My History Textbook

[Subb]

I don't know what to think of it. Mainly because I was reading about Egypt, and I stumbled across a paragraph about how the Hebrews were enslaved, and how Moses saved them in something called the Exodus. Pardon my ignorance, but aren't those things only talked about in the Bible? Then why is it in my history textbook?

I go to a public virtual school, so no religious education here. So why is this in my textbook? Did they find proof that the Exodus happened? How did I miss the memo? That's great, and I'm not even being sarcastic!

Thoughts?

[brainiac3397]

I thought the exodus did really happen...

[KFC Nyan Cat]

Well, that's okay, because the Bible IS a history book.

[154bmag]

There's no real proof that someone named "Moses" even existed. Or that the there were Hebrews enslaved outside of the Bible

[Dead]

[KFC Nyan Cat]

(10-04-2013 10:10 AM)Dead Wrote:  

I hate religion debates. I'm going to MLP Fourms.

[brainiac3397]

Im pretty sure the Koran mentions the exodus as well. Not just the bible. And the torah or some jewish text probably talks about it as well. Basically the abrahamic religions.

[xcriteria]

What's the textbook called? Let's look it up and see what people are saying.

Does it describe the Exodus in terms of it being a story in religious texts? Or as a direct historical event?

Wikipedia on the Exodus:

"Significant portions of the story told in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy may not have been intended to be historiographic, but the overall intent was historical according to the understanding of the ancient writers: to demonstrate God's actions in history, to recall Israel's bondage and salvation, and to demonstrate the fulfillment of Israel's covenant.[2] No archeological evidence has been found to support the Book of Exodus,[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".[4] The consensus among biblical scholars today is that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.[5]"


And here's what Wikipedia says about the Book of Exodus:

Hidden stuff:

Genre and sources

"The book of Exodus is not historical narrative in any modern sense.[11] Modern history writing requires the critical evaluation of sources, and does not accept God as a cause of events.[12] But in Exodus, everything is presented as the work of God, who appears frequently in person, and the historical setting is only very hazily sketched.[13] The purpose of the book is not to record what really happened, but to reflect the historical experience of the exile community in Babylon and later Jerusalem, facing foreign captivity and the need to come to terms with their understanding of God.[14]"

"Although mythical elements are not so prominent in Exodus as in Genesis, the echoes of ancient legends are crucial to understanding the book's origins and purpose: for example, the story of the infant Moses's salvation from the Nile has its basis in an earlier legend of king Sargon, while the story of the parting of the Red Sea trades on Mesopotamian creation mythology. Similarly, the Covenant Code (the law code in Exodus 20:22-23:33) has notable similarities in both content and structure with the Laws of Hammurabi. These influences serve to reinforce the conclusion that the Book of Exodus originated in the exiled Jewish community of 6th-century Babylon, but not all the sources are Mesopotamian: the story of Moses's flight to Midian following the murder of the Egyptian overseer may draw on the Egyptian Tale of Sinuhe.[15]"

If you're going to go back that far, it's worth learning about some of those early historical precursors like the Code of Hammurabi. Are those covered in the book?

[Subb]

This is what it says exactly:
"According to some Biblical scholars, the Israelites remained in Egypt and were enslaved and forced into hard labor. They would not leave Egypt until sometime between 1500 and 1200 B. C., the time of the Exodus."

The book is called "World History: Patterns of Interaction". It's made by the Holt McDougal (A company).

[xcriteria]

Hmm, there are some negative reviews on Amazon, saying it's anti-Western, anti-Christian. One references a controversy in Florida over the book: Sarasota School Board critic challenges history textbook

Really learning about history means asking these questions... analyzing texts, asking tough questions, not just memorizing what's in a single textbook. This is the age of information... a key skill is figuring out how to interpret information and controversies like that. Even, how do people decide what to put in a book or assignment... "what's important to know?"

Is any of that getting discussed alongside your "read this and take a memorization test" (I assume) assignments?

[Subb]

We do the assignments the teacher made. We just use the book for the information.

I read some of the reviews, and that article. These are hyper sensitive conservatives. The reason why this textbook covers Islam and the Middle Eastern culture more in depth is because we don't know about it. They don't cover Christianity much because WE LIVE IN A CHRISTIAN SOCIETY. We need to teach Islam because it's a niche religion here. Because people don't know what it teaches. It isn't anti christian or anti western. It just skims over those parts because it assumes we know about them. Everyone knows what the pope looks like. We need to cover Muslim prayer more because we as a country need to learn about Islam. And "Regard" is a less biased way to say "know", Rich Swier.

And no one's talking about this? I might make an amazon account....

[brainiac3397]

Raised in America and my knowledge of Christianity is non-existent. I learned more about Hinduism than I did about Christianity(though we did go in-depth in the Protestant Reformation during my AP European History class. I know some stuff from there).

Considering the fact my school was a private school with a majority Muslim student body, we didn't really cover Islam either.

