# " The Bible" on The History Channel



## vowell462 (Mar 4, 2013)

Did any of you watch it last night? Just wanting some thoughts on how it was depicted. Most people I know of belief, really don't know the bible at all. And my thought is that if they watched that last night, they may go into some disbelief. To me, it was depicted more as a fairy tale. And the acting was absolutely horrible. Not History Channel quality in my opinion.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 4, 2013)

I saw a little bit. I agree that the acting was horrible.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 4, 2013)

vowell462 said:


> Most people I know of belief, really don't know the bible at all. And my thought is that if they watched that last night, they may go into some disbelief.



Maybe that's the History Channel's goal.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Maybe that's the History Channel's goal.



As compared to the unknown authors of ancient writings that were put together over 1500 years by........
What's their goal?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> As compared to the unknown authors of ancient writings that were put together over 1500 years by........
> What's their goal?



_And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations ..." _


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> _And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations ..." _



Clearly written by Jesus and found in his personal diary, or no?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 4, 2013)

That would be a "no".


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2013)

Okay so Jesus didn't record that scenario but the author of that actually witnessed Jesus come and speak to "them" and wrote down down what he witnessed?
Was it written down later by someone who was not actually there? Was later like the next day or 40-100years later?
Who wrote it?


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 4, 2013)

vowell462 said:


> Did any of you watch it last night? Just wanting some thoughts on how it was depicted. Most people I know of belief, really don't know the bible at all. And my thought is that if they watched that last night, they may go into some disbelief. To me, it was depicted more as a fairy tale. And the acting was absolutely horrible. Not History Channel quality in my opinion.



I watched it, mainly because it was on before the new "Vikings" show.  It appeared to represent how I remember the book.  it was depicted as more of a story than a "fairy tale" of which the book could be classified as fantasy in most bookstores.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 4, 2013)

The passage I referenced is from Matthew's gospel.  As one of the original disciples, he would be a good source.


----------



## hunter rich (Mar 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Okay so Jesus didn't record that scenario but the author of that actually witnessed Jesus come and speak to "them" and wrote down down what he witnessed?
> Was it written down later by someone who was not actually there? Was later like the next day or 40-100years later?
> Who wrote it?



Men trying to give people something to believe in and to use to control them.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2013)

As an outsider that was once an insider, it sounds an awful lot like: "This is what happened but we really don't know for sure or we don't know if who wrote it down was actually there, in fact we don't even know WHO wrote it down. We know it was written down though with a lot of other things that may or may not have shed such good light on the subject and while all these things were written 40-100 years afterwards and they are told as if someone was standing right there, we felt it necessary to keep the stories that followed the path we wanted and get rid of the stories that didn't quite jive with our "word". SOME of it was only in bits and pieces because the parchment that it was written on literally turned to dust so we may have had to fill in a few blanks, but rest assured that without any real proof if you just pretend hard enough you can look past that this wreaks of ancient man-made fables, stories and tales and see it for what you have been TOLD it is since you before you were able to walk or speak.......THE WORD OF THE LORD."
But that is just my take on the matter....


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> The passage I referenced is from Matthew's gospel.  As one of the original disciples, he would be a good source.



Yes it would. IF he were the author.

I'll add some more to the mix:

7. Matthew (Levi son of Alphaeus)

This guy has to be kept alive long enough to write his gospel – at least 20 years after the supposed death of Christ. Credited with 15 years in Jerusalem, then missions to Persia and Ethiopia and, of course, martyrdom in both places. According to Medieval iconography he worn spectacles, the better to count his tax money.

If Matthew, aka Levi, is a son of Alphaeus (Mark 2.14) then presumably he is also the brother of James son of Alphaeus (Mark 3.18)? And yet we are told the lesser James is a son of Mary, sister of the Blessed Virgin and wife of Cleophas (John 19.25). In which case, the evangelist Matthew is a cousin of Jesus himself! However, Acts 1.13 tells us that the lesser James has a brother called Judas (aka Jude) whereas Mark (15.40) and Matthew's "own gospel" (27.56) both say that James has a brother named Joses. So we now have a regular band of brothers: James, Joses, Judas – plus Matthew/Levi ... which comes mightily close to the supposed four brothers of Jesus himself!

