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

[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?

A hard fact would be like, finding the boat, or noah's grave, anything that's real. Oral traditions passed down and then written down at some point don't qualify. In general though a hard fact is something that a judge would allow you to present in court, not just hearsay.

Tell me, we find a boat, even if it was the ark, how would we verify that? Let's say we find a grave and it actually has a marker that says "Here lies Noah, survivor of the flood, Father of Japheth, Shem, and Ham" would you suddenly believe the Bible? Would you believe in the resurrection from the dead?

 

[Hollie]

My encounters with aliens, bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster are certainly not unaccounted for.They are as extant and as valid as your encounters with the gods.

Need proof? Here's a thought experiment. Replace the terms god, lord, christ in your post with the term "space aliens".

BTW, the space aliens have revealed to me that they are in possession of Joseph Smith's golden plates. If you have the courage to believe, the power of the spirit world will be revealed to you also. If you don't believe, searing flesh and eternal damnation will be your fate.

And you wonder why no one believes you. You mock people and think that somehow gives you credibility. You completely undermine your credibility with your own words.

Do you honestly think people can't tell when you are being dishonest?

Why do you work so hard to remain ignorant of the Eternities? It takes you more effort to make excuses for why you won't go to the Lord and experiment than it does for you to actually do so. Do you imagine that God will somehow excuse you and not hold you accountable because you chose never to find out? You will be accountable for what you have done regardless, and you will be accountable for what you haven't done as well.

When I was first searching I had no clue whether there was a God. Or if there was a God whether He could make it known to me. All I did know is that if there was a God and there was a way to find out, the Lord could reveal Himself to me in some way. I had no recognized experience with the Holy Spirit. But I sought to know God if there was one, and He revealed Himself to me.

I know that I am nothing special. It's by His grace that I have any knowledge. and I know the promises that anyone who seeks will find. Which is why I invite and encourage you to seek Him out. Experiment on the word. Study the words of Christ. Apply them in your life the best you can and go to the Father with sincerity and humility and I promise you that you will learn for yourself that Jesus is the Christ. You will learn from the Spirit that He rose from the dead.

Please experiment on the Word. Pray to the Father and learn for yourself. You will experience love, joy, peace, and power in your life that you could never even imagine if you do. You could fulfill the purpose of your creation. Or you could do nothing. You can assume that no one can ever learn anything from God. You can assume that somehow makes you more enlightened than the rest of us and miss out on countless blessings that could have been yours. The choice is up to you.

Do you think anyone takes you seriously with these bellicose and "strong-arm" attempts at evangelizing (thumping)?

Honestly, you do more harm than good by using your religion as a tool to brow beat.

 

[Avatar4321]

And evidence is the final arbiter of truth.

That's not true. Truth is truth regardless of whether there is evidence to support it or not.

Were we not made up of cells before a microscope was invented simply because we lacked the tools to find the evidence of cells in our bodies? Or was the fact that we were made of cells the truth regardless of the evidence we presently had?

If I murder someone and absolutely no evidence is found linking me to the crime, am I any less a murderer? Or is that person i killed any less alive?

If I see the Lord. And I provide eyewitness testimony, I have provided evidence. And yet, I have no doubt from our discussionss here, you would say I've provided no evidence and still conclude there is no God despite the fact that you have no evidence and that I have some, even if you don't find it credible.

That's the problem when you try to use arguments from silence as "evidence" or proof of anything. It also shows the inconsistancy with your argument that yo udon't even realize. If you truly believe that evidence is the arbiter of truth, then you would have to conclude that God exists, aliens exist, big foot exists, and the Loch Ness Monster exist. Yet, from your words, you clearly doubt the existence of all of them prefering instead arguments from silence.

 

[Hollie]

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?

A hard fact would be like, finding the boat, or noah's grave, anything that's real. Oral traditions passed down and then written down at some point don't qualify. In general though a hard fact is something that a judge would allow you to present in court, not just hearsay.

Tell me, we find a boat, even if it was the ark, how would we verify that? Let's say we find a grave and it actually has a marker that says "Here lies Noah, survivor of the flood, Father of Japheth, Shem, and Ham" would you suddenly believe the Bible? Would you believe in the resurrection from the dead?

"we find a boat, even if it was the ark, ".

Hypothetical scenarios are always convenient because you can invent any circumstances, no matter outlandish.


"we find golden plates, .... "

 

[Avatar4321]

Do you think anyone takes you seriously with these bellicose and "strong-arm" attempts at evangelizing (thumping)?

Honestly, you do more harm than good by using your religion as a tool to brow beat.

You have a very odd definition of bellicose, brow beat, and strong arm. Do you know what they mean?

You have an open invitation to come to the Lord and learn for yourself. If you choose to reject that, you have the right to. But please dont lie and pretend that somehow presenting you with a choice is forcing you to do anything. No one can force you to learn against your will. You aren't a victim of anything. So stop trying to blame your choices on me.

