicitly is the place where it DOES MEAN 24 HOURS.Gen. 1:14 And God said, Let there be LIGHTS in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for SIGNS, and for SEASONS, and for DAYS, and YEARS:Furthermore, this verse suggests strongly that the previous use of Yom was different in intent. Here, after four "yoms" of time, God finally makes a yom. He finally creates a day of 24 hours. This seems to clearly imply that it most certainly was NOT 24 hours before, or why mention it?And, it also specifically implies, that is, it is explicit, that the first four yoms could not be the "day" that is related to the rotation that exposes us to the sun. For the sun and the moon itself is created on the fourth yom.Though the semantical argument here may be debated back and forth concerning the meaning of yom, the logical observation can not.The 24 hour day and the 365 day year were "invented" in this literature of Genesis long after the term had been applied in the previous verses to some other idea of time, otherwise, it would not have been necessary to re-invent it. True?[This message has been edited by kofh2u, 04-08-2004]

Oh, my fault.I thought we were talking about teaching biology.In that I felt we were at the right thread since that was the title.I was just demonstarting the the curriculum is too small in comparing Evolution with Fundamentalistic Creationism.I am suggesting that we also add that yom = day = bio-geological time = seven Eras.I'll drop out. other threads may be more open to discussions with greater boundaries and limits.

Rev. 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich (a large denominational church), and increased with goods (accumulated art treasure, land, and income from tithes), and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched (without secularly acceptable scripture confirmations), and miserable, (entrapped in erroneous doctrine and blind dogma), and poor (in a declining membership), and nake (and unprotected from the ever growing Age of Enlightment):

Educators may get off in thinking secondary education science course are really science. They are mostly history of science and pre-science indoctrination.It may be hard to even define "teaching science." If fact, the very word is so ancient it preceeds and pre-exists what we infer by it today.What science teach ought to be doing, if we were to find them actually "teaching" science itself, is applying the scientific method to a serirs of inquiries which they themselves may have devised.Science is hardly informing young people about the meaning and usage of information on the pe iodic chart for instance. It is very much about the empiricism that deferentiates between believing thinks and the producing of concrete measueable arguments to contest or support those ideas.In this light, it seems reasonable to suggest that science instruction best serves the student in the comtradting of Rationalism with itself, on the philosophical level.Im=n fact, the same intuition which developes sociological, moral
and even interpretation of scripture itself is used by science people. The very meaning of hypothesis is to guess possible answers.Since people may come with preconceived hypothesis about creation of living things, it dorsn't seem so ea ily ruled out, at least at the hypothesis stage.
In fact, it seems bad science to start with just the hypothesisbwhich will be hopefully supported throughout the years by all the readings, opinions, and reports of hard evidence on hand.At the same time, yes, I think evolution is correct, it represents the process of the Almighty Universal Power acting through magnificent Natural Laws. But, in the classroom, we are socializing the student and paid fot his enculturation, not indoctrination, whether science in this public school realm or religious in what he may bring with him into the classroom.

