Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is this going to be on the SciFi channel?
Is this going to be on the SciFi channel?
The makers of this series probably never even considered having Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. contribute anything to the show. Now the millions and millions of Christians that haven't read a word of the Bible have something to go by!
What would an atheist have to contribute to a show about the bible?
I'm looking forward to watching this....
in part, due to being produced by Burnett and Downy,...:
What would an atheist have to contribute to a show about the bible?
A rational assessment of the reasons the bible was written, which parts are likely fact or fiction and the effects it has had on history.
Here's an amusing new article about Utah laws which control serving alcohol in restaurants. Religion is out of control in Utah.
http://www.ajc.com/news/ap/alcohol/utah-liquor-bill-aims-to-take-down-zion-curtains/nWZyZ/
I personally wouldn't mind some atheists giving logical input. I think it would be good for the film. But keep in mind that its reinactments of the bible stories.
Exactly, it's reenactments of the bible. Why get input from people who don't believe the stories happened in the first place? I can't imagine to make the Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson went around asking people who don't like Tolkein what they think he should do.
Way to post something that has nothing to do with the topic in this thread. Must be on those shrooms huh?
Good for Mark Burnett! It must be nice to be able to make your wife a virgin again anytime you want to.
A rational assessment of the reasons the bible was written, which parts are likely fact or fiction and the effects it has had on history.
Thanks ABM I will tune in for sure. I'm not a believer or disbeliever but I very much respect the historical significants of the bible and enjoy learning more about it when given an entertaining option. History channel has recently been getting back to it's roots and doing some fantastic stuff. Hatfields and McCoys, and The Men Who Built America in particular were very well done.
.......and does not at all reflect the actual findings of archeology/anthropology.

......yet.![]()
i hope you mean cultural historical significance since it was written. as previously noted the attempt by the 'history' channel at portraying the bible as historically accurate is a pure ratings grab, and does not at all reflect the actual findings of archeology/anthropology.
......yet.![]()
Well to you maybe; but for others that actually believe the Bible has historical accuracy it's not the case.
you like the history channel are confusing apologists with actual working scientists and historians.
So you mean to tell me there are "no empirical evidence" that events in the bible did not take place?
Yes or no?
i mean to tell you there is almost nothing in the bible from the creation story through at least the time of david that isn't contradicted by evidence. after that time the bible starts to gradually become more historically accurate, which is what you would expect since that is when the first parts of it were likely written.
Yet many people want to know whether the events of the Bible are real, historic events.
We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.
The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.
![]()
The inscription on a tablet found at Tel Dan, which dates to about 840 B.C.E., clearly mentions a "House of David." Photo credit: © WGBH Educational Foundation
There is one empirical evidence that there was such thing as "King David"
Yes the "King David" is one of the strongest "evidence" out there. But did you review the archeological evidence of the egyptians referring to "Israel" based in Canaan?
How about the tabernackle and archeological evidence proving there was a city called "Ramses"? That was the city that Moses led his people out from. For almost 100 years, this city wasn't found and said was just a story. But the last 20 years; there have been a lot of evidence that this city did exist and had foreign prisioners of war being slaves there.
not worth debating since you still have no idea how do differentiate apologetic propaganda from objective inquiry. not sure why it matters anyway since you don't consider stories in genesis litera
l, and the history channel is presumably going to depict those in the same light as the exodus etc.
