History Channel's mini-series, The Bible

Lowaicue said:
No there is not. There is some evidence that some of what we call the new testament was written within about 100 years of the death of Jesus. However if you look at the history of the last hundred years that we teach our children you will realise that even if you were correct it would prove nothing and be evidence of very little.
Click to expand...
I could care less whether or not you see the writings as valid. There is significant evidence that they were written between 60 and 100 a.d. Whether you accept that or not is irrelevant.
 
Independent said:
I could care less whether or not you see the writings as valid. There is significant evidence that they were written between 60 and 100 a.d. Whether you accept that or not is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It is not a question of whether or not I believe. There is sufficient evidence to show that man does not and never has correctly portrayed history even at the time of its happening. It is only when we put together the experiences of the many who were alive at the time that we can get close to what might have happened. For you to say that there is evidence to support your contention that 'the new testament' was written within 70 years of the death of Jesus (that is 100 years after his birth) is twaddle. Whether you could or couldn't (it is the latter by the way...think about it logically) care less is not important.
Let us even suppose you to be right, that all the books were written within 100 years of Jesus' death, the accounts themselves differ and describe events that could not have possibly happened. You are wasting your life. Engage your brain and THINK for chrissakes. THINK man, THINK.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
Yeah, the bible is several different books that were collected into one religious canon. You are not telling me anything I don't already know.

You claimed the Iliad, in contrast to the Bible, was mythology. The Iliad certainly contains lots of mythology, but then so does the bible, as you acknowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Iliad

The Iliad exists. When did I claim the Bible does not? It's existence does not make it "true."
Click to expand...


It's existence also doesn't make it untrue. How many have chortled in with the claim The Bible isn't true and factual, and these events never happened? Yet we have seen no proof these events didn't happen just as they are explained in The Bible. So why does it require 'faith' to believe The Bible is true, but no 'faith' to believe it's not?

The Bible tells the story of our origin and creation. It is thousands of years old, and whether you believe it or not, many interesting facets have emerged through the years. For instance, modern scientists are now collectively working on a theory of abiogenisis. This is the idea that all life originated from a single cell organism, which resulted from chemical reactions in clay on a cooling but warm planet, with the presence of water. The Biblical explanation has God spitting into the dust to create man, is that not amazing?
 
Lowaicue said:
It is not a question of whether or not I believe. There is sufficient evidence to show that man does not and never has correctly portrayed history even at the time of its happening. It is only when we put together the experiences of the many who were alive at the time that we can get close to what might have happened. For you to say that there is evidence to support your contention that 'the new testament' was written within 70 years of the death of Jesus (that is 100 years after his birth) is twaddle. Whether you could or couldn't (it is the latter by the way...think about it logically) care less is not important.
Let us even suppose you to be right, that all the books were written within 100 years of Jesus' death, the accounts themselves differ and describe events that could not have possibly happened. You are wasting your life. Engage your brain and THINK for chrissakes. THINK man, THINK.
Click to expand...

Feel free to consider it "twaddle." What you have declared "twaddle" has sufficient historical recognition to be placed as written between 30 and 70 years after Jesus' death.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
But if we can ignore/question the story of Lot or of Adam and Eve then we can ignore/question the entire Bible. As history the Bible is extremely dubious, as morality it is even less fit for modern times and as an explanation of the physical world it is completely absurd.
Click to expand...

how does it rank as a communication from a creating deity to the created about "why"........
 
Damocles said:
It would be the guy who offered his supposed "virgin" daughters to be gang raped, the same who later were so incapable of understanding the right that they seduced him...
Click to expand...

well there you go.....the reason you put Lot forward seems to be different from the reason Peter did.....
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
The earliest books were 70 years from his death.
Click to expand...

no....the earliest was 50 years from his birth, the oldest, 90 years from his birth.......and there is no reason to believe the authors weren't younger than Jesus at the time of his ministry (consensus was he was in his 30s).....be that as it may, there's no reason to believe a 90 old could not write a short document like one of the gospels about something that happened in his 30s..........and those alive at the time knew who the authors were and accepted the writings as genuine and passed them down to their children and children's children, etc.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no....the earliest was 50 years from his birth, the oldest, 90 years from his birth.......and there is no reason to believe the authors weren't younger than Jesus at the time of his ministry (consensus was he was in his 30s).....be that as it may, there's no reason to believe a 90 old could not write a short document like one of the gospels about something that happened in his 30s..........and those alive at the time knew who the authors were and accepted the writings as genuine and passed them down to their children and children's children, etc.....
Click to expand...