Well. I can't say I disagree.As a science person myself, I can appreciate the compartmentalism by disciplines. But, if a community, such as Ga. or Kansas, had not yet resolved the issue, that empificism and the traditionalism of Stoicism didn't quite agree with one another, I could understand.It even seems important, maybe, to intellectually re-visiting the days of Galilleo and put things into perspective.Again, service to the community is a prerequisite to a public education, never to suggest a bending of truth to meet erroneous assumptions, however.The scant material to teach bible creationism suggests a very short addition to the curriculum. There is nothing, really, in the bible much to be covered.Creationist really want teachers to teach evolution, emphasizing areas that are not yet explanable by the theory, and suggest that evolution is questionable. Now that I oppose.The material should be presented without indoctrination.
And, if the church people are hard pressed, the bible has very little say about evolution or ceationism, beyond Genesis. Genesis one is a very short number of passages. Time is hardly the issue in fitting the curriculum to this material and the accompaning assumptions of some church peeple.
The church people might even oppose some of the bible verses which tend to support evolution.Genesis 6
The Flood
1 When humanoids, early forms of men, began to increase in number on the earth, around the end of the Pilocene Age in the Quaternay Period of the Cenozoic Era, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God, or that line of humanoids which would ultimately branch into the humanity which is yet to come, Homoiousian Men whose mental capability shall correspond, one-to-one, with the Ultimate Reality which we call God, they, hominoids sons, saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, essentially, in this process of adaption to the environmental reality, "My Spirit (evidenced in the Natural Laws governing this world) will not contend with man in this present stage of development forever, for Neanderthal Man is mortal, he dies, is genetically recreated, but improveable through that process by the refining fires of Evolution which I have so devised; his days will be ended in a hundred and twenty thousand years."
4 The Nephilim, great animals of all sorts, Homo Erectus, post-dinosaurs, and such, were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God, Early Homo Sapiens, went into the daughters of men, hominoids such as Neanderthals, and had children by them. They, these children who were the predecessors of Modern Homo Sapiens yet to come, nevertheless, they were the heroes of old, men of renown.
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart, that is, his psyche, was only evil, self destructive, and in defiance of the realities of "Father Nature" all the time. 6 The LORD, Father Nature, as we might say, was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain, but, sadly, the axe stands at the tree of life and MUST hack off every branch that has failed to adapt. 7 So, the LORD, "Father Nature," said, metaphorically, "I will wipe from the face of the earth mankind, these lower forms of humanoids, whom I have created, and their conscious thoughts -men and all their conscious awareness of animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air, all memory and every mental abstraction of them, in the mind of these humanoids-for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah, the eponym for the whole line of the species Modern Homo Sapiens, found favor in the eyes of the evolutionary process utilized by the LORD, our Universal Reality.
9 This is the account of Noah. This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-08-2004 07:08 PM

Oooops,
I posted a typed out set ofverses without reading them. Yes, the Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation separate
the interpretation from the rest of the text by parentheses.Of course, for the astitude reader here on your forum, I am sure they caught it as did you.I shall be more carefulin future posts.Gen. 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.Gen. 7:6 And Noah, (the first of the Modern Homo Sapiens), was six hundred (thousand) years old when the flood of waters (of his species) was upon the earth.

Sorry buz,
I posted a correspondence of the from a friend who was discussing these verses with me. He did not place the Freudian Bible Interpretations in parentheses as you can read here, below.The concise and direct interpretation, printed along with the KJV, but clearly in brackets, demonstrates wisdom by its brevity.Whereas others might write long expositions and accompaning argument of support for their own particular conceits, the Freudian Bible just says what it means, right there in the context. Like read this:Genesis 6
The Flood
1 When...
... (humanoids, early forms of)... men, began to increase in number on the earth,...
... (around the end of the Pilocene Age in the Quaternay Period of the Cenozoic Era),...
... and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God,...
... (or that line of humanoids which would ultimately branch into the humanity which is yet to come, Homoiousian Men whose mental capability shall correspond, one-to-one, with the Ultimate Reality which we call God),...
... they,...
... (hominoids sons),...
... saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said,...
... (essentially, in this process of adaption to the environmental reality),...
... "My Spirit...
... (evidenced in the Natural Laws governing this world)...
... will not contend with man...
... (in this present stage of development)...
... forever, for...
... (Neanderthal Man is mortal, he dies, is genetically recreated, but improveable through that process by the refining fires of Evolution which I have so devised);...
... his days will be...
... (ended in)...
a hundred and twenty...
(thousand years)."
4 The Nephilim,...
... (great animals of all sorts, Homo Erectus, post-dinosaurs, and such),...
... were on the earth in those days and also afterward when the sons of God,...
.... (Early Homo Sapiens),...
... went into the daughters of men,...
... (hominoids such as Neanderthals),...
.. and had children by them. They, ...(these children who were the predecessors of Modern Homo Sapiens yet to come, nevertheless),... they were the heroes of old, men of renown.
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination...
.... (of the thoughts)...
of his heart,...
... (that is, his psyche),...
... was only evil,...
... (self destructive, and in defiance of the realities of "Father Nature")...
... all the time. 6 The LORD,... (Father Nature, as we might say),... was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain,...
... (but, sadly, the axe stands at the tree of life and MUST hack off every branch that has failed to adapt).7 So, the LORD,...
... ("Father Nature,")...
... said,... (metaphorically),... "I will wipe from the face of the earth mankind,...
... (these lower forms of humanoids),...
... whom I have created,...
... (and their conscious thoughts)...
... and all... (their conscious awareness of)... animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air..., (all memory and every mental abstraction of them, in the mind of these humanoids)... for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah,...
... (the eponym for the whole line of the species Modern Homo Sapiens),...
... found favor in the eyes of... (the evolutionary process utilized by the)... LORD,... (our Universal Reality).
9 This is the account of Noah.Is this more clear as to my point that the Bible may well support Evolution?

