Posting Shortly: State Sen. Says CSCOPE Will be Yanked in Texas
Live BlazeCast at 2pm ET: The curious John Kerry Picture — plus your comments
‘The Bible’ Trounces Perennial Sunday Ratings King ’60 Minutes’ (and Everything Else)
It’s official, “The Bible” is a ratings smash.
Image: History.com
After producer Mark Burnett and his wife, actress Roma Downey referred to the Bible as “the most read, most influential book of all time,” the first episode of their new mini-series on History Channel about that influential book delivered in a very large way. Here are some of the noteworthy numbers:
- 13.1 million watched the premiere episode of the miniseries (14.8 million total viewers in the two airings)
- 4.6 million adults (25-54) tuned in, beating everything the big four networks offered in prime time
- The number one cable entertainment telecast of the year.
- The Bible was #1 trending term on Twitter leading up to the show
- History.com’s biggest day ever
In the 8-10pm time slot, The Bible’s total audience number (13.1 million) for this first episode was nothing short of “biblical.”
In comparison with the broadcast networks not a single program offered by CBS, NBC, Fox, or ABC even came close to the 13.1 million viewers watching the first airing of the History channel’s epic new series. The CBS news magazine “60 Minutes” pulled in 11.95 million viewers. “The Amazing Race” (also from Mark Burnett) had 9.12 million people watching. NBC also spent the past few weeks promoting the return of Donald Trump’s “Celebrity Apprentice.” Trump’s show managed only 5.08 million viewers.
The History channel is obviously thrilled by the ratings for the first episode of the series. The massive audience for “The Bible” also helped the show that followed it. “Vikings” – the first scripted series for the channel debuted on Sunday night as well. From 10-11pm, it delivered 6.2 million total viewers.
Additional episodes of ”The Bible” will air Sunday nights through March 31st, Easter Sunday. See a sneak preview of episode two here.
–
More Stories You Don’t Want To Miss:
- 10 Surprising Celebrity Endorsements For The Bible
- Pro-Faith Hollywood Power Couple Discusses Upcoming Mini-Series “The Bible”
Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.
Popular Stories
Report: Hofstra Student Was Shot, Killed by Cop Trying To Rescue Her 401 Comments
White House: ‘Irrelevant Fact’ Where Obama Was During Benghazi 332 Comments
‘Bigoted, Religious [Zealots]‘: High School Senior Allegedly Expelled, Charged With Felonies Over Gay Relationship With ‘Consenting’ Fellow Student 294 Comments
CNN Poll: Obama’s Approval Rating Unchanged Since Scandals Hit 218 Comments
Report: Obama Administration Apologizes for Another National Security Leak 205 Comments
Faith
-
'Bigoted, Religious [Zealots]': High School Senior Allegedly Expelled, Charged With Felonies Over Gay Relationship With 'Consenting' Fellow Student
294 Comments
-
Israeli Motorists Shocked When Nazi Flag Seen Flying Near Palestinian Mosque
Read More
- Did Christian Prayers at Gov't Meetings in This NY Town Violate the Constitution? 106 Comments
-
John Kerry Reportedly Had a Breakfast Meeting With Father of Gaza Flotilla 'Martyr' Last Week -- and There's Apparently Picture Evidence
Read More
-
'Pedophile Protection': Rapist Takes Young Girl to Planned Parenthood for an Abortion to Hide His Crime
Read More
Business
- Is This the 'Smoking Gun' That Ties the IRS Scandal to the White House? Read More
-
Monday Morning Market Roundup: Not Off to Such a Great Start
Read More
- This Map Shows the 'Riskiest' Places in the World 109 Comments
-
Krauthammer's Impressed With Obama's IRS Answers: He Makes Bill Clinton's Parsing Look Unsophisticated
Read More
-
Congressman: IRS Demanded to Know Content of Pro-Life Group's Prayers
Read More
Technology
-
This Teen's Invention Means You Could You Charge Your Cellphone in Less Than 30 Seconds
Read More
-
One of the Most Unlikely Animals Being Trained to Hunt Land Mines
Read More
-
One of the Most Unlikely Animals Being Trained to Hunt Land Mines
Read More
-
Woman Who Lost All Limbs to Flesh-Eating Bacteria Gets $200K Bionic Arms
Read More
-
Why Are These Zoo Keepers Baffled by This Anteater's Babies?
Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (258)
Blitz
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:51amMaybe this series will get people to dust off their bibles and seek God’s will in thier life and in the life of the people around them. One can hope.
Report this comment
The Big Mick
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:44amexactly
the point i would argue
Report this comment
Chazael
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:18amIt wasn’t too bad… but much better than anything else on tv that the family can watch together.
A lot of scripture is missed, but I understand the time constraints. I remember seeing the preview for Moses and seeing we were still on Abraham 45 mins in and asking “How are we going to get to there in the time allotted?” That was easy… they just skipped most of Isaac and almost all of Jacob.
We did use the moments that were either left out, or didn’t happen, to actually point to the scriptures. So the kids do know the movie isn’t quite the same.
So while not the greatest, it is better than what is on tv. And it is definately good for teachable moments and one of the most important: test everything by the scriptures.
Report this comment
yokel32
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:58amSo, you reviewed the part where Lot offers his daughters to the men of Sodom to rape? Or the part where these same daughters get their Dad drunk in order to impregnate themselves by him? Or the part where language is the result of people building a structure too high? C’mon people. The Bible is not real history. These are stories. And this show had to do quite a bit of editing in order to make it appear to be real history.
Report this comment
4XGrace
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:58amFat chance of that happening. This TV show is just another in a long line of Bible corruptions. A fat, lazy and slothful audience will not by any means begin reading anything because a TV series puts it in pictures for you. If you want the God’s Word, go to His Word, the Bible; the Authorized Version – the evidence of Christ, His Word left behind for a witness to mankind. The Authorized Version that is so vilified by all the so-called spiritual “christians” out there that only care for their bellies and their interpretation of God’s Word; the interpretations that give them the power over God and advance their culture – the cult of men in their gloriously disgusting ceremonies and religious displays of works that they say will save people; but in fact dam them to hell.
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
SALVATION by FAITH not by Works.
FAITH as imparted to the individual by GOD not the individual’s exercising of faith (a work).
Works AFTER salvation NOT to keep or prove your salvation.
Works as given to you by GOD not some Pastor, Preacher, Priest, Deacon, Pope or whatever bent on their own glory (“See here? I have all these people bent to my will by the power of God that I control through my “christian” office.)
Report this comment
cdennis
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:05pmMy thoughts exactly. So many kids today have no idea about God…the parents are non-faith…very sad. My heart hopes many will see this and want to know this God of Love. And our Savior Lord Jesus. Such a harsh world..how can anyone not have this hope? I pray this brings many to faith.
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:18pmI could be wrong but I don’t think this series will have much effect on non believers. An acquaintance of mine still finds a cartoon of the Bible, his favorite source of Biblical truth. He is an atheist. Although I gave him a MacArthur Study Bible 7 or 8 years ago, the only time it gets opened is when I am visiting and pick it up and blow the dust off to quote from it.
I am also appalled by the inaccuracies this series will teach about the Bible that non-discerning Christians will inevitably swallow as Biblical truth.
Report this comment
smoolie671
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:18pmHey yokel, We know your just a lib commie pushing your agenda here. Everyone knows the Bible is true, some just don’t want to be accountable to God and his word. How bout you go play in your cats sandbox, and stay out of ours.
Report this comment
searcher619
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:08pmOR people just found it VERY entertaining?
Report this comment
scarebear83
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 3:02pmI don’t recall there being a ninja angel in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and that’s about as far as I got. The first episode was riddled with Biblical inaccuracies and any true Bible believer would get their Bible out and look this stuff up and realize how completely off they were. Noah didn’t have a teenage daughter nor did Lot at the time of the city’s destruction. The only reason I would watch anymore episodes is to see how wrong they get the other stories…. if I could stomach it.