Tell me what the history books will say about your invasion of Iraq. Would you believe the Alamo from Santa Anna's point of view? How would you describe the killing of the native Americans? What would you say about Castro? Stalin? Mao? Hitler?
And you want people to believe what a guy is supposed to have said 2000 years ago?? You must be off your chump.
 
Dixie said:
Well, yeah... they could have certainly chosen not to do a story about The Bible, targeted at Christian audiences at Easter. All of these stores selling Easter supplies could choose not to sell them, and all of the capitalists who offer "Easter Specials" could choose to not do that. Did you have a relevant point here?
Click to expand...

That's stupid, nobody suggested they not do the series. I mention many different stories they simply chose not to cover, this could have been one of them so that the stories they did cover could be accurate rather than obviously avoiding topics that they knew would make modern America uncomfortable, such as a man offering his virgin daughters for gang rape.


But that's not what would happen, had they chosen to depict a controversial scene which could have easily been misconstrued or misrepresented. The following Sunday, preachers across America would have denounced it, and that would have been all she wrote for the mini-series. Christians are not going to be force-fed some alternate view of The Bible, and whenever you get into depicting specific events in a certain way, that's what you'd have. They have to be very careful not to draw controversy, and remain true to the spirit of this endeavor.
Click to expand...
Bull. It's what would have happened.

I personally think the producers had a daunting task. They had to condense history spanning thousands of years into a 10-hour series, and not step on any toes in the process, but still make something the captured interest and entertained the audience. Indeed, they have left out details, some of them very important, but it seems the details are always centered around something which is either controversial in terms of how various Christians interpret it, or things that are just too difficult to convey in the time-frame available. The story of Lot and his daughters are in this category, I believe. It would have taken too long to establish the back story, to show how the actions of Lot and his daughters was righteous and not something perverted and freaky, and very non-righteous. Rather than commit to the time they would need to convey this, they chose to skip it a move the story along. Again, this isn't a documentary.
Click to expand...

It's not that daunting to take stories from the Bible and depict them in the best possible light. Violence is old hat to Americans, child rape and fathers offering their daughters to be used as sex dolls not so much.

Far be it from me to criticize how you raise your children, that is your business. But there is just a certain 'analness' about your confessing that you pause the movie to 'splain things to the munchkins. I'm sure they learn all about you and your life, and that's great, but did you ever stop to think, maybe these 'answers' you are giving them are not 100% correct? That maybe your opinion is a little off the mark or even (gasp) wrong? Oh hell no, of course this has never occurred to you, because you were born with a bigger and better brain than the rest of us, which means that you are never wrong. Whatever you think, and whatever is your personal opinion, is the truth and correct, and no one should ever doubt that.
Click to expand...
Wow. My kids don't know the Bible stories because we aren't Christians or Jews. This is a chance to learn something, and they seize the chance. Far be it for me to offer up advice... but when my kids want to learn something I do what I can to oblige.

So the kiddies get to watch two hours of a show on The Bible, and another hour listening to the old man prattle on about his beliefs on Christianity...... yep, sounds like a Spring Break to remember to me! :P
Click to expand...
Absolute nonsense. Probably like two minutes during the entire two hours as I put back in the bits they take out of the stories because they might be "controversial"...

Hiding bits of the Bible because it might make people ask their preacher hard questions is a weak excuse and actually highlights what I said earlier, I thank you for making my point, they are obviously avoiding "controversial" bits. I just think they are doing it to try to win converts while you think they are doing it because preachers would be upset when congregations asked Biblical questions.
 
Independent said:
I could care less whether or not you see the writings as valid. There is significant evidence that they were written between 60 and 100 a.d. Whether you accept that or not is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

He prefers to dismiss science whenever it suits him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top