Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, if that program is a religious one, or is purely an entertainment channel. When it is a channel calling itself "History", the standards are altered and attention must be paid to letting the viewers know that they are watching a depiction of events based on mythological accounts. Someone tuning in and seeing the Red Sea being parted, and it is happening on "The History Channel", might easily conclude that this is a depiction of actual history.
Sure, if that program is a religious one, or is purely an entertainment channel. When it is a channel calling itself "History", the standards are altered and attention must be paid to letting the viewers know that they are watching a depiction of events based on mythological accounts. Someone tuning in and seeing the Red Sea being parted, and it is happening on "The History Channel", might easily conclude that this is a depiction of actual history.
First, the kind of people that are going to watch this show and think that it's fact probably wouldn't be watching the show at all if it was going to approach the bible from a more mythical stance. So this random person who tunes into the show and sees the Red Sea parting and thinks it's an actual depiction of history likely already believed it was a part of a history or is the kind of person who's going to believe just about anything.
Second, the bible plays a massive part of human history. Personally I don't believe it but I also cannot deny that the bible and Christianity as a whole play a big part of human history over the last couple thousand years. Even though I don't believe it looks like the tv show will be interesting. Considering the part that the bible has played in history a show like this shouldn't be considered inappropriate for The History Channel. If anything, it's more applicable to actual history than many of the other shows they air.
I'm not sure I understand you. Do you mean the Bible's presentation of history is myth, or that they will present the Bible as mythical history ?
The Bible's presentation of history is in keeping with the manner in which other ancient cultures treated history, that is as a mixture of fact and fiction with nothing added to distinguish one from the other.
Roman history included the Romulus/Remus suckled by wolves claptrap, Homer's history of the Trojan war and Odysseus' journey home is full of references to the gods, Cyclops, sea monsters etc. Norse cultural history came with Thor's hammer and all that Gotterdamerung claptrap, Celtic history came with Arthur and Merlin and magic swords an dragons.
They all wrote their history this way.....that includes the Hebrews. Is is as absurd to take the supernatural events in the Bible on a literal basis as it would be to insist that there really was a Sleepy Hollow with a Headless Horseman.
First, the kind of people that are going to watch this show and think that it's fact probably wouldn't be watching the show at all if it was going to approach the bible from a more mythical stance. So this random person who tunes into the show and sees the Red Sea parting and thinks it's an actual depiction of history likely already believed it was a part of a history or is the kind of person who's going to believe just about anything.
So...the lesson is that we should gear our presentation of history for the least intelligent viewers? Because they are so likely to believe anything they are told, they should be told falsehoods?
Quote:
Considering the part that the bible has played in history a show like this shouldn't be considered inappropriate for The History Channel. If anything, it's more applicable to actual history than many of the other shows they air.
Once more your point eludes me....because the History Channel presents other nonsense, that is a good reason to present this particular nonsense? If the problem is that the channel is cranking out bad shows, shouldn't the solution be to stop doing that in favor of better shows?
I'm happy the History Channel is actually showing a show on history and they didn't turn it into Jesus, tuna fisherman pawn shop or something equally stupid like what's on their lineup now.
According to the producers, Mark Burnett of Survivor/Shark Tank fame and his wife form Touched with an Angel, you 'have' to present Bible stories as true as told. What history? She said gee there are people who don't know them. They think its wonderful that, quoting them, people will open up and read their bibles. Fine, I say. But remember, its really nothing more than ancient mythology. Like Norse or Egypt.
Do a very well done DOCUMENTARY on the bible stories, looking for evidence in history, archology, language and tell the truth. There were, for instance, a long history of those who made the same claim as "Jesus" in that time period. They became public rablerousers, they were exectued. Older stories are of course told wholly from the pov of the winner. Facts get modified. Do this documentary from the pov of someone who needs to see some scrap of evidence for the story.
That is the job of the History channel. I put this series in the same catagory as the outer space alien shows. Better for this to run on one of those cable channels where like Inspiration which show syndicated series to draw viewers who might stick around for the christan content.
Anti-cudos for Histroy channel. Shame on them.
Last edited by nightbird47; 03-01-2013 at 08:15 AM..
^^^THIS. I hope they'll show exactly what is depicted in the bible and just let people decide whether they believe it or not.
Based on the interview with the gushing producers, bent on getting all good souls to read their bibles, the only way to tell a bible story is as if its true. Meaning its religious hype. They made sure the fx were good so the younger generations who need that will watch.
They need to rename the History channel to something else and keep their higher level channels real history.
The Bible is a message, not a history. It contains some historical references many of which are in fact confirmed. My favorite example is the existence of Pontious Pilot. All the detractors claimed he could not have existed right up unil his name was fond on a cornerstone.) It also contains some interesting scientific facts which have also been confirmed. (Did you know they confirmed the world really is a Sphere?)
Your concern is the channel called the history channel is not showing things you consider sufficiently historic? Have you ever watched the history channel? There is almost no history on it. It is about people buying things, cutting down trees, fishing. . . .it would surprise me if they do not have a dating and a cooking show thrown in there somewhere, and probably a show about fashion design and people buying houses. This show is actually remarkably historcially oriented for the History channel.
Do you also insist the History Channel disclaim a show on Darwinism as nothing more than an unproved theory?
On what do you base your position the red sea was not parted? Were you there?
If its a message, go through the stories and sort out the story and the message. If its about a culture which created it, then talk about that, and use bits and pieces to illustrate. The History channel USED to have real history. It has become the mythology channel.
If you want to see it just as it was written, call it mythology. Then you should have Thor's adventures sumilarily detained. Doing this as 'real' because the producers are religious and want people to read the bible is pure and simple a sell out to those people who would prefer nobody question what they believe.
Too bad I can't tell Dish to discontinue the channel.
And its been shown nobody needed to 'part' the red sea. Extreme tides caused it to 'part' all by itself. If anyone actually used it to escape.
Certainly it could be postulated that natural events caused some sort of temporary land bridge to form and permit a crossing. But that isn't what the Bible says happened, is it? The Bible tells us that the sea was parted by Moses channeling a supernatural power and that it happened in an instant, a speed which could not be reproduced by any natural forces.
So, defending the Biblical story isn't defending some natural coincidence which facilitated the escape of the Hebrews, it is defending a supernatural event.
Think about that while you are chalking.
I saw an exploration of weather and the Red Sea on PBS a long time ago, and one of the things it would do is form temperary land bridges. IF someone got led across them once, it likely happened more than that. Presented as speculation, it would be far more interesting to think of it as Moses finding a golden opportunity to grab more power since he caused a 'miricle', which would say more about him as a human being, than claiming it was a miricle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
