You make a good point that these others missed, here, in that Social Science Class of Behavioral Science Classes do not have the excuse for ignoring the Bible creation tale the way Chemistry or Physics teachers might.
But the Biology teacher seems sort of trapped between the hard place of pretending the kids don't KNOW their is an issue with his science and that "rock of the Ages," scripture, which he must either condemn or apply these ideas of Theistic Evolution which ameliorates the controversy with a compromise.
Apart from anything else, your attempt to interpret the Bible so that it agrees with science is not in itself a scientific endeavor any more than attempting to interpret The Wizard Of Oz as an economic treatise is an economic endeavor. It's an exercise in hermeneutics, not science.
And we can hardly have public school teachers teaching children how they ought to interpret the Bible, especially as your way of interpreting it seems to be unique to you. You'd have the secularists all over you for putting religion into schools, and the fundamentalists all over you for putting the wrong religion into schools.
This is why public schools don't offer classes in Biblical Hermeneutics.
Standard creationists have, in a way, a better justification than you for the teaching of their ridiculous piffle. At least they are being wrong about science. When they pretend, for example, that there are no intermediate forms, this is at least a claim within a scientific field, albeit a completely wrong claim made by morons who deserve to be poked with pointy sticks. But when you are wrong about how we should interpret the word deshe when it occurs in the book of Genesis, you are not even being wrong about science.
And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (the pan-en-theistic Natural Laws) of God moved upon the face: [paniym: presence] of the "waters" (i.e.; of these transitory things spinning counter clockwise around the Sun: [mayim: Hebrew])
Hold on. I thought that we'd already established that when Genesis talks about water, it means people. But now it means "transitory things spinning counter clockwise around the Sun" as well?
And I suppose there may even be instances where it means water.
Cyanobacteria (/saɪˌænoʊbækˈtɪəriə/), also known as blue-green bacteria, blue-green algae, and Cyanophyta, is a phylum of bacteria that obtain their energy through photosynthesis. The name "cyanobacteria" comes from the color of the bacteria (Greek: κυανός (kyanós) = blue).
Ah, I think I see where you've gone wrong.
Cyanobacteria are sometimes called "blue-green algae", but they're not actually algae phylogenetically. They're prokaryotes, algae are eukaryotes. Where that chart says "algae" it does not include cyanobacteria according to (a) the people who made the chart (b) any living scientist you care to name. Calling them algae is about on a par with calling a whale a fish.
A search of scrioture will show that this idea of a "flood" of troops or people has been used by the bible writers before, elsewhere.
Not on your showing.
Oh, I wondered why you put the bizarre phrase "transitory things" into your explanation.
Now I know. It's because the lexicon allows "water" to metaphorically mean 'transitory things", so that allows you to classify the accretion disc as water, because it only lasted a few million years. That is soooo transitory.
Well, if that's what it takes to make something "water", then pretty much everything is water. Why should we take the reference to water in Genesis as referring to the accretion disc, out of all the other "transitory things", except that you really want to?
I mean, if scientists had proved that the whole solar system was caused by a giant space turtle sneezing, then you could say: "See, the turtle sneeze was a transitory thing, clearly the Bible meant that when it said 'water', so once more the Bible is right, behold the wisdom of the Bible." The way you're reading the word "water" you could make the Bible fit any account whatsoever of the origin of the solar system, since that process, being finished, is "transitory" according to your understanding of the word.
(1) Well, if you just want to claim that you can interpret the Bible in such a way as to be consistent with science, go ahead. But in that case you should be talking to Young Earth Creationists.
(2) If you want to claim to atheists, agnostics, deists, other non-Christians, etc, that the Bible demonstrates actual scientific knowledge, then I think you're on a loser here. As I pointed out, your interpretation of the Bible makes it so vague as to make it almost meaningless. Yes, it would allow the scientific point of view. It would also allow the giant space turtle sneezing.
All you've come up with is an interpretation of Biblical language consistent with the statement that the sun, moon, earth, etc, came into existence at some time (not necessarily the same time), in some way (unspecified). It doesn't particularly fit with the scientific account of how it happened any more than with any other account.
You can show how science can be reconciled with the Bible, but not how the Bible is actually scientific. You make the question of what "water" means and what "day" means and what "created" means and so forth that it could fit any account whatsoever about creation. It fits the scientific account only because it's so vague that it would also fit the space turtle sneezing.
(3) As far as your interpretation of Hebrew goes, I confess I know no more than you. But also, no less, because you don't speak Hebrew either, do you? Like me, you just look at the lexicons.
Well, actual Hebrew scholars don't interpret the scriptures the same way as you, and what is more, nor did the actual Jews.
So you would be putting yourself in a strange position, wouldn't you? You'd be saying: "None of the Jews, who actually spoke Hebrew, understood the meaning of the Hebrew text. Whereas I, who cannot speak Hebrew, have understood it completely. And it was written by an all-wise God who wanted to send a message to humanity, and yet out of all humanity, I, the non-Hebrew-speaker, am the first and only guy to understand the message."
No-one, including all the people who can actually read Hebrew, has interpreted Genesis like you do. And apparently God let that situation stand for thousands of years. And now suddenly you, the guy who can't even read Hebrew, are The Chosen One who can finally explain to us what it really means?
You come up with a definition of "water" that could include humans leaving Africa, the formation of an accretionary disc, the formation of the universe by a giant turtle sneezing, and the last time I ate a sandwich ... yes, that's extremely vague.
That is the basis of all this debate, that I say Genesis is dead on clear and specific ...
And you are wrong.
Show me. Go on, show me. You say that Genesis is specific. Well then, show me where it specifically favors the accretional disc rather than a turtle sneezing.
All you have so far is that Genesis talks about water and water is transient. Well, so is a giant space-turtle sneezing.