Report this comment
searcher619
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 3:15pmscarebear83:
Show us an important detail they got wrong. The things you mentioned were minor and had no impact on the biblical stories.
Report this comment
scarebear83
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 3:33pm4XGrace- The gift of God is salvation, not faith (Rom. 6:23). Our faith is a working faith but faith alone will not save you (James 2:14-26). Faith is obedience to the works God has given us to do (again reread James 2). Belief saves us John 8:24. But also repentance saves us Acts 3:19, Acts 17:30, 2 Corinthians 7:10 and confessing Christ is the Son of God also saves us Romans 10:9-10 and baptism (immersion) also saves us Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:4, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21 and especially this verse may be of interest to you, Colossians 2:12 “buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” Baptism is not a work of human merit. It is a working of faith by God that we do in order to obtain salvation. Salvation is a free gift but that free gift cannot be forced upon you, it requires the recipient to exhort some effort in order to obtain it (if someone hands you a gift you still have to extend your arms out to get it don’t you?). But don’t take my word for it, do like the Bereans and search the scriptures to find out whether the verses I have given you are so (Acts 17:11).
Report this comment
JoanofAmerica
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 3:47pmExactly! It’s reassuring to know so many are hungry for it.
I rather liked it. My only yearning was to hear those 12 commandments since they are being assaulted now.
For the critics. I am a screenwriter working (7 years now) on a historic epic that spans 2 years prior to Ww2 to the end. Trust me when I say that it is insanely hard to crunch so much into a series or movie. I’m pretty sure the 3rd and 4th chapter will be much more powerful. The lead up to is broad but bullet points the story upto the birth of Jesus, etc.
Kudos to M &M!
Report this comment
scarebear83
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 3:51pmSearcher619- For starters 8 souls were saved on the ark, and I don’t recall Noah having a teenage daughter. Lot went to warn his sons-in-law of the impending doom (which means his girls also would have been adults, not preteen-teen). The men of Sodom were struck blind, I don’t recall a ninja angel having to fight their way out. From what I was told of the story of Moses was that he was alone in a tent on Mt. Sinai when a burning bush appeared at night… Moses was married and tending to his father-in-laws flocks at daytime and definitely would not have been on a mountain with the herd. That’s a pretty important plot line and would make no sense at all if they had Moses up on Sinai before he led the children of Israel. They can stay accurate to the Bible and leave out some details if that’s what they’re worried about but I don’t understand adding or changing the details that are mentioned nowhere in the Bible.
Report this comment
HigherRoad
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 4:02pmJOANOFAMERICA–I think you meant Ten Commandments, but if God doesn’t mind, then I don’t either. We definitely need more programs of this nature. If you have any influence in the entertainment industry, I pray you will encourage writers and producers to take a leap of faith! We are all sick of the trash that is called “entertainment” today!
Report this comment
22AUTOMATIC
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 4:44pmThe 13.1 million viewers doesn’t take into account the replay which itself was around three million. Also, many churches are gathering across the nation to watch this together. Two churches – one has around 12 thousand members and another around 14 thousand members – about 20 minutes from my house both packed in tons of people even overflowing into the side rooms. Take those numbers and multiply them by all the other cities in the country and the number is closer to about 25 million who watched (remember – Churches don’t have Neilson Ratings boxes) Also, consider that this – unlike most shows – is something families and groups of 5-10 watch together at their homes as opposed to just one person or a couple with the average tv show. The number could actually be closer to 30 million (in the U.S alone) Can’t wait for the next episode!
Report this comment
Nuclear Rabbit
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 5:05pmSay what you want about it. I dusted off my Bible last night and re-read Genesis and Exodus. If this show, no matter how innaccurate, brings a lost soul to the LORD’s flock, then it was a victory for man and GOD.
Report this comment
NogodNojesus
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 5:30pmMaybe this will show that incest and pedophilia in the Bible are A-Ok.
Report this comment
NogodNojesus
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 5:31pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU04vJymh6U
Cult of Dusty RULZ!
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 6:15pmANYONE who thinks the BIBLE is NOT REAL is a sorry individual. GOD vis HIS HOLY SPIRIT through trusted men and women wrote the BIBLE as a guide book for us. (The BIBLE: A perfect text book on Human Nature).
The closer one becomes to GOD the more it makes sense. To all skeptics: You laugh at the Bible and ridicule it as being just a bunch of ‘silly stories’ but you can comprehend that you are on a BALL whizzing through SPACE, a SPACE that we can’t see the beginning or or ending to and you aren’t falling off…right? I see.
Report this comment
The Giver
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:02pm@ NOGODNOJESUS- Now you know why Jesus had to come. The Old Testament shows the human condition and what we are capable of. Jesus, who you do not believe in, came to bring hope of salvation and forgiveness to a lost humanity. Reading the Bible is answering a lot of questions for me.
You don’t have to believe, of course, but do not lump the Christ of the New Covenant with Old Testament humanity. You sound uninformed. If you actually start to read the Bible, not just parts like the ones you highlight, you would see the progression of violence, and the separation from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus had to come and will come again even if you don’t believe it. Be well. Best of luck on your journey no matter what path you take.
Report this comment
The Giver
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:23pmBLITZ, I think there is an awakening happening for many reasons. I hope more people turn to God as our country goes the way of the dodo bird. We are getting what we deserve. We are killing our children through abortion. God can certainly speak to us even without the Bible, but He certainly can do it through the Bible too. I read it daily now and actually look forward to it.
PATTY HENRY, I agree 100% that the Bible shows the human condition. Better than any psych book I ever had to study from. Redemption through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior… No matter how low we have fallen, it is never too late to be made new and whole again.
Report this comment
WorldGoneCrazy
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:57pmThe movie’s pretty good, but the Book’s better.
Report this comment
trinity76
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:50amThe good:
1) The high ratings reflects a spiritual hunger in this country.
2) Most of the main/high points were included
3) God was treated with reverence
4) Bada– “Book of Eli”-style angels, not wussy metrosexuals in long wihite robes (personally, I thought this was the coolest part of the first episode, even though not traditional).
The partially good/partially bad
1) Fairly/somewhat (not completely) accurate to scripture
2) While many actors looked and sounded like they were from the region, others did not (the Scottish accent on Abraham was rather distracting).
The not-so-good
1) Does anyone else think that the show was, well, rather cheesy?
2) Could have been more biblically accurate.
Report this comment
Mosell
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:00amThe one thing that really got me was, the scene in Sodom when the (and here comes the stereo-type) Oriental “Angel” pulls out swords and ninja style starts killing those trying to harm.
Report this comment
V-MindMeld
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:07amYa was’nt real sure on the dipiction of the angels and the ninja scenes???? and they missed a huge chance to at least mention the 10 commandments and what they are…especially since the gov is forcing them to be removed everywhere,,,,,so,,,we’ll see how the next episode is, I dont expect perfection however, and the cause is good one. We need more shows on the Bible these days…
Report this comment
YOURSENSEI
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:11amThis is what you must know:
Yes, cheesy is the word.
It is so.
The Big Mick
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:29amThis is what you must know.
Do NOT look to Your SINSAY for any sense of STYLE.
Haute Cinema he ain’t. Got all the savoir faire of a pized on wino.
Report this comment
The Big Mick
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:37am“got” in good sense or not, Mos?
What I liked about it was the sense of DEADLYNESS.
What were the choices–Emperor Palpatine type Finger Tip Death Rays. I like the blinding at a glance. In our Violence jaded visual aid WHAT got the PERSONAL nature of the KILLING by angels across. It was an interesting choice—I’m unwilling to criticize it, though I do think the stretch to “diversity” can get—tendious. Might have been “over the top” with the Ninja.
