joannqn Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 I'm new to SOTW this year. I was hoping to merge SOTW with Biblical history but have already run into a problem with that idea in Chapter 1. I was just looking over the story book when I saw a note saying the stone wall at Jericho dated to 6800BC. That seemed kind of old so I looked it up and found archaelogical references to Jericho falling sometime between 1350-1325BC and the Bible dating Jericho's fall at 1346BC. Was this just an error or will I find more inconsistencies with dates? Does anyone know of a reference that matches up SOTW chapters to sections of scripture? Just wondering how to make this work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klmama Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 The Classical Education Police won't be pounding on your door if you don't mention dates to your first grader. Just tell the story chronologically, and you'll be fine. Tie in Jericho where it seems to fit best, and don't worry about exact dates. When we did SOTW I we didn't discuss dates much, if at all. We did, however, line up the stories. I just went through Catherine Vos's Child's Story Bible and lined up the events with the history book. Any chronological Bible would work, though. Isn't there a chart that plans this out on Paula's Archives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna T. Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 SOTW is a secular text and you have to treat it as such. This is one of the reasons that next time I do Ancients it will be with My Father's World. I want the Bible integrated and don't trust my ability to do it on my own. I used SOTW 1 when ds was in second grade. Those dates and things went over his head so it worked out for me at that time but I am a little more concerned with that now that they are older. :iagree: I so want to be able to piece together my own curriculum for my children. And, I ended up trying to do that with SOTW and Egermeier's Bible Story Book and some other things. And, it's fine. I like SOTW (love the writing style and the activity guide) and using Egermeier's with it has been great. But, I won't try it again. I'm going to use My Father's World because they've done it for me. And, after the Ancients, they use SOTW. Next year, my first grader's Ancient study will be the Bible only using MFW's First Grade. And, when he gets there again, it will be with MFW's Creation to Greeks. MFW uses the Bible itself as the main history textbook for this time-period. Schedule at Paula's Archives to coordinate Egermeier's with SOTW 1. http://www.redshift.com/~bonajo/sotw1eger.htm Not exactly what you are looking for, I know. We have loved Egermeier's though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaneGrey Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Here's the link to the correct page on Paula's Archives for correlating SOTW reading with specific Bible story books: http://www.redshift.com/~bonajo/SOTWmenu.htm I understand wanting dates. It sure doesn't seem easy for that period, though. Some people have gotten into Ussher's Annals of History for getting dates. Here is a link for info on Ussher (just to give you an idea): http://www.crosscountrysoftware.com/ussher.html I'm pretty sure that Ussher's dates are what Christine Miller relies on (author of All Through the Ages). Veritas Press recommended Ussher (at least for a while). They have different dates on their cards, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeke Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 SOTW is a secular text and you have to treat it as such. QUOTE] Just curious...is SOTW really considered a secular text? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 SOTW is a secular text and you have to treat it as such. Just curious...is SOTW really considered a secular text? No...it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeke Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 No...it is not. I didn't think so either, it always surprises me to read that people think it is from a secular point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in VA Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Will someone define secular, please? Personally, I think SOTW is one of those rare finds--a book that can be used by most, if not all, people. Somehow, tho, it seems to offend some Christians as too secular, and some secularists as too religious. I really don't get it. What is the rub for a secularist? Is it because she refers to some religious figures? Tells some of the stories of religions? SWB doesn't seem to teach doctrine. She never says, for example, that Jesus is God. Is the problem for some (secular) that they want no mention of any religious ceremonies, beliefs, stories? If this is true, I guess my question would then be, how do I teach history without including culture? Isn't culture necessary to a understanding the motivations of a people, and their actions? Isn't it intricately woven into the fabric of a civilization? And I think most would agree that religious beliefs and practices, or the lack thereof, are part of the people's culture. But perhaps that is not the problem (wanting no mention, that is.) I just don't get how SWB offended by including stories and beliefs in her narrative. I can sort of see how some Christians might take offense for it not being a "this is only and exactly what the Bible says, this is the truth" text. But will someone tell me about the secular side? Not meaning to offend, myself--I am really wondering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnandtinagilbert Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 I wanted a bit more bible in ANcient History too, so I purchased The Mystery of History and combined it with SOTW to make what I thought was an ideal lower grammar history curriculum. There are yahoo groups that already have the cross reference charts prepared, so I didn't have to plan anything extra, just look at my chart and say ok, MOH Lesson A goes with SOTW Ch. B. I really found this to be an ideal combination that was still thorough, fun, but light on the workload for me and the children. HTH, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G5052 Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 I think that most people would agree that the SOTW books do have a subtle Protestant, Christian slant because that's the world view of the author. Her intention was to write for a broad audience, but it's impossible to write history without putting some of yourself into it. Whether that's OK by a particular family, is always up for debate. Some of the conservative Christians don't like the dates and the paraphrased Bible stories. We skipped those chapters in our house for that reason. Some of the more secular homeschoolers don't like how the Bible stories are presented or that they're in there. Then there's controversy over the Reformation because of course there are VERY different viewpoints over that period (and ours isn't even touched on). Bottom line (and I've said this here before), you need to educate yourself to the point that you can explain history under your own world view. You shouldn't rely on a textbook IMHO. I use textbooks, but I also explain and bring in other resources. I'd recommend reading ( or re-reading) SWB's article on "neutral" education too. There really is no such thing! http://www.welltrainedmind.com/neutral.