Holy Moses! PBS documentary suggests Exodus not real

[Paper Trail]

Hal Boedeker | Sentinel Television Critic (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/tv/orl-exodus2108jul21,0,7755323.story)

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. - Abraham didn't exist? The Exodus didn't happen?

The Bible's Buried Secrets, a new PBS documentary (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/), is likely to cause a furor.

"It challenges the Bible's stories if you want to read them literally, and that will disturb many people," says archaeologist William Dever, who specializes in Israel's history. "But it explains how and why these stories ever came to be told in the first place, and how and why they were written down."

The Nova program will premiere Nov. 18. PBS presented a clip and a panel discussion at the summer tour of the Television Critics Association.

The program says the Bible was written in the sixth century BC and that hundreds of authors contributed.

"At least the first five books of the Bible come together during the Babylonian exile," says producer Gary Glassman.

The program challenges long-held beliefs. Abraham, Sarah and their offspring probably didn't exist, says Carol Meyers, a religion professor at Duke University.

"These stories are unlikely to represent real historical events, but rather there's some kernel of ancient experience in there which has survived and which helps give identity to the people at the time the Bible finally took shape centuries and centuries later," Meyers says.

There's no archaeological evidence of the Exodus, either, she says, but "it doesn't mean that there's no kernel of truth to it."

Nova series producer Paula Apsell says she found it "extremely shocking" to learn that monotheism was a process that took hundreds of years.

"I was always brought up to believe that the minute Abraham and the patriarchs came on the scene, the Israelites accepted one God and there was just always one God and that was it," Apsell says. "I think people are going to really be stunned by that."

Another shocker: The program contradicts the biblical view that the Israelites came from somewhere else into the land of Canaan. "The film shows that they were Canaanites," Apsell says.




Hal Boedeker can be reached at 407-420-5756 or hboedeker@orlandosentinel.com. Read Hal's TV Guy blog at OrlandoSentinel.com/tvguy.

[Produce man]

Gee, PBS did this? What a shock.:rolleyes:

[Kace]

But what does Zero think? :whistle:

[Paper Trail]

New PBS program says Bible isn't true, stories made up

Your tax dollars helped fund “The Bible’s Buried Secrets”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take Action (https://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/signpetition.asp?id=1780)

Sign the petition urging Congress to stop using tax dollars to fund PBS. Let PBS operate like every other non-commercial network, raising its own money from its viewers instead of using tax money.

Petition Text

TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

In light of PBS's decision to air "The Bible's Buried Secrets," I ask that you vote to stop funding PBS with tax dollars.

PBS is knowingly choosing to insult and attack Christianity by airing a program that declares the Bible "isn't true and a bunch of stories that never happened."

PBS should raise its own money. I should not be forced to help pay for its programs.

The Public Broadcasting System (PBS), probably the most liberal network in America, will present a program this fall that says the Old Testament is a bunch of made-up stories that never happened. "The Bible's Buried Secrets" says the Bible is not true. It is scheduled to air on November 18.

Archaeologist William Dever said: "...It's (The Bible's Buried Secrets) designed for intelligent people who are willing to change their mind. …it will give intelligent people who want to read the Bible in a modern way a chance. If we insist on reading the Bible literally, in 25 years, nobody will read it any longer."

Among highlights of "The Bible's Buried Secrets":

• The Old Testament was written in the sixth century BC and hundreds of authors contributed.
• Abraham, Sarah and their offspring didn't exist.
• There is no archaeological evidence of the Exodus.
• Monotheism was a process that took hundreds of years.
• The Israelites were actually Canaanites.
• The Israelites believed that God had a wife.

I have often said that PBS should not receive tax dollars. "The Bible's Buried Secrets" is simply one more reason Congress should stop supporting PBS with our tax dollars. Congress gives PBS hundreds of millions of tax dollars to help support the network.

[Mr. Rugen]

New PBS program says Bible isn't true, stories made up

Your tax dollars helped fund “The Bible’s Buried Secrets”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take Action (https://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/signpetition.asp?id=1780)

Sign the petition urging Congress to stop using tax dollars to fund PBS. Let PBS operate like every other non-commercial network, raising its own money from its viewers instead of using tax money.

Petition Text

TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

In light of PBS's decision to air "The Bible's Buried Secrets," I ask that you vote to stop funding PBS with tax dollars.

PBS is knowingly choosing to insult and attack Christianity by airing a program that declares the Bible "isn't true and a bunch of stories that never happened."

PBS should raise its own money. I should not be forced to help pay for its programs.

The Public Broadcasting System (PBS), probably the most liberal network in America, will present a program this fall that says the Old Testament is a bunch of made-up stories that never happened. "The Bible's Buried Secrets" says the Bible is not true. It is scheduled to air on November 18.

Archaeologist William Dever said: "...It's (The Bible's Buried Secrets) designed for intelligent people who are willing to change their mind. …it will give intelligent people who want to read the Bible in a modern way a chance. If we insist on reading the Bible literally, in 25 years, nobody will read it any longer."

Among highlights of "The Bible's Buried Secrets":

• The Old Testament was written in the sixth century BC and hundreds of authors contributed.
• Abraham, Sarah and their offspring didn't exist.
• There is no archaeological evidence of the Exodus.
• Monotheism was a process that took hundreds of years.
• The Israelites were actually Canaanites.
• The Israelites believed that God had a wife.

I have often said that PBS should not receive tax dollars. "The Bible's Buried Secrets" is simply one more reason Congress should stop supporting PBS with our tax dollars. Congress gives PBS hundreds of millions of tax dollars to help support the network.
I wish these people would cut this crap out. I'm so sick of political Christians. It's like they don't even own a Bible.

[Dap]

We shall disband NASA as well. Why waste tax dollars when the earth is clearly flat, yeah?

[ShakAttack]

New PBS program says Bible isn't true, stories made up

Your tax dollars helped fund “The Bible’s Buried Secrets”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take Action (https://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/signpetition.asp?id=1780)

Sign the petition urging Congress to stop using tax dollars to fund PBS. Let PBS operate like every other non-commercial network, raising its own money from its viewers instead of using tax money.

Petition Text

TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

In light of PBS's decision to air "The Bible's Buried Secrets," I ask that you vote to stop funding PBS with tax dollars.

PBS is knowingly choosing to insult and attack Christianity by airing a program that declares the Bible "isn't true and a bunch of stories that never happened."

