Did History Channel’s “The Bible” get it wrong?

[longknife]

posted at 10:01 am on March 31, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

I’m one of those people who have been tuning in every week to watch The Bible on History Channel. And there are apparently plenty of “those people out there, since the series has been one of the highest rated shows in the network’s history, even beating out the prime time lineups of the major alphabet networks in some cases. I’ve found it both familiar and intriguing and the only complaints I’ve had about it were rather superficial, certainly not rising to the level of turning me off from watching. But how good of a job has Mark Burnett done in bringing the actual Bible to the small screen?

Read more @ Did History Channel?s ?The Bible? get it wrong? « Hot Air

This was posted before the blogger saw the last show. I know what I think of it after having seen it last night. What about you?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

posted at 10:01 am on March 31, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

I’m one of those people who have been tuning in every week to watch The Bible on History Channel. And there are apparently plenty of “those people out there, since the series has been one of the highest rated shows in the network’s history, even beating out the prime time lineups of the major alphabet networks in some cases. I’ve found it both familiar and intriguing and the only complaints I’ve had about it were rather superficial, certainly not rising to the level of turning me off from watching. But how good of a job has Mark Burnett done in bringing the actual Bible to the small screen?

Read more @ Did History Channel?s ?The Bible? get it wrong? « Hot Air

This was posted before the blogger saw the last show. I know what I think of it after having seen it last night. What about you?

It can't help but be superficial. Get to truthful and factual about the Bible and you run into trouble with the greater masses and the ignorati.

The most I've ever learned about Christianity and Judaism and Islam came from people who studied and/or wrote and spoke about it all in the context of comparative religion, philosophy, and comparative mythology.

Could PBS program have done a better job? Sure, but I bet they had more than a few minds questioning dogma and creed. and that's a good thing

 

[whitehall]

posted at 10:01 am on March 31, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

I’m one of those people who have been tuning in every week to watch The Bible on History Channel. And there are apparently plenty of “those people out there, since the series has been one of the highest rated shows in the network’s history, even beating out the prime time lineups of the major alphabet networks in some cases. I’ve found it both familiar and intriguing and the only complaints I’ve had about it were rather superficial, certainly not rising to the level of turning me off from watching. But how good of a job has Mark Burnett done in bringing the actual Bible to the small screen?

Read more @ Did History Channel?s ?The Bible? get it wrong? « Hot Air

This was posted before the blogger saw the last show. I know what I think of it after having seen it last night. What about you?

It can't help but be superficial. Get to truthful and factual about the Bible and you run into trouble with the greater masses and the ignorati.

The most I've ever learned about Christianity and Judaism and Islam came from people who studied and/or wrote and spoke about it all in the context of comparative religion, philosophy, and comparative mythology.

Could PBS program have done a better job? Sure, but I bet they had more than a few minds questioning dogma and creed. and that's a good thing

It was a trick question to uncover the religious bigots. The Bible series was covered as well as could be expected. The problem the bigots have is that they don't respect the Bible no matter how it is portrayed.

 

[LittleNipper]

It seems to me that if they just stuck to the literal Biblical accounts, the presentation would be so much better. I started to watch this "epic" and found that it was shallow and I kept seeing obvious mistakes. My thought is that people really seem to believe that they should mess things up to demonstrate that the Bible isn't literal and "details" are open to poetic license.

However, the details that are given in the Bible are there for a reason, and an HONEST presentation should stick to the REAL accounts as much as possible. The story would be fantastic. They still make the ark look more like a boat and less like the barge it is depicted in the Bible as. Sarah is shown running after Abraham and yet Abraham & his son had traved many mile away to perform the sacrafice. And Issac is not shown to be a a man. He was not a little boy when this event came about. He let Abraham bound him up. The guy could have flattened old Abraham. They BOTH seemed to believe God would perform a miracle.

And the fact is it isn't like the AUTHOR of the Bible is going to bring a law suit for publishing rights. God wants the FACTS to be understood. He isn't trying to hid it, but HE doen't want it distorted.

 

[ima]

The history channel shouldn't be covering works of fiction.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals should just start burning the Bible and be done with it.

 

[t_polkow]

Liberals should just start burning the Bible and be done with it.

 

[peach174]

The history channel shouldn't be covering works of fiction.

So does that apply to all oral & written traditions in all cultures?
Archeology and Science has proven that many of the Bible stories are true.
Then the History Chanel should not cover Native American,African,Aborigine and many of the other oral and written history of other cultures.

 

[ima]

The history channel shouldn't be covering works of fiction.

So does that apply to all oral & written traditions in all cultures?
Archeology and Science has proven that many of the Bible stories are true.
Then the History Chanel should not cover Native American,African,Aborigine and many of the other oral and written history of other cultures.

ok, what in the bible has been proven true?

