DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   TV Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/tv-talk-14/)
-   -   "The Bible" on History (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/tv-talk/609104-bible-history.html)

mrhan 03-05-13 09:28 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by Mr. Flix (Post 11600652)
I'm not a bit surprised History decided to fudge the text the way they did, to just make it seem like the men of Sodom wanted to beat up the angels. The original text is not very PC at all and History would've faced a huge backlash if they'd filmed it as written.

They should of had the balls to do it right. It is the History channel after all. They shouldn't be PC about it all and change things to please anyone. Do it right or don't do it at all. They show all the other horiffic footage from past events; so what's the big deal of filming something that is just written down? At the very least people will go to the bible to see if it is correct; which is what a few posters here are doing. Besides, there is a disclaimer at the beginning and if your not mature enough to accept what you see don't watch it at all.

Astrofan 03-05-13 09:32 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by mrhan (Post 11603244)
They should of had the balls to do it right. It is the History channel after all. They shouldn't be PC about it all and change things to please anyone. Do it right or don't do it at all. They show all the other horiffic footage from past events; so what's the big deal of filming something that is just written down? At the very least people will go to the bible to see if it is correct; which is what a few posters here are doing. Besides, there is a disclaimer at the beginning and if your not mature enough to accept what you see don't watch it at all.

In addition if you watch the greatest mini-series ever made, I, Claudius, it will show you how to put the most horrifying images into ones head without actually showing them.

mrhan 03-05-13 09:41 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by Astrofan (Post 11603248)
In addition if you watch the greatest mini-series ever made, I, Claudius, it will show you how to put the most horrifying images into ones head without actually showing them.

What I meant was that History Channel shows actual footage i.e. concentration camp films; so what's the big deal of filming something that is written down? In this case they weren't accurate with the depiction described in the bible.

wz42 03-05-13 10:19 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by mrhan (Post 11603244)
They should of had the balls to do it right. It is the History channel after all. They shouldn't be PC about it all and change things to please anyone. Do it right or don't do it at all.

Well you see that's thr beauty of it. Even when the Christian agenda punches through it'll be so basrardized and castrated it won't even matter anymore. Just another self help feel good concept.

By the time the liberal agenda is done there'll be a gay pope.

Evan Meadow 03-06-13 06:51 AM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 
Ok, now I know not to bother with this. If they're not even going to actually tell the stories the way they were written in the Bible, PC or not, that's ridiculous.

They'll say that stuff in church, but not on TV, where the only ones who would complain are the SAME people hearing it in church?

Mr. Flix 03-06-13 10:58 AM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by Evan Meadow (Post 11603514)
Ok, now I know not to bother with this. If they're not even going to actually tell the stories the way they were written in the Bible, PC or not, that's ridiculous.

They'll say that stuff in church, but not on TV, where the only ones who would complain are the SAME people hearing it in church?

Well, that's not true. If they had shown the Sodom men demanding to rape the (male) angels and then suffering God's wrath, the first people to complain would've been the gays and liberals, not church-goers.

Mr. Flix 03-06-13 11:01 AM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by Terminal (Post 11602497)
What, you believe someone turned in to a pillar of salt?

That wasn't my point. I think people of many walks -- Christians, non-Christians, historians, etc., etc., are going to be interested in this mini-series for many reasons and will want to discuss how well it's done, comment on the acting/effects, and compare its accuracy to the source material. I don't see the point in making a post simply to point out that you think it's fantasy.

Josh-da-man 03-06-13 12:58 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 
The whole point of Sodom and Gamorrah isn't about homosexuality (or rape even). It's about being a bad host.

Which sort of works on a metaphorical level. But still, the idea that Lot is willing to turn his daughters over to a gang or rapists is pretty fucked up.

I also have wonder why people get "homosexuality is bad" out of the tale. It seems less about homosexuals than having a city full or rape gangs.

mostaccioli 03-06-13 06:56 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man (Post 11603984)
The whole point of Sodom and Gamorrah isn't about homosexuality (or rape even). It's about being a bad host.

Which sort of works on a metaphorical level. But still, the idea that Lot is willing to turn his daughters over to a gang or rapists is pretty fucked up.