PBS should raise its own money. I should not be forced to help pay for its programs.

The Public Broadcasting System (PBS), probably the most liberal network in America, will present a program this fall that says the Old Testament is a bunch of made-up stories that never happened. "The Bible's Buried Secrets" says the Bible is not true. It is scheduled to air on November 18.

Archaeologist William Dever said: "...It's (The Bible's Buried Secrets) designed for intelligent people who are willing to change their mind. …it will give intelligent people who want to read the Bible in a modern way a chance. If we insist on reading the Bible literally, in 25 years, nobody will read it any longer."

Among highlights of "The Bible's Buried Secrets":

• The Old Testament was written in the sixth century BC and hundreds of authors contributed.
• Abraham, Sarah and their offspring didn't exist.
• There is no archaeological evidence of the Exodus.
• Monotheism was a process that took hundreds of years.
• The Israelites were actually Canaanites.
• The Israelites believed that God had a wife.

I have often said that PBS should not receive tax dollars. "The Bible's Buried Secrets" is simply one more reason Congress should stop supporting PBS with our tax dollars. Congress gives PBS hundreds of millions of tax dollars to help support the network.

It will be interesting to see the outcry/outcome from "Judeo-Christian-values-veiled-political-bigots" as November 18 draws nearer.

Those of you who're familiar with "Arthur" (cartoon) on PBS -- do you remember the outrage several of years ago when PBS was about to air an episode which shows Buster (cartoon character) having two mothers (lesbian relationship)?

I don't know about other markets, but the clergy in our market made a huge stink about it, and eventually the local PBS station didn't air the "two mothers" part.

Hard to believe we've advanced this far as humans, yet so back-dated when it comes to our mindsets.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Gee, PBS did this? What a shock.:rolleyes:


Why so bitter, Douchey? Did they turn you down for another job as a P-T production assistant?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Sultanosurf]

What a surprise, a Christian group wants folks to send money in...

Wildmon could earn some respect if he actually considered the new research and offered any convincing counterpoint, but as with any debate on the bible, we're supposed to take it all on faith...

[Diplomat]

Produce is right--this is definitely not a surprise. Of course, I don't think PBS or NPR should receive ANY government funding at all. But I won't waste my time protesting this partisan documentary.

If people don't want to watch it, they can turn off the TV or switch the channel.

[Mr. Rugen]

What a surprise, a Christian group wants folks to send money in...

This is what I"m talking about. I'm so tired of having to be associated with jerks like Focus on the Family or the AFA. Guess what. My congregation has never asked for a dime of anyone's money.

[Diplomat]

This is what I"m talking about. I'm so tired of having to be associated with jerks like Focus on the Family or the AFA. Guess what? My congregation has never asked for a dime of anyone's money.

We don't get involved with those outfits at our church, either. We avoid the political stuff in church. I don't like the AFA or Dobson or Robertson any more than I like their counterparts on the left, such as Jim Wallis or Barry Lynn.

Christians, as with everyone else, can and should be involved in the public square, voting, campaigning and all, but as individual Americans.

[Paper Trail]

Cross Is Central Symbol Of Christianity And Must Not Be Secularized By Government, Americans United Tells Court

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 (http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr010=7u7sbwl2a5.app13a&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9989&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241)

AU, Allies Say Officials' Use Of 'Secular' Crosses To Memorialize Utah Highway Patrol Officers Is Offensive And Violates Church-State Separation

The cross is a Christian symbol and government should not try to use it as a secular memorial marker, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told a federal appeals court.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, Americans United and allied religious leaders and organizations take issue with a federal court decision allowing Utah officials to place crosses along highways to memorialize state highway patrol officers who have died in the line of duty.

State officials insisted that the Christian symbol is a secular symbol and can be used regardless of the personal religious beliefs of the officer being honored.

U.S. District Judge David Sam ruled in November of 2007 that the cross is a “secular symbol of death” and held that Utah officials and the Utah Highway Patrol Association can continue to erect the 12-foot crosses.

Americans United is asking the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the lower court ruling.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, said he is offended by the claim that the cross is merely a secular symbol.

“The cross is the preeminent symbol of Christianity,” said Lynn, an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ. “For the government to claim that the cross is a secular symbol is deeply offensive and betrays a poor understanding of religion and our Constitution.”

In its brief, AU points out that the cross has been tied to Christianity for many centuries.

“In upholding the display of roadside crosses on public land throughout the State of Utah, the district court embraced the State’s characterization of the cross the clearest and most universally recognized marker of Christianity as nothing more than a ‘secular symbol of death,’” asserts the brief. “This conclusion is historically inaccurate, blind to contemporary realities, and offensive to believers and nonbelievers alike.”

The brief in American Atheists, Inc. v. Duncan argues that governmental display of the cross violates the constitutional mandate of government neutrality toward religion.

Joining Americans United on the brief are the Anti-Defamation League, the Hindu American Foundation, The Interfaith Alliance, the Union for Reform Judaism and Dr. Eugene Fisher, retired associate director, Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The brief was prepared by Evan M. Tager, David M. Gossett and Brian M. Willen of the firm Mayer Brown LLP and by Americans United Assistant Legal Director Richard B. Katskee and other members of AU’s legal team.

[Spike]

But I won't waste my time protesting this partisan documentary.

Partisan? Which party produced this documentary?

[the original buttongod]

I mean, the Bible was supposedly written 2000 some years ago or longer. Why hasn't there been an update ?

[Sultanosurf]

I mean, the Bible was supposedly written 2000 some years ago or longer. Why hasn't there been an update ?

Moses - Brad Garrett. For Jesus, mebbe... Seth Rogen ?

[Diplomat]

Partisan? Which party produced this documentary?

Wow, you're batting a thousand in the slow department today.

"Partisan" doesn't necessarily mean political party. The people who produced this are partisans for a particular cause--discrediting the Gospel, which they are free to do, just as people who believe it are also free to be partisans for their cause.

[Jax]

The Nova program will premiere Nov. 18.

You mean, there's already furor over a program no one has seen? To quote Produce, what a shock.

[Bubucutti]

Wow, you're batting a thousand in the slow department today.

"Partisan" doesn't necessarily mean political party. The people who produced this are partisans for a particular cause--discrediting the Gospel, which they are free to do, just as people who believe it are also free to be partisans for their cause.