On the other hand remember Balaam’s Donkey—what a college bud of mind called “the dumbasz principle”. “Dumbasz can’t you see the ANGEL there with the FREAKIN BIG SWORD!”
You guys will have to unpack “cheesy”. If you mean something akin to “cheap sex shots”, don’t know, if you mean “back lot” maybe.
Report this comment
AvengerK
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:38amYOURSENSEI/WANGO/MONICNE/BALDY/ad nauseum…..would you tell me why you feel the need to tell us all about your personal hygeine?
Report this comment
ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:43amI tried to watch it, but I had just watched Lord of the Rings : The Two Towers and I must say, “The Bible” came off as a poorly written, poorly directed and poorly produced knock off of Lord of the Rings.
AvengerK
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:10amWe all appreciate your hamfisted attempt at cleverness Orwellianly named MODERATIONISBEST.
Now go put on your Frodo feet and say “precious” all over the house like a good little lefty nerd.
Report this comment
myptofvu
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:15amWill be interested to see what the ratings are next week, my guess is down dramatically.
Report this comment
AvengerK
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:28amI don’t think so MYPTOFVU…I think the audience will remain loyal especially as it gets into the new testament towards passover and Easter. Those ratings are nothing to sneeze at especially for a cable network. I’ll certainly be tuning in to watch it.
Report this comment
The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:42pmPeter Jackson should have directed the fight scenes, I concur.
Report this comment
searcher619
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:10pmsorry but the high ratings do not demonstrate a “spiritual hunger” in our society. I’m in no way religious and not seeking religion yet I watched it. Why? I loved the old Charlie Heston’s Bible TV film and found this updated one to be just as entertaining.
Report this comment
Postergirl
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:28pm@Avengerk
Frodo Feet………….LMFAO
Report this comment
bitterclinger
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 3:06pmMoses’s Scots accent was addressed on Glenn’s TV show last week. The series purposely has different nationalities represented to coincide with all the believers worldwide, who were also watching it worldwide. (Samson is portrayed as black in an upcoming show.)
As David Barton pointed out in discussing missionary work, “When we teach the scriptures to those who are new to God, and we ask those folks to draw a picture of Him, He always has the features of the local people.”
Report this comment
searcher619
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 3:19pmbitterclinger:
Which explains why Jesus is always portrayed as a long haired white man by Europeans. When you look at the region he is supposed to have come from you’d know the man was almost definitely NOT Caucasian. Even the vague description we have of him from scripture isn’t that of a white man.
Report this comment
yes
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:42amI love to wake up and find out that GOD had the highest ratings from the night before! With all the filth that is on TV this is a rare treat. For the people who do read the BIBLE don’t ruin this with judements and condemnations expecting every verse to be exactly perfect or the way you want it to be done, they would have to run a show every night for the next 10 yrs to tell the whole story. This is to get people excited again for GOD and the scriptures, let them do it. Stop your perfectionism on how you want GOD’s word spread for they are doing alot more to bring GOD back into our society then you or I am. Let them and let GOD!
Report this comment
searcher619
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:15pmNo a TV movie that took artistic license with your religion got high ratings. Not the same thing.
Report this comment
Lloyd Drako
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:35amTrump got trounced! Proof that there is a God!
M13
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:18amLloyd said something stupid again, Proof that he is an idiot.
Jezreel
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:29amIT STUNK REALLY BADLY!!! IT WAS DISGUSTING AND A TWISTING AND LIE OF THE WORD OF GOD. I don’t think they got any important fact correct. As soon as they started Noah, I thought, oh oh! This is not about truth at all. The turned Sarah into a old hag, instead of being the beautiful desired woman she was that even pharoah desired her. Abraham did NOT beg Lot to not depart and that happened before Lot and his family and others were taken captive. They went their separate ways because their herdsmen did not get along and Abraham told him to choose where he wanted to go, that if he went to the right, he would go to the left. By this time, I turned it off. I just was not in the mood to watch biblical garbage and junk and I am not surprised that Glen Beck endorsed this series as he knows not anything about the truth of the word of God though he likes to pretend he does. I hope this wakes up silly people about Glen Beck and the fact that he is not born into the family of Godl;. Mormonism is a lie and fairytales so it is any wonder Glen likes the series.
Report this comment
IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:45amDid you have a bad opinion before you even started watching? If you did you would not understand please Read the Book.
Report this comment
WayneXs
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:47amI couldn’t agree more with Jezreel’s comments. I saw exactly the same things and turned the channel in disgust.
Report this comment
Exrepublisheep
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:04amJEZREEL, you’re complaining about silly technicalities. Sarah was old when she got pregnant wasn’t she? Don’t let arguments like “What color were Jesus’ eyes” distract you from the solid, main message which was done correctly in the show. The destruction of sodom was amazingly represented in a theatrical way I found to be exciting and almost illuminating. Someone else’s point of view on specifics in no way invalidates the greater message. Who cares if the Angels in sodom cut down the denizens with swords in a “chinese movie” style, which I found invigorating and almost applauded to, or just blinded the masses like in the Heston flick? Give it another shot.
Report this comment
V-MindMeld
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:17amI agree on most of your points ,but feel its a worthy cause for non believers to see,,hopefully it will spark and interest for them in which they may grow. Its not for those of us who are a little more Biblically educated. We got to keep the show in perspective,,,, a lot watch who have never given the Bible a second thought, thats all im saying here :)
Report this comment
The Big Mick
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:42amYour opinion is noted and…..appropriately….respected…JR.
I disagree.
I lay claim to a certain amount of “street cred” as Critic here due to a Divinity degree from Duke and some study in film UNDER Christian Professors at Regent U. (Robertson’s old CBNU)
Report this comment
The Big Mick
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:49aminteresting enough, I’m with exsheep; and not Jez and wayne on this.
like I say elsewhere Wesley’s “Plundering the Egyptians”. sift for the seeds, let the chaff blow away.
My take away is that Nomadic Bronze Age Life is HARD on women.
Report this comment
AvengerK
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:17amMy problem with the production was that it went politically correct during the sequence in Sodom. Ignoring the silliness of the angels doing wu shu moves on the Sodomites, the production entirely left out the part where the men of sodom are demanding Lot turn over the angels/men in his house so that they can rape them. Additionally…Lot in a desperate attempt to redeem 50 people in Sodom and avoid the twin cities’ destruction, offers his own daughters to the Sodomites so that they can have sex with women instead of men and the Sodomites still wanted the men. This was important in showing just how depraved Sodom and Gomorrah had truly become. Instead the production watered down the sequence in a foolish attempt to avoid a backlash from Gay Inc.
Report this comment
Don
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:52am@JezzyReel
Ok FIRST of all Jezzy GET OVER YOURSELF. The show wasn’t perfect what did you expect? Its Hollywood for Pete sake. I knew they weren’t going to be exact but watched it anyway so as to give comment should I have chosen to do so. But for you to lash out at others for not meeting your standard of spirituality is whats disgusting!! You are arrogant, Rude, Obnoxious and your the PROBLEM and getting in GODS way of reaching the lost. YOU sir better get a hold of yourself before God Himself deals with you. YOU are whats WRONG with Christianity, YOU are filled with pride and self conceit. Every time I talk to someone who hates Christians and Christianity they point to hateful people LIKE YOU, who turn them away. Jesus NEVER would turn them away OR treat these folks the way you do. YOU and people LIKE you deserve whats coming. I for one reject YOU and your Christianity. Jesus is MY God and KING not Christianity NO YOU. YOU sir have been rebuked.
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:06pmI agree with JEZ, especially about Beck.
DON, you sound more like the self-righteous bigot.