Thanks for your opinion as regards the ridiculous interpretation of the verses.I am uncertain about your specifics in regard to the absurdities to which you refer.I am not unaware that these concise, in context, direct, and consistent interpretations (throughout thd whole of the Old and New Testaments as far ad I can see) is "different."As regards the source of these quotes, nine verses in the case to which we are discussing, perhaps too many.
But, I must point out that I did previously reference these quotes and credit them, including the publisher address. I was informed by another Admins that this was considered advertising and I was told to drop the referenced address.The Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation,
PO 52006
Philadelphia, Pa
19115

You sound like a reasonable person.
The answer as to "why" a person would teach from scripture in a science classroom is that Georgia and Kansas mandated it, by law.So, let's look at just what the bible says, as a hypothesis, concerning the subject of how man finds himself the dominant life form, how the earth came into existence, etc. Why? Its the law, now.The question is: Why MUST we read tgis bible and MAKE it say things which are only interpretation STILL hugely dupported by millions of people. Is truth a democratic discipline? Does tradition force the reading, insist on a spin, obligate the reader to read what indoctrinations have convinced many people to be the correct readinds?1) The seven periods called, in English, "days" are really defined in the Hebrew word for day "yom," as any duration of time.2) The text of Genesis 1:14 says tgat the 24 hour day was not even created until the fourth yom!Gen. 1:14 And God (The Universal Force) said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs ( or symbolic references), and for (the four) seasons, and for (24 hour) days, and (365 day) years:3) There is an unanswered set of verses in Genesis 6 concerning some event of hybrid sexual mating between different types of men. Science would say different species of men. Anthropologists DO say, mating between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens is a strong possiblity.Gen. 6:4 There were giants (Homo Erectus) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (pre-Homo Sapiens) came in unto the daughters of men (Neanderthal), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men (hybrids leading to Modern Homo Sapiens) which were of old, men of renown.4) Then, we understand from Geology tgat the Universe seems to have gone through seven steps of gradual change differentiated into what they call the SEVEN ERAS. Coinidence, or great intuition?Gen. 1:5 And God (The Universal Force) called the light Day, and the
darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first yom, (the Azoic Era). (1)Gen. 1:8 And God (The Universal Force) called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second yom, (the Archeozoic Era). (2)Gen. 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day, (the Proterozoic Era). (3)Gen. 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth yom, (the Paleozoic Era). (4)Get my point? If they pass the law, then teach it with out indoctrinatinb that science is rigth, or that some millions of old people say the bible says its wrong.(ps... the verses come from the Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation.)