No one there is trying to undermine the importance of the Bible or "discredit the Gospel". It is important to use all the tools and reasoning God gives us to gain a more advanced understanding of our world and our history, even if it means challenging deeply held beliefs. I don't think this special necessarily makes these individuals partisan against religion.

[Jax]

No one there is trying to undermine the importance of the Bible or "discredit the Gospel". It is important to use all the tools and reasoning God gives us to gain a more advanced understanding of our world and our history, even if it means challenging deeply held beliefs. I don't think this special necessarily makes these individuals partisan against religion.

Take it easy... Trying to explore new ideas about religion obviously makes you an anti-religion bigot...

I kid...

[neodeity]

The people who produced this are partisans for a particular cause--discrediting the Gospel, which they are free to do, just as people who believe it are also free to be partisans for their cause.

You know this as fact or are you just assigning motives because you've read that their conclusions run counter to your beliefs? Would you have me believe that a group of people sat around a conference table and decided, "Let’s make a show that'll piss off all the uber-religious knuckleheads in the country?" Seriously, the paranoia must be working overtime in your world. Isn't it possible that a group of people got together and tried to fact check the bible and came up with a few conclusions that ran contrary to what we've been led to believe all our lives? Must everything you disagree with be part of a conspiracy? Also, based on the posted articles, parts of the Old Testament were discredited, not the Gospel.

[Diplomat]

You know this as fact or are you just assigning motives because you've read that their conclusions run counter to your beliefs? Would you have me believe that a group of people sat around a conference table and decided, "Let’s make a show that'll piss off all the uber-religious knuckleheads in the country?" Seriously, the paranoia must be working overtime in your world. Isn't it possible that a group of people got together and tried to fact check the bible and came up with a few conclusions that ran contrary to what we've been led to believe all our lives? Must everything you disagree with be part of a conspiracy? Also, based on the posted articles, parts of the Old Testament were discredited, not the Gospel.

Calm down. And stop with the paranoia foolishness. Nobody said anything about any conspiracy--where your imagination came up with that, only God knows. You seem to be directing at me stuff you should be directing at others. First, the BS about me "bullying" people and now this. Did you forget your Metamucil today?

As I have said, I don't care if they make their program. They have that right. And if you want to watch it, fine. You have that right. People have a right not to watch it.

Scholars are constantly trying to find evidence and artifacts that relate to our study of the Bible. You obviously don't know this, but there's a whole field of study in religious academia called "Christian Evidences." They do a lot of study and research with private money.

[s'news]

It sound like an interesting program. Probing the historical basis of a significant religious tract sounds like good programming to me. It's stuff that's way above what is offered on commercial TV.

If it bothers some folks, I can easily live with that. In fact, to the point that some folks are bothered, I figure it must be more worthwhile than I had initially figured it would be..

[Spike]

Nobody said anything about any conspiracy--where your imagination came up with that, only God knows.

You implied it by suggesting that the filmmakers were partisan, or part of some organized group dedicated to criticizing the Bible.

[s'news]

Sorry Spike, you can't be right. You are not God and "only God knows."

[s'news]

Unless you are God, in which case I apologize.

[Produce man]

You implied it by suggesting that the filmmakers were partisan, or part of some organized group dedicated to criticizing the Bible.Yeah, those are called athiests. :whistle:

[Diplomat]

You implied it by suggesting that the filmmakers were partisan, or part of some organized group dedicated to criticizing the Bible.

Given some of the comments they have made, it is obvious they have an agenda. One doesn't just make these films for the fun of it. I don't know if they are organized or not and nobody has said anything about that except you.

I don't know what you have been ingesting today, but it has made you more addled than you usually are.

[Sultanosurf]

Benevolent God - James Earl Jones. Angry God - DeNiro?

The show actually sounds like an interesting adjunct to the Nova series "From Jesus to Christ" which provided insight on how one man inspired followers, then a whole religion -- years after his death.

The Bible has been a work in progress for thousands of years, considering all the oral forms in various languages, before the written forms in even more languages. Do we stop being curious, even dismissing the Dead Sea Scrolls? It always seems a little arrogant to think that the King James gospels are the final word.

[Jax]

Given some of the comments they have made, it is obvious they have an agenda. One doesn't just make these films for the fun of it. I don't know if they are organized or not and nobody has said anything about that except you.

I don't know what you have been ingesting today, but it has made you more addled than you usually are.

But you've never seen the program so you have no idea if there's an agenda, correct?

[Diplomat]

But you've never seen the program so you have no idea if there's an agenda, correct?

As I said previously in this thread, the quotes from the producers definitely suggest there is an agenda. Also, given the identity of the original poster, I doubt it's merely an exercise in "seeking truth."

[Diplomat]

Benevolent God - James Earl Jones. Angry God - DeNiro?

The show actually sounds like an interesting adjunct to the Nova series "From Jesus to Christ" which provided insight on how one man inspired followers, then a whole religion -- years after his death.

The Bible has been a work in progress for thousands of years, considering all the oral forms in various languages, before the written forms in even more languages. Do we stop being curious, even dismissing the Dead Sea Scrolls? It always seems a little arrogant to think that the King James gospels are the final word.

Which King James Version? The one of 1611 or the revision of 1769, which is the one that some people still use today. It's the one you'd find in a bookstore. Most people think the 1611 version is the one still used--they are quite different in spelling, grammar, etc.

Also--there have been many translations since the KJV: The Revised Version (from England), Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, New International Version, English Standard Version, Phillips Translation, McCord's Translation, Moffett's Translation, The Message and several paraphrases, including The Living Bible and The Book, just to name a few. New and different manuscripts were studied that weren't available when King James commissioned the translation in 1611.

I don't remember the last time I heard a minister use the KJV in a message--maybe the 23rd Psalm for a funeral or if someone was reciting the Decalogue.

There are Biblical scholars who think the Dead Sea Scrolls are legitimate while others do not. And that debate will probably continue for a long time. Those kind of debates usually do.

It has been a while, but both ABC News and FNC did "specials" about Jesus and both were well-researched and thoughtfully presented.

[Kace]

But did they have...

...

...

...agendas???

*cue dramatic music*

[Desert Rat]

My congregation has never asked for a dime of anyone's money.


They are too busy asking for a Cowboy playoff victory..

[Pro]

Yeah, those are called athiests. :whistle:

That would be ATHEISTS.

If you can call me on spelling, then turnabout is fair play.

[The Mockingbird]

It's a problem that goes beyond the authenticity of a particular text; this is because the Jewish people were extremely fond of Midrash.