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnandtinagilbert Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Will someone define secular, please? Personally, I think SOTW is one of those rare finds--a book that can be used by most, if not all, people. Somehow, tho, it seems to offend some Christians as too secular, and some secularists as too religious. I really don't get it. What is the rub for a secularist? Is it because she refers to some religious figures? Tells some of the stories of religions? SWB doesn't seem to teach doctrine. She never says, for example, that Jesus is God. Is the problem for some (secular) that they want no mention of any religious ceremonies, beliefs, stories? If this is true, I guess my question would then be, how do I teach history without including culture? Isn't culture necessary to a understanding the motivations of a people, and their actions? Isn't it intricately woven into the fabric of a civilization? And I think most would agree that religious beliefs and practices, or the lack thereof, are part of the people's culture. But perhaps that is not the problem (wanting no mention, that is.) I just don't get how SWB offended by including stories and beliefs in her narrative. I can sort of see how some Christians might take offense for it not being a "this is only and exactly what the Bible says, this is the truth" text. But will someone tell me about the secular side? Not meaning to offend, myself--I am really wondering. It is my understanding that SOTW was written with no religious bias, but it is known that the author is Christian. Since it is not written as a church history intensive program, and doesn't offer bible as heavily as say, TOG or MOH, it is secular (simply meaning not Christian), as far as my understanding of secular. Her stories include the religious understanding of several viewpoints. Personally, there is only one area of curriculum that I have found it absolutely necessary to really watch out for secularism: science. I either use something that does not at all deal with Creation, or I choose a specifically Christian curriculum. I know there are others who are convicted to use Only Christian Curriculum and I have no problem with that, it's never been my (our, cuz dh feels the same) conviction, so I use what works best for my children, based on their needs and my plan for what to teach. For us, SOTW has a place in that plan, secular or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harriet Vane Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Honestly, there may be some variation in opinion as to when the fall of Jericho happened. It may be that SWB relied on a different source than you did for her dating of that event. I haven't studied the fall of Jericho from an archaeological perspective. However, I did attend a lecture on Moses at one point--the teacher hypothesized three different possible time periods for Moses to have been alive. My point is simply that archaeologists do their best, often with very little evidence to go by, to establish such things. It is completely normal for there to be some dispute about the final answer. Finally, I agree with Chris in VA about the value in SOTW. I appreciate the balanced perspective from which SWB wrote. I don't see why every text needs to be filled with smarmy Christianese to be considered okay for Christians to use, and I also become very frustrated with seculars who insist on a complete absence of biblical reference. That's not secular at all--that's biased and anti-Christian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallory Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 I use SOTW and we enjoy it, but one of the problems I see with it being secular- is not that bible stories are included, but that they are included as history. They are not presented in the same way as the myths of other cultures. But like GVA said, history is such a subjective subject, that I think few people are going to find a book that they agree with everything that is in it. There are always things that might not sit right with you, and that is part of explaining history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrianne Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 The Classical Education Police won't be pounding on your door if you don't mention dates to your first grader. Just tell the story chronologically, and you'll be fine. Tie in Jericho where it seems to fit best, and don't worry about exact dates. When we did SOTW I we didn't discuss dates much, if at all. We did, however, line up the stories. I just went through Catherine Vos's Child's Story Bible and lined up the events with the history book. Any chronological Bible would work, though. Isn't there a chart that plans this out on Paula's Archives? :iagree: Dates are so disputable anyway that early on and unless you have a child that loves to memorize dates, don't worry about it. If there is ever a dispute, the word of God wins. The Bible is right. We use this approach with everything we do and learn in our lives even science. We read our story Bible regularly and this reinforces it. This worked well with ds9 the first time around and I plan to approach things the same way with ds5 this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joannqn Posted July 10, 2008 Author Share Posted July 10, 2008 Thank you for all of your insight. I'm off to look at some of those links. I'm thinking I'll mesh the two together and use the dates I want to use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 The "bible stories" in SOTW are not presented in the same way as they are in the Bible. For example the account of Abram leaving Ur is not at all the biblical account but it follows other, exta-biblical accounts about Abram. Can you cite these "extra-biblical" sources? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeke Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 I use SOTW and we enjoy it, but one of the problems I see with it being secular- is not that bible stories are included, but that they are included as history. They are not presented in the same way as the myths of other cultures. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.