The Bible miniseries: History Channel’s take on the Bible not for kids
The Bible miniseries produced by the History Channel is a disappointment for any family hoping for a new way to share the Bible’s stories with their children. The Bible miniseries, not altogether surprising given the History Channel’s relentless ratings focus, sensationalizes the Bible’s stories. Angel ninjas? Really?
By Lisa Suhay, Guest Blogger / March 4, 2013
The Bible, in addition to being the basis for various religious beliefs, is a fascinating historical conglomeration of stories that can teach us about the customs, times, travails, and conditions of the ancient Middle East that create a social context for modern day news, like the plague of locusts currently hitting Egypt. However “The Bible” miniseries on the History Channel so graphically depicts a predictably selective collection of the stories that some parents may not want kids to view it.
“The Bible” miniseries, for me, is less about what you believe and more about what you believe your family will take away from watching this series. After watching the first installment and trailers for upcoming episodes, I think that if you’re not willing to let your elementary-school child watch “300” and the “Twilight” series you should steer clear of this as a family viewing session.
Jerry Newcombe, spokesman for Truth in Action Ministries (formerly Coral Ridge Ministries, led by the late D. James Kennedy), has a column in the Worldnutdaily defending the idea that there was a literal Adam and Eve like the Bible says. He presents no evidence for this, of course, merely saying that he believes that because he believes in Jesus and Jesus quoted Genesis. Wow, what a compelling argument. But then he tries to argue against evolution and falls flat on his face.
How are we to understand claims of overwhelming “scientific facts” backing up the theory of evolution? Well, there are minor biological changes in nature. Some people call this “micro-evolution” (if you will), which simply refers to a limited range variation within a species or kind. In Genesis, God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind.” That’s why some dogs are poodles and some dogs are great Danes, while both still remain dogs.
Critics note that Darwinists have tried to make a word game by using undisputed microevolution (if you want to call it that), which can be observed everywhere, and claim it as proof of macroevolution - the theory that one species can change into another and that all life evolved ultimately from a common ancestor.
Those critics are abysmally ignorant. There is no distinction between “microevolution” and “macroevolution.” Just like one can measure time in seconds (micro) or centuries (macro), the latter is merely the accumulation of the former.
In his latest Worldnutdaily column, Ray Comfort takes dead aim at evolution and, predictably, completely misses the mark. It’s a weak effort even from a creationist, really. It’s nothing more than a bunch of ignorant blather and an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Nothing is observable without the believer having to exercise faith. When hearing such a thought, the devout devotee rushes to his evolution site to cut and paste what he believes to be facts. Then he presents them en masse with the zeal of a fundamentalist religious zealot. He has faith in what he believes is evidence - what he hears about old bones, ideas and dating processes.
Isn’t it interesting how a fundamentalist religious zealot uses that very term as a criticism, indeed an insult? And yes, there are certainly plenty of people who accept evolution without really understanding it well and who cut and paste when arguing with a creationist without really knowing the evidence behind what they’re using. But so what? The same is true of the overwhelming majority of creationists participating in such arguments and that is not an argument for or against either evolution or creationism.
And this is also a rather anachronistic use of the term “faith.” Faith, as his Bible tells us, is believing without evidence. But the evidence for evolution is available for all to look at, analyze and evaluate. There are tens of thousands of scientists working in fields for which evolution is the single unifying theory that explains the data, and they publish their research for both their colleagues and laypeople to read and examine. One does not need faith to accept that evidence, one merely has to look at it and logically evaluate it.
Creationism on the other hand is observable. The Book of Genesis tells us that male and female were created in all the “kinds,” and in nature we see that except for a few hermaphroditic lowlifes, everything has male and female. Horses, cows, dogs, cats, elephants, giraffes, fleas, fish, kangaroos, polar bears and people all have male and female. That’s what the Bible says, and that’s what we observe in nature and in the fossil record.
A few hermaphroditic lowlifes? He’s making a moral judgment about animals he has likely never even heard of? There are, in fact, lots of species that are hermaphroditic in very fascinating ways. There are sequential hermaphrodites, which are born one gender and change to another later in life (several species of teleost fish and gastropods). Some of them change from male to female (clownfish, for instance), some from female to male, and some in both directions (different species of reef fish do both of those last two).