Now I know you're saying, "Mockingbird, what is Midrash?" Well, originally, Midrash was a form of scholarly debate over religious principles. What happened, though, is that Midrash, over the course of a few centuries, essentially involved into a form of literary fiction.

So, even if you have scrolls from that time period, how do you determine if they are religious artifacts, or quasi-secular forms of Midrash?

You don't.

Then, of course, there's the problems with meanings lost in translation. I'm sure you're familiar with the whole debate over the line "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", which is supposedly a mis-translation of Exodus 22:18.

In the original Hebrew, the phrase is M'khashephah lo tichayyah. This is better trasnslated as, "Thou shalt not suffer one who uses reeds or herbs to harm another to live", or more succintly, "Thous shall not suffer a poisoner to live".

Shrug.

[tater]

That would be ATHEISTS.

If you can call me on spelling, then turnabout is fair play.

I concur...

http://www.discovergames.com/images/turnabout.jpg

[commercial hack]

It will be interesting to see the outcry/outcome from "Judeo-Christian-values-veiled-political-bigots" as November 18 draws nearer.

Those of you who're familiar with "Arthur" (cartoon) on PBS -- do you remember the outrage several of years ago when PBS was about to air an episode which shows Buster (cartoon character) having two mothers (lesbian relationship)?

I don't know about other markets, but the clergy in our market made a huge stink about it, and eventually the local PBS station didn't air the "two mothers" part.

Hard to believe we've advanced this far as humans, yet so back-dated when it comes to our mindsets.

That's a pretty broad brush you're using. So you're saying if we don't believe that homosexuality is ok, we're back-dated and close minded? How do you feel about murder and adultry?

[commercial hack]

It always seems a little arrogant to think that the King James gospels are the final word.

They're not. KJV eliminated a few books that are in the Catholic version. ;)

[Mr. Rugen]

They're not. KJV eliminated a few books that are in the Catholic version. ;)
Even though I"m not Catholic, I have a great big beautiful Catholic Bible. You guys really know how to decorate (if I may lump all Catholics into one category represented by one wedding gift we received 11 years ago).

[Kace]

Being gay is the same as killing people. :rockon:

[commercial hack]

Even though I"m not Catholic, I have a great big beautiful Catholic Bible. You guys really know how to decorate (if I may lump all Catholics into one category represented by one wedding gift we received 11 years ago).

Thankyouverymuch. Even though I did't decorate it.

[Sultanosurf]

Even though I"m not Catholic, I have a great big beautiful Catholic Bible. You guys really know how to decorate

And torture, cultivate guilt, and propagate thru denial of birth control. But the books and churches look great!

"Now I know you're saying, "Mockingbird, what is Midrash?"

Nah, in this heat I know damn well about midrash, what I need help with is getting some spin off my backhand...

[Mr. Rugen]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/funny-pictures-cat-trains-about-ceiling-cat-door.jpg

[22]

I mean, the Bible was supposedly written 2000 some years ago or longer. Why hasn't there been an update ?

Because nothing has happened to "advance the story."

[Produce man]

That would be ATHEISTS.

If you can call me on spelling, then turnabout is fair play.Fair enough.

[SamG]

It has been a while, but both ABC News and FNC did "specials" about Jesus and both were well-researched and thoughtfully presented.
But you don't know that the PBS program isn't well-researched and thoughtfully presented. I still don't know what producer "quotes" you think show they have a bias.

[Diplomat]

But you don't know that the PBS program isn't well-researched and thoughtfully presented. I still don't know what producer "quotes" you think show they have a bias.

First, it's ON PBS, which raises a red flag, given its history of bias.

And some of the quotes:

The program challenges long-held beliefs. Abraham, Sarah and their offspring probably didn't exist, says Carol Meyers, a religion professor at Duke University.
---
Most Christians and Jews believe they did exist and if they didn't exist, then the man from whom became the land of Israel, Jacob, could not have existed, either. Abraham was Jacob's grandfather. These people seem to be saying it's absurd to believe that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. did not exist. They have a right to their opinions of course, but they should not wet their pants if not everyone agrees with them.

----------
Nova series producer Paula Apsell says she found it "extremely shocking" to learn that monotheism was a process that took hundreds of years.

"I was always brought up to believe that the minute Abraham and the patriarchs came on the scene, the Israelites accepted one God and there was just always one God and that was it," Apsell says. "I think people are going to really be stunned by that."
----------
Christians and Jews who have studied the Old Testament already know it took many, many years for people to accept the idea of one God, so they won't be "stunned" by her opinion. Reading this quote sounds as if Ms. Aspell had never read a Bible or done even the slightest bit of research before now.

[Pro]

First, it's ON PBS, which raises a red flag, given its history of bias..

That, right there, is a red flag that the rest of the post is not going to be objective.

[Diplomat]

That, right there, is a red flag that the rest of the post is not going to be objective.

Uh, let me help you here.

This is a message board. People post their OPINIONS. Opinions are what people think about a particular issue or topic.

What I post is my opinion. What you post is your opinion.

Someone pat Pro on the head and give him some milk and cookies.

[Produce man]

Someone pat Pro on the head and give him some milk and cookies.How about a hot dose of sodium pentathol?:whistle:

[SamG]

First, it's ON PBS, which raises a red flag, given its history of bias.
So exactly what network would you be satisfied it's done a good job on a show three months before it airs?


And some of the quotes:

The program challenges long-held beliefs. Abraham, Sarah and their offspring probably didn't exist, says Carol Meyers, a religion professor at Duke University.
---Looks like Miss Meyers had nothing to do with producing the show, but as you say, she's entitled to her opinion.


Most Christians and Jews believe they did exist and if they didn't exist, then the man from whom became the land of Israel, Jacob, could not have existed, either. Abraham was Jacob's grandfather. These people seem to be saying it's absurd to believe that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. did not exist. They have a right to their opinions of course, but they should not wet their pants if not everyone agrees with them.Where do you see that people think it's 'absurd' (your word) to believe those people existed? I also don't see anyone "wetting their pants" because someone disagrees with them, except maybe you.


----------
Nova series producer Paula Apsell says she found it "extremely shocking" to learn that monotheism was a process that took hundreds of years.