Turn around is fair play, is it not?
Creationist agree with the scientific facts, they argi=ue that the meanings of those facts are given secular and even atheistic "spin."I have much to "turn around." The facts are that the Bible spins easily to support Evolution, and way more rationally.The point I was making in this "honesty" thing is that the word "day" in Hebrew, does not mean an exact 24 hour day at all.Honesty in presenting would infer that this point be made to the student of Genesis.It is a stretch to require "day" to mean 24 hours, regardless of the millions of Fundamentalists who INSIST that "day" means 24 hours.As in Science, there is no room for a democratic vote on facts. Old science that fails us must be discarded. Old "Yoms" that can not be supported coherently must be re-evaluated. God said it. The 24 hour "dy" wasn't around UNTIL the the fifth day of his cretive works. And, even then, that 24 hour day certainly is as distinct from the other uses of the Hebrew word "yom" which repetitiously is applied in the literary style as introductory, evenings and mornings, to the sequence of events.Whether we agree, honesty is the best policy, for this is an honest observation.Day, it is at least metaphorical, as Peter suggests.
From the Hebrew dictionary, "any extended period of time."That the text of Genesis itself tells us that the 24 hour day was "invented" during the fourth "DAY."That prior to the first four uses of this word, the "yoms" (actual Hebrew word) MUST have been different is significant. In fact, real time as we know it seems clear invented after these first four days begin, because the seasons, the days, and the years, and TIMES were then createdIf it is mandated to TEACH the writings side by side with the Science, fine. But, as the Creationist argue EXACTLY as I have here, questioning not the science, but the interpretation of the scientists, I suggest FAIRNESS in that I question not the BIBLE but the meaning of those who have maintained ancient interpretations which are clearly not HONEST.Turn around is fair play, is it not?

"In this, the synergism of Scriptural Analogy and Scientific Fact becomes the Synthesis between the arguments of the Thesis of Evolution and the Anti-thesis of Creationism." (Emmanuel Kant's Dialect)Yes.
I would very much appreciate a specific opinion related to what it is that is being said in these quotes from this Freudian Interpretation.Yes, you are correct that: there is no democratic constituency as concerns the merit pertaining to the interpretations of this Freudian Bible. The Freudian Interpreation stands or falls on its own merit. It isn't science.A) Verbose?
But, in the name of intellectual and academic fairness, where? The lack of items you refer to generally do not afford opportunity to respond here.B) Totally unrelated to the context of the argument?
Do you mean unrelated to this argument, Creationism vs Evolution?
I am saying that scripture may well support Evolution, in spite of errors in ancient interpretations. Remember Geocentricism!3) Totally unrelated to the context of the scripture?
From chapter 6, all through the flood story, right up until chapter 9, it is very concise, and stays in context in each and every verse.4) You suggest that other interpretations are not insertions? Ancient, sure, as was the flat earth ideas and the sun revolving the Earth. But, is that a fair stance to take in a debate Evolution or Creationism?5) There has been no inerrant doctrine on this issue of Chapter 6.The "sons of God" entering into (sexually) the "daughters of men" has long gone totally unexplained.
Or else, attributed to interpretations by the church as a spiritual, not concrete, physical, and factual matter.That Neanderthal is suspected by anthropologists of hybriding with Homo Sapiens, (and just about 40 "days and nights" of millennia ago) appears to be supportive of this way of looking at the scriptures.6) Why? Why not my interpretation, or, one of your own, or this fully complete Freudian Bible way of looking at Genesis?The Pope, as an authority, said in 1992 that Evolution was not to be opposed by the Catholic or his church.With such authority, if these verses in Genesis do NOT support Creationism, then they seem fair game!
A vacuum that now exists, does it not? What is the meaning of the Seven Days of Creation?7) You have made no direct criticism of the following contextually interpreation being with my posts at Genesis 1.1. The seven yoms (days) of Creation where actual long durations of time, millions of years long, and they are directly analogous to the Geological "Clock" of seven long Eras.2. Man is corrupted in his relationship with God, and after hybrid sexual relationships with other humanoids, all men, except one particular type (species) evolves into the future, the rest all become extinct.3. Tne Flood that is described actually is metaphor for the scientifically understood population explosion of Modern Homo Sapiens just 40,000 years ago.
In this flooding, the first human form capable of language does, in fact, name all the animals in the "ark" of his skull, creating the whole earth anew, in language and by such abstractions in the heavens of his evolved mind, one never before on this planet.D. The three sons of Noah are the basis for the creation of the Table of Nations, the first ever on record as found in Genesis. In this, the scientific Three Racial Stock Theory is supported in scripture.7) The fact is that the Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation is not a supportive argument for what I say. The facts of evolutions are. The Freudian Bible quotes demonstrate neither authority or proof, only excellent ANALOGY.In this, the synergism of a Emmanuel Kant Synthesis is predicted between the arguments of the Thesis of Evolution and the Anti-thesis of Creationism.

