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

"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....

Dear Admin sylas;
This same information has been requested from Kofh2u on another forum and it has yet to have been supplied. Another poster even sent a request to the posted address months ago and never got a response.

kofh2u responds to me:

quote:

---

Again, service to the community is a prerequisite to a public education

---

But not when that service is to distort reality. You even say so directly:

quote:

---

never to suggest a bending of truth to meet erroneous assumptions, however.

---

But then you immediate follow it up with:

quote:

---

The material should be presented without indoctrination.

---

But one cannot present creationism without indoctrination. It simply isn't science. To present it as science would be to bend the truth to meet erroneous assumptions.Some answers are simply wrong. It doesn't matter how sincerely a person believes in a wrong answer. It's still wrong. And it is a disservice to all concerned to treat it as right.

quote:

---

Time is hardly the issue in fitting the curriculum to this material and the accompaning assumptions of some church peeple.

---

Even when it's wrong?We don't spend much time in science class discussing the Ptolomaic model of the solar system. Why? Because it's wrong.So why should we break the rules for Genesis? We don't accomodate the precious, delicate feelings of the Flat Earth Society, so why do Christians get a pass?You are arguing that it's OK to teach a lie if we don't spend much time on that lie.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

kofh2u writes:

quote:

---

The answer as to "why" a person would teach from scripture in a science classroom is that Georgia and Kansas mandated it, by law.

---

And that makes it right?By the way, Kansas reversed itself. And if we're going to insist that legislative analysis has some effect upon scientific analysis, it has been well established that teaching religion in science class is unconstitutional.

quote:

---

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.

---

But that would be distorting reality.Are you seriously saying we should teach a lie simply because some people might get their feathers ruffled to hear their pet fantasies contradicted?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

kofh2u writes:

quote:

---

Creationist agree with the scientific facts

---

No, they don't.If they did, they wouldn't be creationists.

quote:

---

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.

---

But that isn't true. In all "honesty," the word "yom" in Hebrew really does mean an exact 24-hour day. Oh, you can use "yom" to refer to a longer time period, but you have to phrase it in a certaiin way. We can see this in English and the use of the word "day":In Alexander the Great's day....That doesn't mean a literal 24-hour time period but rather the longer socio-political time period surrounding Alexander the Great.But in Genesis, the phrasing is not of a long time period but rather a literal, 24-hour span:"The evening and the morning of the first day."That means something very specific in Hebrew: A literal, 24-hour day.

quote:

---

As in Science, there is no room for a democratic vote on facts.

---

Indeed. And there is no room for a democratic vote on what the word "yom" means in Genesis.It means a literal, 24-hour day.

quote:

---

Day, it is at least metaphorical, as Peter suggests.

---

Why are you using a Christian speaker to interpret a Jewish passage?Strange how Judaism seems to think that "yom" in Genesis means a 24-hour day. Who the hell is Peter to tell them they are wrong? It's their own text. Don't you think that Jews would be the ultimate arbiter of what a Jewish text meant?

quote:

---

If it is mandated to TEACH the writings side by side with the Science, fine.

---

Even when those writings are wrong?It's better to teach a lie to save the feelings of someone?

quote:

---

I suggest FAIRNESS

---

But fairness requires that we treat wrong answers as wrong.Creationism is simply wrong.Why would you have us treat evolution unfairly by equating it with a clearly incorrect response?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

I assume that you have read the passage in Genesis and have another explanation?

---

Yes. It would seem more likely that the ancient Hebrews believed there was a time when giants literally walked the earth. By my interpretation isn't really the point. Taking the above to mean Homo Erectus, when there clearly is no connection between the two is really a matter of making the facts fit a worldview.

quote:

---

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?

---

It's not my task to do so. All that needs to be demonstrated is that the interpretation provided is a wild leap from the actual text. There is no justification for assuming the bible is talking about what the author claims. It's just another case of taking known facts, and making the text fit.

In your support, creationists have stated that "giants walking tthe earth" is in reference to dinosaurs (this has been used as an argument that the bible does make reference to dinosaurs).

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?

kofh2u writes:

quote:

---

Those assuming that a day = 24 hours, ignored day four, when the 24 hour day was "invented.)

---

Incorrect.If a "day" means "24 hours," then it doesn't matter if the earth exists or not.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I requested a copy of said "Bible" and offered to reimburse them for any/all expenses involved. That was two months ago. They haven't as much as acknowlwdged my request. :-(Oh, Freudian Bible Translators, where art thou?

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

kofh2u responds to me:

quote:

---

opinion is way different than tangible proof. Agreed?

