The purpose of teaching the Bible to adolescents should not be to teach the Bible to adolescents. Before I get myself expelled from this class for making such a radical statement, please allow me (as well as Root, Brueggemann, and Palmer) the chance to explain myself. The purpose of teaching the Bible to adolescents should not be to teach the Bible to adolescents, but rather to teach young people how to apply the Bible to their daily lives in order to transform the way they see the world and themselves. Each individual possesses their own hermeneutical worldview. How one views the Bible dictates how one teaches the Bible. Root and Brueggemann do not incorporate the exact same set of hermeneutics, but they both regard the Bible with similar intentions, basing their approach off of Palmer’s call for a form of teaching grounded in love.…show more content… The very matter of teaching the Bible verses teaching Bible application is personified through Root’s characters of Mrs. Richards and Nadia, respectively. Brueggemann proposes the same perspective of the Bible, though not with the same direct characterization, when he inserts right away on the first page, “The Bible cannot be a good luck piece to bring God’s blessing. Nor can it be an answer book to solve our problems or to give us right belief” (Brueggemann 1). Brueggemann’s approach in this case serves as a striking echo to how Root points out that the Bible is not a divine reference book, history book, or book of principles. Both point towards favoring biblical interpretation over biblical knowledge. Although Palmer specializes in education in general rather than theological education, he still agrees with the Root and Brueggemann. The three all see education, as well as regarding the Bible, not as retention and regurgitation of information, but rather as a personal interaction through a conversational