        "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

        – Matthew 13.55.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> As an outsider that was once an insider, it sounds an awful lot like: "This is what happened but we really don't know for sure or we don't know if who wrote it down was actually there, in fact we don't even know WHO wrote it down. We know it was written down though with a lot of other things that may or may not have shed such good light on the subject and while all these things were written 40-100 years afterwards and they are told as if someone was standing right there, we felt it necessary to keep the stories that followed the path we wanted and get rid of the stories that didn't quite jive with our "word". SOME of it was only in bits and pieces because the parchment that it was written on literally turned to dust so we may have had to fill in a few blanks, but rest assured that without any real proof if you just pretend hard enough you can look past that this wreaks of ancient man-made fables, stories and tales and see it for what you have been TOLD it is since you before you were able to walk or speak.......THE WORD OF THE LORD."
> But that is just my take on the matter....



There are lots of things we don't know for sure.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I'll add some more to the mix:



If you really want to get to the truth about who wrote the bible, this is your guy.....


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> There are lots of things we don't know for sure.



Again brother, we are in agreement today.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2013)

I'm gonna get all religious on you guys and say "Thank Gawd for turkey season". In between popping on and off here I'm going to be cleaning a newly acquired TK2000 to get it ready for the range when nice weather hits.
Carry on.....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> As an outsider that was once an insider, it sounds an awful lot like: "This is what happened but we really don't know for sure or we don't know if who wrote it down was actually there, in fact we don't even know WHO wrote it down. We know it was written down though with a lot of other things that may or may not have shed such good light on the subject and while all these things were written 40-100 years afterwards and they are told as if someone was standing right there, we felt it necessary to keep the stories that followed the path we wanted and get rid of the stories that didn't quite jive with our "word". SOME of it was only in bits and pieces because the parchment that it was written on literally turned to dust so we may have had to fill in a few blanks, but rest assured that without any real proof if you just pretend hard enough you can look past that this wreaks of ancient man-made fables, stories and tales and see it for what you have been TOLD it is since you before you were able to walk or speak.......THE WORD OF THE LORD."
> But that is just my take on the matter....



That's not it at all. It's we KNOW FOR SURE. We don't know for sure never enters any conversation.


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 4, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> I watched it, mainly because it was on before the new "Vikings" show.  It appeared to represent how I remember the book.  it was depicted as more of a story than a "fairy tale" of which the book could be classified as fantasy in most bookstores.



Ok. Fantasy. I agree. I fell asleep before "Vikings". I really wanted to watch it too.

My whole point I guess to this thread is that most I know who are believers, don't question, don't research, and heck, don't even read the bible. They listen to the guy behind the pulpit and feel great about themselves when they leave. Feel good religion. Im not saying everyone is like that, just 95% of the people I personally know. Since they were comfortably indoctrinated, you cant change the mindset. I.E Carl Marx calling it " The Opiate of the Masses".

Now, if you don't read the bible, but sing church hymns on sunday morning at the local southern Baptist church for 45 minutes and listen to the "feel good" preaching for the last 15 minutes of service, then you watch how the history channels depicts it, then it might give one some reason to say " wait a minute, burning bushes...talking animals....seas parting....this doesn't make sense". 

It was all over Facebook by the religious I know about how excellent the program is and how wonderful it was. But I couldn't help but say to myself " man, this has got to be the worst acting Ive seen since Edward and Bella in that silly Twilight series". 

Please don't pull my man card for admitting I watched that.......


