Elective courses in public schools on the Bible

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

Those are some of the good parts.

By "bad" I was referring to the bits that parents and administrators would like to censor using their trusty pair of scissors. I think of them as "good" parts sometimes as well, given that they are a convincing argument against those who think all our morals should be derived from a work of popular fiction.

 

[Jerry]

By "bad" I was referring to the bits that parents and administrators would like to censor using their trusty pair of scissors. I think of them as "good" parts sometimes as well, given that they are a convincing argument against those who think all our morals should be derived from a work of popular fiction.

A work of popular fiction?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

I voted for Good Idea In Theory but Bad Idea in Practice for this reason:

1. Even if you managed to make the class a study of the bible from a purely academic perspective, which translation would be used? It is impossible for such a class not to have a denominational slant due to the fact that the english Christian Bible has significant translational differences in just about every denomination. Which one would be chosen? The KJV? NIV? NAS? ALT? CEV? etc etc ad infinitum. To get even remotley close to non-biased/non-denominatinal would require that the Christian Bible used would be one as written in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek which is obviously not possible in highschool.

 

[Kandahar]

I voted for Good Idea In Theory but Bad Idea in Practice for this reason:

1. Even if you managed to make the class a study of the bible from a purely academic perspective, which translation would be used? It is impossible for such a class not to have a denominational slant due to the fact that the english Christian Bible has significant translational differences in just about every denomination. Which one would be chosen? The KJV? NIV? NAS? ALT? CEV? etc etc ad infinitum. To get even remotley close to non-biased/non-denominatinal would require that the Christian Bible used would be one as written in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek which is obviously not possible in highschool.

Most of the translational differences are minor...a word here and there. With a few exceptions, the meaning doesn't change significantly from one translation to another...and for those cases, the teacher could certainly explain that there are varying interpretations as to what the author meant.

 

[Jerry]

I voted for Good Idea In Theory but Bad Idea in Practice for this reason:

1. Even if you managed to make the class a study of the bible from a purely academic perspective, which translation would be used? It is impossible for such a class not to have a denominational slant due to the fact that the english Christian Bible has significant translational differences in just about every denomination. Which one would be chosen? The KJV? NIV? NAS? ALT? CEV? etc etc ad infinitum. To get even remotley close to non-biased/non-denominatinal would require that the Christian Bible used would be one as written in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek which is obviously not possible in highschool.

If the bible were taught from a purely academic perspective, then the differences in various translations would be part of the course study. Also, as is the case in Georgia, the teacher and students are allowed to use whatever version they personally wish.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Most of the translational differences are minor...a word here and there. With a few exceptions, the meaning doesn't change significantly from one translation to another...

It most certainly does. You seem to disregard the fact that even 1 word can change the context of the entire Chapter/Book and even the slightest difference in interpreation can entirely change the meaning of the message. If you're going to study the Bible from a purely academic perspective then you would have to discuss the differences in translation and interpretation held by EVERY denomination and discussing Judaism would also be a requirement. This is clearly an impossible feat for a 45 minute, or less, optional class in highschool.

 

[Jerry]

It most certainly does. You seem to disregard the fact that even 1 word can change the context of the entire Chapter/Book and even the slightest difference in interpreation can entirely change the meaning of the message.

Could you give an example or 2?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Could you give an example or 2?

I'll give an example of each.

Interpretation:

1. Isaiah Chapter 53 - Regarded by some Christians as Messianic prophecy but by others as the prophecy of the Israelite's captivity at the hands of the Babylonians.

Translation:

1. Leviticus 18:22 - "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

When directly translated it means "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman; it is ceremonially unclean." yet most Christian Bibles translate the verse as saying that "homosexuality" is an "abomination". For those unfamiliar with Hebrew, that is SIGNIFICANTLY different and a COMPLETE change in meaning than what the acctual Hebrew says not to mention a blatant mistranslation.

 

[Kandahar]

I'll give an example of each.

Interpretation:

1. Isaiah Chapter 53 - Regarded by some Christians as Messianic prophecy but by others as the prophecy of the Israelite's captivity at the hands of the Babylonians.

Translation:

1. Leviticus 18:22 - "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

When directly translated it means "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman; it is ceremonially unclean." yet most Christian Bibles translate the verse as saying that "homosexuality" is an "abomination". For those unfamiliar with Hebrew, that is SIGNIFICANTLY different and a COMPLETE change in meaning than what the acctual Hebrew says not to mention a blatant mistranslation.

Explaining the varying ways to interpret it would be part of the course...in fact, it would be the main focus.

 

[Jerry]

I'll give an example of each.

Interpretation:

1. Isaiah Chapter 53 - Regarded by some Christians as Messianic prophecy but by others as the prophecy of the Israelite's captivity at the hands of the Babylonians.

Translation:

1. Leviticus 18:22 - "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

When directly translated it means "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman; it is ceremonially unclean." yet most Christian Bibles translate the verse as saying that "homosexuality" is an "abomination". For those unfamiliar with Hebrew, that is SIGNIFICANTLY different and a COMPLETE change in meaning than what the acctual Hebrew says not to mention a blatant mistranslation.

Thank you for demonstrating how the OT/Torah can be taught in a secular fassion.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Explaining the varying ways to interpret it would be part of the course...in fact, it would be the main focus.