 

[Hollie]

And evidence is the final arbiter of truth.

That's not true. Truth is truth regardless of whether there is evidence to support it or not.

Were we not made up of cells before a microscope was invented simply because we lacked the tools to find the evidence of cells in our bodies? Or was the fact that we were made of cells the truth regardless of the evidence we presently had?

If I murder someone and absolutely no evidence is found linking me to the crime, am I any less a murderer? Or is that person i killed any less alive?

If I see the Lord. And I provide eyewitness testimony, I have provided evidence. And yet, I have no doubt from our discussionss here, you would say I've provided no evidence and still conclude there is no God despite the fact that you have no evidence and that I have some, even if you don't find it credible.

That's the problem when you try to use arguments from silence as "evidence" or proof of anything. It also shows the inconsistancy with your argument that yo udon't even realize. If you truly believe that evidence is the arbiter of truth, then you would have to conclude that God exists, aliens exist, big foot exists, and the Loch Ness Monster exist. Yet, from your words, you clearly doubt the existence of all of them prefering instead arguments from silence.

"That's not true. Truth is truth regardless of whether there is evidence to support it or not."

Correct. That is why the space aliens revealing to me the existence of Joseph Smith's golden plates is absolute truth. No evidence required.

Thanks.

 

[Avatar4321]

A hard fact would be like, finding the boat, or noah's grave, anything that's real. Oral traditions passed down and then written down at some point don't qualify. In general though a hard fact is something that a judge would allow you to present in court, not just hearsay.

Tell me, we find a boat, even if it was the ark, how would we verify that? Let's say we find a grave and it actually has a marker that says "Here lies Noah, survivor of the flood, Father of Japheth, Shem, and Ham" would you suddenly believe the Bible? Would you believe in the resurrection from the dead?

"we find a boat, even if it was the ark, ".

Hypothetical scenarios are always convenient because you can invent any circumstances, no matter outlandish.


"we find golden plates, .... "

Avoiding the questions because you don't want anyone to be able to realize that your standard of evidence is deliberately impossible to reach, doesn't make you any less dishonest about your requests for evidence.

How are we supposed to prove something to you if you won't tell us what you will accept? It's nice an all to say you want to see Noah's ark before you will believe the Bible, but what evidence would it take for you to accept it as Noah's ark?

Interestingly, the Lord described people who take this tact perfectly. If you will not believe the Word of the Lord, you wont believe anything I have to say, even if I showed you all the evidence that exists in the world on the matter.

The fact that you wont even accurately tell us what you would consider evidence or proof in a matter tells us all that.

 

[Avatar4321]

And evidence is the final arbiter of truth.

That's not true. Truth is truth regardless of whether there is evidence to support it or not.

Were we not made up of cells before a microscope was invented simply because we lacked the tools to find the evidence of cells in our bodies? Or was the fact that we were made of cells the truth regardless of the evidence we presently had?

If I murder someone and absolutely no evidence is found linking me to the crime, am I any less a murderer? Or is that person i killed any less alive?

If I see the Lord. And I provide eyewitness testimony, I have provided evidence. And yet, I have no doubt from our discussionss here, you would say I've provided no evidence and still conclude there is no God despite the fact that you have no evidence and that I have some, even if you don't find it credible.

That's the problem when you try to use arguments from silence as "evidence" or proof of anything. It also shows the inconsistancy with your argument that yo udon't even realize. If you truly believe that evidence is the arbiter of truth, then you would have to conclude that God exists, aliens exist, big foot exists, and the Loch Ness Monster exist. Yet, from your words, you clearly doubt the existence of all of them prefering instead arguments from silence.

"That's not true. Truth is truth regardless of whether there is evidence to support it or not."

Correct. That is why the space aliens revealing to me the existence of Joseph Smith's golden plates is absolute truth. No evidence required.

Thanks.

My problem with you is you don't even attempt to have an honest conversation on the matter. How do you expect to ever learn the truth if you can't even honestly talk about it?

 

[Hollie]

That's not true. Truth is truth regardless of whether there is evidence to support it or not.

Were we not made up of cells before a microscope was invented simply because we lacked the tools to find the evidence of cells in our bodies? Or was the fact that we were made of cells the truth regardless of the evidence we presently had?

If I murder someone and absolutely no evidence is found linking me to the crime, am I any less a murderer? Or is that person i killed any less alive?

If I see the Lord. And I provide eyewitness testimony, I have provided evidence. And yet, I have no doubt from our discussionss here, you would say I've provided no evidence and still conclude there is no God despite the fact that you have no evidence and that I have some, even if you don't find it credible.

That's the problem when you try to use arguments from silence as "evidence" or proof of anything. It also shows the inconsistancy with your argument that yo udon't even realize. If you truly believe that evidence is the arbiter of truth, then you would have to conclude that God exists, aliens exist, big foot exists, and the Loch Ness Monster exist. Yet, from your words, you clearly doubt the existence of all of them prefering instead arguments from silence.