 

[konradv]

Unfortunately the channel should be called History Lite. I've spotted inaccuracies in the past and have often wondered how many slipped by that I didn't catch. One such mistake was in the series about the Crusades. They said the Crusaders fought against the Ottoman Turks, a dynasty which wasn't founded for about another 250 years!

 

[peach174]

The history channel shouldn't be covering works of fiction.

So does that apply to all oral & written traditions in all cultures?
Archeology and Science has proven that many of the Bible stories are true.
Then the History Chanel should not cover Native American,African,Aborigine and many of the other oral and written history of other cultures.

ok, what in the bible has been proven true?

The Tunnel under the city of Jerusalem
The walls of Jericho that fell outward not inward.
The Hittite civilization
Proof of Pontius Pilate
Many, many more that you can look up on line yourself
Archaeological Findings Confirming the Truthfulness of the Bible

 

[ima]

So does that apply to all oral & written traditions in all cultures?
Archeology and Science has proven that many of the Bible stories are true.
Then the History Chanel should not cover Native American,African,Aborigine and many of the other oral and written history of other cultures.

ok, what in the bible has been proven true?

The Tunnel under the city of Jerusalem
The walls of Jericho that fell outward not inward.
The Hittite civilization
Proof of Pontius Pilate
Many, many more that you can look up on line yourself
Archaeological Findings Confirming the Truthfulness of the Bible

No, what I'm talking about isn't this city or that city, that's simple enough. I want some of the big things like: Noah's ark, turning water into wine, the burning bush, the parting of the sea... the good stuff. Got anything?

 

[Avatar4321]

The history channel shouldn't be covering works of fiction.

Then they best stop showing their Alien programs. The Bible miniseries was an attempt at depicting reality. As much as you'd like to deny it, the Bible contains the History of an important family in the world. And the life of the Messiah.

While their depictions could have been more true to the account, the Bible is true. You'd understand that if you chose to read it sometime.

 

[Avatar4321]

The history channel shouldn't be covering works of fiction.

So does that apply to all oral & written traditions in all cultures?
Archeology and Science has proven that many of the Bible stories are true.
Then the History Chanel should not cover Native American,African,Aborigine and many of the other oral and written history of other cultures.

ok, what in the bible has been proven true?

What exactly would you consider proof?

And how would proving it to your satisfaction make it any more true? If I had cocoa puffs for breakfeast, would my inability to prove it to you make it any less true?

 

[Hollie]

So does that apply to all oral & written traditions in all cultures?
Archeology and Science has proven that many of the Bible stories are true.
Then the History Chanel should not cover Native American,African,Aborigine and many of the other oral and written history of other cultures.

ok, what in the bible has been proven true?

What exactly would you consider proof?

And how would proving it to your satisfaction make it any more true? If I had cocoa puffs for breakfeast, would my inability to prove it to you make it any less true?

Similarly, would my encounters with space aliens, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster be any less true than your breskfast of cocoa puffs?

You do realize that in addition to books, we have eye witness accounts of peope who have had encounters with space aliens, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. Therefore, they must be true.

 

[ima]

So does that apply to all oral & written traditions in all cultures?
Archeology and Science has proven that many of the Bible stories are true.
Then the History Chanel should not cover Native American,African,Aborigine and many of the other oral and written history of other cultures.

ok, what in the bible has been proven true?

What exactly would you consider proof?

And how would proving it to your satisfaction make it any more true? If I had cocoa puffs for breakfeast, would my inability to prove it to you make it any less true?

Start by showing me some hard facts about Noah's ark and Noah being 600 years old, and we'll go from there.

 

[Avatar4321]

Similarly, would my encounters with space aliens, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster be any less true than your breskfast of cocoa puffs?

You do realize that in addition to books, we have eye witness accounts of peope who have had encounters with space aliens, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. Therefore, they must be true.

You're encounters with aliens, bigfoot and the Loch Ness are unaccounted for. You haven't provided the details of any experience. But that still doesn't explain what ima's standard for proof is.

You guys have a habit of saying there is no proof of anything and ignoring evidence. You might not be convinced of the evidence to support God, that doesn't mean there isnt any evidence, just that you don't find it credible.

That's the thing with eye witnesses. You have to weigh the credibility. That's what I find so breathtakingly amazing about the Gospel. I have had an experience with the Lord, but you are under no obligation to take my word for it. You have the opportunity and the duty to go to the Lord and find out for yourself whether what I have said about Him is true. He isn't shy.

I don't have a problem with aliens existing. I dont have a problem with bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster existing. I am not arrogant enough to assume that because I haven't seen or experienced something, it can't happen. I haven't been persuaded by the evidence that has been presented for bigfoot. I have little doubt there is life on other planets. And I havent at all looked at the evidence for the Loch Ness monster.

