Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Anonymous asked in Arts & HumanitiesHistory · 1 month ago

Should the archaeologically verified parts of the Bible be taught as history in schools?

Not as a religion but as an objective non biased, archeologically based history similar to how greek and roman history is taught.  


As a scientifically based history. 

Update 2:

Even for those who object to religion, you should agree with this because not teaching in schools objectively leaves radical theists the freedom to teach it incorrectly. 

Update 3:

If it's taught correctly in schools then students would have the proper tools to distinguish between false information and correct information. 

Update 4:

And no I'm not a practicing devouts Christian religious psycho nor an extremist atheist psycho.  

6 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    What parts would those be? AFAIK the only historically accurate part of the Bible is Maccabees, which was removed from Protestant Bibles in the 16th century.

  • 1 month ago

    There is nothing in the Bible that is verified by archeology. 

  • Tina
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Look, I'm sorry but there is no archaeological base for the Bible.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago


    The historical facts are of very little interest or relevance to most people today.

    We should just as well teach the history of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa.

    How much do you know about even the Minoan civilization.

    Or care.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Yes, if the scientifically verifiable truths in Robin Hood stories can be taught too. For example, there really is a place called Nottingham Forest and there really was a sheriff of Nottingham and a Guy of Guisborough and various castles that are mentioned. The question is whether this or the places in the bible are in any way relevant to the syllabus the school is teaching. No case has been made for that.

  • 1 month ago

    The Bible is neither objective nor non-biased.  There are better sources for historical information.

    That being said the Bible should be taught in schools alongside other religions as cultural history (i.e. comparative religion).  All religion is part of human history and should be taught as such (though not practiced in school).  No one religion should be taught as "true" over the others but we should just acknowledge that they exist and are part of human culture. 

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.