Report this comment
HYPNOTOAD
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:03pmHi Jezreel: I DVR it but haven’t watched it yet. The last couple of weeks I’ve read Genesis through Judges and It’s is all fresh in my mind. I really don’t want to get mad watching the secular History channel screw up the Word of God.
Report this comment
txblaze
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:19pmJez: My husband noticed the same thing about Sarai and they did get the exchange between Abram and Lot wrong. Abram initiated the conversation and asked Lot to choose what land he wanted. He didn’t beg Lot to stay. That is fairly clear in scripture – if they are going to pick and choose what stories to tell they should have stayed true to the Biblical accounts with the ones they chose to tell about. After seeing how they have condensed much of the narrative, I wonder what they are going to do with the book of Revelation.
Report this comment
avlmac
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:26pmPlease tell me what you, personally, are doing to create an interest in God’s Word among those who don’t know the Scriptures — I mean besides spewing vitriol all over those who have invested of their one time and treasure to do just that.
Report this comment
girlnurse
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:02pmI am taping it and enjoying it. So far I have only watched an hour of it. I did get annoyed the way Abraham was begging Lot to stay and constantly looking for him. I am wondering what was the purpose of writing it that way??? I mean you can take liberties with the Titanic and other stuff but why change the Bible? Having said all that, I like it, I can appreciate it and I know the bible so I am able to deflect the inaccuracies. I haven’t yet seen anything that would impede someone from coming to know the Lord and I do believe the directors and producers have good intentions. Nothing is perfect in this world. We should celebrate their efforts UNLESS they take huge liberties and change something that would change and destroy the word and/or blaspheme Gods word. I haven’t seen that yet.
Report this comment
checkingbothsides
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:05pmAs an atheist, it cracks me up when one sect of Christianity refers to another sects stories as “fairy tales.” The irony, it hurts!
Report this comment
HOOT_OWL
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:50pmJezreel
Thank you for your comment .In a world that is willing to except a watered down version , because that’s the only way to get the message out ,is pathetic. We are living in a time when people would rather re-define sin so they don’t have to deal with it.
I have seen better sci-fi movies that depicted the Bible and our God ‘in a better light’ .
At least they didn’t try and makeThe God of the Universe into some kind of glory-Lite-diety .
That does questionable miracles with a high voice.
And I beg to differ with the rest of people commenting here on this story .
On how this movie will be some kind of introduction to the lost souls.
On the contrary ..I think this movie will be detrimental to someone,
that has never known about the Bible and our God..
If I NEVER knew God…I would think to myself .
Who would want to believe in a… God or Bible ..“This movie portrays” .!
Depicting him(GOD)….As nothing more than a figment of Abrahams imagination.
Report this comment
HOOT_OWL
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 3:01pmThis part of my comment (above) should have been read as one paragraph .
“I have seen better sci-fi movies that depicted the Bible and our God ‘in a better light’ .
At least they (sci-fi movies) didn’t try and make The God of the Universe into some kind
of glory-Lite-diety ..That does questionable miracles with a high voice.”
Report this comment
IndyGuy
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:17am“”After producer Mark Burnett and his wife, actress Roman Downey “”.
I had no idea Burnett married a roman…
Report this comment
Exrepublisheep
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:50amNice catch.
Report this comment
Mike Opelka
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:27amD’oh! Thank you. #nosleep
Report this comment
Victory Not Vengeance
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 3:17pmFor those with longish memories, Roma Downey played Monica in “Touched By an Angel” years ago. I loved that show, and I admit I cried a lot, but the angels in TBAA were generally long on the love and sort of short on the warrior ethos. So part of me is wondering if Roma Downey is making up for missing angelic power with some of the sequences here.
That’s the problem I have with a lot of depictions of angels these days: they’re either too light and fluffy, or they focus entirely on the spiritual warrior side while saying little of how immensely loving angels are. There aren’t that many in the arts–visual, theatrical, whatever–that even try to depict both sides of the coin. Angels are EITHER kick-butt macho warriors, OR borderline metro milquetoasts. It’s not either-or: it’s both. I’m sure there are plenty of members of the US Military who could personally attest to the idea of a warrior that is fearless and deadly, but still loving and compassionate.
So why doesn’t Hollywood “get” that about the heavenly host?
Report this comment
napari
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:14amNone of you noticed all the commercials that were aired??? I’m surprised! I was looking forward to another rendition of Bible stories and enjoyed the showing but the commercial laden presentation really encroached on my enjoyment!
The Viking presentation was advertised at practically commercial free! I really feel like I was stepped on and used to pay for the Viking presentation. Which I had absolutely no interest in watching! Viking fans got preferential treatment and Bible fans paid the price!! Yes I am dissatisfied and tired of getting treated badly…..Aren’t you??
Report this comment
napari
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:25amNote that in my area the local paper Tampa Bay Times spotlighted the Viking presentation and the Bible presentation barely got an honorable mention! Since the rag is weighted heavy left I’m not surprised but it doesn’t let the History Channel off the hook for using my time unfairly. I may not watch the rest of the series.
Report this comment
IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:26amSomebody has to pay for the production and it was well worth it and I will continue to watch the rest of the series.
Report this comment
IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:27amI remember when cable first started there was no commercials and we paid for the cable service.
Report this comment
Jezreel
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:03amIMACHRISTIAN: Do you ever read the bible? Are you a Roman Catholic or a person that sits in a pew week after week that never reads their bible and never comes to truly know God. If you know God, you know his word as his name is called the word of God. The old testament is the new testament concealed, the new testament is the old testament revealed. Watching this series will keep you a spiritual moron and keep you spiritually destitute.
PoliticalHeathen
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:25am“Viking fans got preferential treatment and Bible fans paid the price!!”
You Christians need to find some sort of vicitimization don’t you? Actually the time slot for Vikings sucks because it’s right after Walking Dead and by then normal Americans are going to bed, but then again what does it matter with DVRs, iTunes and whatever else. You complain about this, but yet Christians in the MidEast are getting their heads lobbed off. I bet they wish they only had it THIS bad as you poor American Christians have it.
Report this comment
IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:15pmJez……”People may doubt what you say, but they will always believe what you do”"
Yes, I do read the Bible and I am unsure why you made that comment but have a good day and God Bless.
Report this comment
girlnurse
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:58pmGlad I have dvr. I could never sit through commercials any more after having it!
Report this comment
Belloc
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:07amNo indication at all that the sin of Sodom was SODOMY.
I’ll not be watching the rest.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:20am@Belloc
“No indication at all that the sin of Sodom was SODOMY.”
Likely because it wasn’t the reason Sodom was destroyed. Ezekiel 16:49-50. “49 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
Sexual immorality (of all stripes) was but one of the sins of S&G, and not the main reason for their destruction. This is why listening to a pastor or watching a TV miniseries is no substitute for actually reading the Bible :-)
HOOT_OWL
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:46amGenesis 19: 5
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men who came in to you this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Report this comment
tmill
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:16amLocked
I quote Jude 1:7 ” as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them in a similiar manner to these having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengence of eternal fire.” Sounds like it was homosexuality that caused it to me!!
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:34am@Tmill
Actually, it sounds like sexual immorality (like I said). And as I also said: it was only one of the sins – unless you’re saying the Bible is wrong? If so, I don’t know if we’ll see eye-to-eye.
Report this comment
The Big Mick
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:00amlocked.
yeah, ONE, but I balk at “not the main reason” the NARRATIVE pericope of Genesis 19 makes is CLEAR the “kick off” for the “incoming” was the attempted Homosexual Gang Rape of the “two angels”.
No other exegesis of the text is possible without doing it violence. Whole point to the “take my two virgin DAUGHTERS instead.”
There can be no other point to the story’s inclusion than to illustrate A CENTRAL “evil” OF Sodom.
