History Channel's mini-series, The Bible

Lowaicue said:
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.
Click to expand...

show me documentation from a contemporary of Luke that says Luke didn't write Luke around 50 AD.....I can show you documentation of Santa Anna's opinion on the Alamo.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
show me documentation from a contemporary of Luke that says Luke didn't write Luke around 50 AD.....I can show you documentation of Santa Anna's opinion on the Alamo.....
Click to expand...

And there is documentation from other sources which quote various New Testament scripture that date to the early 100's or earlier.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
No, it just requires that you not refuse to listen or attack anyone teaching it as an agent of the Devil.
Click to expand...
Denial of that need for great faith is part of the faith that is needed to believe in evolution, at least for its most fervent followers who not only believe in evolution but who wish to use it as a weapon against those who believe differently. To be truly fervent in the matter one also requires a view of a superior self that minimizes and denigrates those that are not of your faith. To put it in simpler terms.... Believers good and smart. Nonbelievers bad and stupid... :whoa:
 
Damocles said:
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.... 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.
Click to expand...

Damo: "If such is the case then they probably should have avoided the story altogether." Sorry, I interpreted this as you suggesting they should not do the series. Now that you have clarified what you said, I understand you meant the story of Lot. However, we should note, that even though you are so profoundly brilliant and such a fucking genius, people can still misinterpret things you write. This should indicate to you, that it's possible for people to read the Bible and misinterpret what those people wrote. Not you, of course, because of your over-sized brain, but most normal people.

I'm looking all through my King James Bible, and I can't find any mention of "gang rape," "child rape" or "sex dolls" in the scripture. Now maybe they give geniuses like you a special Bible, but I am thinking that, probably, you are using that over-size brain to infer these things from what you've read. In other words, it is your interpretation, which may or may not be in accordance with the interpretation of other people who are, in fact, Christians, unlike yourself. This is the point I was trying to penetrate your granite-like cranium with, but to no avail.

Lot is too important of a character to "leave out" when telling the story, but that doesn't mean they must tell your interpretation of events involving Lot. Again, this is not The Bible According to Damo. I surmise they intentionally avoided the more controversial events, to avoid people misinterpreting and misconstruing them, as people normally do when they don't have over-sized brains like you, Damo.

Bull. It's what would have happened.
Click to expand...

Oh, are you a "prophet" now too? What happened when Hollywood churned out the garbage about Jesus being married? Did Christians ask questions? Did record numbers of congregations flock to the theater to watch? Or did virtually every evangelical preacher in America denounce the film and encourage their congregation to do the same? What happened, genius?

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.
Click to expand...

Well you should send your kids to people who know and understand the Bible for answers.

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"...
Click to expand...

As they put in YOUR INTERPRETATION of events! Let's be clear about that. You're not a Christian, and judging by your earlier interpretations of the events surrounding Lot, you don't have a solid Christian understanding of what happened and why. You think you do, but that's because of that over-sized brain which is a constant hindrance to your ability to learn. They have two hours to go from Point A to Point B, and ten hours to tell the entire story. In order to compact this, they simply had to avoid many stories, because it would have taken far too long to appropriately tell. The story of Lot in Sodom is one of these stories, it can't be told in 2 minutes, or 15 minutes, or really even in two hours. Unless it is just thrown out there gratuitously for the audience to make of it what they will, which is something I think they intentionally stayed away from with controversial subjects. It took much of the 2nd episode to handle the relationship between Abraham and Ismail, but this was an extremely important part of the story, even though it is very controversial, and many people disagree with how they presented it.

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.
Click to expand...

They didn't hide things to keep people from asking their preachers. They condensed the entire Bible, something that takes most people months to read and years to understand, into a 10-hour mini-series, made primarily for Christian audiences at Easter. I highly doubt that Hollywood producers who are solely in the business of producing a product they hope will be a commercial success, have any interest whatsoever in how many people they will convert to Christianity. Their goal and objective is to present entertainment which attracts a large audience and makes them lots of money. This is also the reason History Channel is showing it and not the PTL Club.

I know the burden of having that massive over-sized brain of yours, makes you believe the rest of us are just mindless twits, walking around without a clue about anything until we ask our preachers, but I've know about the story of Lot and his daughters since I was a young boy, it's widely covered in churches through sermons and whatnot. So to presume that people might see this depicted on TV and have to run ask their preachers about it, is a bit of a stretch. If anything, there are probably some people asking their preachers why they didn't tell this part of the story, did you ever think about that? Pftt... well of course you did, you're Damo! Silly me!
 