I also have wonder why people get "homosexuality is bad" out of the tale. It seems less about homosexuals than having a city full or rape gangs.

to protect the angels is why lot made the offer. if they were just 2 men new in town the offer would not have been made. it's really lame that the producers went and changed this story.

RocShemp 03-06-13 07:02 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by mostaccioli (Post 11604642)
to protect the angels is why lot made the offer. if they were just 2 men new in town the offer would not have been made. it's really lame that the producers went and changed this story.

It's still fucked up. It's the story of a family stuck in a city rife with sin and debauchery and God sending angels to get them out before God wiped out both Sodom and Gomorrah. However, the moment Lot made that offer, his ass should have been left in Sodom and the angels should have only attempted to rescue his wife and daughters.


In Genesis 18, three men came, thought by most commentators to have been angels appearing as men,[26] to Abram (Abraham) in the plains of Mamre.

After the angels received the hospitality of Abraham and Sarah, his wife, the LORD revealed to Abraham that he would destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, because their cry was great, "and because their sin is very grievous."[Gen 18:20] In response, Abraham inquired of the LORD if he would spare the city if 50 righteous people were found in it, to which the LORD agreed he would not destroy it for the sake of the righteous yet dwelling therein. Abraham then inquired of God for mercy at lower numbers (first 45, then 40, then 30, then 20, and finally at 10), with the LORD agreeing each time.[Gen 18:22-33][27] Two of the angels proceeded to Sodom and were met by Abraham's nephew Lot, who convinced the angels to lodge with him, and they ate with Lot.

Genesis 19:4-5 (KJV) described what followed, which confirmed its end:


4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (NRSV: know them, NIV: can have sex with them, NJB: can have intercourse with them).


Lot refused to give his guests to the inhabitants of Sodom and, instead, offered them his two virgin daughters "which have not known man" and to "do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes".[Gen 19:8] However, they refused this offer and threatened to do worse to Lot than they would have done to his guests, and then came near to break down the door. Lot's angelic guests rescued him and struck the men with blindness, thereby revealing to Lot that they were not ordinary men but angels, and they informed Lot of their mission to destroy the city.[Genesis 19:9-13]

Then (not having found even 10 righteous people in the city), they commanded Lot to gather his family and leave. As they made their escape, one angel commanded Lot to "look not behind thee" (singular "thee").[Genesis 19:17] However, as Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed with brimstone and fire from the LORD, Lot's wife looked back at the city, and she became a pillar of salt.[Genesis 19:23-26]


will travel 03-07-13 12:58 AM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 
Wish thay are spent more time with Adam and Eve. Especially Eve. ;)

Spiderbite 03-07-13 08:40 AM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 
Thanks for the post RocShemp. It makes me wonder even more why people believe these wacky Bible stories are true. You have goofy Greek and Roman mythology stories and those same people ridicule those stories and state how silly they are. Yet they believe the Bible and everything in it as truth.

I just don't get it...thank goodness.

Miami Joe 03-07-13 08:41 AM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 
I didn't notice, but did Adam and Eve have belly buttons in the show?

PhantomStranger 03-07-13 01:38 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by brianluvdvd (Post 11605211)
Thanks for the post RocShemp. It makes me wonder even more why people believe these wacky Bible stories are true. You have goofy Greek and Roman mythology stories and those same people ridicule those stories and state how silly they are. Yet they believe the Bible and everything in it as truth.

I just don't get it...thank goodness.

It's all about the historical context of the verses in the societal structure of the time. Women were largely viewed as property in that place and time, and there was a strong imperative to be a "good host." Almost all the things that look wrong in today's eyes would look completely legitimate to someone living when the verse was written down (we will say 1500 BC for reference's sake).

Spiderbite 03-07-13 01:49 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by PhantomStranger (Post 11605678)
It's all about the historical context of the verses in the societal structure of the time. Women were largely viewed as property in that place and time, and there was a strong imperative to be a "good host." Almost all the things that look wrong in today's eyes would look completely legitimate to someone living when the verse was written down (we will say 1500 BC for reference's sake).