Doing that would require the disection of a considerable number of verses from well over 50 different english translations. Perhaps I'm lacking imagination, but I don't see that as a possibility in a highschool elective course due to time constraints among other things. A bible course with no denominational/religous leanings...sorry but, IMO, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Kandahar]

Doing that would require the disection of a considerable number of verses from well over 50 different english translations. Perhaps I'm lacking imagination, but I don't see that as a possibility in a highschool elective course due to time constraints among other things.

Obviously you couldn't dissect every single line of the entire Bible in a single high school class. But you could certainly cover the highlights...Genesis, Exodus, Job, the four Gospels, Revelations, etc.

A bible course with no denominational/religous leanings...sorry but, IMO, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I don't understand what is so difficult about being able to teach students "some people believe the author meant X, and some people believe the author meant Y." English teachers do that with just about every book.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Obviously you couldn't dissect every single line of the entire Bible in a single high school class. But you could certainly cover the highlights...Genesis, Exodus, Job, the four Gospels, Revelations, etc.

You can't expect an even remotely throrough understanding of a work of literature when you cherrypick certain books/chapters while largely disregarding the vast majority of the rest of the the text.

I don't understand what is so difficult about being able to teach students "some people believe the author meant X, and some people believe the author meant Y." English teachers do that with just about every book.

"Just about every book" doen't have over 50 different translations which change it's meaning and countless interpretations. Now, if you wanted to have an elective course which isn't about the bible itself but the effects it has had, as a work of literature, on human civilization throughout history and why then I would consider that not only a possibility but a very good and important suggestion. In fact, I believe it should be a required topic of discussion in History classes with an elective course that goes into more detail.

 

[Jerry]

Doing that would require the disection of a considerable number of verses from well over 50 different english translations.

If your going for a post doctorate degree perhaps, but we're not even speaking of an associates, a diploma or even a certificate of completion. We're talking about 1/2 collage credit at most.

 

[Kandahar]

You can't expect an even remotely throrough understanding of a work of literature when you cherrypick certain books/chapters while largely disregarding the vast majority of the rest of the the text.

Similarly, you can't expect an even remotely thorough understanding of astronomy by studying Newton's laws of motion. That doesn't make 10th grade physics classes useless.

"Just about every book" doen't have over 50 different translations which change it's meaning and countless interpretations.

A lot of books do have varying translations/interpretations that are routinely taught in high school without problem...the Iliad, Antigone, Beowulf. I think high schoolers are old enough to realize that they're reading a translation if the teacher makes that clear.

Now, if you wanted to have an elective course which isn't about the bible itself but the effects it has had, as a work of literature, on human civilization throughout history and why then I would consider that not only a possibility but a very good and important suggestion. In fact, I believe it should be a required topic of discussion in History classes with an elective course that goes into more detail.

I'm all for that too. In fact, a lot of the history could be incorporated into the study of the material itself. For example, Genesis has a lot of parallels with other myths of nearby cultures (Enuma Elish, Gilgamesh). Something resembling the Ten Commandments seems to have been written by the Hittites, long before the Israelites wrote it. I think that important historical facts like this would help students better understand the material they were reading.

 

[Dogger807]

But are you merely talking about teaching the Bible from a literary point of view or of going in depth into into it's history, that is how it was created, changed and manipulated over the centuries. And would you include parts of the Bible which have been removed or excluded? Not to mention the fact that the Bible itself is a series of books and writings from various sources. Some of those books contradict each other. And then of course there's the whole problem of what version to use.
Personally I find the history of the bible and it's effects on western civilization interesting but for a proper study of it by qualified unbiased teachers I think it would be best left for a college course.
On a practical note I don't think high schools have the money to hire a professional scholar of the Bible and it's effects on civilization. It would be a speciality course and it would need a professional historian/archaeologist to properly be taught. I don't think it would be a good idea simply based on the monetary costs associated with teaching it properly.

Money a problem..no I don't think so. They'd be turning away donations from people trying to get this class taught.
=========================================================


Teaching the bible in a secular manner has the reality check value of negative 15 on a scale of 1 to 10. The closest you could realistically get to that is having nothing but atheists teach the course. And that has the reality check value of negative thirty on a scale of 1 to 10. There is no way they are gonna let the bible be taught by someone who actually considers it a piece of literature.

If the legislation passes, it will be abused. Then there will be litigation. We're all gonna watch this like a train wreck waiting to happen.

 

[Kandahar]

There is no way they are gonna let the bible be taught by someone who actually considers it a piece of literature.

This is already being done successfully by nearly every university, public and private, in the country. It's hardly that big of a stretch to assume that the same could be done at the high school level.

 

[dragonslayer]

As long as schools are never used for the tools of conversion to christianity, and that all religions including moslem, hindu, Jewish,etc, are given equal treatment. i can go along with this.

I am a christian who believes in the seperation of church and state. I don't want the Government enterfering in my religious beliefs and my church. I don't want the Myriad of Churches controlling my government or receiving govenment money.

 

[Dogger807]

This is already being done successfully by nearly every university, public and private, in the country. It's hardly that big of a stretch to assume that the same could be done at the high school level.

If I were to suspect this course were exactly what they were presenting it as then I'd agree.