* Music Trivia: Jo Allen, the singer in the video, never achieved great fame but besides penning this great song he also created “Jealous” which was later charted by Robert Palmer. Jo Allen (Alan Powell) is a drummer by trade, and the drummer filling in for this video later formed his own band and had a regional hit “Don’t Get Mad, Just get Even”
Lawrence O’Donnell: Bible At Inauguration Is One Of ‘Most Absurdest Traditions’ (VIDEO)
Posted: 01/11/2013 12:09 pm EST
Lawrence O’Donnell has a recommendation for President Obama on Inauguration Day: get rid of the Bible.
On Thursday, the MSNBC host reacted to news that Louie Giglio — the pastor selected to deliver the benediction at Obama’s inauguration — had withdrawn from the ceremony over an anti-gay sermon he gave in the 1990s. O’Donnell said that Giglio had been “quoting the Bible,” and that “homosexuality is a sin in the Bible.”
He guffawed at the White House statement about its search for Giglio’s replacement. “In other words, we will ensure that whoever delivers the benediction rejects the same parts of the Bible that President Obama rejects and most Democrats reject, even though every word of the Bible is the word of God,’ O’Donnell said.
‘As I’ve pointed out… no one accepts all of the teachings of the Bible,” he continued. “Still, the president, following one of our most absurdest traditions in the government that invented the separation of church and state, will put his hand on this book filled with things he does not believe — filled with things that no one in the United States of America believes — and with his hand on this book he will recite the oath of office.”
He suggested an alternative to Obama: swearing in on one of his daughters. “Now, wouldn’t it be better if the president’s hand was on the shoulder of one of his daughters, suggesting that he was honoring the oath of office as much as he honors Sasha and Malia?” O’Donnell asked.
PS: Swearing an oath is actually against the Biblical teaching. It is a tradition we got from the Olympian worshiping Greeks who passed it down to the Romans where the oath taker swore on his life that he would honor his oath lest Zeus strike him down with a thunderbolt - which is why the hand is raised up in the sky so the thunderbolt can hit it like a lightning rod. I swear, by Zeus, that is the origin of this oath tradition.
Arvada pastor and KLTT radio show host Bob Enyart said his program “Real Science Friday” is a direct challenge to — not an imitation of — the popular National Public Radio show of almost the same name.
Enyart is being sued for trademark infringement and cybersquatting in New York state and federal courts by the NPR show’s producers at ScienceFriday Inc.
Representatives of the show “Science Friday,” hosted by journalist Ira Flatow, say the similarity in names is confusing people and sometimes diverting them to Enyart’s website, kgov.com.
Enyart is the self-described fundamentalist Christian pastor of the 60-member Denver Bible Church. He believes the world’s age is measured in thousands, not billions, of years because the Bible tells him so and, he said, scientific evidence backs it up.
Imitation, in this case, is the sincerest form of challenge, Enyart said. His science-talk show started in 1991, but he renamed it “Real Science Friday” in 2006 to push back against mainstream science journalism.
Jones is rhapsodic about Hudson, who attributes their meeting to ‘God’s work.’ But the actor’s spiritual mentor is a controversial figure who has long been waging a religious war on the entertainment industry and liberal America. In 2009, he gained notoriety after releasing a documentary on YouTube called The Jay-Z Deception, in which he accused the rapper of being a devil-worshipping Freemason. He also has declared masturbation a sin and referred to President Obama’s health-care plan as a ‘carbon copy’ of Hitler’s health-care policies. In a recent scaremongering video, Hudson said New York City’s post-Hurricane Sandy gas shortage was a harbinger of a food-shortage crisis and cannibalism, referencing a ‘similar’ event in the Bible when the city of Jerusalem was seized by the Roman armies in 70 A.D: ‘It was so severe that women began to cannibalize their own children. Your baby may start looking like a chicken wing.’
Disturbingly, Jones seems to have no qualms about Hudson’s extremist views, praising the ForeRunner Chronicles in his video testimony (‘All the information is so great … Your videos have no doubt been a blessing to me.’). Hudson’s New World gospel also is popular on Seventh-Day Adventist media outlets like Three Angels Broadcasting, a 24-hour, international television and radio network.