Angels, a human bartering directly with a god, they both agreeing on 50 people, pillars of salt, sending angels to destroy a city, being struck with blindness.

The girls being offered up is the only believable thing in that entire section.

Mabuse 03-07-13 03:03 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by PhantomStranger (Post 11600986)
It seemed to take a lot of cues from The Passion Of the Christ for its set design.

Take a look at Passolini's Gospel According to St Mathew and Scorsese's Last Temptation. Gibson borrowed everything from those films, even shooting in the same locations. Those two films have set the tone for every biblical film made since. The Nativity Story ripped off their designs too.

RocShemp 03-07-13 04:09 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by PhantomStranger (Post 11605678)
It's all about the historical context of the verses in the societal structure of the time. Women were largely viewed as property in that place and time, and there was a strong imperative to be a "good host." Almost all the things that look wrong in today's eyes would look completely legitimate to someone living when the verse was written down (we will say 1500 BC for reference's sake).

True. But given that even today we are expected to have our moral standards adhere to those found in the Bible (assuming you're a Christian), it's disturbing that the angels didn't so much as chastise Lot for what he tried to do. Let's face it, in that instant he became a terrible father and a disgusting human being.

Of course, his daughters where no prizes themselves, given what they did afterwards in Genesis 19: 30 - 38:


30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”

33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.
:yack:

Josh-da-man 03-07-13 07:43 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 
Yeah, there's a lot of incest and implied incest in the Bible.

Adam and Eve were the first two people. They had sons. Then their sons have wives. Where did those wives come from? Did they marry their sisters? Or did they fuck their mother to get wives?

And after the flood, it only leaves Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. Do the math there...

RocShemp 03-07-13 07:50 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man (Post 11606164)
Yeah, there's a lot of incest and implied incest in the Bible.

Adam and Eve were the first two people. They had sons. Then their sons have wives. Where did those wives come from? Did they marry their sisters? Or did they fuck their mother to get wives?

And after the flood, it only leaves Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. Do the math there...

Yup. Those parts of the Bible always bothered me as well.

mrhan 03-07-13 08:40 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man (Post 11606164)
And after the flood, it only leaves Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. Do the math there...

Yeah, but the thing with the flood isn't confined to the bible. A variation of that story came from other cultures, also. So, if any of it is true I'm sure Noah came across other people after the flood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Spottedfeather 03-07-13 09:41 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by brianluvdvd (Post 11605697)
Angels, a human bartering directly with a god, they both agreeing on 50 people, pillars of salt, sending angels to destroy a city, being struck with blindness.

The girls being offered up is the only believable thing in that entire section.

I don't think she was turned into an actual pillar. What I think really happened was that when the wife stopped, turned around, and looked, something like a cloud of white ash landed where she was standing and she was covered and died. I imagine sort of like what happened in Pompeii.

wz42 03-07-13 11:08 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by will travel (Post 11605008)
Wish thay are spent more time with Adam and Eve. Especially Eve. ;)

Someone needs to make The Bible: The Porno

dhmac 03-07-13 11:26 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man (Post 11603984)
The whole point of Sodom and Gamorrah isn't about homosexuality (or rape even). It's about being a bad host.

Which sort of works on a metaphorical level. But still, the idea that Lot is willing to turn his daughters over to a gang or rapists is pretty fucked up.

I also have wonder why people get "homosexuality is bad" out of the tale. It seems less about homosexuals than having a city full or rape gangs.

Besides that, why aren't the other stuff the Bible says Sodom was punished for ever mentioned by anyone or in these programs, such as not helping the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:49 if you want to look it up).

Josh-da-man 03-08-13 02:46 AM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 

Originally Posted by dhmac (Post 11606371)
Besides that, why aren't the other stuff the Bible says Sodom was punished for ever mentioned by anyone or in these programs, such as not helping the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:49 if you want to look it up).

Class warfare! Class warfare!

GoldenJCJ 03-08-13 02:05 PM

Re: "The Bible" on History
 
Just watched the first episode last night. They could have cut the running time of this episode in half had they eliminated all the slo-mo bullshit. For fuck's sake, they even had a man walking on crutches in slow motion!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:20 AM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.