History Channel's mini-series, The Bible

The show has laughable acting I have cringed multiple times watching it. Moses looked like a monkey. The babylonian king...terrible.
 
No shit Charlie Chan.....you figured out that mythology isn't real, and was never intended to be,.... that its....its....its....mythology........good for you....

Well, the Bible isn't poetry or mythology, and wasn't written for the sake of entertainment......Its history as passed down by men for centuries and most likely has
seen its share of errors and injected with the writers personal views over that time....thats to be expected as it would be with recording any historical event passed down by word of mouth for generations....or translated from language to language.....as will our own history will be interpreted and questioned by those reading it 2 or 5 or 10,000 years from now.
But it will be just as 'real' and 'true', Mr. Dickbee.

Do you honestly believe that Genesis is a first hand and historically accurate account of the lives of Adam and Eve? It's mythology. What is Psalms if not a book of poetry?

The Iliad, set during the Trojan War, includes hisotrically accurate information.

The Bible is no more true than the Iliad or Django Unchained.
 
If the story was about Lot and life history, they would have included minor details that you seem to think important, but its not about Lot, its a major events in the Bible,
and family friendly viewing......we didn't need to witness Lot banging his wife to show how their kids got there either.....
maybe next time.....

I don't think you have ever read the Bible. It's not a minor detail.
 
I don't think you have ever read the Bible. It's not a minor detail.

Hehe, that would be an interesting comparison. The Bible versus Django Unchained. Both contain some kernel of historical accuracy. Django has better and clearer morals. The Bible is more bloody/violent and has more gratuitious (according to Nova) sex scenes.
 
Last edited:
Again rubbish, they provided many "minor details" they just skipped the ones that made Lot look like a monster rather than a "Righteous Man". Simply during the scene where they were trying to break down the door when lot stepped outside, adding a line (wouldn't even have added any time to the flick at all) would have given a more accurate depiction of the Biblical account. However accuracy isn't what they want, a positive view is what they want.

Although they could have mentioned that later Lot's daughters got him drunk and "seduced" him... that righteous man...

The Bible doesn't have an account of Lot and his wife having sex, it does have an account of him offering his "virgin" daughters to a crowd who wanted to rape men he knew to be VIPs...

If you double check you will find that the Bible never describes Lot as a righteous man......in fact, God says he will still destroy S&G because he couldn't find ten righteous people there.....God spares Lot as a favor to Abraham and even then his wife perished.....
 
If you double check you will find that the Bible never describes Lot as a righteous man......in fact, God says he will still destroy S&G because he couldn't find ten righteous people there.....God spares Lot as a favor to Abraham and even then his wife perished.....
Um... You're wrong.


II Peter 2:7-9

But God also rescued Lot out of Sodom because he was a righteous man who was sick of the shameful immorality of the wicked people around him. Yes, Lot was a righteous man who was tormented in his soul by the wickedness he saw and heard day after day. So you see, the Lord knows how to rescue godly people from their trials, even while keeping the wicked under punishment until the day of final judgment.
 
If you double check you will find that the Bible never describes Lot as a righteous man......in fact, God says he will still destroy S&G because he couldn't find ten righteous people there.....God spares Lot as a favor to Abraham and even then his wife perished.....

Peter 2:7-8 describes him as righteous.
 
Um... You're wrong.


II Peter 2:7-8

But God also rescued Lot out of Sodom because he was a righteous man who was sick of the shameful immorality of the wicked people around him. Yes, Lot was a righteous man who was tormented in his soul by the wickedness he saw and heard day after day.

you got me on that one, I didn't think to look in the NT....
 
And just so people do not think I'm lying about what Lot and his family does:

Genesis 19:8
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes.

And then later:
Genesis 19:30-36
And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
 
It is important to understand what God considers "righteous".

then that would be.....
who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)

as opposed to "a guy who's daughters seduced him"?......
 
Do you honestly believe that Genesis is a first hand and historically accurate account of the lives of Adam and Eve? It's mythology. What is Psalms if not a book of poetry?

Psalms is not the Bible, it is but a part of the whole.....a book of the Bible composed of songs, hymns, and prayers.

A first hand account...did someone claim Genesis was written by Adam or Eve or someone else alive at that time ?

The Iliad, set during the Trojan War, includes hisotrically accurate information.

Sure ....like in the literary Trojan War of the Iliad, the Olympic gods, goddesses, and demigods fight and
play important roles in human warfare. Historically accurate ?
The Trojan War itself is called "Greek mythology".....

