This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← UPDATED: Why I want all our children to read the King James Bible

Steven Mading's Avatar Jump to comment 92 by Steven Mading

Comment 1 by MullyROI :

Is the Bible not too R-rated for children of such an age? Just revelations (ignoring the rest) has far more gore and sex then we would allow in childrens' books. I'm all for people reading the Bible to see how ridiculous it is but I hestitate to recommend such schemes as they are clearly attempts to enforce a christian identity, the question is whether or not it will backfire.

EDIT: I should clarify. I feel that the Bible should be available in the school libraries particularly for its historical significance but I feel uneasy about such schemes which are far from endorsing the Bible for historical reasons.

The problem is that when people say "The Bible is an important historical document", that's an ambiguous statement. It might mean:

(A) The stories contained therein had an enormous influence on the history that came afterward.


(B) The stories contained therein are themselves historical truth.

Those are not even remotely close to being the same claim at all. And once you give the fundies an inch, they'll take a mile. If you give the mild concession that the bible influenced history after being written, they take that to mean that you just called the bible a true history.

The bible is, of course not a historical document. The Jews were not Egyptian slaves, for example. When they pushed out their neighbors and took over more land, they were not doing so on a mandate from the creator of the universe, for another example.

The bible is literature, and influenced the history that came afterward. That's not the same thing at all.

Sun, 20 May 2012 14:37:58 UTC | #942443