"I was always brought up to believe that the minute Abraham and the patriarchs came on the scene, the Israelites accepted one God and there was just always one God and that was it," Apsell says. "I think people are going to really be stunned by that."
----------
Christians and Jews who have studied the Old Testament already know it took many, many years for people to accept the idea of one God, so they won't be "stunned" by her opinion. Reading this quote sounds as if Ms. Aspell had never read a Bible or done even the slightest bit of research before now.
So the producer learned something during the shoot. Not everyone is as studied:rolleyes: as you. And there's also a difference between 'many, many years' and 'hundreds of years'.

[Diplomat]

Sam--you are accusing me of trashing the program without seeing it and you are passionately defending the program without having seen it.

The religion professor may or may not have been involved in the production. Why was she quoted? It seems odd to pick a religion professor at random.

Telling people that one of the patriarchs of their faith didn't exist IS in essence telling them that to believe they did is absurd.

I'd be more trusting of one of the broadcast or cable networks before I would of PBS, which has a long history of leftward-slanted programming, especially in this area. I already mentioned two other networks which ran specials about Jesus--you should have read that before asking this.

[Spike]

Sam--you are accusing me of trashing the program without seeing it and you are passionately defending the program without having seen it.

I had to go back and read it to see if I could figure out what the hell you're talking about. And I can't. I can't find a post where Sam was "passionately defending the program."

All I see is where he pointed out how irrational your criticism was.

[Head Janitor]

As an inquisitive person, I enjoy these types of programs, because it presents information in a new form that can be debated. As an atheist, I really hate these kinds of programs. It pisses off the religious people, and people like myself get the blame.

I don't speak for every atheist. I only speak for myself when I say, I don't care what you believe. It is your right. I will never bore you with why I don't believe or why you shouldn't.

But I do wonder, is the faith of these christians so weak that a television show can actually challenge it? Can't they wait to judge it once they've seen it? Once they've seen it, then they can make up their minds about where it aired and who funded it.

[s'news]

I am led to wonder out loud if PBS is on the list. If so, could it's inclusion now be considered righteous or am I a distorting menace?

Okay, not much to consider there.

[Diplomat]

I had to go back and read it to see if I could figure out what the hell you're talking about. And I can't. I can't find a post where Sam was "passionately defending the program."

All I see is where he pointed out how irrational your criticism was.

Spike--you think anyone who has religious faith is irrational. Of course, you have also claimed to study religion in college, along with so many other areas in which you claim to be an expert. Just more of your BS.

[Spike]

Spike--you think anyone who has religious faith is irrational.

No, I think your automatic criticism of this program, which you haven't seen, is irrational.

Of course, you have also claimed to study religion in college, along with so many other areas in which you claim to be an expert.

You are a lying sack of sh*t.

[Diplomat]

As an inquisitive person, I enjoy these types of programs, because it presents information in a new form that can be debated. As an atheist, I really hate these kinds of programs. It pisses off the religious people, and people like myself get the blame.

I don't speak for every atheist. I only speak for myself when I say, I don't care what you believe. It is your right. I will never bore you with why I don't believe or why you shouldn't.

But I do wonder, is the faith of these christians so weak that a television show can actually challenge it? Can't they wait to judge it once they've seen it? Once they've seen it, then they can make up their minds about where it aired and who funded it.

I think the American Family Association is over the top with this--and I've never been a fan of what they do, and have said so many times. I see nobody on here defending them--just asking some questions, since the article quotes people who seem to question the existence of one of the great patriarchs of Judaism.

As I have said--and certain others on this board do not understand--they are free to produce the program. However, nobody is under any obligation to watch it. Given the identity of the original poster and PBS' history, you'll have to forgive those of us who don't accept at face value that this is simply some "search for truth." And there are few documentaries that don't have some sort of agenda.

If it were on some other network, I probably would not have any questions. As I have said, the programs I saw on ABC and FNC were quite good and examined several points of view. I've a friend or two who are Biblical scholars and are familiar with all the historical aspects and continually do research. I listen to what they have to say on all the discoveries, etc. I've even read what some of the professional atheists (those who make a living preaching atheism) have said--and they haven't convinced me.

But as you say--everyone has a right to his or her opinion. I thank you for respectfully expressing yours.

[Diplomat]

No, I think your automatic criticism of this program, which you haven't seen, is irrational.



You are a lying sack of sh*t.

Spike, you're looking in the mirror again. Or to quote you, "Liar, liar, pants on fire." You think you are an expert on everything--no matter what the topic is, you have "studied it" or whatever. Every time you make a claim to have studied some topic or subject, you follow shortly with comments that indicate you know little about said topic/subject. (And saying "little" is being generous.)

You think you can verbally bully your way with everyone on here--and get agitated when someone calls you on your BS. It's not hard to picture you stamping your feet and crying or cowering in a corner of wherever it is you work or go to school when someone puts you in your place.

[Spike]

You think you are an expert on everything--no matter what the topic is, you have "studied it" or whatever.

You are a lying piece of garbage. You do realize that in your faith that can get you sent to hell, right?

[Kace]

I have a crazy idea.

Those interested in watching it...watch it. Otherwise, I'd say skip the viewing.

It's a little out there, but it just might work.

[Diplomat]

You are a lying piece of garbage. You do realize that in your faith that can get you sent to hell, right?

There you go again--"liar, liar, pants on fire."

"I know who you are, but what am I?"

I have spoken the truth and it hurts.

[Spike]

I have spoken the truth...

You have mental problems. You should stick your head under a moving bus to solve them, you miserable fornicator of dog corpses.

[Pro]

I have spoken the truth and it hurts.

Ummm....didn't you say this was an opinion board, hmmmm?

But,then again, since you think your opinions are the truth, and other people's are lies, I suppose that follows.

[SamG]

Sam--you are accusing me of trashing the program without seeing it and you are passionately defending the program without having seen it.As Spike said... care to point out where I"m 'passionately' defending the program?


The religion professor may or may not have been involved in the production. Why was she quoted? It seems odd to pick a religion professor at random.I'm guessing the professor was interviewed in the production and the quote is pulled from the documentary. You use quotes to support the story, and this story is the documentary might challenge some long-held beliefs.


Telling people that one of the patriarchs of their faith didn't exist IS in essence telling them that to believe they did is absurd.A) The quote says the people probably didn't exist. And B) no, that doesn't mean they think it's absurd to believe they did any more than you think it's absurd for someone to be an athiest.