[Subb]

(10-09-2013 05:07 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  Raised in America and my knowledge of Christianity is non-existent. I learned more about Hinduism than I did about Christianity(though we did go in-depth in the Protestant Reformation during my AP European History class. I know some stuff from there).

Considering the fact my school was a private school with a majority Muslim student body, we didn't really cover Islam either.

Hmmm, good point. I think you're a rare case, though. The US is 80% Christian, so maybe they expected you to have a discussion with your parents when you saw one of those billboards?

[brainiac3397]

And Christianity in the US confuses the crap out of me.

In my area, there is a Ukranian orthodox church, a Roman Catholic church, a United Reformed church, Free Methodist church, an Indian Pentecostal Church, Syrian Orthodox church and Baptist church(within a half-mile radius).

In Islam there isn't really so many sects(well, sects exist, but generally speaking the only thing differentiating mosques is the nationality. So they might be unofficially nicknamed in the Muslim community as "the Arab mosque" or "the Bengali mosque" or "the Turkish mosque", but they're mosques nonetheless and everyone is welcome. Plus, even various sects follow the basics of prayer, so you Shi'ites and Sunnis and etc. can pray in any mosque. Hell...we don't even need mosques. If none are available, any place is suitable for prayer long as its clean or on a clean surface)

So obviously while Muslims will only really need one or two mosques in a city(the nationally diverse Muslim communities that is. Homogenous communities will tend to only really have one in a city built to allow space for a large number of people in the community to attend) It's confusing to see the dozens of various churches scattered all over the place. And I don't know the differences between them.(I just know Orthodox has patriarchs, and Roman Catholic is basically what Christian meant before the Protestant reformation)

[Subb]

Well, Christianity isn't uniform, like Islam. Their are very big differences between sects, mainly between Catholic and Protestant.

Catholics are very ritualistic and calculated. You can go to heaven without Jesus, but you can't go to heaven if you sin. If you sin, you have to have it forgiven by Jesus. You can also pray to saints and angels, and they put a good word in for you. In mass, the blood and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ due to the power of the Holy Spirit. You can go to the priest and confess, and he will say that you'll be forgiven if you do x.(Example, 20 Hail Marys and a day of community service.) They look to Jesus as a teacher. You both have to be a good person and have your sins forgiven if you want to go to heaven.

Protestants are different. They are more feel-good and free. Only the grace of God can get you to heaven. You can only go there if you believe. They look at Jesus as someone who saves people from Hell. You don't need to confess your sins, because Jesus already saved you. The most important thing you can do is save someone by giving them Jesus.

Then Protestants kinda split off into different things. Like the Pentecostals, who have the Holy Spirit go through them. They do things like speak in tongues and fall to the floor shaking. And Evangelists, who put even more of an emphasis on the aspect of saving people.

That's why they're so many churches. Because they all believe different things.

[brainiac3397]

Islam is so much simpler. Most of the arguments lay in other practices(form during prayer, what counts as breaking your ablution, how a religious leader is chosen amongst a community, was it the caliph or the prophet's son-in-law who should have been next in line after the prophet(pbuh), how strictly to follow the sharia and how to interpret the Koran).

Most disagreement follows after the prophet(pbuh), and is mostly risen from one group saying they should continue this path while the other says the other(The thing was that the prophet(pbuh) practiced varying forms and rules, which were actions not strictly defined by the Koran. This sort of meant that some leaders would try to enforce a single varying practice as the only one valid. Obviously that led to all the tension).

A thing about Islam is how complex the defining of people and practices is. Example for people:

Quote:Mu'min: A Muslim believer.
Fajir: A Muslim who is wicked or an evil doer, a sinner (by action).
Fasiq: A Muslim who openly violates Islamic law.
Munafiq: A hypocrite, one who does not believe in Islam, but declares as a Muslim (mainly used in non religious context).
Kafir: An unbeliever, an apostate from Islam, a person who hides, denies, or covers the truth.
Murtad: Apostate, A previous Muslim who no longer accepts Islam.
Ahl al-Kitâb: "People of the Book", members of the monotheistic religions whose holy books share the Qur'an's origins, i.e. Jews and Christians
Sharqui: "Idolater" or "Oriental", people perceived by Muslims to practice idolatry, i.e. Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and the Indian religions in general, as well as Taoists, Shintoists and other far-eastern religions.

Then for the rules:

Quote:Wajib, obligatory
Mustahabb / Sunnah, recommended
Mubah, neither obligatory nor recommended (neutral)
Makruh, abominable (abstaining is recommended)
Haraam, sinful (abstaining is obligatory)

1st you must do and is usually clearly defined in the Koran, 2nd is by example of the prophet's actions,3rd is a sort of "we don't really know" since the religion does have its roots in the 6-7th century,4th is "we still don't know, but it's best if you don't do it and err on the side of caution" and the last is "SIN 4 SURE"

As if that isn't complicated enough, there are various schools of thought in each sect with their own ideas of 2-5(While its practically an anonymous agreement on what is obligatory, everything even up to sins is up for discussion, though usually only the very unorthodox schools and sects will remove sins or add them, usually to the great displeasure of the big mainstream sects)

So I guess that while Christianity has lots of sects, Islam has lots of schools.(a lot of what you might call "sects" for Islam are really just different schools underneath the two biggest sects currently existing, Sunni and Shia. It's sort of like the split of Catholic-Orthodox.)

