No. Many seem to think that what was writen 2000 years or more for a completely different culture shoudl literally apply word for word to today's culture.

A fairly certain answer would be no. They have little knowledge or interest in the history of any religion, even their own. Largely, exposure to such information is more or less ignored in favor of their own preferential notions of what it is all about. Even reading the King James Bible, The text and injunctions are largely ignored in favor of what they personally believe about their god and religion. It is not to say that these texts are without influence for some, but largely I would have to say that this is the case, particularly in adults.

It helped me reverse a 25 year run as a n evangelical. Started with Ken Daniels "Why I Believed", then Dan Barker, Bart Ehrman, and a bunch of unknown Kindle authors selling truth for . 99, with the real story of the origins of the bible and the church.

Great question! [pewforum.org]
I love Pew research.
Atheists and Jews rank highest in knowledge of religion in general.
Would knowledge change belief? I have no idea. But knowledge leads to tolerance.

It has for me. Art history classes put into perspective stories, cultures, traditions and beliefs through comparison of other cultures.

If they had, they would no longer be theists.

Mpst dp mpt/

Most theists in my experience (particularly fundamentalists) are quite ignorant of such matters. Willfully so I think. When I was in the faith we were taught in various roundabout ways that we represented a return to "true" or "primitive" Christianity, that we were a living, vital faith in contrast to the dry, dead, lifeless, empty husk of mainline denominational Christianity.

It would have been inconvenient to understand much about how alien it would have seemed to be transported somehow to a first century church meeting. To understand about the competing orthodoxy of gnostic Christianity, and the other forces in the mix -- just to name one example.

It would also be inconvenient to understand the incredible impact on art and architecture and culture of those "dead" mainstream denominations -- and how bad we would have looked in comparison to them in our pathetic pole barns with our four part gospel harmony music.

They have their own versions of history.

Not the layperson. They simply pick and choose the parts that fit their own agenda. They take certain things literally (the rapture - my mom just can't wait) and ignore others - or there would be a lot of stoned people. With rocks. Yeah.

Of course they don't have a knowledge of the actual history of the people and culture out of which their religious texts come. And yes, a greater knowledge of history, and the context within which an ancient text was written would change fundamental assumptions and understanding. For example, the book of Revelations. This is the source of a lot of severely misplaced beliefs held by the latter day christians and those holding their breath for the cataclysm. If they studied the historical context and the people who wrote it, and those who were the intended audience for it, they would understand the allegorical meanings, and not interpret them to be a prophecy of a apocalypse They expect us coming. They would also understand the abundance of historical records that exist from the Roman empire at the time that the character of Jesus was told to have lived; and they would realize that there is essentially zero credible evidence to support the idea that he was real. But most Christians will never stop to look into the historical facts.

No

Undoubtedly, no.

Most of the bible stories have 2 historical contexts. The one they are written about, and the one they were written in .

Hardly any of them have any idea at all.
It's appalling.

Yhup it was all real even that magical stuff

Many of the stories in the Bible are based on earlier myths. For instance, the story of Noah, and the Deluge is based on the Sumerian myth of Ziusudra, of Shuruppak. Most Christians, and Jews don't know this.