Thumbs down for the History and Discovery channel

[Sword-In-Hand]

I don't know why I stop and even watch these things, but it seems every time I'm flipping through the channels I see something about the Bible and always later regret watching it.

The Discovery Channel has a show that tries to validate ancient myths. The last one I watched was about Noah's ark and pretty much was nothing to scale as to how it's described in the Bible.

A marine "expert" said it's utterly impossible for the account to happen as it was told. The ark would have had to have been alot smaller; there's no way it could have held all the animals; and there would be evidence of a world-wide flood. They've put the event on man's scale now which is degrading if you ask me.

And on the History Channel there was an episode about Jesus. To shorten it all, they claimed that Jesus began His ministry because He was enthralled with the teachings of John the Baptist and had nothing to do with His being the Son of God.

Don't know why I wrote this. I guess just to inform people about where our culture is headed and has been heading for a while.

Please Jesus, come on back.

[arunma]

I don't know why I stop and even watch these things, but it seems every time I'm flipping through the channels I see something about the Bible and always later regret watching it.

The Discovery Channel has a show that tries to validate ancient myths. The last one I watched was about Noah's ark and pretty much was nothing to scale as to how it's described in the Bible.

A marine "expert" said it's utterly impossible for the account to happen as it was told. The ark would have had to have been alot smaller; there's no way it could have held all the animals; and there would be evidence of a world-wide flood. They've put the event on man's scale now which is degrading if you ask me.

I saw part of this. Some of it seemed to be accurate, while other parts were not. For example, the idea that Noah was a Sumerian is not so far-fetched. And there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with the idea of a local flood. Indeed, old earth creationists claim that the flood was local. Many creationists would go so far as to say that a literal reading of the text implies that the flood must be local (presumably, it killed everyone because all humans lived in the middle east at this time).

But of course, it was incorrect for the Discovery Channel to turn the flood into a naturalistic event. It seemed that according to the Discovery Channel, Noah was a businessman who was trying to save his possessions. Furthermore, they claimed that the Biblical flood account was copied from older myths. This too is where we would disagree with their proposed theory.

And on the History Channel there was an episode about Jesus. To shorten it all, they claimed that Jesus began His ministry because He was enthralled with the teachings of John the Baptist and had nothing to do with His being the Son of God.

Wow, now that really is bad! But as a (Christian) friend of mine said when we walked out of the Da Vinci Code, "blasphemy makes for a much better story than the truth."

[mlqurgw]

People will go to every length imagianable to keep from actually dealing with Christ and the revelation of God in Him. I don't concern myself with such nonsense any more. Natural man is both dead and blind and will not come to Christ that they might have life. I will simply proclaim truth and leave the rest to God. They may call me a fool if they wish but I will be glad to be a fool for Christ's sake.

[Sword-In-Hand]

But of course, it was incorrect for the Discovery Channel to turn the flood into a naturalistic event. It seemed that according to the Discovery Channel, Noah was a businessman who was trying to save his possessions. Furthermore, they claimed that the Biblical flood account was copied from older myths. This too is where we would disagree with their proposed theory.

In my arts class in college my professor said the Genesis account was taken from the Epic of Gilgamesh. His logic: Gilgamesh is an older text so Moses must have taken it from this work. They get bent out of shape because Gilgamesh mentions a serpent and a flood.



Wow, now that really is bad! But as a (Christian) friend of mine said when we walked out of the Da Vinci Code, "blasphemy makes for a much better story than the truth."

I guess I can look at it like this. People aren't trying to disprove Jesus existed as much as they used to, just trying to make Him a normal man. But this is what they don't get. Jesus is the Son of God and a good teacher or not the Son of God and the most evil teacher in history. Why? Because Jesus said its His way or the hellway. Someone who preaches there's only one way to God has to be either utterly true, or utterly insane. It would be impossible for Jesus to be a good teacher if He was not the Son of God.

[CooL_Genesis]

I stopped watching the History and Discovery channels a while back ago for the same content that you're mentioning. Blasphemy knows no boundaries.

It won't be long until the Son of Man will make himself known again, in person. Let's see those shows explain that one away... which they will.. btw. :)

-Genesis

[General_Peanut]

Easter sunday i started to watch something on both hist and discover about Jesus and about 10/20 minutes into it, i had no idea about what they were talking about because they were so far off base. so i def try to avoid those programs, but sometimes they do suck you in.

[trinityisunity]

I just bought 2 dvds on The History of Christianity and I checked who made them and guess who "The History Channel", I have watched a bit of 1 of them and so far it is ok it matches up with what text books say about early church history. Will keep you posted if they go off track.

[JPPT1974]

Since that you now brought this up to me
I won't watch! Thanks for letting me know!

[arunma]

I guess I can look at it like this. People aren't trying to disprove Jesus existed as much as they used to, just trying to make Him a normal man. But this is what they don't get. Jesus is the Son of God and a good teacher or not the Son of God and the most evil teacher in history. Why? Because Jesus said its His way or the hellway. Someone who preaches there's only one way to God has to be either utterly true, or utterly insane. It would be impossible for Jesus to be a good teacher if He was not the Son of God.

I made this post on Semper Reformanda the other day. It's about the Da Vinci Code, but I think it applies to the issue you've raised also.