Report this comment
Chazael
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:07am@Locked
Another case of selective reading.
If you read your Ezekiel passage it tells of some sins of Sodom and her daughters in v.49 and continues into v.50.
One can either take the list as a whole (which you are doing) or see the sins in v.49 as being encompassed with the description “haughty” in v.50.
And then in v. 50 you culminate with “and committed abominations before Me” or as you are putting it “did detestable things before me”. Which in turn was the reason that God removed them.
All that is debatable within the passage of Ezekiel.
What is not debatebale is the passage in Jude which describes the punishment as a result of gross immorality and the going after strange flesh. Which confirms the progression interpretation of the Ezekiel passage.
If Jude can ascribe the punishment to gross immorality and going after strange flesh (all sexual sins) without mentioning any other sins…. why can’t you?
TMill isn’t off the mark, you are.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:18pm@Chazael
“What is not debatebale is the passage in Jude which describes the punishment as a result of gross immorality and the going after strange flesh.”
What part of “Sexual immorality (of all stripes) was but one of the sins of S&G, and not the main reason for their destruction” did you forget to read?
“If Jude can ascribe the punishment to gross immorality and going after strange flesh (all sexual sins) without mentioning any other sins…. why can’t you? ”
I did. Please learn to read instead of putting words in my mouth.
“All that is debatable within the passage of Ezekiel.”
You may play fast and loose with the Bible and discount Ezekiel. I’ll joyfully correct you :-)
Report this comment
Chazael
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:37pm@ Locked
That is what you wrote:
“Sexual immorality (of all stripes) was but one of the sins of S&G, and not the main reason for their destruction.”
So once again, if Jude can say that gross immorality and going after strange flesh is the reason for destruction (ie., the main reason) why can’t you?
Report this comment
Chazael
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:43pm@ Locked
I forgot to add, what I wrote was not playing “fast and loose” with Ezekiel. That is the explanation of it.
-You can argue that point just using Ezekiel. But as i stated ‘just’ using Ezekiel that can be debatable.
-Adding in more scripture, in this case Jude, it prohibits the interpretation you ascribe to it as one can point to the reasons only the given by Jude for the destruction of Sodom. In other words, the others sins listed in Ezekiel do not have to be given for the destruction.
Hence your selctive reading… again.
Report this comment
HYPNOTOAD
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:09pmWow BELLOC: Have you ever read the Bible?
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:12pm@Chazael
“You can argue that point just using Ezekiel. But as i stated ‘just’ using Ezekiel that can be debatable.”
I am not “just” using Ezekiel. Ezekiel doesn’t even specifically mention sexual immorality. That you think Ezekiel is “debatable” but not Jude shows your bias and does not reflect the truth of the Bible. You selectively choose to believe in some parts, and not the others. I disagree with doing so – hence why the obvious answer is that sexual immorality was part (but not the only) reason S&G were destroyed.
“-Adding in more scripture, in this case Jude, it prohibits the interpretation you ascribe to it as one can point to the reasons only the given by Jude for the destruction of Sodom. In other words, the others sins listed in Ezekiel do not have to be given for the destruction.”
Actually, adding in more Scripture does the exact opposite and proves my point :-) If you say “sexual immorality was the reason for S&G’s destruction,” and then add in “threatening to rape angels was the reason for S&G’s destruction,” and then add in “being haughty, not caring for the needy, and doing detestable things was the reason for S&G’s destruction,” it’s foolish to pick only one of those and say “See? This right here is the reason why! Let’s ignore the rest, la la la.”
Hence why I said: “Sexual immorality (of all stripes) was but one of the sins of S&G, and not the main reason for their destruction.” Read your Bible!
Report this comment
Chazael
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:33pmYou never answered the question.
So once again, if Jude can say that gross immorality and going after strange flesh is the reason for destruction without mentioning anything else (ie., the main reason) why can’t you?
As for Ezekiel, I can account for every word in Ezekiel, ignoring nothing.Pointing out an order for the progressions of sins, leading to the abominations (where the gross immorality and going after strange flesh of Jude comes in Ezekiel) does not ignore anything. Its the same type of progression talked about in Rom 1 and the same type of progression we see in our country. As I already stated, the “Therefore I removed them when I saw it.” can either apply to the whole (v.49,50) or apply to the abominations, which resulted from the previous sins.
So instead of writing around the question (and hence answering nothing) answer the question:
So once again, if Jude can say that gross immorality and going after strange flesh is the reason for destruction without mentioning anything else (ie., the main reason) why can’t you?
If you would like a hint… if Jude can say it, only referring to gross immorality and going after strange flesh as the reason for destruction…. so can we.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:51pm@Chazael
“if Jude can say that gross immorality and going after strange flesh is the reason for destruction without mentioning anything else (ie., the main reason) why can’t you?”
I really don’t know what to say to make you read my words. I said that sexual immorality was ONE of the sins responsible for S&G destruction. I’ve said it…
Wait, let me count…
Six times (and referred to it one more). If you can’t see it by this point, you simply aren’t reading or are trolling.
You are the one who is discounting the words of Ezekiel as “debatable. I repeat: if you have three different passages about the destruction of S&G, why do you say that it’s only sexual immorality that is the cause? Why not the attempted rape of angels, or the several sins listed in Ezekiel? Why do you ignore Genesis and Ezekiel and point to Jude alone?
“Pointing out an order for the progressions of sins, leading to the abominations (where the gross immorality and going after strange flesh of Jude comes in Ezekiel) does not ignore anything.”
Well, it’s picking and choosing what part of the Bible you want :-) If the Bible says “This happened for reasons A, B, and C,” you saying “it’s because of B! All because of B!” is definitely subjectively reading the Bible.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:05pm@Chazael
Referring back to ““if Jude can say that gross immorality and going after strange flesh is the reason for destruction without mentioning anything else (ie., the main reason) why can’t you?””… let’s put it another way.
I’m saying that green is made up of both yellow and blue. You’re saying that I’m at fault for not saying it’s only blue. I’m saying that’s calling green blue is factually incorrect, and the only reason you’d even argue that is because you have some biased reason for only seeing blue and ignoring the yellow.
Report this comment
Chazael
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:15pm@ Locked
You wrote:
“if you have three different passages about the destruction of S&G, why do you say that it’s only sexual immorality that is the cause? Why not the attempted rape of angels, or the several sins listed in Ezekiel? Why do you ignore Genesis and Ezekiel and point to Jude alone?”
No where have I ignored Genesis or Ezekiel. Pointing to the sins listed in Ezekiel does not invalidate what I have been saying. They are incorporated into the explanation just fine. Which is shown because you don’t point to my argument showing where I have ignored them, but rather just keep pointing to them. There is no necessity to that. I have in fact shown how it could be otherwise. Pointing 6 times or a 100 times won’t change anything.
And Genesis, as pointed to above by another poster, only supports the attempted rape of the angels and Lott (19:5,9) as the confirmation (reason) for destruction (Gen 18:21).
Report this comment
Chazael
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:18pm@ Locked
(Cont.)
You also wrote:
“Well, it’s picking and choosing what part of the Bible you want :-) If the Bible says “This happened for reasons A, B, and C,” you saying “it’s because of B! All because of B!” is definitely subjectively reading the Bible.”
That is the whole point… the Bible does not say it happened for A, B, and C. There is absolutely no necessity in interpreting Ezekiel in the manner you do.
There is however necessity in that Jude can, and DID/DOES say that the reason for the destruction was gross immorality and the going after of strange flesh.
So we are right back at the question you have refused to answer and cannot answer with the position you hold as you would actually disagree and chide Jude for saying it:
If Jude can say that gross immorality and going after strange flesh is the reason for destruction without mentioning anything else (ie., the main reason) why can’t you?
I’ll respond when you actually answer the question.
If that does not come… have a good day.