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 4, 2013)

vowell462 said:


> My whole point I guess to this thread is that most I know who are believers, don't question, don't research, and heck, don't even read the bible. They listen to the guy behind the pulpit and feel great about themselves when they leave. Feel good religion. Im not saying everyone is like that, just 95% of the people I personally know. Since they were comfortably indoctrinated, you cant change the mindset. I.E Carl Marx calling it " The Opiate of the Masses"...



Change the wording a little bit, and you could say the same thing about most of the registered voters in this country.




vowell462 said:


> ... this has got to be the worst acting Ive seen since Edward and Bella in that silly Twilight series".
> 
> Please don't pull my man card for admitting I watched that.......



You're excused ... this time.  Don't let it happen again.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2013)

vowell462 said:


> Ok. Fantasy. I agree. I fell asleep before "Vikings". I really wanted to watch it too.
> 
> My whole point I guess to this thread is that most I know who are believers, don't question, don't research, and heck, don't even read the bible. They listen to the guy behind the pulpit and feel great about themselves when they leave. Feel good religion. Im not saying everyone is like that, just 95% of the people I personally know. Since they were comfortably indoctrinated, you cant change the mindset. I.E Carl Marx calling it " The Opiate of the Masses".
> 
> ...


I watched most of it, the bad acting didn't stand out to me, but I don't think the series will be judged on the acting, I think it's just meant to tell the story of the bible.

I did say to my wife in the beginning of it that "I didn't know Noah was Irish"



> Please don't pull my man card for admitting I watched that.......


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I watched most of it, the bad acting didn't stand out to me, but I don't think the series will be judged on the acting, I think it's just meant to tell the story of the bible.
> 
> I did say to my wife in the beginning of it that "I didn't know Noah was Irish"


----------



## bigreddwon (Mar 4, 2013)

I TIVO'd it and watched a little bit. It skips over any of the controversial points and sells the 'core' story,  at least what I watched so far. I will keep watching just to see _what it skips_ more than what it depicts.  Slavery, sex for drugs, cannibalism, mass murder, infanticide, incest, rape.....


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 4, 2013)

bigreddwon said:


> Slavery, sex for drugs, cannibalism, mass murder, infanticide, incest, rape.....



That's HBO, not the History Channel.


----------



## panfried0419 (Mar 4, 2013)

I enjoyed it. I thought it depicted what I have read. Didn't see any bad acting. Strengthened my faith. Can't sugarcoat reality.


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 5, 2013)

Cant sugarcoat reality? What do you mean?


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 5, 2013)

bigreddwon said:


> sex for drugs, cannibalism.....



Really?



centerpin fan said:


> That's HBO, not the History Channel.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 5, 2013)

I thought it was pretty good in staying accurate to the stories portrayed in the bible, and "hitting the highlights." 

The acting wasn't Oscar material for sure, but I don't believe that is the intention of this series. 

I am thankful for it, while you see that it may turn people away from the bible (and it may), I believe that it will also turn some toward reading the bible and, of course, to me that's a great thing. 

As far as the historical accuracies go, well this is a subject that has been discussed for ages by people a lot more intelligent than most in this forum and there's no agreement as to whether the bible is historically accurate or not, so we are probably not going to solve that here. 

But ya'll knew that I would say that because I,of course, believe the bible to be 100% accurate and true.

But that's because I am at best naive, un-enlightened, and un-educated. 

At worst I am a pea-brained moron who ought to know better than to believe in a fairy tale God, who is nothing more than the religious version of Santa Clause.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 5, 2013)

Normally, any good book is gonna be followed up with a movie.

