Kneel!

[Meriweather]

I'm not so sure that hearsay information is the best source data for a history class.

Teaching Biblical history in connection with the gods wiping most of humanity from the planet is problematic when Biblical history conflicts with complimentary sciences of geology, paleontology, etc. In connection with the Biblical flood, how do you propose to address the history of incestuous and familial relations with Noah and his immediate family left to repopulate the planet?

How do you propose to resolve the contradiction of a Biblical young earth, Genesis vs. fossil / geologic evidence of life that existed on the planet millions upon millions of years ago and a planet billions of years old?

I am not talking about teaching the Bible as a history class or a science class or a language class, etc. If anything, a Bible class would more easily be classified as a class that studies the Philosophies, Wisdom, Stories, and Songs of Ancient Humans.

The Biblical Flood does not focus on incestuous family relations. Once more, you are trapped into thinking it was a planet wide event, but the Bible itself does not bear this out. It is your thinking that the Bible talks about a young earth, yet the Bible itself neither says nor suggests any such thing. This is why the Bible needs to be taught so that no one jumps to erroneous conclusions based solely on their own understanding of modern English and modern cultures.

 

[Meriweather]

I can only reiterate to you that Bible study in public schools is disallowed by the constitution.

As for 900 year old humans, that suggests a problem to be resolved. Are you suggesting that Biblical teaching should include a disclaimer that portions of the Bible are not historically accurate so students, please pick up your Torah for this portion of your Bible history?

Is the country to look to you for the proper teaching of Biblical history? Where can we find your syllabus?

The Constitution says nothing about studying the Bible. The Constitution says that there will be no State religion and people are free to worship as they choose. As no one is proposing a religion class; therefore not a Constitutional problem.

 

[JoeB131]

Are you considering that is your own version of the Bible? I am not speaking of presenting your version or the version from any other person for that matter. I sincerely doubt you would have a problem with the Bible had it been taught properly to you. What I see is a rebellion against what was taught to you, and frankly, I don't blame you for that rebellion. I am saying you--and everyone--deserve better.

Ah, yes, the Meriwether school of "THe Bible doesn't say what it clearly says."

You know, when God drowns every baby in the world, well, they really didn't mean it.

When Jephthah butchered his daughter as a sacrifice to God, well, what they really meant was she consecrated herself to God.

The Bible BY DISNEY. Cut out the icky parts, leave in the cute parts.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not so sure that hearsay information is the best source data for a history class.

Teaching Biblical history in connection with the gods wiping most of humanity from the planet is problematic when Biblical history conflicts with complimentary sciences of geology, paleontology, etc. In connection with the Biblical flood, how do you propose to address the history of incestuous and familial relations with Noah and his immediate family left to repopulate the planet?

How do you propose to resolve the contradiction of a Biblical young earth, Genesis vs. fossil / geologic evidence of life that existed on the planet millions upon millions of years ago and a planet billions of years old?

I am not talking about teaching the Bible as a history class or a science class or a language class, etc. If anything, a Bible class would more easily be classified as a class that studies the Philosophies, Wisdom, Stories, and Songs of Ancient Humans.

The Biblical Flood does not focus on incestuous family relations. Once more, you are trapped into thinking it was a planet wide event, but the Bible itself does not bear this out. It is your thinking that the Bible talks about a young earth, yet the Bible itself neither says nor suggests any such thing. This is why the Bible needs to be taught so that no one jumps to erroneous conclusions based solely on their own understanding of modern English and modern cultures.

I’m seeing an inconsistency in your argument. You wrote earlier: “this topic would have teachers based on the same criteria as used for teachers of any other subject.”.

You wrote: “I keep harping on that the Bible should be taught along with Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Science, History, PE, etc.”

Are you abandoning the Bible history portion of Bible lessons?

Also, I note you reference “Bible class” and that is exclusive of competing religions and their histories. I’m curious because let’s propose there are 12 (twelve), religions that require equal representation in the religious studies syllabus. Prior to acceptance of the material taught, there are going to be studies, reports, focus groups, monitoring and reporting needed and eventually course material prepared and texts purchased. There will be millions of dollars needed to fund these religious studies. Who pays for that?

In terms of the Bible addressing a young earth which you claim the Bible doesn’t address, how does a Bible history course not address such a basic, elementary topic involving supernatural creation and when that creation occurred?

 

[Hollie]

I can only reiterate to you that Bible study in public schools is disallowed by the constitution.

As for 900 year old humans, that suggests a problem to be resolved. Are you suggesting that Biblical teaching should include a disclaimer that portions of the Bible are not historically accurate so students, please pick up your Torah for this portion of your Bible history?

Is the country to look to you for the proper teaching of Biblical history? Where can we find your syllabus?

The Constitution says nothing about studying the Bible. The Constitution says that there will be no State religion and people are free to worship as they choose. As no one is proposing a religion class; therefore not a Constitutional problem.

You're claiming there is no Constitutional problem which is odd because the courts have already ruled on this.

Education Case Law

www.ncea.org

 

[Meriweather]

Are you abandoning the Bible history portion of Bible lessons?

No. Students will learn how historical events were presented back then. They were not journal accounts, newspaper accounts, or Encyclopedia accounts. Few, if any, began in written form, they were presented orally, in the form of stories--memorable stories.