Independent said:
And there is documentation from other sources which quote various New Testament scripture that date to the early 100's or earlier.
Click to expand...

common sense....a church holds a copy of the gospel of Luke......if it hadn't been genuine I expect someone would have said "who the fuck is Luke?"......the fact that that there were hundreds of copies and nobody raised the issue shows acceptance by contemporaries.......
 
A pinheads post to PMP
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
Try to follow along, shitferbrains. I never said it proved anything about other parts of the Bible. Nova did.
Click to expand...


Heres a list of my post on proving anything.....

Originally Posted by NOVA View Post
But it is true....its as true as the Dead Sea Scrolls or any other ancient writings handed down to us or discovered thats a thousand plus years old.....no one asks you
to believe what it says but the fact is..... it says what it says....to say it isn't true is to deny its existance.

The Bibles existence is whats true, as is the existence of DS Scrolls...however, the things written within them cannot be proven to be factual happenings...

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....

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.
Click to expand...


Now , what are you accusing me of saying ? We'll clear it up in no time.
============================================================================================


And a little something to help you with your reading comprehension....

true
[troo]
1. being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story.
2. real; genuine; authentic: true gold; true feelings.

real
[ree-uhl, reel]
1. true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.
2. existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.
3. being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary

exist
(ɪɡˈzɪst)
1. to have being or reality; to be
2. to eke out a living; stay alive; survive: I can barely exist on this wage
3. to be living; live
4. to be present under specified conditions or in a specified place: sharks exist in the Pacific
5. philosophy: a. to be actual rather than merely possible
 
Last edited:
I quoted your comments, directly. Apparently, you write as clearly as you read.

Is English your second language?
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
I quoted your comments, directly. Apparently, you write as clearly as you read.

Is English your second language?
Click to expand...

Appearently the definitions didn't help you....then probably nothing can...


Now WHAT were accusing me of in that post...#88 I believe.

But have a grown up explain those simple 4 and 5 letter words to you....odd, my friends 6 yr.old had no problem with them....
 
NOVA said:
Appearently the definitions didn't help you....then probably nothing can...


Now WHAT were accusing me of in that post...#88 I believe.

But have a grown up explain those simple 4 and 5 letter words to you....odd, my friends 6 yr.old had no problem with them....
Click to expand...

I accused you of writing what what you wrote.

NOVA said:
If Lot's story is accurate then it follows so are all the stories....
Click to expand...

The fact that the bible exists does not make it true. You are, apparently, unable to put those 4 and 5 letter words together into a coherent sentence.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
I accused you of writing what what you wrote.

The fact that the bible exists does not make it true. You are, apparently, unable to put those 4 and 5 letter words together into a coherent sentence.
Click to expand...

Why are you being such an obtuse and myopic dickhead? Boredom?

The fact that the bible exists makes it true that the bible exists. The fact it has existed for thousands of years means a lot of people must take stock in what it has to say. Some may even argue this longevity and importance as a book, would mean a great many people believe it to be true and not made up. The fact that the book has profoundly influenced a variety of religions and these religions are comprised of various spiritually-inclined people, one could also argue this book is considered divine by them.

Now, as of such, you have offered no evidence that the word of the Bible is inaccurate or not factual. You have simply implied this, and reassured us that you don't believe what is in the Bible, but you have offered nothing to support your belief. I would argue, if you can't articulate any evidence to support your beliefs, they rely on faith. So the question thus becomes, is YOUR faith 'true', or is mine?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
show me documentation from a contemporary of Luke that says Luke didn't write Luke around 50 AD.....I can show you documentation of Santa Anna's opinion on the Alamo.....
Click to expand...

Well done. You have excelled yourself. This is, perhaps, the most stupid post of the day. Oh, yeah, I've got this document dated 50AD and the writer says and I quote,

'If ever someone called Luke (an English name so unlikely to be anyone I know), says he has written something, don't believe him, it's a lie.'

There you are. that's worth at least as much as your fairy stories and is just as evidential.
I rest my case...oops...better not put anything down in the US some eejit'll pinch it and shoot me for the pleasure.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
except for the fact that it provides a consistent communication from writers spanning thousands of years who couldn't possibly have conspired together......
Click to expand...

I think it might be a good idea if you read the history of the bible and complement that with the history of the English language and the history of christianity.
Q1. Who first translated the bible into English and why?
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
I accused you of writing what what you wrote.



The fact that the bible exists does not make it true. You are, apparently, unable to put those 4 and 5 letter words together into a coherent sentence.
Click to expand...

Well, I did write what I wrote, thats the first you got right in the entire thread.


And you're much too ignorant to see ALL those words mean the same thing taken in the context they were used.....the dictionary proves that beyond doubt....

