The Bible : History Channel Movie.

[ChristianT]

I'm watching it, are you? I'm loving it so far.

 

[saved24]

No I am not, I do not have a satellite dish. My friend is watching it though in another town. Wish I could too. Glad you are enjoying it.

 

[Adamski]

I like the part where Jacky Chan helps Lot get out of Sodom.

 

[RDKirk]

I watched a bit, recorded it and will watch it later when I can speed through the commercials.

I caught it as the Lord was doing lunch with His good buddy Abraham. I kind of liked the way they handled that (which is my very favorite Bible story, the place where God shows the kind of day to day relationship He would like to have with us--some quality time with a servant who is also a dear friend).

I don't think the angels did all that much physical fighting in Sodom, but it does express the point that angels in the OT were not chubby babies with wings. They kind of glossed over the homosexuality issue in Sodom and as well glossed over the Hagar issue.

They did at least in narration make the point that Abraham had confidence that Hagar and Ishmael would be okay--a reference, I suspect, to the fact that Abraham had already gotten that guarantee from God on Ishamael's behalf. Even a lot of Christians seem to miss the fact that Hagar wasn't dismissed from Abraham's estate, but only from the "big tent."

From what I've seen, it's not the bible word for word, and it doesn't show things the way I would have done it, but I didn't see it doing damage to the scripture. Yet.

 

[CityOfGod]

I like the part where Jacky Chan helps Lot get out of Sodom.

I also thought that part was funny and unscriptural.

Overall I'd have to say that the show was good.

What I didn't like was how it skipped over key parts of bible history.

 

[truthislight]

i havent seen it, im sure it will be on youtube soon. But tbh i feel as though its going to have at leaat a dozen hidden agendas to go along with it for the typical walking sleep person

 

[americanvet]

I watched it last night and thought it was good, for what is was. They did skip over big chunks of the Bible that would have been nice to see. What I thought was funny was an advertisement for a book about the show that was being published. I told my wife I've had book about this show for years.

That's right they made a show about a book and then a book about the show. Books « The Bible Series The Bible Series

I'm sure it's a good book really, but it's funny.

 

[ephesians4:2]

I like the part where Jacky Chan helps Lot get out of Sodom.

He yeah they kind of stretched the truth there.

I also thought that part was funny and unscriptural.

Overall I'd have to say that the show was good.

What I didn't like was how it skipped over key parts of bible history.

I agree, it was better than I expected so I can't complain. I just hope they do Jesus justice.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I watched the first part On Demand yesterday. I liked it. I expect dramatic license to be used for anything like this, after all the aim is ultimately entertainment.

I also expect some of the more --shall we say unsavory-- bits to be left out. Notice, for example, that no mention is paid to Lot offering his daughters to try and get the angry mob off the angels/men, and especially that no mention is made to that they laid with their father thinking they were the last on earth. I was curious how they would handle some of that, and was unsurprised that they did that.

The overall point seems to be to dramatize the Bible as continuous narrative, and so far I think a good job has been done, though only one episode has aired.

Frankly I thought the rear-end-kicking angel scene to rather rad. I loved it for its rather meaningless entertainment value.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

Now that I've seen the whole first part, I think a bit less of it--sorry folks, but nobody beats Yul Brynner playing Ramses. I was mostly bugged most by the huge portions they skipped.

It's not deliberately offensive, though, and so far not revisionary. And it's much better than the cheesy stuff I've seen on TBN. I do wish they'd use people who actually look Semite, though.

But some of the animations that have come out in the last decade have actually been better.

 

[Zanting]

I haven't got a tv (I'm sure it will get uploaded), but I did see an interview on youtube with the filmmakers. They chose which parts to protray because they had to condense the OT and NT into a 10 hour production. They said they wanted to bring out the main message of the Bible to this generation. Maybe that explains some of the missing stories and entertainment value that those who have seen it are referring to.

 

[InspiredHome]

I watched the first episode . The Scriptual errors in it were glaring. That the series was recommended by Joel Osteen and Rick Warren are very telling. I couldn't stomach watching anymore.

 

[God's Fighter]

As some have stated they shied away from the Sodom account, I suppose it isn't politically correct enough for them. It bothers me as well, I've continued to watch it, but I'm annoyed with some of the revisions they've made to the bible. I'll continue to watch it to the end and see how it goes. I'm not surprised by it however.

 

[QueSi]

Is it annoying to anyone else that the whole show is in English except the writings? Why not put them in English too?

 

[BryanW92]

I watched the first episode . The Scriptual errors in it were glaring. That the series was recommended by Joel Osteen and Rick Warren are very telling. I couldn't stomach watching anymore.

What scriptural errors did you see? I saw omissions, but any retelling of a story as rich as the OT will have omissions. The only scriptural errors I saw was when God called Abraham "Abraham" when he first spoke to him and that Noah knew the creation story straight out of Genesis.

 

[RDKirk]

and that Noah knew the creation story straight out of Genesis.

Having Noah recite the creation story was novel to me, but on reflection I can't say that it wasn't something that had not been handed down orally for generations even from Adam. In fact, the more fundamentally and literally one wants to take the OT, the more likely that would be the case.

 

[InspiredHome]

A few were that Abraham sacrificed a ram, not a lamb. Pharoah was supposed to die in the Red sea. Aaron was supposed to speak not Moses. The omissions were mor glaring and I don't believe it was to cut down filming because they inserted non Biblical speculation. I could add more but I'm typing on a little phone.

 

[RDKirk]

A few were that Abraham sacrificed a ram, not a lamb. Pharoah was supposed to die in the Red sea. Aaron was supposed to speak not Moses. The omissions were mor glaring and I don't believe it was to cut down filming because they inserted non Biblical speculation. I could add more but I'm typing on a little phone.

OTOH, Cecil B DeMille's version contained all those errors and more...and is still heavily lauded by Christians.

 

[InspiredHome]

Here's a take on the series: “The Bible” History Channel Series: A Review

 

[Ecclectic79]

I have stayed up with it - entertaining, unfortunately as some people have noted it's been incredibly lossy (skipping over large swaths), seems to take liberties albeit the liberties have stayed more annoying than heretical. I am interested in seeing what they do with Solomon, IMHO one of the most interesting/unusual case-studies in biblical history.

Talking about this show always reminds me of how underrated the book of Ester is. It's like a ten-chapter Guy Ritchie movie waiting to happen. Would be great if this 10 hr series doesn't skip right over everything between Solomon and Jesus but I'm only so optimistic.