The Bible is no more true than the Iliad or Django Unchained.

You can't claim whats written in the Bible (or the Iliad) is true or factual....I stated the Bible was 'real' meaning, that it exists...thats why I choose that word.
so what you state is accurate.

I don't think you have ever read the Bible. It's not a minor detail.

No one will ever prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what parts are indeed fact and accurate as presented in the ancient writings ....
we can only pick and choose as other information becomes available.....

The writings are what they are....take 'em or leave 'em as your beliefs require....
 
Last edited:
And just so people do not think I'm lying about what Lot and his family does:

Genesis 19:8
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes.

And then later:
Genesis 19:30-36
And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Lying is NOT one of your traits as far as I know....

You put a lot emphasis and importance on the story of Lot's incest and banging his daughters....you obviously believe that story as its written.

Do you also believe God created the universe in 7 days....7 literal days
like the fundamentalists claim....?

Do you think Moses actually parted the seas to escape the Egyptians...?

Do you really think Moses was found floating down the Nile in a basket ?

How about Mary's 'immaculate conception'....the burning bush, etc.

If Lot's story is accurate then it follows so are all the stories....
 
Psalms is not the Bible, it is but a part of the whole.....a book of the Bible composed of songs, hymns, and prayers.

A first hand account...did someone claim Genesis was written by Adam or Eve or someone else alive at that time ?

Sure ....like in the literary Trojan War of the Iliad, the Olympic gods, goddesses, and demigods fight and
play important roles in human warfare. Historically accurate ?
The Trojan War itself is called "Greek mythology".....

You can't claim whats written in the Bible (or the Iliad) is true or factual....I stated the Bible was 'real' meaning, that it exists...thats why I choose that word.
so what you state is accurate.


No one will ever prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what parts are indeed fact and accurate as presented in the ancient writings ....
we can only pick and choose as other information becomes available.....

The writings are what they are....take 'em or leave 'em as your beliefs require....

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."
 
Lying is NOT one of your traits as far as I know....

You put a lot emphasis and importance on the story of Lot's incest and banging his daughters....you obviously believe that story as its written.

Do you also believe God created the universe in 7 days....7 literal days
like the fundamentalists claim....?

Do you think Moses actually parted the seas to escape the Egyptians...?

Do you really think Moses was found floating down the Nile in a basket ?

How about Mary's 'immaculate conception'....the burning bush, etc.

If Lot's story is accurate then it follows so are all the stories....

No, that does not follow. The story of Lot could be true without any of the others being true.

But Damo was not making the point that it is true, but that that it was left out because it casts the Bible in a negative light based on modern moral priniciples.

The point I made in the "Morality without God" thread is clear, i.e., that our morality shapes our religion more than the converse. You and many others attempt to ignore the parts of the bible that leave you uncomfortable and reshape the Bible/religion in modern terms. 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.
 
Again rubbish, they provided many "minor details" they just skipped the ones that made Lot look like a monster rather than a "Righteous Man". Simply during the scene where they were trying to break down the door when lot stepped outside, adding a line (wouldn't even have added any time to the flick at all) would have given a more accurate depiction of the Biblical account. However accuracy isn't what they want, a positive view is what they want.

Although they could have mentioned that later Lot's daughters got him drunk and "seduced" him... that righteous man...

And they would have needed the remainder of the series to explain why his actions were righteous, and your interpretation of events is simple-minded and indicative of people who don't understand Christianity. But they aren't trying to win converts. They also aren't producing The Bible, as interpreted by Damo! Again, they are presenting a somewhat vanilla-flavored account of what is in the Bible, and avoiding anything that could be misconstrued or misinterpreted, creating drama and controversy, because they know from experience, Christian audiences will tune out.

You are entitled to your opinion, Damo, but I honestly don't think they are trying to win converts, they are trying to win ratings. Non-Christians, (aka: people who need converting) are not watching this mini-series, or at least, are not the target audience. It is presented for Christians to watch because Christians make up an incredibly huge demographic, and they dig this sort of shit at Easter. If you start filling it full of things that can be misconstrued or misunderstood, next thing you know, preachers are denouncing it and Christians stop watching, defeating the purpose of the series to begin with.

Mott: I bet they were all rolling their eyes and saying "Dad just watch the show!" LOL

I had the same thought... I bet TV time at the Damo house is a fucking thrill a minute!
 
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."

No, it makes it 'real'....I just didn't want you coming back with strawman crap latter for me saying the 'the Bible is real'.....just wanted to clarify things.
 
Back
Top