Thanks for at least trying to play. YOu've been entertaining if nothing else.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Damo: "If such is the case then they probably should have avoided the story altogether." Sorry, I interpreted this as you suggesting they should not do the series. Now that you have clarified what you said, I understand you meant the story of Lot. However, we should note, that even though you are so profoundly brilliant and such a fucking genius, people can still misinterpret things you write. This should indicate to you, that it's possible for people to read the Bible and misinterpret what those people wrote. Not you, of course, because of your over-sized brain, but most normal people.
Click to expand...

Total hogswallow. Seriously, I even used simile to highlight my meaning. Only somebody who wanted to deliberately "misinterpret" to make a point or an idiot could possibly have thought I meant that.

I'm looking all through my King James Bible, and I can't find any mention of "gang rape," "child rape" or "sex dolls" in the scripture. Now maybe they give geniuses like you a special Bible, but I am thinking that, probably, you are using that over-size brain to infer these things from what you've read. In other words, it is your interpretation, which may or may not be in accordance with the interpretation of other people who are, in fact, Christians, unlike yourself. This is the point I was trying to penetrate your granite-like cranium with, but to no avail.
Click to expand...
And yet Lot offered his (what he calls) "virgin" daughters to a crowd of people telling them to do as they will in order to protect VIP strangers.

Lot is too important of a character to "leave out" when telling the story, but that doesn't mean they must tell your interpretation of events involving Lot. Again, this is not The Bible According to Damo. I surmise they intentionally avoided the more controversial events, to avoid people misinterpreting and misconstruing them, as people normally do when they don't have over-sized brains like you, Damo.
Click to expand...
Again more hogswallow. There were loads of "big" stories uncovered, I mentioned a few.

Oh, are you a "prophet" now too? What happened when Hollywood churned out the garbage about Jesus being married? Did Christians ask questions? Did record numbers of congregations flock to the theater to watch? Or did virtually every evangelical preacher in America denounce the film and encourage their congregation to do the same? What happened, genius?
Click to expand...
Exactly as much as you... duuurrrr...

Well you should send your kids to people who know and understand the Bible for answers.
Click to expand...
I do.


As they put in YOUR INTERPRETATION of events! Let's be clear about that. You're not a Christian, and judging by your earlier interpretations of the events surrounding Lot, you don't have a solid Christian understanding of what happened and why. You think you do, but that's because of that over-sized brain which is a constant hindrance to your ability to learn. They have two hours to go from Point A to Point B, and ten hours to tell the entire story. In order to compact this, they simply had to avoid many stories, because it would have taken far too long to appropriately tell. The story of Lot in Sodom is one of these stories, it can't be told in 2 minutes, or 15 minutes, or really even in two hours. Unless it is just thrown out there gratuitously for the audience to make of it what they will, which is something I think they intentionally stayed away from with controversial subjects. It took much of the 2nd episode to handle the relationship between Abraham and Ismail, but this was an extremely important part of the story, even though it is very controversial, and many people disagree with how they presented it.
Click to expand...

This is still more nonsense. Lot offered his daughters to a crowd of men who wanted to rape his visitors to do with as they will. It's not up to interpretation, it is what he did. This is like pretending that I need to "interpret" that Moses struck the rock and thus couldn't enter the Promised Land.... It's what he did, and what God said.


They didn't hide things to keep people from asking their preachers. They condensed the entire Bible, something that takes most people months to read and years to understand, into a 10-hour mini-series, made primarily for Christian audiences at Easter. I highly doubt that Hollywood producers who are solely in the business of producing a product they hope will be a commercial success, have any interest whatsoever in how many people they will convert to Christianity. Their goal and objective is to present entertainment which attracts a large audience and makes them lots of money. This is also the reason History Channel is showing it and not the PTL Club.
Click to expand...
Yet that is what you said earlier. They were avoiding controversy so that Preachers wouldn't get upset at them as people started asking questions...

I know the burden of having that massive over-sized brain of yours, makes you believe the rest of us are just mindless twits, walking around without a clue about anything until we ask our preachers, but I've know about the story of Lot and his daughters since I was a young boy, it's widely covered in churches through sermons and whatnot. So to presume that people might see this depicted on TV and have to run ask their preachers about it, is a bit of a stretch. If anything, there are probably some people asking their preachers why they didn't tell this part of the story, did you ever think about that? Pftt... well of course you did, you're Damo! Silly me!
Click to expand...
Yet, again, it is what you said. These imaginary preachers of yours would get so upset that they would rebuke the show from the pulpit for being accurate causing them to spend "hours" explaining why Lot was "righteous"... That is what you "predicted" oh "Great Prophet"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top