I'd be more trusting of one of the broadcast or cable networks before I would of PBS, which has a long history of leftward-slanted programming, especially in this area. I already mentioned two other networks which ran specials about Jesus--you should have read that before asking this.I *DID* read that. But your statement was about how well those specials were done, I presumed that meant you watched them. I think people are wrong to criticize a show, book, movie, whatever without seeing a commercial/promo much less the entire thing. This isn't much different from people criticizing 'The DaVinci Code' without having read the thing.

[Diplomat]

You have mental problems. You should stick your head under a moving bus to solve them, you miserable fornicator of dog corpses.

How could anyone dare question any of the great claims of the immortal Spike, who is an expert on everything?

/sarcasm font off/

[tater]

You have mental problems. You should stick your head under a moving bus to solve them, you miserable fornicator of dog corpses.

Wow, with an insult like that you have to wonder who has the mental problems.

[Another OMB]

As an inquisitive person, I enjoy these types of programs, because it presents information in a new form that can be debated. As an atheist, I really hate these kinds of programs. It pisses off the religious people, and people like myself get the blame.

I don't speak for every atheist. I only speak for myself when I say, I don't care what you believe. It is your right. I will never bore you with why I don't believe or why you shouldn't.

But I do wonder, is the faith of these christians so weak that a television show can actually challenge it? Can't they wait to judge it once they've seen it? Once they've seen it, then they can make up their minds about where it aired and who funded it.

I don't think it's a question of Christians' faith being weak. Speaking for myself as a Christian, whatever this show says isn't going to change my faith. If you'll notice, the article uses words like "unlikely" and "may not have". There's no proof.

I think what Christians are concerned about is people who are not believers but may be curious, interested or seeking and what kind of impact this kind of program might have on them. Someone may be open to Christianity, but then they see this program and it raises enough doubts that they close their mind and heart.

[Kace]

So faith can possibly be diminished by facts?

[Another OMB]

So faith can possibly be diminished by facts?

Well, first of all, these are NOT facts the show is talking about. It's all conjecture and supposition. And that's the problem.

The people I'm talking about don't have faith at this point, but may be curious or searching for answers. Before they learn more about Christianity, (or now even Judaism for that matter) they see this show which tries to undermine some of the foundations of those religions. It takes away any curiousity they may have had because now they may think, "Well, Christianity sounded like something I wanted to know more about, but if that show says a lot of the stuff it's based on isn't true, why bother?"

Here's an analogy, which I realize may not be great but it's an attempt:

You've heard about a restaurant and you want to try it. From what you've heard, it's got something you want. But then a restaurant critic writes a review. It doesn't say the restaurant is terrible, just that there MIGHT be problems with it. The claims the restaurant makes in its commercials might not be true. They might be--the critic has no way to say for sure--but what sticks in your mind is that they might not be.

Are you going to go try that restaurant? Maybe, maybe not. The people who love that restaurant already are going to keep going there because they've experienced it for themselves and what the restaurant critic wrote doesn't change their own experiences and feelings. But the person trying to decide whether to check it out is likely to be less inclined to after the review.

[commercial hack]

This is gettin' good. http://www.forum.exscn.net/images/smilies/drama.gif

[Kace]

Well, first of all, these are NOT facts the show is talking about.

Is this based on getting to view the documentary or just from what you read online?

[Spike]

I think what Christians are concerned about is people who are not believers but may be curious, interested or seeking and what kind of impact this kind of program might have on them. Someone may be open to Christianity, but then they see this program and it raises enough doubts that they close their mind and heart.

How terrible it would be for people to actually think about the doctrine and evaluate it themselves instead of just accepting it whole hog.

How could anyone dare question any of the great claims of the immortal Spike, who is an expert on everything?

It's a miracle! I've just discovered your likeness in my toilet!

[Dap]

It's all conjecture and supposition. And that's the problem.

Hilarious! Someone who believes all that is written in an antique compilation of fairy tales as fact has the nerve to accuse another of conjecture and supposition.


The people I'm talking about don't have faith at this point, but may be curious or searching for answers. Before they learn more about Christianity, (or now even Judaism for that matter) they see this show which tries to undermine some of the foundations of those religions.

So you're upset that it'll be more difficult to warp minds with illogical, guilt-ridden myth? Good. The fewer children you are allowed to brainwash, the better.

The faithful get their knickers in a kerfuffle whenever facts raise their own awareness of religious foolishness. It is you, Mr. Diplomat, stamping your feet proclaiming Santa does exist, he does, he does, he does, no matter what the adults say!

[s'news]

It's my opinion that people who are confident in their faith have no problem with a program such as this one.

[Diplomat]

Hilarious! Someone who believes all that is written in an antique compilation of fairy tales as fact has the nerve to accuse another of conjecture and supposition.



So you're upset that it'll be more difficult to warp minds with illogical, guilt-ridden myth? Good. The fewer children you are allowed to brainwash, the better.

The faithful get their knickers in a kerfuffle whenever facts raise their own awareness of religious foolishness. It is you, Mr. Diplomat, stamping your feet proclaiming Santa does exist, he does, he does, he does, no matter what the adults say!

Dap--your hatred of religious people sounds pretty bigoted to me. Your canards about religious people and belief that America is a horrible country are the myths.

[Head Janitor]

I don't think it's a question of Christians' faith being weak. Speaking for myself as a Christian, whatever this show says isn't going to change my faith. If you'll notice, the article uses words like "unlikely" and "may not have". There's no proof.

I think what Christians are concerned about is people who are not believers but may be curious, interested or seeking and what kind of impact this kind of program might have on them. Someone may be open to Christianity, but then they see this program and it raises enough doubts that they close their mind and heart.

Then I have a suggestion for those christians who are worried about this show's effect on the uninitiated: instead of trying to block the show, host viewing parties. Draw more people into your churches to watch it, and then discuss what it does and doesn't mean.

It all depends on how these christians(the ones against the show) want to be portrayed: someone willing to hear another side and explain why that doesn't impact your faith or someone willing to put plugs in ears, hands over eyes and scream loudly to keep out someone else's opinion.

[Diplomat]

It's my opinion that people who are confident in their faith have no problem with a program such as this one.

And people who are confident in their lack of faith will have no problem with someone questioning that. :)

[commercial hack]

"...antique compilation of fairy tales"

"...illogical, guilt-ridden myth"

My, we're angry today. If you're so sure, prove it.

[Kace]

Name one fairy that told those Bibical tales.