In this case, I decided to study the Bible rather than watch this one.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 5, 2013)

I just saw it last night. Wish I had seen it from the beginning. Would be a great conversation starter. I walked in where Abraham was about to offer Issac. I wonder what I missed? How did they lay the ground work for this scene? Abraham was "called out". How he was spoken to would make all the difference. If I had a dream, I would not act on it. If an angel appeared, I would build an ark if asked. But however, the bible never attempts to validate Abrams calling. For conversation sake, let's assume it as without doubt.  What he left is most important but I will not go into that although it is key to understanding why he is our Father Abraham. God promised Abram several things which are key, yet I will not go into that detail, I will just say that the sum of these promises would make Abraham invinceable. None of theses promises could be fullfilled if Abraham was killed. If he believed God then nothing would stand in his way. But Abram waivered in his faith but God patiently dealt with him as a father should a son. In everything, God blessed Abraham. Abraham "went back" for fear of a famine. God had told him not to go back that way. The way he had come from. But God blessed him inspite of his lack of faith. When Abraham feared for his life, he asked his wife to say that he was her brother. Abraham's lack of faith in God to fullfill his promises should have cost him his wife but God saved her from being defiled and Abraham was sent on his way richer than ever. Abraham should not have feared for his life or health considering the promises. God promised Abraham a son in Sarah's old age, a woman who was barren. Abraham and Sarah not trusting God tried to help God keep his promise by using her maidservant. In time, once again, God showed Abraham that even though he lacked faith, that he would fulfill his promise.  God worked patiently with Abraham in many ways. Probably in ways not recorded but in time through the patience of God, Abraham began to trust God. In the part that I came in to see, last night, Abraham had reconed that since God had proven himself faithful that somehow he would raise him from the dead since the promises were to come through Issac. Imagine the inner turmoil of coming to a place that you trusted God, you know that he has proven himself, yet you have been asked to do something that extreme. But he had learned to trust God. So he carried on until God interveined. Was it a test from God to see if Issac would trust him? Or was it for Abraham's  benefit to see the extent of his own faith?


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 7, 2013)

bigreddwon said:


> sex for drugs, cannibalism,





rjcruiser said:


> Really?



Still waiting on an explanation of this.

Read the bible cover to cover and can't recall sex for drugs anywhere....or the promotion of cannibalism....or really the promotion of any other items in that list.

Any references?


----------



## grouper throat (Mar 8, 2013)

I liked it. It's certainly better than I first assumed it would be. I agree with the above that it is more concentrated on telling the story than the acting. What kind of acting do you really expect from the History channel anyway?


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 8, 2013)

grouper throat said:


> I liked it. It's certainly better than I first assumed it would be. I agree with the above that it is more concentrated on telling the story than the acting. What kind of acting do you really expect from the History channel anyway?



I didn't. It was just so bad it made me chuckle.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 9, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> But ya'll knew that I would say that because I,of course, believe the bible to be 100% accurate and true.
> 
> But that's because I am at best naive, un-enlightened, and un-educated.
> 
> At worst I am a pea-brained moron who ought to know better than to believe in a fairy tale God, who is nothing more than the religious version of Santa Clause.



Yeah, I know the feelin'.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 9, 2013)

Pop Culture’s Most Popular TV Show Is–Brace Yourself–The Bible

"This past Sunday the television industry felt the ground shake when the first installment of the History Channel’s five-part miniseries, The Bible, drew a whopping 14.3 million viewers.  To put that in perspective, those are higher ratings than American Idol drew on Fox in the same week.  Higher ratings than the premiere of Celebrity Apprentice on NBC.  And it officially made The Bible the number one scripted cable broadcast of the year."

http://acculturated.com/2013/03/08/pop-cultures-most-popular-tv-show-is-brace-yourself-the-bible/


----------



## BornToHuntAndFish (Mar 13, 2013)

Since I do not have access to watch "The Bible Series" or mini-series, I have a friend sending me the videos & already saw the 1st week with it's 2 of 10 episodes or parts, & will see the 2nd week's 2 episodes from this past Sunday soon.  Appeared to be a fine job on this presentation.  

Sounds like lots of interest in this so far. 

Here's a highlight below after the 1st Sunday's shows followed by what's up next Sunday.


http://www.bibleseries.tv/ 

OR 

https://www.facebook.com/BibleSeries


----------