Report this comment
Chazael
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:27pm@ Locked
This response had not loaded yet when I replied. You wrote:
“I’m saying that green is made up of both yellow and blue. You’re saying that I’m at fault for not saying it’s only blue. I’m saying that’s calling green blue is factually incorrect, and the only reason you’d even argue that is because you have some biased reason for only seeing blue and ignoring the yellow.”
The whole point is Jude does not call it green for the reason. No where can you use green as the base color for the reason why Sodom was destroyed, because there is no necessity in the text to call it that color… none. It can (and has been) shown to have other valid interpretations. Hence, no necessity.
Keeping with your analogy, Jude says it is blue for the reason for destruction. And you keep wanting to correct Jude to say no its green, because the other color yellow must be added.
The color green only exists in one possible interpretation of Ezekiel, which then falls apart when other scripture is added.
Jude says it was blue for the reason, and so can we
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:32pm@Chazael
“Pointing to the sins listed in Ezekiel does not invalidate what I have been saying.”
No, you saying they’re “debatable” certainly invalidates what the Bible clearly says. You’re saying the SOLE reason S&G were destroyed was due to sexual immorality; but Ezekiel explicitly says that was not the sole reason S&G were destroyed. Your response? Ezekiel is debatable.
You’re picking and choosing what to believe to fit your own bias.
“They are incorporated into the explanation just fine.”
Not remotely. You’re saying that sexual immorality “incorporates” just fine into not caring for the poor? For being unconcerned with the welfare of others? For being haughty?
You’re changing the Bible to fit your own agenda. I refuse to do so.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:39pm@Chazael
“That is the whole point… the Bible does not say it happened for A, B, and C. There is absolutely no necessity in interpreting Ezekiel in the manner you do.”
Well, except where Ezekiel says “Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” That seems like a pretty convincing reason to go “Oh, I guess those sins were the reason for S&G being destroyed”!
“If Jude can say that gross immorality and going after strange flesh is the reason for destruction without mentioning anything else (ie., the main reason) why can’t you?”
Because Ezekiel doesn’t even mention sexual immorality but gives several other sins as the reason for destroyed Sodom. Why can’t you admit it?
“The color green only exists in one possible interpretation of Ezekiel, which then falls apart when other scripture is added.”
Ezekiel is false because you want it to be? Sorry, it’s “debatable?” I disagree. When you have two explanations for something in the Bible, the proper response isn’t “I choose A, not B.” It’s “both A and B are valid.” It IS a very good exercise to ask yourself why you’re throwing out B, though. It’s a revelation of your biases.
You’ve just admitted that you want to ignore parts of the Bible for your own agenda. Again, that’s not a path I choose to follow.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:41pm@Chazael
“Jude says it was blue for the reason, and so can we”
And Ezekiel says it was yellow. And Genesis says it was a different color as well. Perhaps using a rainbow as an analogy would have been better… but it would have been a distraction based upon the subject matter :-)
Report this comment
Chazael
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 3:05pm@Locked
Your response to the question:
“Because Ezekiel doesn’t even mention sexual immorality but gives several other sins as the reason for destroyed Sodom. Why can’t you admit it?”
Gross immorality and going after strange flesh falls very nicely and appropriately within “committed abominations” in Ezekiel.
And you are making the same mistake (logical mistake) once again. There is no necessity in what you are arguing for in Ezekiel… none. Because there are other, valid interpretations. Other valid interpretations does not mean ignore words. The valid part necessarily means that.
Now that your answer has been shown to be faulty, please try again to answer.
Why can Jude point to gross immorality and going after strange flesh, without referring to any other sins, for the destruction of Sodom…. when you say that can’t be done?
Here is another hint. Jude says (A) you are saying (~A). We have a contradiction and I know Jude is right…
Perfect example of where you are going wrong logically:
“Well, except where Ezekiel says “Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” That seems like a pretty convincing reason to go “Oh, I guess those sins were the reason for S&G being destroyed”!”
That part of the verse can either be applied to whole list of sins OR to the abominations with the other sins being a list of what led to those abominations.
Report this comment
Chazael
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 3:13pm@Locked
(Cont.)
Another great example:
“Ezekiel is false because you want it to be?”
No, your interpretation of Ezekiel is false…. Until you can show your interpretation is necessarily true, you can’t logically argue the way you are and still have a valid argument.
“You’ve just admitted that you want to ignore parts of the Bible for your own agenda. Again, that’s not a path I choose to follow.”
Please show where I have ignored a part of scripture? I haven’t I have explained the passage we are referring to… you haven’t pointed to my explanation one time to show how it was false. Just claiming I ignore something does not make it so. You are insisting your interpreation is necessary, when it has been shown to not be.
The necessity comes in with Jude where what you are claiming contradicts Jude… You cannpt answer the question without either throwing out your argument or throwing what Jude says out.
Pick one.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 4:41pm@Chazael
“There is no necessity in what you are arguing for in Ezekiel… none. Because there are other, valid interpretations.”
I personally don’t see your “other interpretation” as valid because it blatantly ignores the text of the Bible. You’re picking and choosing which Scripture you consider “valid.”
“Why can Jude point to gross immorality and going after strange flesh, without referring to any other sins, for the destruction of Sodom…. when you say that can’t be done?”
Because you need to ignore the Bible’s words to do so.
“No, your interpretation of Ezekiel is false…”
As I said, if you can look at the words and say “Eh, they don’t REALLY mean that,” then you’re changing the Bible to suit your own needs. I disagree with doing so. We won’t see eye-to-eye on this.
“Until you can show your interpretation is necessarily true, you can’t logically argue the way you are and still have a valid argument.”
So, pointing to the text in Ezekiel and saying “This is what it says” is not valid, but pointing to Jude and saying the same is? No. You’re purposely calling part of the text “debatable” and another part “true” so that it fits with your bias. I’m saying it’s all true, and there’s an easy way to rectify them saying different sins were to blame for S&G – that it was all sins. Not by ignoring the ones you don’t want, as you continue to do. You ignore all of Ezekiel 16:49 and half of 50 to get your “interpretation.”
Report this comment
Chazael
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 5:12pm@ Locked
I guess we’ll use #’s so we can boil this down to a conclusion.
1)”I personally don’t see your “other interpretation” as valid because it blatantly ignores the text of the Bible. You’re picking and choosing which Scripture you consider “valid.” ”
and
“Not by ignoring the ones you don’t want, as you continue to do. You ignore all of Ezekiel 16:49 and half of 50 to get your “interpretation.”
If it is blatant, then you can sure show it…. but you haven’t. So for #1 show how the interpretation is invalid.
2) Part of what I wrote “No, your interpretation of Ezekiel is false…”
To which you responded:
“As I said, if you can look at the words and say “Eh, they don’t REALLY mean that,” then you’re changing the Bible to suit your own needs. I disagree with doing so. We won’t see eye-to-eye on this.”
It is not me looking at your words and making a subjective call. I have already admitted that how you are interpreting Ezekiel is one of two ways how that passage can be interpreted (if you only look at Ezekiel). The necessity of making the claim that your interpretation is false comes from adding in Jude which contradicts your interpretation. So no I am not changing anything to suit my needs…. but following what is written. One of us has to deal with a contradiction to our claims and its not me.
Report this comment
Chazael
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 5:20pm@ Locked
(Cont.)
3)This one is the best. My question:
“Why can Jude point to gross immorality and going after strange flesh, without referring to any other sins, for the destruction of Sodom…. when you say that can’t be done?”
And your reply:
“Because you need to ignore the Bible’s words to do so.”
So Jude must ignore the Bible’s words to claim what he did… you don’t see the inherent contradiction you are dealing with here?
If Jude claimed it, so can anyone else…. and it is true. What he claimed, what is written in Jude contradicts your interpretation of Ezekiel.