The results of several recent studies on the intake of salt have been widely reported in the media for about a year now. The New York Times, USA Today and lesser known papers, CNN, the broadcast networks, and countless news web sites have all covered the story at different times going back to the end of last year.
In a nutshell what the studies have found is that salt in moderation is probably not as bad for you as we have been led to believe in the last couple of decades. They also found that too little salt, just like too much, can also put you at risk of cardiovascular disease. Generally the research concludes that for most people a little more salt than is recommended in current federal health guidelines will not cause adverse effects. However some people really are more sensitive to salt than the general population and need to stay at a reduced intake level.
Okay, now lets get to David Barton’s take on this issue…
You also get the promise of Exodus 15:26 that says now if you do all of the things that I command you, you won’t be stuck with all those diseases I put on the Egyptians, you’ll really be health. And so this is really the basis of healthcare is actually doing your body the way God wants you to do your body. That’s one of the great books out of the 60’s called “None of These Diseases” by Dr. S.I. McMillen who’s just a medical doctor and he said ‘hey, let’s go back and look at what God said about health things in the Bible.” And, my gosh, four thousand, five thousand years later we doctors have finally figured out God got it right.
And I’ll make a speculation on this because I think the Bible is always right on science and science eventually does catch up, we’re going to find out salt is not that bad a deal for you. There’s a reason Jesus made salt a good thing, that we are the salt, we are the light, we’re the preservative. Now anything taken too much is going to be a problem, but I have seen in the last two weeks new studies coming out saying well, it turns out salt is not as bad as we thought it was.
So he is “speculating” on salt based only on his biblical knowledge and not in fact from the very studies he says he has read? Aren’t the studies that have been out for around a year now the only reason he is even discussing this issue to begin with? I do not want to know what type of mental gymnastics it takes to convince yourself that science is wrong and the bible is right and to then use science to try to prove it.
More about that book he is plugging “None of These Diseases” in a page coming soon…
Charlie Fuqua, a Republican candidate for the Arkansas House, calls for unruly kids to be put to death
Charlie Fuqua, the Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives who called for expelling Muslims from the United States in his book, also wrote in support for instituting the death penalty for “rebellious children.”
In “God’s Law,” Fuqua’s 2012 book, the candidate wrote that while parents love their children, a process could be set up to allow for the institution of the death penalty for “rebellious children,” according to the Arkansas Times. Fuqua, who is anti-abortion, points out that the course of action involved in sentencing a child to death is described in the Bible and would involve judicial approval. While it is unlikely that many parents would seek to have their children killed by the government, Fuqua wrote, such power would serve as a way to stop rebellious children.
Huffington Post are you sure this man isn’t being quoted out of context?
The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21.
Oh. Nevermind, this guy is totally off his rocker. At least this man has read his Bible, most Republicans use it as a prop. But for fun let’s read from
the Book of Armaments 2:9-21 Deut 21:18-21..
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, and Dan Savage, writer of the Savage Love column, met at Savage’s home in Seattle for dinner and a debate over same-sex marriage and the Bible.
To the list of such luminaries as Ron Wyatt, add the name of Donna D’Errico. She was apparently one of the lifeguards on Baywatch and now she’s climbing Mt. Ararat looking for Noah’s Ark. But only looking, mind you; she says she doesn’t actually expect to find it:
Former Baywatch star Donna D’Errico is determined to continue her search for Noah’s Ark, despite suffering injuries and having to cut her trip to Turkey short.
D’Errico, 44, said that journeying to Turkey’s Mount Ararat to search for the Ark has been a “lifelong dream” of hers. The Bible says that Noah’s Ark came to rest at Mount Ararat and D’Errico has wanted to search for it ever since she saw a movie about the Ark as a child.
“We all have childhood fascinations that sometimes subside over time, but this one never did,” D’Errico told ABCNews.com. “The key word is ‘search,’ not ‘find.’ I don’t have any wild notion that I’ll be the one that finds Noah’s Ark.”
No, you won’t be. Neither will anyone else, of course, because it doesn’t exist.