Should Teachers be allowed to use bible as factual text in history class?

Answer 1

The Bible contains many different genres, including history. As history, it should be used as any other primary source document. That is, it should be weighed as one perspective on historical events, but it should also be recognized as colored by the perspectives of an ancient people with national self-interest and theological purposes.

The Gospels, representing four different biographies of Jesus, represent the best extant sources for learning about the most important figure in history.

If this or another answer here proves helpful in your research, you can encourage good answers by choosing one answer as the "best answer."

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 2

Teachers shouldn't use the bible as a factual text, any more than they should use any text as factual. All texts are there to be weighed up by historians and evaluated based on the possible biases of their creators. As a source, the Bible can be a useful reference for the period in which it was written, as there is some truth to it and of course to try and understand the attitudes of the time, but historians can never really present anything from a source as 'fact' per se.

Answer 3

I teach school, and in many cases, the Bible is approached as a work of literature.

Even if one does not believe in the religious message that is offered in the Bible, it does reflect how a belief system emerged in a given period of time. Just as reading Ralph Waldo Emerson gives you an insight into the intellectual thought of the early 19th century and the emerging industrialism that came with it, the Bible reveals a belief system that emerged and thus provides an insight into a regional movement (Middle East/Israel/Palestine/"the Levant") and also provides an insight into how a religion evolved. Aside from that, there are many biblical events that have archeological and historical "proof." There is no proof that Jesus walked on water, for example, but there is proof that a man named Jesus lived, that he was executed as an enemy to the Roman authority in Judea, and Pontius Pilate, for example, was the governor of the province.

The Bible can be used in a history class without extracting religious meaning. The difference would be if the book is used in a history class to offer proof of miracles, or such. But, consider the mindset of a small, literate group of people who believed or conceived of the events in the book of Revelations. Tells you a lot about the mindset of the time.

Answer 4

There are classes in the process the country that use factors of holy writ from each and every style of religions different than for the Bible. Is that any further constitutional? via fact the Bible and its philosophies have inspired western history for hundreds of years it may certainly provide some perception into how our own subculture is formed as hostile to the "deny all ties" physique of suggestions in coaching as we talk. additionally, if the class is an non-obligatory, not needed, how is everyone's appropriate being infringed upon? this is why coaching could desire to be localized, when you consider which you comprehend some fools from Washington will tell them to end whilst that's a application that the locals seem to prefer. Heaven forbid a school or community mirror the values and ideology of the people who certainly stay there!

Answer 5

To add to what one of the last posters said... should muslim/jewish/hindu/buddhist books be used as factual text in history classes?

When it comes down to the crunch, there is no CONCLUSIVE proof that any of the world's religions are actually "the one". It comes down to personal opinion and personal belief and what each individual PERSONALLY INTERPRETS to be correct or factual.

I have many friends who are Christian and to sit them in a room to discuss religion... even they don't agree on many of the key teachings in the religion.

I would say that it's OK to study the bible as PART of history class, but you should be studying other religious books at the same time, and make sure the kids know to interpret it AS THEY SEE FIT, not that it is definitely 100% fact, because you can't prove that.

Answer 6

Yes & No.

It is part of history, it is one recording of historical events, it shaped history insomuch as many events important to history were because of it. It is a primary source critical to understanding history. As should the Qu'ran. As should any religious text that shaped a culture.

However, it is up for debate as to factual nature of it. Those the believe it is fact, believe it is fact. Others do not. And there is little undisputed evidence to support (or discredit) it. Therefore, it should not be used as a text book of recorded history.

It should be used to put historical events into perspective, but not as a document that is an accurate recording of historical events.

(PS - I am a Christian that does believe in it - however, I recoginize that is my faith, not academics).

Answer 7

No, nothing is a fact until it can be proven. Many stories in the Bible cannot be proven. Historians have discovered that a man names Jesus Christ did exist, but what he did or who he was has not yet been determined.

Answer 8

I believe The Bible is considered World Literature.

Answer 9

yeah , the bible is a history book recorded by men, same difference as any modern day history book except youve got four books in the bible[matthew,mark,luke,john] all telling the same story. i would say thats factual.

Answer 10

Heck no! While billions of people believe every word of the bible, and live their lives from it's teachings, there is no proof that it wasn't written by a bunch of drunks trying to control their wives and kids! The fact is the bible was not faxed from heaven and God almighty! Not to even get into how each person and religion bends and shapes, deletes and embellishes parts of the Bible to fit what they want us to believe and not what it actually states!