[Diplomat]

Then I have a suggestion for those christians who are worried about this show's effect on the uninitiated: instead of trying to block the show, host viewing parties. Draw more people into your churches to watch it, and then discuss what it does and doesn't mean.

It all depends on how these christians(the ones against the show) want to be portrayed: someone willing to hear another side and explain why that doesn't impact your faith or someone willing to put plugs in ears, hands over eyes and scream loudly to keep out someone else's opinion.

You're talking to the wrong group. You should tell this to Wildmon's outfit. As I have said, if these people want to produce and air their show, fine. PBS has a right to air it. People have a right to watch or not to watch. Nobody has an obligation to watch anything that's on the air.

[Bandit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBlJaPD-CCQ&eurl=http://failblog.org/page/2/

[cinehead]

I have a crazy idea.

Those interested in watching it...watch it. Otherwise, I'd say skip the viewing.

It's a little out there, but it just might work.


Radical!

[Kace]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBlJa...og.org/page/2/

Oh my God...

[Shot A Load]

My, we're angry today. If you're so sure, prove it.

Ah, the beautiful thing about religion is it's all "faith" and not a whole lot of actual evidence exists. Of course the only argument on the faithful's side is "prove it". Why don't we change it up and tell the follower's to prove there side without using a book that was written by MAN hundreds of years after the stories supposedly took place.

[Head Janitor]

You're talking to the wrong group. You should tell this to Wildmon's outfit.

That is who I was talking to.


Then I have a suggestion for those christians who are worried about this show's effect on the uninitiated: instead of trying to block the show, host viewing parties. Draw more people into your churches to watch it, and then discuss what it does and doesn't mean.

It all depends on how these christians(the ones against the show) want to be portrayed: someone willing to hear another side and explain why that doesn't impact your faith or someone willing to put plugs in ears, hands over eyes and scream loudly to keep out someone else's opinion.

[Another OMB]

Then I have a suggestion for those christians who are worried about this show's effect on the uninitiated: instead of trying to block the show, host viewing parties. Draw more people into your churches to watch it, and then discuss what it does and doesn't mean.

It all depends on how these christians(the ones against the show) want to be portrayed: someone willing to hear another side and explain why that doesn't impact your faith or someone willing to put plugs in ears, hands over eyes and scream loudly to keep out someone else's opinion.

Very good idea, and I'm not in the group wanting to block the show. I was just trying to explain why Christians might be against it.

I'm definitely in the camp you mentioned: willing to hear another side and explain why that doesn't impact my faith.

[Another OMB]

Is this based on getting to view the documentary or just from what you read online?

Obviously, just what I read online, since the documentary hasn't been shown yet. I'm assuming the quotes are from the documentary.

[Another OMB]

How terrible it would be for people to actually think about the doctrine and evaluate it themselves instead of just accepting it whole hog.


I think people SHOULD think about the doctrine and evaluate it themselves, and I'm sure the vast majority of people (if not all) do. Because of the nature of faith, I don't think anyone just "buys it whole hog" without a lot of thought and soul-searching.

I can't prove God exists. You can't prove He does not. So, either way, people have to believe something they can't prove.

If I COULD prove beyond a doubt that God exists, and Jesus was His son who came to earth, it would require no faith or effort on anyone's part to believe in Him and worship Him.

[Another OMB]

Hilarious! Someone who believes all that is written in an antique compilation of fairy tales as fact has the nerve to accuse another of conjecture and supposition.

That's because, obviously, I don't think it's a book of "fairy tales". And I wasn't "accusing" anyone of conjecture and supposition; I was repeating what THEY said. Notice their use of words like "unlikely" and "probably". That means they're supposing and drawing conclusions, not that they have facts.

So you're upset that it'll be more difficult to warp minds with illogical, guilt-ridden myth? Good. The fewer children you are allowed to brainwash, the better.

The faithful get their knickers in a kerfuffle whenever facts raise their own awareness of religious foolishness. It is you, Mr. Diplomat, stamping your feet proclaiming Santa does exist, he does, he does, he does, no matter what the adults say!

I don't know what your past negative experience is with religion, but my church doesn't deal in "illogical, guilt-ridden myth", and we're not trying "warp minds", children's or adults'.

And I don't know why you're attacking Diplomat in a response to a quote from me.

[commercial hack]

Ah, the beautiful thing about religion is it's all "faith" and not a whole lot of actual evidence exists. Of course the only argument on the faithful's side is "prove it". Why don't we change it up and tell the follower's to prove there side without using a book that was written by MAN hundreds of years after the stories supposedly took place.

I was wondering who would be the first to say "waaaah I can't prove it..you prove it."

[Pro]

My, we're angry today. If you're so sure, prove it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E

[commercial hack]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E

Don't have youtube access. What is it?

[Pro]

Excerpts from the "Bulls*it" episode on the Bible.

[Produce man]

Excerpts from the "Bulls*it" episode on the Bible.Keep in mind, Bullsh!t also de-bunked the green movement, so watch who you source.

[Shot A Load]

I was wondering who would be the first to say "waaaah I can't prove it..you prove it."

Who's crying? Shouldn't the burden of proof lie with the ones who say it's true? I think it's presumptuous for someone to tell others to believe in something with only their word.

[Dap]

Dap--your hatred of religious people sounds pretty bigoted to me. Your canards about religious people and belief that America is a horrible country are the myths.

My dear sir, I do not hate religious people. I feel sorry for their delusions and the time, money and energy wasted on religion. Life is short. Sleep in on Sunday, yeah?

My, we're angry today. If you're so sure, prove it.

Not at all. You do know, don't you, that it is impossible to prove a negative?

That's because, obviously, I don't think it's a book of "fairy tales". And I wasn't "accusing" anyone of conjecture and supposition; I was repeating what THEY said. Notice their use of words like "unlikely" and "probably". That means they're supposing and drawing conclusions, not that they have facts.

I don't know what your past negative experience is with religion, but my church doesn't deal in "illogical, guilt-ridden myth", and we're not trying "warp minds", children's or adults'.

And I don't know why you're attacking Diplomat in a response to a quote from me.

The poor dears who grew up with nuns rapping knuckles with rulers are minor, true. However the poor girls growing up in Morman enclaves or in Muslim ruled countries suffer horribly from those myths.

Do you teach the Adam and Eve story? Then you are continuing the myth that women are to blame for all the world's ailments. It quite astounds me that women in religious sects stand for it, really.