So you have to either disavow Jude or disavow your interpretation.
Either Jude is wrong or you are wrong… there is no middle. The only way out of that is to show that what I am claiming Jude said is not what in fact Jude said… but you haven’t. You have embraced it and tried to place it within your explanation… but it is an inherent contradiction and so cannot work within your explanation.
You are trying to say all the verses make a big panorama and we don’t get the full picture without all of them. Jude won’t let you do that because it makes a claim, a claim which you say is not possible within your panorama:
That gross immorality and going after strange flesh was the reason for the destruction of Sodom. It doesn’t add to your picture, it rips off the part of the panorama that contradicts it. It makes your interpretation of Ezekiel… false.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 6:01pm@Chazael
1. “If it is blatant, then you can sure show it…”
Sure. Ezekiel clearly says why Sodom was destroyed. You say it’s debatable. That’s blatantly ignoring Scripture.
2. “I have already admitted that how you are interpreting Ezekiel is one of two ways how that passage can be interpreted (if you only look at Ezekiel).”
Your “interpretation” involves ignoring the actual text. You wave away all the sins as “debatable” (even when they’re in the same sentence!) and pretend that “detestable things” is equivalent to homosexuality (don’t use the KJV “abomination;” it’s a terrible translation, as you well know!). I don’t know how to make it any more obvious to you. Look at the Scripture and go “Do I take this at face value, or do I wave it away”?
3. “So Jude must ignore…”
Bzzzzt. Wrong from the start. No, you’re ignoring EZEKIEL, not Jude. I have already said several times that Jude points to sexual immorality as a reason for destroying S&G. Ezekiel says it was several sins. To me, that obviously means that BOTH are right – it was S&G committing all these sins. To you, it means only Jude is correct and Ezekiel was wrong.
“Either Jude is wrong or you are wrong… there is no middle.”
False. I already gave you a third option: both are right. You keep saying “Jude is right!” but you won’t say the same for Ezekiel. BOTH can be right! Green has blue and also yellow! But you ignore that conclusion because of your biases.
Report this comment
Chazael
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 6:38pm@ Locked My replies within ( ) (I used the wrong format for my 1st replies).
1. Sure. Ezekiel clearly says why Sodom was destroyed. You say it’s debatable. That’s blatantly ignoring Scripture.
(Nothing supporting your assertion, accept emotion= crickets)
2. Your “interpretation” involves ignoring the actual text. You wave away all the sins as “debatable” (even when they’re in the same sentence!) and pretend that “detestable things” is equivalent to homosexuality (don’t use the KJV “abomination;” it’s a terrible translation, as you well know!). I don’t know how to make it any more obvious to you. Look at the Scripture and go “Do I take this at face value, or do I wave it away”?
(It doesn’t matter if you want to use abomination or detestable things, the description used by Jude fits just fine. Do you really want to claim gross immorality doesn’t fit with detestable things? Really?)
(Once again, an unbacked claim = crickets)
3. “So Jude must ignore…”
Bzzzzt. Wrong from the start. No, you’re ignoring EZEKIEL, not Jude. I have already said several times that Jude points to sexual immorality as a reason for destroying S&G. Ezekiel says it was several sins. To me, that obviously means that BOTH are right – it was S&G committing all these sins. To you, it means only Jude is correct and Ezekiel was wrong.
(Once again… your interpretation of Ezekiel… which you still haven’t defended.)
(Claims made without support = cri
Report this comment
Chazael
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 6:42pm@ Locked
(Cont.)(Some responses were left out, like the previous one where all were left out).
“Either Jude is wrong or you are wrong… there is no middle.”
False. I already gave you a third option: both are right. You keep saying “Jude is right!” but you won’t say the same for Ezekiel. BOTH can be right! Green has blue and also yellow! But you ignore that conclusion because of your biases.
(That is because Ezekiel has 2 possible interpretations… Jude has 1. Notice I have never argued from the Ezekiel passage, because there is no necessity there. The necessity has to come outside of it, like Jude.)
(Saying both are right without any supporting argument = crickets)
1) crickets
2) crickets
3) crickets
I have laid out not only why you are wrong based upon the scripture, but also in the logic of your argument. I laid it out so you could respond with actual support. All I got was “I am right, you are wrong” which as I have pointed out is saying nothing at all in regards to an argument.
Since you are not arguing with scripture, facts and logic, but rather emotion about the scriptures and unsupported claims about the text this conversation is over.
Have a good day.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 6:56pm@Chazael
“That is because Ezekiel has 2 possible interpretations”
So does Jude. It could be the ONLY sin was sexual immorality – or it was just the only sin mentioned there. We KNOW other sins were given as reasons but you ignore them as “debatable” without giving any true reason besides “because I say so.” As I’ve said several times: it’s your choice to ignore Scripture and pick and choose what you want. I simply hope you look at your scrapbooking activities and ask yourself “Why do I feel this way?”
“Since you are not arguing with scripture, facts and logic, but rather emotion about the scriptures and unsupported claims about the text this conversation is over.”
Well if I can’t get you to stick to the actual text, I agree the conversation is over. I’ll read my Bible as it is written, you’ll ignore Ezekiel and focus solely on Jude, and we’ll have to agree to disagree. God bless, and best of luck!
Report this comment
thegodfather
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:06amBravo, seeing the success of this, has announced a new series, “The Real Housewives of the Bible”. Nene of the Atalanta series, has already signed on to play Lott’s wife.
Report this comment
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:01am.
The Bible should be #1…..Can’t wait for part 2…….
Report this comment
HOOT_OWL
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:59amCecil B DeMille He’s not. It was brutal and painful . I had to turn it off after lots wife turned into a salt shaker. Depicting God as GLORY-LITE was one of my biggest turn-offs.
Also:
Brought to you by…
Anyone see the commercial spot ,where the queer was advocating against ‘hate speech’.
Report this comment
IndyGuy
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:27amBlame the ads on the History channel….The producers of the movie are not the ones responsible.They merely produce the series and sell it to History for airing…If you don’t like the commercials,DVR it and FFWD thru them…
Report this comment
HigherRoad
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:57amI’m with you! Cecil B. DeMille was the master of the Biblical epic. I was disappointed that this version attempted to tone down God’s miracles. Most of the time, Abraham’s conversations with God were depicted as hearing voices. That just reinforces the idea many non-believers have that the ancient prophets did not really speak to God but just imagined their conversations. On a positive note, if this will encourage others to read their Bibles, then it will have served some purpose. God’s Word is not politically correct–Truth seldom is–and I was disappointed that this presentation tried to mask God’s message to His people regarding the consequences of sin. What generation needs to hear that message more than today’s?
Report this comment
Verceofreason
Posted on March 6, 2013 at 1:29amI’m surprise they didn’t have Pam Anderson playing Eve.
Report this comment
Landon410
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:48amWe watched The Bible, and while it isn’t a word for word account of what happened, for what it is I don’t think it needs to be. This gives you the general idea of the stories, get people that may not know about them interested.
My wife and I talked about what was left out and the verses we knew and couldn’t remember. We then looked up the stuff we couldn’t remember.
oh, and FYI…. if an Asian Angel pulls out two swords and stares at you…. just run, cause it won’t end well for you
Report this comment
newmexicopatriots
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:21amI thought the Asian angel was awesome! Sure, the Bible does not say what an angel looks like exactly, but we do know this… God’s wrath is mighty if His will continues to be disobeyed, which is what was portrayed in this portion of the show.
Report this comment
tzion
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:28pmHere’s my question: why does every single Exodus depiction show Moses parting the Red Sea? The Hebrew name, yam suf, means Reed Sea and quite clearly there are no reeds in the Red Sea.
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:10pmRegardless, it was deep enough to swallow up Pharaoh’s entire army – horses, chariots, etc.
