Teaching the Bible to Children....

Ro 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I LIE not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, Just keep telling the truth sis. Ga 6:9 And let us not be weary in well DOING: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

 

I think in everything you made comment on is correct. Helping children see the truthfulness of Scripture as opposed to opinions or ideas of men is teaching them discernment. I might agree that the animal sacrificed was a sheep, but we don't know that for sure. And kids should know that. Why? So that when they are older, and see the plain reality of it, they won't doubt the truth of Scripture because of some added opinions.

 

I am almost embarrassed to say it, but it never occurred to me that the animal slain for Adam and Eve might be a lamb. :tonofbricks:

Scarlett, I think you did the right thing. You told the truth.

 

Yee-haw for you and the Bible!

Alright, go ahead and spit it out.

My mind is so relieved!

It does seem not exactly appropriate; they just started their educations-- shouldn't be given their sheepskins nearly so quickly.

Well, you gotta admit that's probably less shocking than if it had been a kangaroo.

True; it could even be some animal now extunk.

Well, it must have been. But I suppose you mean specifically what kind of animal.

And you were specifically right.

I've thought before about getting a parrot. If I took this seriously, I think that would dissuade me from any pet that can talk.

No, certainly not necessarily. But this can make you wonder how common it was for an animal to come up and shoot the breeze with them.

No, but I have a strong suspicion that knowing you much better would reveal something you believe in ragard to scripture which is technically just a presumption.

Almost? It's nice you give your nitpickiness a day off occasionally.

I am quite sure I didn't.

Me too. That is, I can take it; I'm not a woman, grown or ungrown.

 

Scarlett,

You are doing what my mom did when my sister and I were small. She would read us a Bible story from a Bible story book, and have the Bible open beside her as she read.

If she found something that did not line up with the Bible, she would read the passage from the Bible to us, and tell us why the story book was wrong.

It taught us to let the Bible be the standard for truth. It also taught us to question what we heard, and make sure it lined up with the Word before we believed it.


You did the right thing.

 

Okay, the kangaroo line was just plain funny! :laugh:

Scarlett, keep on being correct. I don't think God will accept the excuse of "well it was in the cirricullum", when we know better.

 

I mean, come on...in the Middle East...who would wear wool?!?

 

A bit over 20 years ago now I was at a meeting and preacher said "If you have Bible with you turn to passage - don't just take my word for what it says - look it up for yourself". When I've taught kids Sunday school I've occasionally stressed the point to them by saying that, and then adding "It even says that in the Bible in Hezekiah 4:19...."

>insert some very kids here when they try to look up passage< But yeah, they should know what is in the Bible, and what is NOT in there

 

I’ll tell you what! If my kids came home repeating the kind of fairy tales you mentioned I would not be happy. Not only that but would be worried what else was being feed to my kids that I wasn’t catching…and I would sure appreciate that you were pointing out the truth to them that these things were not written in the Bible. Frankly, talking about "nit-picky", and you might think I'm overreacting, but I would feel safer with my children in a secular school where they would continue being suspicious of what they heard than at a school in which they felt they were to place their trust while being mislead with the kind of interpretations you speak of.

 

It is never wrong to do right. It is not "nit-picky" when you are correctly teaching the Bible, without adding or taking away, as the curriculum has a tendency to do.

 

You aren't being nit-picky at all! Trust me, there are a lot of mistakes in that particular curriculum. It was "probably" a pet? Keep on keeping them straight, sister! :applause:

 

I teach from the Bible regardless of what the "other" curriculum says. I use the pictures when they are accurate.

You are not being nitpicky.

 

Same vote here. I say teach it right, then shoot of an email or letter to Mr. and Mrs. Abeka at PCC and point out the error in the curriculum, lol.

I have seen minor issues as well in that curriculum. Please continue to teach it right!

 

The Bible does not even say God killed an animal.
It says..
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.


Could God not make coats without killing an animal?
Nothing there said he killed an animal to make a coat.
Remember we are talking about a God who performs miracles.... He could have just created the skins...

 

Exactly, and that's what got my goat.

 

:tongue3:

. . . .

 

We know from experience that when proven wrong they will correct mistakes in their textbooks. I think that for the most part it is good material but they do make mistakes. My husband found a mistake in an elementary science book and pointed it out to our daughter's teacher. She told us that she would point that out to them. Two years later when my son used the same updated book it had been corrected. My guess is that more than one person contacted them about it. So, yes, by all means contact "Mr. and Mrs. Abeka." haha

 

I don't have anything to do with this Bible curriculum in any schools, and my previous post was mostly wisecracks because Scarlett invited anyone to respond and not "mince words;" an invitation hard for me to resist. But perhaps we need a summation of what Genesis 2-3 does not say:

The skins of sheep were used to clothe Adam and Eve.

God killed a sheep, or any animal, to clothe them.

Blood must have been shed because Adam and Eve sinned.

God told them they must not touch the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge-- or that God directly told Eve anything about eating from that tree.

The serpent had been Adam and Eve's pet, or even 'acquaitance.'

That Adam and Eve ever spoke, or were spoken to, by any beings other than God and the serpent (it doesn't even say they spoke to each other).

That it was a regular daily activity for God to come walking in the garden.

That Adam and Eve had any fear of animals, or animals of them-- or the opposite, that they did not fear, or were not feared, by animals.

With all this, and probably more, it's easy to see how assumptions are virtually inevitable-- such as, Eve got the word somehow that she was not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (called that in 2:17), even though neither God nor Adam is cited as telling her. But there was poor communication somewhere, as she replied to the serpent that they were not eat from the tree in "middle of the garden" (also not cited) and they must "neither touch it." Though it's another subject, that's still part of the human experience-- if 'something' is wrong to do or to have, we want to say "I never touch it" [e.g., wine, movies, drugs (even otc pain relievers), pop music] when it's only certain degrees or aspects that come to 'evil;' thus, we increase curiosity, increase attractiveness, and entertain the thoughts. Genesis is certainly true symbolically, and each individual must ascertain whether it's true literally or only metaphorically.

 

God can do anything (except lie), but the work of creation was already completed and death had entered the world. It stretches credulity to assume a spontaneous creation of skins, or to hold it up as a viable option.