Well, I ended up seeing The Da Vinci Code yesterday. It was a great story, and I genuinely enjoyed it as a work of fiction. At the same time, it undermined Christian doctrine and taught false history. A case in point: the Nicene Council had nothing to do with the formation of the Biblical canon, though the movie would lead one to believe otherwise. Dan Brown seems to think that the Biblical canon was formed by a committee. This, of course, is false. The closest thing I can think of is the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, neither of which was an ecumenical council. Perhaps Brown should have claimed that all of his facts were fabricated. But because he says that the facts behind the story are genuine, people are led astray into believing all of this.

Maybe I'm just "seeing what I want to see" (as the movie says), but it seems to me that The Da Vinci Code and other revisionist histories ultimately target one Christian doctrine in particular. It isn't the deity of Christ, the crucifixion, or the resurrection. Among unbelievers, the most hated of Christian doctrines is our belief in the condemnation of unbelievers. To unbelievers, perhaps the other fundamentals of the faith are merely peripherals; they are issues which are attacked in order to ultimately destroy our belief in exclusive salvation through faith in Christ.

After all, if the early church distorted the true message of Christ, then the next logical question we should ask is: which portions of the New Testament genuinely reproduce the doctrines taught by Christ, and which portions are false? If we were to hand a Greek New Testament over to a conspiracy theorist, and ask him to indicate which parts are true and which are false, my guess is that when we received the text again, every verse which contains the word gehenna would be deleted. It seems to me that we are misunderstanding the conspiracy theorists' agenda if we think that they mean to undermine the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.

An unbeliever couldn't care less about whether Christ was born of a virgin, or whether his body was literally resurrected from death. But on the off chance that Christ's words are true, the unbeliever wants to feel safe from the fire of hell. Because the letters of the Apostles contain almost no mentions of hell, it is the teachings of Christ himself that must be undermined. But far be it from the universalist to attack Christ personally! He may not be the Son of God, but he is surely a "good moral teacher" (because all widely revered religious figures are accorded this status), and must thus be respected. So rather than attack the teachings of Christ, it is better to claim that Christ never taught what is recorded in the Gospel, hence the attack on the early church. Ultimately, we are left with a Christ who calls unbelievers children of God, and who condemns no one. I suppose that if I were an unbeliever, I would feel more comfortable with this version of Christ.

Well anyway, I'm glad I saw this movie. The entertainment value alone was worth the $7, and it's given me valuable information about a false conspiracy theory that has gripped millions of people around the world.

[Sword-In-Hand]

I made this post on Semper Reformanda the other day. It's about the Da Vinci Code, but I think it applies to the issue you've raised also.

Well, I ended up seeing The Da Vinci Code yesterday. It was a great story, and I genuinely enjoyed it as a work of fiction. At the same time, it undermined Christian doctrine and taught false history. A case in point: the Nicene Council had nothing to do with the formation of the Biblical canon, though the movie would lead one to believe otherwise. Dan Brown seems to think that the Biblical canon was formed by a committee. This, of course, is false. The closest thing I can think of is the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, neither of which was an ecumenical council. Perhaps Brown should have claimed that all of his facts were fabricated. But because he says that the facts behind the story are genuine, people are led astray into believing all of this.

Maybe I'm just "seeing what I want to see" (as the movie says), but it seems to me that The Da Vinci Code and other revisionist histories ultimately target one Christian doctrine in particular. It isn't the deity of Christ, the crucifixion, or the resurrection. Among unbelievers, the most hated of Christian doctrines is our belief in the condemnation of unbelievers. To unbelievers, perhaps the other fundamentals of the faith are merely peripherals; they are issues which are attacked in order to ultimately destroy our belief in exclusive salvation through faith in Christ.

After all, if the early church distorted the true message of Christ, then the next logical question we should ask is: which portions of the New Testament genuinely reproduce the doctrines taught by Christ, and which portions are false? If we were to hand a Greek New Testament over to a conspiracy theorist, and ask him to indicate which parts are true and which are false, my guess is that when we received the text again, every verse which contains the word gehenna would be deleted. It seems to me that we are misunderstanding the conspiracy theorists' agenda if we think that they mean to undermine the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.

An unbeliever couldn't care less about whether Christ was born of a virgin, or whether his body was literally resurrected from death. But on the off chance that Christ's words are true, the unbeliever wants to feel safe from the fire of hell. Because the letters of the Apostles contain almost no mentions of hell, it is the teachings of Christ himself that must be undermined. But far be it from the universalist to attack Christ personally! He may not be the Son of God, but he is surely a "good moral teacher" (because all widely revered religious figures are accorded this status), and must thus be respected. So rather than attack the teachings of Christ, it is better to claim that Christ never taught what is recorded in the Gospel, hence the attack on the early church. Ultimately, we are left with a Christ who calls unbelievers children of God, and who condemns no one. I suppose that if I were an unbeliever, I would feel more comfortable with this version of Christ.

Well anyway, I'm glad I saw this movie. The entertainment value alone was worth the $7, and it's given me valuable information about a false conspiracy theory that has gripped millions of people around the world.

You raise a good point. A lady I have been witnessing to falls into this category. She says she believes in God, but really wants nothing to do with Jesus. And her sole reason for not accepting Him is hell. She's one of those people who thinks that a good God wouldn't send anyone to hell.