"That's not true. Truth is truth regardless of whether there is evidence to support it or not."

Correct. That is why the space aliens revealing to me the existence of Joseph Smith's golden plates is absolute truth. No evidence required.

Thanks.

My problem with you is you don't even attempt to have an honest conversation on the matter. How do you expect to ever learn the truth if you can't even honestly talk about it?

I think the problem you're having is that you have convinced yourself that you, alone, are in possession of some supernatural communications and are tasked with forcing your beliefs on others. You are free to proselytize as you wish. But when you utterly and completely dismantle your own arguments, you have accomplished nothing.

 

[Hollie]

Tell me, we find a boat, even if it was the ark, how would we verify that? Let's say we find a grave and it actually has a marker that says "Here lies Noah, survivor of the flood, Father of Japheth, Shem, and Ham" would you suddenly believe the Bible? Would you believe in the resurrection from the dead?

"we find a boat, even if it was the ark, ".

Hypothetical scenarios are always convenient because you can invent any circumstances, no matter outlandish.


"we find golden plates, .... "

Avoiding the questions because you don't want anyone to be able to realize that your standard of evidence is deliberately impossible to reach, doesn't make you any less dishonest about your requests for evidence.

How are we supposed to prove something to you if you won't tell us what you will accept? It's nice an all to say you want to see Noah's ark before you will believe the Bible, but what evidence would it take for you to accept it as Noah's ark?

Interestingly, the Lord described people who take this tact perfectly. If you will not believe the Word of the Lord, you wont believe anything I have to say, even if I showed you all the evidence that exists in the world on the matter.

The fact that you wont even accurately tell us what you would consider evidence or proof in a matter tells us all that.

I've actually avoided nothing. I have noticed a disturbing pattern whereby you make these kinds of false claims when your frantic program of proselytizing is Interrupted.

 

[ima]

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?

A hard fact would be like, finding the boat, or noah's grave, anything that's real. Oral traditions passed down and then written down at some point don't qualify. In general though a hard fact is something that a judge would allow you to present in court, not just hearsay.

Tell me, we find a boat, even if it was the ark, how would we verify that? Let's say we find a grave and it actually has a marker that says "Here lies Noah, survivor of the flood, Father of Japheth, Shem, and Ham" would you suddenly believe the Bible? Would you believe in the resurrection from the dead?

Start by showing me the boat and we could have it tested for age and to see what kinds of animals were there, how many there were... So far you have shown nothing, just words on a page. Same with Noah, if you were to show me some bones and say that you have legitimate reason to think that it's Noah, we could test them as well, and investigate your reasons for thinking that it's him.
Same with the golden plates, apparently there were some, but until you show me them, they are just a figment of your imagination.

 

[longknife]

All of this nit-picking BS aside, I think the show was a good artistic representation of a story that has many sides and facets depending upon your personal views.

 

[Dante]

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

Religious books have done nothing to harm anyone. The Bible has harmed no one. Its men who use the words to execute there political will who have done the damage. And a bigot is a bigot. None are any better then any other.

I stopped watching this drek when the ninja angles were destroying Sodom. This series was the epitome of stupid, and nothing but money grubbing on the part of the producers and directors.

Religious books that go on about how wonderful is genocide and genocide being justified by god, poison weak and ignorant minds

 

[Dante]

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

The History of the Bible is incredible. There is very little history IN the Bible.

Id recommend you read it sometime then. You'd be surprised how much history is in it.

History? History of what exactly?

 

[Dante]

"What exactly would you consider proof?" Something where having faith is not the foundation of a truth. Proof is easily identifiable and recognized.

If that was true, we wouldn't have such divisions in the world.

The truth is proof for anything is rare. Evidence for many things abounds.

That's why it's important to look at evidence and weigh credibility and reach our own conclusions. and when something comes to challenge the evidence, we reevaluate. That's how we learn.

Unfortunately, few want to put in the effort to learn. Instead of doing the work it takes to find out for themselves, they want someone else to do the work and "prove" it to them. And that attitude to life will keep those people in ignorance until they change their approach.

That is why I always encourage people to study and learn for themselves. Especially when it comes to the things of God. It is only through humbly searching and experimenting with the Word that people can come to know that it's true. We can only learn the things of the Spirit from the Spirit.

And yet, oddly, it's those that refuse to seek and claim that no one can know that think themselves to be enlightened and open minded. It's amazing to see how the Adversary can decieve even intelligent people.

Keep the humble bullshit, I'll go with what is provable

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Keeping it literal... oh, you mean like having the sun created on the anything but the first DAY? A literalist interpretation of the bible makes no sense right off the bat with Genesis, and is therefore not transferable to the screen. How do you portray two "days" in total darkness? You can't. It's a logical contradiction. Do you ever think about this crap?

 

[Politico]

It's entertainment. Who cares.