Mr. Diplomat is in discussion on this thread as well. Must I respond separately to him in order to prevent confusion on your part?

[News Is Broken]

Do you teach the Adam and Eve story? Then you are continuing the myth that women are to blame for all the world's ailments. It quite astounds me that women in religious sects stand for it, really.

Women ARE to blame for all the world's ailments. They gave birth to everyone who screwed this place up!

/ducks

[Produce man]

This thread title is incorrect. There will be a mass exodus here at the station 30 minutes after olympic coverage tonight.

[Diplomat]

Dap, I feel sorry for you in your lack of belief. But I respect your right to believe the myths you have told yourself.

The story of Adam and Eve does not teach that women are to blame for the world's problems. That's a myth spewed by people who lack common sense and understanding. It teaches that any of us can be tempted to do that which is wrong. Both Adam and Eve sinned.

[Spike]

The story of Adam and Eve does not teach that women are to blame for the world's problems. That's a myth spewed by people who lack common sense and understanding. It teaches that any of us can be tempted to do that which is wrong.

It also teaches us that it is wrong to seek knowledge.

[Pro]

But I respect your right to believe the myths you have told yourself.

As I respect your right to believe the myths you've told yourself.

Just don't get the government involved...like putting the Ten Commandments in courthouses....that kind of thing. As long as goverment is religion-neutral, then feel free to believe anyway you wish.

[Kace]

All I know for sure is that Lillith is fascinating.

[Diplomat]

As I respect your right to believe the myths you've told yourself.

Just don't get the government involved...like putting the Ten Commandments in courthouses....that kind of thing. As long as goverment is religion-neutral, then feel free to believe anyway you wish.

You are free to believe the myths you believe and preach on here. ;)

The government is not really relevant to this discussion. I thought public broadcasting didn't take government money any more. If it does, it shouldn't air programs that encourage or discourage a particular religious belief. Gotta be consistent, you know.

[Pro]

it shouldn't air programs that encourage or discourage a particular religious belief.

Not even shows based on scientificlly proven facts?

[Diplomat]

Not even shows based on scientificlly proven facts?

Who decides they are facts? The people presenting them?

Faith is something about which nobody can be objective. It takes faith to believe in God. It takes faith NOT to believe in Him.

[Pro]

Who decides they are facts? The people presenting them?

Faith is something about which nobody can be objective. It takes faith to believe in God. It takes faith NOT to believe in Him.

Well, I think science determines if they are facts or not.

And it doesn't take faith to say there is no scientific evidence of "God". But I will agree that it takes a kind of faith to say "There absolutely is NO God". Because there's no way of knowing for sure. I acknowledge the possibility, despite no scientific evidence being present. Organized atheists (which I am not one) have just as much "faith" as those who believe in God.

[Kace]

This thread's probably more entertaining than the documentary will be.

[Bandit]

This thread's probably more entertaining than the documentary will be. Well, that's unfortunate. ;)

[Another OMB]

Do you teach the Adam and Eve story? Then you are continuing the myth that women are to blame for all the world's ailments. It quite astounds me that women in religious sects stand for it, really.

Mr. Diplomat is in discussion on this thread as well. Must I respond separately to him in order to prevent confusion on your part?

On the last part, I apologize. I mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that you thought Diplomat and I were the same poster using different names.

He already responded to your statement about Adam and Eve, but let me add: I've taught Sunday School classes on the topic and Adam was just as much to blame as Eve. I've never heard the story taught that women are to blame for all the world's ailments.

[SamG]

Who decides they are facts? The people presenting them?
Really? If someone came to you and said "two plus two equals four", you'd doubt them based on who they are?

[Diplomat]

Really? If someone came to you and said "two plus two equals four", you'd doubt them based on who they are?

Don't be silly.

That is established fact. There's no agenda involved in "two plus two equals four."

How can you prove that Abraham did not exist? Why would you want to prove or disprove it, unless you had some sort of agenda?

Agendas are fine. Just be honest about them.

[Kace]

I'm guessing the agenda was to see if the Exodus thing actually happened.

[Diplomat]

I'm guessing the agenda was to see if the Exodus thing actually happened.

Given that they talked about more than just Exodus, I'd say there's more. If they want to make their documentary, fine. If people want to watch, fine. If they don't, that's fine, too. Let the marketplace decide.

[Kace]

Given that they talked about more than just Exodus, I'd say there's more.

Okay...I'm guessing the agenda was to see if this stuff that's been documented, including the Exodus among other things actuallly happened.

[Diplomat]

Okay...I'm guessing the agenda was to see if this stuff that's been documented, including the Exodus among other things actuallly happened.

Can they prove Abraham existed?
Can they prove he did not?

[s'news]

Tune in and find out. Or not.

[SamG]

Why would you want to prove or disprove it, unless you had some sort of agenda?

I guess 'Mythbusters' has an agenda also. Why else would they want to prove or disprove myths?

[Shot A Load]

We all know if enough people believe in something it must be true. The world was flat, there were WMDs, AIDS was a gay disease, and I didn't inhale. Hell, if a girl comes up to her future husband whom she hadn't slept with yet and makes the claim that a god did it, I'm sure people would believe that.

[Paper Trail]

TONIGHT'S MUST-SEE: (http://www.freep.com/article/20081118/ENT03/811180319/1038/ENT) "Nova: The Bible's Buried Secrets," 8 p.m., WTVS-TV, Channel 56, PBS.


Powerful forces -- science, history and faith -- link in this well-crafted documentary.

Historians have found little physical evidence for some Bible stories, like Joshua toppling the walls of Jericho. But others have drawn fresh support.

With rich photography and intelligent commentary, this pulls us into ancient times.

[Kace]

Maybe that's why it's called, "faith," Zero. ;)

[MyracleMan]

Why would you want to prove or disprove it, unless you had some sort of agenda?

You mean the search for the truth isn't enough?

Most pure academics want to take hold of something accepted as fact, and work to prove or disprove it just because they can.

There's no agenda there; it's about the search for truth, nothing more.

[Kace]

Yeah, but if the truth attained turns out to contradict something that's considered a matter of faith...couldn't that be bad for someone's business?

[newz2me]

TONIGHT'S MUST-SEE: (http://www.freep.com/article/20081118/ENT03/811180319/1038/ENT) "Nova: The Bible's Buried Secrets," 8 p.m., WTVS-TV, Channel 56, PBS.
Sounds like something Geraldo Rivera would host.