Report this comment
HYPNOTOAD
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:17pmTZION: You are 100% correct. Do you listen to Joseph Good & jack van impe?
Report this comment
ellietoo
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:46amI didn’t expect much from a bible movie presented by the History Channel. I did expect better from people who claim to be Christians like the producers of this movie. The bible is full of colorful history that does not require the rewrite that they gave this movie. Apparent gutless telling of biblical truths.
Report this comment
OldSurfRat
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:13amEllietoo
I did not watch so I am speaking without knowing what was said on the show.
However God can and does use all things for good.
If just one person watched this and was inspired to further their search for the truth then it was a great show.
Should we not rejoice in what this may have done and not what we may think?
I was not brought to Christ by a church or my faith but by my lack of faith and my failing life.
I once burned a bible and shook my hand at God “you are not real because if you were why would you do this to me” of course if I did not believe than who was I talking to?
This was the lowest point in my life yet it was the beginning of a relationship with God that has become the center of my life.
Don’t get me wrong I am far from perfect and will be learning until I die but I have seen good come from bad many times.
Report this comment
BlazeMom
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:16amAnd I guess you are the official “authority” on what Mark and Roma believe? Fascinating.
Report this comment
horsefeathers99
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:40amA lot of things were left out from the bible which I wished were mentioned.
As for Moses, maybe some people are comparing it to “The Ten Commandments” movie which allowed more detail.
I am looking forward to the other 4 episodes.
Report this comment
BaldingEagle1776
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:46amI love how Beck is co-opting this as some sort of victory for the Tea Party.
It’s a great show, and based on obviously the greatest story. But its ratings are no indicator of future political elections. Duh.
Zipit
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:08amReally BALDWANGO! ” But its ratings are no indicator of future political elections. Duh.” Is that all you have to bring to the conversation? Bait and antagonize! Pretty lame attempt, there sparky!!!
Better refer to your bible! Rule for radicals! It’s more in your mental wheelhouse!!!!
BaldingEagle1776
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:32amSettle down, Zipit. It’s too early to get yourself so worked up.
Zipit
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:04amGerk!! Maybe that is how he makes the big troll bucks he’s been touting!
AvengerK
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:23amZIPIT…if the troll is to be believed..it started making it’s fortune while working as a bellhop at an imaginary hotel. Then it became an imaginary Marine, then an imaginary lawyer before finally settling down to a self professed imaginary “busy” retirement.
AvengerK
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:32amBALDINGEAGLE/WANGO/YOURSENSEI…would you please control your flatulence?
Exidor
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:44amI watched it twice. I thought it was great. I can’t wait for next Sunday!
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:42am“After producer Mark Burnett and his wife, actress ROMAN Downey”
*** *** ***. Roma Downey. Someone forgot their coffee before posting this morning!
I don’t have cable, but I’ll likely look it up online later. How did everyone find it?
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:00amHuh, interesting that that onomatopoeia was censored. Let’s replace it with “dun dun dun”
Report this comment
galicant wiseword
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:41amHad to record it for sometime this week. I am interested in what each of you that watched it thought. Did it have any obvious Biblical inaccuracies?
Report this comment
Landon410
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:55amwell it didn’t include everything, so in that way yes…… it skipped out on moses breaking the first set up commandents because of sin/golden calf etc…..
there were some things with the burning bush, shoes etc….
but i don’t think for what this show is, that it needs those in it. If someone watches this who doesn’t know God, they might do some research (read the bible)
so those of us that do know God, and these stories its fun to watch and discuss. My wife and I discussed the stories as they were being shown.
Report this comment
Just_Us2
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:04pmThe one inaccuracy that detracted from God’s power was the crossing of the Red Sea. Exodus 14:29
But the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left.
The show portrayed the Israelites getting soaked in what appeared to be a very dark driving rain. Nothing dry about that ground. If God has the power to split the sea, he can make the sun shine and the ground dry. Why create a dramatic rain storm, having people cross in darkness, rain, needing torches…all that production expense when the bible says dry ground?
But…..they did cross….they were set free….the show is sticking to the higher story that God loves his people. There are inaccuracies here and there but to someone being exposed to the bible for the first time, I think the inaccuracies are meaningless. If it spurs them to read their bible then mission accomplished. If they fail to read their bibles, it will not be because of this show.
Report this comment
woodyee
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:41amIt was an excellent debut! I can’t wait for next Sunday!
But having missed the first ‘few’ minutes, I defer to ZAP’S observation with a bit of sadness, because the Incident at the Garden of Eden is paramount to understanding good vs evil, and Man’s PERSONAL responsibility.
Report this comment
kaydeebeau
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:48amOrginal sin was covered in the first few minutes – showed Eve eating the fruit – talked about disobeying God – went on to talk about man’s moral slide and God needing to cleanse the earth thus the Flood – Noah was doing the telling from the belly of the Ark – didn’t go into lots of detail llike that as mentioned by Zap but it was covered….
Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:52amI have it recorded Woody, but haven’t watched it yet. I hear it didn’t start with creation and Adam and Eve, is that true?
Report this comment
woodyee
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:58amThank you, Kaydee!
Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:02amThanks Kay. I guess the person that told me that missed the first few minutes. Can’t wait to watch it.
Report this comment
G.E.R
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:41amThe movie was just as horrible and poorly written as the book.
galicant wiseword
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:42amAs if you even bothered to watch it troll.
Report this comment
woodyee
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:46amI just went and read your profile.
Man, you are one exceptionally miserable human, being aren’t you…
With the exception of one self-congratulatory paragraph, everything else is a negative. Go psss on yourself.
Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:49amLike you ever read the book.
Report this comment
G.E.R
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:29amYou self professed christians are funny. You’re as good as world allows to be and truth is that moment the chips are down you’ll eat each other up like dogs.
barber2
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:03amG>E>R>: And you atheists are so angry and negative.
Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:13amAn example please.
Report this comment
AvengerK
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:30pmyes indeed G.E.R. like those staunchly humanist/secular constructs Marxism and Communism who are the “intellectual” bible for what resulted in the countless hundreds of millions of deaths and incarcerations of our fellow human beings. Why..the Chinese still have gulags.
Report this comment
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:41am.
Wow! How on Earth did Obama let God be #1?……
Report this comment
OldSurfRat
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:37amPeople are hungry for truth.
They have been lied too for so long by the government and by false teachers that they just want to be fed.
Hope this show does that for those who are looking.
Report this comment
ZAP
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:33amNever did it mention the original sin”If you eat of this tree you will know good and evil”..Translated=You will become god to yourselves..You would not need God to tell you right or wrong..You can now do that yourself..The original lie,ME ME ME SELF SELF SELF,hence no love..
Report this comment
IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:41amYou have so much to learn. God helps those who helps themselves but first you have to open the Bible and then really study it hopefully with a group of believers.
Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:15amCondescending much?
Report this comment
AvengerK
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:30amZAP…it did depict the original sin and made a point of saying the tree of knowledge gave man an idea of both good and evil for the first time.
Report this comment
Wakeup Maggie
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:33amWhy wouldn’t they? No matter how hard the feds try and get rid of God…our country was founded on principles from the Bible and our people are starving for some sort of morality to be restored. Honor our Heavenly Father–it’s the only thing that will save us.
Report this comment
searcher619
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:12pmThe feds are trying to get rid of your god? Seriously..? Please show us examples of this.
Report this comment
TheCalmOne
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:50pmI though God was everywhere. If they get rid of God in the US, won’t he just pop up in Tunisia, or Fiji, or Tasmania?
Report this comment
BeeAlert
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:31amIt’s Roma Downey, not “Roman”!
Blaze, please change this pronto!
Report this comment
kaydeebeau
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:31amI was one of those millions – can’t wait for next week
Report this comment