I always wondered if Roman Catholics(or those who believe in the Trinity) have thought of the possibility that Roman paganism has affected Christianity. They're technically the only one of the Abrahamic religions that hold a belief that others consider heretical(Trinitarianism).

[xcriteria]

This is turning into a more in-depth discussion than many classes. Here's why we need to build our own classes rather than (or in addition to) just taking ones others build.

All the religious viewpoints, including differences within each, make for a lot to make sense of beyond the surface labels that tend to get thrown around. Plus, add in the fact that many young people around the world are connecting to ideas and examples beyond their immediate situation. As a result, many are questioning tradition to varying degrees, whatever tradition might be in their their family and culture of origin.

(10-09-2013 04:19 AM)SubCulture Wrote:  We do the assignments the teacher made. We just use the book for the information.

Are the assignments any good? The more I think about education, the more I realize that one of the best ways to change things is for learners to scrutinize and even re-do assignments themselves. Even if they're roughly on track, why not come up with better ones?

(10-09-2013 04:19 AM)SubCulture Wrote:  I read some of the reviews, and that article. These are hyper sensitive conservatives. The reason why this textbook covers Islam and the Middle Eastern culture more in depth is because we don't know about it. They don't cover Christianity much because WE LIVE IN A CHRISTIAN SOCIETY. We need to teach Islam because it's a niche religion here. Because people don't know what it teaches. It isn't anti christian or anti western. It just skims over those parts because it assumes we know about them. Everyone knows what the pope looks like.

Yes, I agree. But, like most textbooks, I imagine you can learn a lot more than what it covers. This is a problem with all textbooks, really. Many teachers just use textbooks as a reference, of course, but it doesn't hurt to look beyond their lecture material in lectures or assignments.

At least for me, I didn't learn much about history in history classes. and it's because I have to connect things together to learn. That requires thinking outside the box of individual classes.

(Yeah, that's kind of a tangential argument... but as long as we're talking about what's in textbooks, why not talk about how we learn best?)

(10-09-2013 04:19 AM)SubCulture Wrote:  And no one's talking about this? I might make an amazon account....

Yeah -- in a connected world, it's so much easier to discuss all this. Once upon a time, there were no places to really even have these conversations, and nothing to compare textbooks against, short of spending countless hours (years?) digging through library stacks or tracking down college professors and comparing what they have to say.

[brainiac3397]

That's what I was thinking

[xcriteria]

(10-09-2013 10:44 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  That's what I was thinking

Btw, brainiac, you know more than the textbook. You could be teaching a class.

[brainiac3397]

Heh. Teaching is an idea that's crossed my mind. However, my courses would come with an asterisk saying "Not for the weak of heart". I'd be engaged but I'd also have people's minds running at full power...and beyond. Probably akin to applying special forces training to a college class and more mental leaning than physical.

But I'm not a jerk, so effort is also awarded. I understand not everyone can possess the same level of intellect, so it wouldn't hurt to at least hit your maximum(and maybe push it up a notch) and get that mystery out of the way.

Maybe I should look into tutoring, come to think of it...

[Subb]

Brainiac, I don't think it has crossed the mind of most Catholics, but I think it has. The date of Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the first day of spring, which sounds like it could come from a Pagan tradition. Actually, lot of holidays come from Pagan celebrations. Also, the act of picking out saints to pray to is reminiscent of the Pagan practice of choosing a representation of the God and Goddess from mythology. And most Christians believe in the Trinity, not just Catholics. In fact, only a few sects like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in it. It's paradoxical, because it's three gods, but also one. So, technically not heretical.

One fun fact about the Trinity: I have a book that they give to kids that talks about it. One question is "How can there be three Gods, but also one God?" and it said, "We don't know, but it's true. You don't need to understand it. You just need to believe it."

Xcriteria, the assignments are okay. I just did one where I had to pick a Chinese philosophy, and say why America should adopt it. The three were bad, but I chose Taoism. I made it so that the Taoists were trying to convince you, but they were doing a horrible job at it. Anyway, the teacher gave me a low grade, because I didn't mention the other philosophies. The thing is, a Taoist wouldn't care about them. They would just care about bettering themselves and the world. So take that as you will.

My school is good at giving you other sources, such as videos. In fact, Crash Course World History is listed as a recommended video source. So that's good.

[no]

(10-10-2013 04:35 AM)SubCulture Wrote:  One fun fact about the Trinity: I have a book that they give to kids that talks about it. One question is "How can there be three Gods, but also one God?" and it said, "We don't know, but it's true. You don't need to understand it. You just need to believe it."

theuniverseimplodes.jpg