本論文比較台灣教會兩個大專生讀經營(大專靈修班及大專聖經神學研究班)的查法，並強調系統性的查經需要有更多處境對話和分析。第一章 說明本論文的研究動機、方向和限制。第二章說明校園福音團契如何在1960-70 年代所面對的社會背景、神學等問題之下成立大專靈修班(大靈班)，並在福音派背景的查經訓練之下引進歸納法查經，最後以馬可福音5:21 -43 的分析作範例。第三章說明大專聖經神學研究班(神研班)的創立，並說明長老教會青年團契(TKC)如何在1960-70 年代的台灣處境裡造就出關懷本土方向，以及它的查經法如何詮釋馬可福音5:21 -43 ，由於大靈班和神研的查經法常被對立化，所以第四章會探討David R. Bauer和 Robert A. Traina共 同著作的 Inductive Bible Study (《歸納法查經》），凸顯大靈班和神研 （《歸納法查經》），凸顯大靈班和神研 （《歸納法查經》)，凸顯大靈班和神研 （《歸納法查經》），凸顯大靈班和神研 （《歸納法查經》），凸顯大靈班和神研 （《歸納法查經》），凸顯大靈班和神研 班的查經法相似和異點。第五章結合兩個讀經營的特點，強調故事單元的開端與結尾能幫助歸納法更處境化地聖經對話。
In comparing Taiwan’s two major bible study camps for college students – “Bible Study Camp for University Students” (BSC) and “Biblical Theology Study Camp for University Students” (BTSC) – this thesis argues that a systematic study of the Christian Bible needs to be more contextual and dialogic. Chapter 1 lays out the reason, method, and limitation of such a comparative analysis. Chapter 2 highlights the evangelical and apologetic theological factors in 1960s-70s that led to the establishment of BSC and the introduction of the inductive bible study method. We will use Mark 5:21-43 as an elaboration of such a method. Chapter 3 traces the origin of BTSC and shows how the youth fellowship of Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, because of its concern for international and Taiwan’s political environment in 1960s-70s, emphasizes a contextual as well as a wide range of methods in its bible study. Since the bible study methods of BSC and BTSC are often juxtaposed against one another, Chapter 4 discusses the Inductive Bible Study by David R. Bauer and Robert A.Traina that serves as the foundational text for BSC. In foregrounding that serves as the foundational text for BSC. In foregrounding similarities and differences between BSC and BTSC,thi s chapter shows what both camps can learn from each other By highlighting the strengths of BSC and BTSC, Chapter 5 stresses the examination and identification of the complete discourse unit can help a systematic study of the Christian Bible to be more contextual and dialogic.