Of course, none of those things has seriously implications for my life. Which is probably why I havent spent my time investigating the matter. The existence of God, however, does have serious implications for not only my life, but the lives of those I care about. If I have been created by the Lord for a purpose, understanding that purpose is important to determine how I should live my life. If I have been created by God, it has implications to both my individuals rights and my responsibilities to myself, my family, and to my community. If I wasn't created by the Lord, my rights don't come from Him, but from the government, and that has a significant influence on my political viewpoints.

If God exists and created the Universe around me and the Laws of Nature & morality, it impacts what I need to know about the world around me and how I should live my life. The very existence of laws governing the universe tells me that if I want success in life, i need to understand live according to those laws the best I can. If God doesn't exist, and we cease to exist at death, then my actions in this life would and should be very different.

In short, I realized long ago that I needed to find out if there was a God because my life could be very different depending on the answer. After having studied the scriptures and listened to what many with various opinions had to say, I realized the only way I could know the truth for myself is to go the source and ask the Lord. It's the only way anyone can. And if the scripture were true, then I could ask the Lord. Because I knew I needed wisdom that I did not have otherwise.

There are many things I could be doing if there wasn't a God. For example, I wouldn't be wasting my time discussing the matter here if I didn't know there was a God. I have alot of things that are good in my life I could be working on. But when i was seeking the Lord, I made a promise that if He did reveal Himself to me, that I would do my best to follow Him. The Lord kept His promise, and Im going to do my best to follow through on my end.

One of those promises is to stand as a witness of Christ in all times and all places. I know Christ lives because the Spirit revealed it to me. That's the only way I could know. That's the only way you can know. That's the only way anyone could know. Even if Christ appeared in front of us, it is the Spirit that would reveal Him. I am to stand and give my witness. It's the Lord that will pierce your heart by the power of the Spirit. It is the Spirit that will tell you that my witness is true.

You can either create a personal standard of proof that is designed to always excuse you from ever needing to work and find the truth. Or you could have some courage, Take a chance and seek the answers for yourself. The choice is up to you.

You learn the truth when you work for it. If you are just going to sit around waiting for someone else to do the work for you, you will never know for yourself.

 

[Avatar4321]

Start by showing me some hard facts about Noah's ark and Noah being 600 years old, and we'll go from there.

See that's the problem. You haven't at all provided any standards for what you would consider "hard facts". what do you consider Hard facts?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

posted at 10:01 am on March 31, 2013 by Jazz Shaw



Read more @ Did History Channel?s ?The Bible? get it wrong? « Hot Air

This was posted before the blogger saw the last show. I know what I think of it after having seen it last night. What about you?

It can't help but be superficial. Get to truthful and factual about the Bible and you run into trouble with the greater masses and the ignorati.

The most I've ever learned about Christianity and Judaism and Islam came from people who studied and/or wrote and spoke about it all in the context of comparative religion, philosophy, and comparative mythology.

Could PBS program have done a better job? Sure, but I bet they had more than a few minds questioning dogma and creed. and that's a good thing

It was a trick question to uncover the religious bigots. The Bible series was covered as well as could be expected. The problem the bigots have is that they don't respect the Bible no matter how it is portrayed.

There are bigots on all sides. Bigotry against religious people and books do very little harm to society. Most of it is a reaction to religious proselytizing. The Bigotry of religious people is often devastating to individuals and whole societies.

As a cultural and philosophical tome, the Bible(s) is interesting, but as a weapon (the literal word of the only god) it is caused more harm on Earth than any book I know of.
Has it contributed to good? Sure, but the good cannot erase the horrors the Bible(s) has sprouted in men's minds

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It seems to me that if they just stuck to the literal Biblical accounts, the presentation would be so much better. I started to watch this "epic" and found that it was shallow and I kept seeing obvious mistakes. My thought is that people really seem to believe that they should mess things up to demonstrate that the Bible isn't literal and "details" are open to poetic license.

However, the details that are given in the Bible are there for a reason, and an HONEST presentation should stick to the REAL accounts as much as possible. The story would be fantastic. They still make the ark look more like a boat and less like the barge it is depicted in the Bible as. Sarah is shown running after Abraham and yet Abraham & his son had traved many mile away to perform the sacrafice. And Issac is not shown to be a a man. He was not a little boy when this event came about. He let Abraham bound him up. The guy could have flattened old Abraham. They BOTH seemed to believe God would perform a miracle.

And the fact is it isn't like the AUTHOR of the Bible is going to bring a law suit for publishing rights. God wants the FACTS to be understood. He isn't trying to hid it, but HE doen't want it distorted.

The Bible(s) is not biography or a factual account of anything.