![]() |
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
By the time the liberal agenda is done there'll be a gay pope. |
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? |
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? |
Re: "The Bible" on History
Originally Posted by Terminal
(Post 11602497)
What, you believe someone turned in to a pillar of salt?
|
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. |
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. |
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.
|
Re: "The Bible" on History
Wish thay are spent more time with Adam and Eve. Especially Eve. ;)
|
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. |
Re: "The Bible" on History
I didn't notice, but did Adam and Eve have belly buttons in the show?
|
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. |
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).
The girls being offered up is the only believable thing in that entire section. |
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.
|
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).
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. |
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... |
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... |
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...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html |
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. |
Re: "The Bible" on History
Originally Posted by will travel
(Post 11605008)
Wish thay are spent more time with Adam and Eve. Especially Eve. ;)
|
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. |
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).
|
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.