---

Agreed.But whose opinion should we listen to? Those who wrote the work or those who came in later, usurped it as their own, and are now pissing all over it?We're dealing with a Jewish text. Shouldn't we let the Jews be the final arbiters of what it means? If they say that "yom" means a literal, 24-hour day, don't they get the last word on the subject? It is, after all, their text.What you're advocating is something along these lines.I say to you: My name is Rrhain.You say to me: Now, when you say "Rrhain," what you really mean is "Jonathan."You can see how that's silly. I am the final arbiter on what my name is. It's mine. If I tell you that my name is Rrhain, then that's what it is. Your "opinion" means nothing.

quote:

---

I am ready to read simile, analogy, metaphor, exaggeration, poetic license, and things, like hyperbpla...

---

But, it seems, you are apparently incapable of reading for direct meaning.Yes, the Bible is filled with metaphor. And I would agree that Genesis is metaphorical. But not every word. The entirety of the text is, but the internal consistencies are plain. That is, the story of Genesis explains the relationship of humans to god and is not meant to be taken as a literal description of how life, the universe, and everything came into existence.However, the internal consistency of the story is that the days were literal, 24-hour days.

quote:

---

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:

---

Because you are defining "day" to be something that necessarily requires an earth-sun relationship.If, however, a "day" is simply a specific length of time, the existence or non-existence of the sun is irrelevant.Again, Hebrew uses the word "yom" very much the same way that English uses the word "day." That is, it usually describes a 24-hour period but can describe other, longer periods of time.But only if you phrase it properly. That is, you can't just pop in the definition of "undetermined, long period of time representing a cultural/social/political movement through a society" whenever you want. If I were to say to you, "Let's meet again in two days," it would be inappropriate of you to wait for two generations to pass. That use of "day" meant a literal, 24-hour day and we can tell because of the specific phrasing that was used.Similarly in the Hebrew: The evening and the morning of the nth day is a specific construction that always means a literal day. There is no other Hebraic text that translates that as anything else.So why are you making a special case for this one time?If Jewish people understand that it means a literal day, who are you to tell them that they're wrong? It's their book and their language.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Ok.
That's why there is choc and vanil ice cream.I'll mark you down as sticking with the traditional interpretation, before the Age of Enlightenment.This is all academic, of course.
The secular community would argue that your opinion is the one they favor, too.That is so that they can smash your argument and the Most Holy Sacred Scriptures, bashing one as a fool, and the other as a useless myth.I opt to confront them with the fact the great wisemen of passed days used the wisdom of that time to understand the text we are discussing. Be those men the Pharisees, the Sadduccees, the Sopherim who preceeded them, ... all men, ... men only... translating.The seculars today, the great thinkers they fashion themselves to represent in this age, armed with science, assume they can ridicule your opinion. You can take it, I am sure. I defend the scriptures, and I refuse to be bound to men who preceeded my own reading. So, I will continue to support the intelligent, science compatible, secularly acceptable understandings while I praise the enormous wisdom of knowing all things 3500 years ago, before hte science of this day was even imagined.What ever has brought you to Jesus is enough that you are there.Keep your faith, and opinion, with a blessing.The argument is not directed at the saved, but at the secular scientist having trouble getting past page one, Genesis.If a difference in opinion about the metaphor vs the literal helps him, then that is an improvement over the present condition of total rejection.Good Yom to you.

Hi,
I was quite content with your reply.I am not unaware that opinion is the essential ingredient between how people wish to read the Word. Of course, it is our personal relationship with God that matters... in the beginning was God and God is this "Word," as you know.Religion might seem to be something different. Religion might be my gang against your gang. In that sense, I am not religious.Interpretation might seem, as you stated, wild to you, particularly when it is radically different from your own."All that needs to be demonstrated is that the interpretation provided is a wild leap from the actual text."I remind you that presently there are twelve Major Mainstream Religions which have enough interpretative differences as to be rather wild, and quite different.The Mormons, for example, refer to an extra publication, Smith's, one way more obtruse than the Freudian Bible. That particular religion is the fastest growing Christian church in America. The Jehovah Witnesses formed just a century ago) disclaim the Trinity, if my memory serves me.The Greek Orthodox is long at odds with much Roman Catholicism.Bearing all these facts in mind, the essence of Christian spirit would focus on Christ, and until then ...Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of misinterpretation) shall he not break, and smoking flax (of erroneous doctrine) shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.Until then, God Bless.This message has been edited by kofh2u, 05-11-2004 11:49 AMThis message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-13-2004 03:30 AM