 

[Meriweather]

Also, I note you reference “Bible class” and that is exclusive of competing religions and their histories. I’m curious because let’s propose there are 12 (twelve), religions that require equal representation in the religious studies syllabus. Prior to acceptance of the material taught, there are going to be studies, reports, focus groups, monitoring and reporting needed and eventually course material prepared and texts purchased. There will be millions of dollars needed to fund these religious studies. Who pays for that?

I'll say it yet again. No religion. The class would be an overview of the Bible from the perspectives of the original authors and audiences.

 

[Meriweather]

In terms of the Bible addressing a young earth which you claim the Bible doesn’t address, how does a Bible history course not address such a basic, elementary topic involving supernatural creation and when that creation occurred?

"Young Earth" was a late seventeenth century invention by an English bishop who did not understand the original Hebrew language and how it was used. He thought he could calculate the age of the earth based on the number of 'begats'. He was wrong. In the Hebrew (or even had he bothered to read the Old Testament more closely) he would have (or should have) quickly realized that 'begat' or even 'son of' often meant a descendant of many generations.

Therefore, while an English Bishop in the late 1800s decided he could determine the age of the earth, the Bible has nothing to say on that topic.

 

[Agit8r]

The real test is how they respond when confronted by factual information that contradicts the Faith.

How do Leftists respond to the data that disproves "Cops are killing our KIDS!"?

...when they are confronted by data that shows that white people who emulate typical Black behaviors (bastardy, petty criminality, substance abuse, etc.) are just as wretched as Black people?

...when it is shown that Blacks who inter elite schools fail at many times the rate of whites who are actually credentialed?

They deny it or change the subject. Just like a religious fanatic.

Interesting that you mentioned "facts" but have no evidence to back it up. Care to share the source of your wilful ignorance wit the rest of us?

 

[Meriweather]

In terms of the Bible addressing a young earth which you claim the Bible doesn’t address, how does a Bible history course not address such a basic, elementary topic involving supernatural creation and when that creation occurred?

Who said creation itself was supernatural? Not the Bible. In fact it is clear that man came from the earth. This discussion supports the proposition that the Bible should be taught so everyone is clear on what it says and what it does not say; what the original authors said--and what more modern age people said thousands of years later.

 

[Meriweather]

You're claiming there is no Constitutional problem which is odd because the courts have already ruled on this.

Courts have ruled on prayer and teaching a specific religion.

 

[Hollie]

Are you abandoning the Bible history portion of Bible lessons?

No. Students will learn how historical events were presented back then. They were not journal accounts, newspaper accounts, or Encyclopedia accounts. Few, if any, began in written form, they were presented orally, in the form of stories--memorable stories.

The Bible is not a historically accurate document.

 

[Hollie]

Also, I note you reference “Bible class” and that is exclusive of competing religions and their histories. I’m curious because let’s propose there are 12 (twelve), religions that require equal representation in the religious studies syllabus. Prior to acceptance of the material taught, there are going to be studies, reports, focus groups, monitoring and reporting needed and eventually course material prepared and texts purchased. There will be millions of dollars needed to fund these religious studies. Who pays for that?

I'll say it yet again. No religion. The class would be an overview of the Bible from the perspectives of the original authors and audiences.

It's a bit naïve to presume that a class on Bible history does not include teaching Christian theology.

The Constitution addresses this, the courts have upheld the law.

 

[Hollie]

In terms of the Bible addressing a young earth which you claim the Bible doesn’t address, how does a Bible history course not address such a basic, elementary topic involving supernatural creation and when that creation occurred?

Who said creation itself was supernatural? Not the Bible. In fact it is clear that man came from the earth. This discussion supports the proposition that the Bible should be taught so everyone is clear on what it says and what it does not say; what the original authors said--and what more modern age people said thousands of years later.

Is creation by the gods not supernatural?

The Bible certainly can be taught to everyone who chooses. The venue for that teaching is Sunday School, not the public school.

The Constitution addresses religion being taught in public schools.

 

[Hollie]

You're claiming there is no Constitutional problem which is odd because the courts have already ruled on this.

Courts have ruled on prayer and teaching a specific religion.

Christianity is a specific religion.

The Establishment Clause and the Schools: A Legal Bulletin

www.aclu.org

.

The Supreme Court has long held that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids school-sponsored prayer or religious indoctrination. Over thirty years ago, the Court struck down classroom prayers and scripture readings even where they were voluntary and students had the option of being excused. See School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). The Court earlier had struck down a "released-time" program providing voluntary religious instruction in public schools during regular school hours. See Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Educ., 333 U.S. 203, 209-10 (1948).

 

[Crepitus]

Kneel!.

 

[Meriweather]

The Bible is not a historically accurate document.

This may be the first accurate statement you have made to me today.

 

[Meriweather]

It's a bit naïve to presume that a class on Bible history does not include teaching Christian theology.

It would be a snap.

 

[Meriweather]

Is creation by the gods not supernatural?

Are any of your creations supernatural?

 

[Meriweather]

Christianity is a specific religion.

I am saying to teach the Bible, not a religion. That includes Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, etc.