You say:
"This is just sad, and a perfect example of grabbing any old explanation to fit the facts. The text says giants, and this deep thinking author decides that must somehow be a reference to Homo Erectus. This is blatent intellectual dishonesty and I find it quite pathetic."I assume that you have read the passage in Genesis and have another explanation?Actually the text says nephilim in the Hebrew. Translations have been unsuccessful in determining just what this refers to exactly.Also, you made no mention of the hybriding between two different types of humans. It seems that you are defending some other explanation for both these ideas. What are the "authoritative sources" and the "accepted interpretations" on these passages?anyone may answer....

1) Rocketman, I am sure you can attest to what it is that the Creationists actually argue.Yes, as you say, many recognize these passages on giants to refer to dinos. But, more essential to what I am saying is the micro/macto evolution discussion. These people do accept the science facts. They maintain argument against the "linking" of facts to tell the story of a slow morphing from one species to another. (Of course, some Creationist are wacky enough to argue everything, too.)2) As far as giving a different meaning to scripture than the old, those now out of dtep meanings are EXACTLY like the meanings of Geocentricism, the earth being the center of the universe. Galilleo had to deny the truth , then, the Roman Catholic Chiurch had to accept the truth. This is EXACTLY where the Protestant Church is today. (I'm trying to save them from their own condemnation! The Pope xlready saved the Catholics. He accepts evolution, but he has no clue what Genesis means, then.)3) Those people who have centuries ago did the best they could with the little they understood about the realities.Today, only stich-in-the-mud, die hard dogmatics, indoctrinated into an ancient interpretation will refuse to see the context and easy accomodation of:...the Seven Day Creation, (Those assuming that a day = 24 hours, ignored day four, when the 24 hour day was "invented.)...the "days: are The Seven Geological Eras,... the giants are dinos,...the Son's of man are lower forms of humanoids,...the son's of God are the species of humanoid that evolved,.. our direct evolutionary missing link(s),... that Noah's sons are the symbolic predecessors of the three racial stocks of Modern Homo,...and that the "ark" is the skull of Modern Homo Sapiens..... carrying the mind that gave names all the twelve phylums of animals.4) At the risk of angering those people who deny both science and a rational (read Freudian Bible) understanding of Scripture,...
... but, in defense of the much maligned messenger of the Freudian Bible Translation, I post this warning from scripture (with bracketed specific rebukes from the unnamed author who sits on the high horse of the white pages of that modern interpretation:To the seventh and last church of Laocidea:"Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold (the golden spiritual
insights into the irrepressible idea of Psychic Consciousness emerging
from scripture) tried in the fire (of time), that thou mayest be rich
(in continued leadership); and white raiment (filling blank pages with revised misinterpretations), that thou mayest be clothed (in intellectual protection) that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear (or, reappear, such as visited in Geocentricism), and anoint thine eyes (so as to apprise thine thinking) with eyesalve (with secularly acceptable scriptural confirmations), that thou mayest see (the unsupportability of thy intuitive irrationalities)."See ehat I mean, rocketmanAllen, in the name of Oscam's Razor?

opinion is way different than tangible proof. Agreed?
You have yours.
I seem to have mine.
Fair enough... for you, any day = 24 hours. You insist upon literalism.I will not set down authoritative "semantical proofs."I am willing to read any book, even Torah, with a keen eye out for all the standard apparati of that art, writing. I am ready to read simile, analogy, metaphor, exaggeration, poetic license, and things, like hyperbpla...So, I will ask you this one question, if the first four yoms or days were not metaphors, then why was the this day necessary:DAY FOUR
Gen. 1:14 And God (The Universal Force) said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs (or astronomical references), and for (the four) seasons, and for (24 hour) days, and (365 day) years:This message has been edited by kofh2u, 05-10-2004 01:16 PM