Should the Bible be used as a textbook in schools?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 24-11-2004 @ 06:58 PM by Off_The_Street
If you're a History or English or Anthropology major, you must study the Bible, because it (and I'm talking the KJV here) is basic to the study of those disciplines.

Not that the Bible is true history, of course; it isn't. But it does provide interesting correlations that can help us 'fill in the blanks' of early history of nomadic tribes in that area.

As far as English -- from either a literaty or linguistic point of view -- all I can say is that, as an example of 16th century literature, the KJV matches Shakespeare and Marlowe and surpasses anything else written in the English language during that time.

And from a linguistic point of view, the Bible's a wonderful textbook on the evolution (uh-oh!) of the English language; and, if enough people who read and quoted the Bible actually knew a bit about the history of English language, it would get rid of that silly "but it says 'thou shalt not kill'!" argument against wars, just or otherwise.

Anthropology? It is the most commonly-read and understood of the world's creation-myths, since it tends to subsume both the Jewisn and Muslim accounts;and has a heck of a lot more relevance to everyday activities today that either Shinto's view of Amaterasu-o-mi-kami or the Mayan Popul Vuh.

When we ignore the Bible -- even leaving religion out of it, if we may -- we end up impoverishing ourselves from a literary, historical, anthropological and who-knows-else what aspect.



reply posted on 24-11-2004 @ 08:59 PM by Xephyr
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
If you're a History or English or Anthropology major, you must study the Bible, because it (and I'm talking the KJV here) is basic to the study of those disciplines.

Not that the Bible is true history, of course; it isn't. But it does provide interesting correlations that can help us 'fill in the blanks' of early history of nomadic tribes in that area.

As far as English -- from either a literaty or linguistic point of view -- all I can say is that, as an example of 16th century literature, the KJV matches Shakespeare and Marlowe and surpasses anything else written in the English language during that time.

And from a linguistic point of view, the Bible's a wonderful textbook on the evolution (uh-oh!) of the English language; and, if enough people who read and quoted the Bible actually knew a bit about the history of English language, it would get rid of that silly "but it says 'thou shalt not kill'!" argument against wars, just or otherwise.

Anthropology? It is the most commonly-read and understood of the world's creation-myths, since it tends to subsume both the Jewisn and Muslim accounts;and has a heck of a lot more relevance to everyday activities today that either Shinto's view of Amaterasu-o-mi-kami or the Mayan Popul Vuh.

When we ignore the Bible -- even leaving religion out of it, if we may -- we end up impoverishing ourselves from a literary, historical, anthropological and who-knows-else what aspect.


Actually, you're a bit off on that part. Much of what we understand of early Jewish history, as well as that of Babylon, Assyria, etc is taken from the Bible. It has been an invaluable resource to historians, scholars, and archeologists.
Now, stories like that of Jonah are open to inerpretation, but most scholars will agree that these are merely stories.

But, back to the main question. I agree with what many of the others have said. There is nothing wrong with using the Bible as required reading in a literature class.


reply posted on 24-11-2004 @ 09:15 PM by Thomas Crowne
Some of you would have been very disappointed if Ol' TC didn't weigh in on this particular thread. Some of you might also be surprised by my answer to this as well.

First, to respond to a couple earlier responses.

True, as it was pointed out, it is not the responsibility of the school to teach Christianity, but as this is a Christian nation, and I have proven time and time again on this board that it is a Christian nation (At least was founded to be one), it would harm nothing. The teaching would have to be very generic, not going anwhere near any of the topics that separate the several denominations, though.

To the question of wether or not the reading of the Satanic Bible would be acceptable - sure, in a Satanic nation. Satan is the destroyer, not the builder, so you might have problems finding the right nation for that, though.

Now, as time is running out and I'm going to have to run to work, let me get to my answer to that question: No. Not particularly. Here's my reason why.

The schools should be focusing on Reading, Writing and Arithmetic, not to mention hard sciences and languages. It should spend all its resources on these topics and no time on either religion or the liberal social engineering topics. It takes minimum of 12 years to prepare a human to enter the workforce, and with the changing of the world, both high and low tec jobs being outsourced, the child needs as much information as possible to compete. Parents need to turn off the TV and do their jobs of rearing their offspring.

Ok, some of you can pick yourselves off the floor. I'm going to work now.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 18 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor FrantiÅ¡ek VyskoÄil
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags
The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags
Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 10 days ago with 2 member flags