maklelan Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Tonight the first episode in the History Channel's new series "Bible Secrets Revealed" will air. You can see a promotional video here. There will no doubt be some sensationalistic stuff shown and said, but I know personally several of the scholars interviewed and think there will be plenty of good scholarship. If for any reason you're interested in hearing my take, I will be live-blogging the show tonight here and live-tweeting here (it sounds like so much work when I write it out). 2
The Nehor Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 So has the History Channel figured out if aliens built the pyramids yet? 1
strappinglad Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 So has the History Channel figured out if aliens built the pyramids yet? illegal aliens maybe. Nobody else would work for bread and beer. As for the OP, I eagerly await the presentation.
Tacenda Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 illegal aliens maybe. Nobody else would work for bread and beer. As for the OP, I eagerly await the presentation.I know what this comment means! I sub'd in an art class that was learning about ancient Egypt and they mention bartering for things using beer and bread! I also learned about the Papyrus plant/reed that was used to make parchment paper! And so much more, a 51 yr. old me didn't know about.
HiJolly Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 Holy Cow! With 22 minutes left to go, what pops up on the screen as a teaser for the next segment?? None other than the Book of Mormon! WHAT! And then a good 3 to 4 minutes on Joseph Smith and the Mormons - The Book of Mormon. Not bad! I was expecting more on the JST than just a (possible) comment in passing. They really did focus on the BoM. What a surprise!
rpn Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 But they called it a bible re-write, seemingly without any acknowledgement that JS produced a bible rewrite too.
Freedom Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 History channel is to history what Fox news is to news.
Ron Beron Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 History channel is to history what Fox news is to news.Bad comparison. 1
Freedom Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 Bad comparison.You are welcome to your opinion. I do not go to history channel for history and I don't go to Fox for news.
Nevo Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 I haven't seen the "Bible Secrets Revealed" yet. I'm not even sure if it is airing in Canada. I've been unimpressed with most of the TV specials I've seen about the Bible, but I do recommend the NOVA program, "The Bible's Buried Secrets." Despite it's sensationalistic title, it provides quite a good introduction to current scholarship on the Hebrew Bible.
The Nehor Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 Bad comparison.True, the History Channel occasionally brings in actual educated experts and then just chops up what they say so it is unrecognizable and make up stuff up to sensationalize. Fox News just makes it up wholesale. They are more dedicated to the creative arts. 1
Rivers Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) I watched the first episode. I enjoyed it but most the information it presented is stuff I've read or heard before. There was one very ridiculous part. They argued that the ressurection story might have been made up to complete the Gospel of Mark. This is totally bogus since Paul talked about the ressurection long before Mark was written. Edited November 15, 2013 by Rivers
cinepro Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) You are welcome to your opinion. I do not go to history channel for history and I don't go to Fox for news. I too have been disappointed in the History Channel's one-sided, biased reporting of History. I won't watch any of their shows until they start giving equal time to people who think the pyramids aren't that impressive, that the old west wasn't "wild", and that the wrong side won the Civil War. Let's hear from both sides, History Channel! Edited November 15, 2013 by cinepro
ERayR Posted November 16, 2013 Posted November 16, 2013 You are welcome to your opinion. I do not go to history channel for history and I don't go to Fox for news. I'm sorry.
The Nehor Posted November 18, 2013 Posted November 18, 2013 I too have been disappointed in the History Channel's one-sided, biased reporting of History. I won't watch any of their shows until they start giving equal time to people who think the pyramids aren't that impressive, that the old west wasn't "wild", and that the wrong side won the Civil War.Let's hear from both sides, History Channel! Their anti-Nazi bias reeks through every World War II piece they do. There was one very ridiculous part. They argued that the ressurection story might have been made up to complete the Gospel of Mark. This is totally bogus since Paul talked about the ressurection long before Mark was written. It makes sense that the resurrection story was left out of Mark at first. Converts knew the story of the Atonement. It is a key point in conversion. The Gospels were not written as a conversion tool. They are not heavy on doctrine and seem to assume the reader already knows. They were written to edify the faithful after the generation that remembered Jesus was dead. There was no real need for the resurrection account as the readers had already heard it.
canard78 Posted November 18, 2013 Posted November 18, 2013 Their anti-Nazi bias reeks through every World War II piece they do.It makes sense that the resurrection story was left out of Mark at first. Converts knew the story of the Atonement. It is a key point in conversion. The Gospels were not written as a conversion tool. They are not heavy on doctrine and seem to assume the reader already knows. They were written to edify the faithful after the generation that remembered Jesus was dead. There was no real need for the resurrection account as the readers had already heard it.That would be the resurrection story left out of Mark but some how kept in the Book of Mormon (Mormo 9). Bits of it anyway.
canard78 Posted November 18, 2013 Posted November 18, 2013 You are welcome to your opinion. I do not go to history channel for history and I don't go to Fox for news.It's a very good comparison. Those getting riled by it are showing more of themselves than they realise.
The Nehor Posted November 18, 2013 Posted November 18, 2013 That would be the resurrection story left out of Mark but some how kept in the Book of Mormon (Mormo 9). Bits of it anyway. It wasn't left out; it was added later. And I am not someone who wrings his hands at the idea that either Joseph Smith or God used familiar verbiage from the KJV of the Bible in the translation of the Book of Mormon.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 18, 2013 Posted November 18, 2013 True, the History Channel occasionally brings in actual educated experts and then just chops up what they say so it is unrecognizable and make up stuff up to sensationalize. Fox News just makes it up wholesale. They are more dedicated to the creative arts.You know, if you were fair you would recognize that most major "news" outlets do this. Any major mainstream media omits the truth and is biased. If you cannot see that then you have 0 business even commenting on it.
The Nehor Posted November 18, 2013 Posted November 18, 2013 You know, if you were fair you would recognize that most major "news" outlets do this. Any major mainstream media omits the truth and is biased. If you cannot see that then you have 0 business even commenting on it.I freely acknowledge this happens all over in the same way I acknowledge that every combatant nation in World War 2 committed some atrocities. Fox News just happens to be the Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan in this analogy.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 18, 2013 Posted November 18, 2013 I freely acknowledge this happens all over in the same way I acknowledge that every combatant nation in World War 2 committed some atrocities. Fox News just happens to be the Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan in this analogy.Ok. That is just a biased view of it. Both of them do it in nefarious ways. Both seem to be cut from the same clothe. THe funny thing is that most seem to not see it. Take for instance this gem from MSNBC.http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/11/14/msnbc-s-toure-neblett-gerrymandering-impacts-senate-racesKeep in mind I am only talking about what this guy said in MSNBC. I have not read what anyone has talked about in the article. I only know what this guys said in the video clip. Do you agree with him?
Recommended Posts