Liberals often insist on the separation of church and state, but they’d really like to go further to separating the church from everything. That principle oozes into PBS, where a forthcoming Nova documentary insists the Bible is full of fables, not history. Orlando Sentinel TV critic Hal Boedeker reported from a PBS publicity session for TV critics:
Abraham didn't exist? The Exodus didn't happen?
The Bible's Buried Secrets, a new PBS documentary, 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."
Story Continues Below Ad ↓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 is a production of Boston PBS superstation WGBH, and the Nova people were fascinated by their misconceptions:
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.
America's political culture may have Judeo-Christian origins, but the producers of government-funded broadcasting are avidly interested in demonstrating that Judaism and Christianity are based on mythology, not history. What not to expect from PBS? The debunking of Islamic history.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"But it explains how and
July 27, 2008 - 06:53 ET by motherbelt"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."
Wow. Thousands of years later, PBS comes along and "explains" how the Bible came to be.
Divine Inspriration? PFFFFT!
PBS has the real story. It's all just a myth to give the "Israelites" a sense of identity.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Where's their evidence?
July 27, 2008 - 07:22 ET by WingletDriverThey claim that there's no archaeological evidence for Exodus, but they're going to tell us where that story came from? Talk about omniscience!
"I was always brought up to believe that the minute Abraham and the patriarchs came on the scene, the Israelites accepted one God. . . ." Abraham had two sons. His younger son Isaac was the father of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. Israel had twelve sons who were the heads of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. This "historical" look at the Bible seems ignorant of the fact that at Abraham's time, there were no Israelites.
Furthermore, Abraham is unique in the Bible because he was nearly alone in his belief in God and he raised a nation of believers. He wasn't a king who imposed this belief on his subjects. Nor was he a prophet spreading the word.
It is humorous
July 27, 2008 - 07:25 ET by TDVhow often speculation is used to disprove scripture and to prove evolutionary theory.
"Abraham, Sarah and their offspring probably didn't exist, says Carol Meyers, a religion professor at Duke University."
Possibly, could have, maybe, it is thought, probably, might have, some say, some believe, etc. permeate both.
A man with an experience is not at a loss to one with a theory.
God is worried about this I'm quite sure
July 28, 2008 - 20:18 ET by TruthMongersomeone is attacking the historical accuracy of the Bible - this is truly a first
they have something called "scientific proof"
of course so do fundies like me - except we call it "faith"
says archaeologist William
July 27, 2008 - 07:40 ET bysays archaeologist William Dever: "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."
and we know what William says is not myth based on what?
"You can not support the Troops if you do not support their Mission"
Right. They don't "propose
July 27, 2008 - 08:13 ET by motherbeltRight. They don't "propose another theory" as to how it happened...they "explain."
Don't you love it?
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
yes mom
July 27, 2008 - 20:15 ET byand we could explain Williams explanation as being induced by LSD
"You can not support the Troops if you do not support their Mission"
Religious Fairness Doctrine?
July 27, 2008 - 07:51 ET by Remixer96I'm confused by the author's last point about Islam. Are you suggesting that we need something like the fairness doctrine for tv shows exploring the historical accuracy of religions?
Speaking for Mr. Graham. . .
July 27, 2008 - 08:05 ET by WingletDriverHis point seems to be that PBS will fund and air any overtly anti-Christian, anti-Jewish screed (I refrain from "anti-Semitic only because Arabs are Semites). But these same producers will also broadcast tripe sympathetic to modern Jihadism. He is not calling for a Religious Fairness Doctrine--only pointing out the hypocrisy of the producers at PBS.
That's what tax funding always leads to...
July 27, 2008 - 08:06 ET by sarcasmoNo matter what it's called. Only total defunding reliably & cheaply prevents the goring of oxen, especially where religion & politics are concerned. $0 from taxpayers is the answer that makes sense.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
publically funded blasphemy?
July 27, 2008 - 07:56 ET by ginagwen7Our tax dollars hard at work here, folks. Taking my hard-earned money then use it to fund this kind of garbage is a shame.
How about the nation of Islam? Doesn't claiming that Abraham didn't exsist shoot a hole in their identity also? Since they claim to be the decendants of Ismael, son of Haggar and Abraham, that would invalidate their religion also.
Islam
July 27, 2008 - 09:25 ET by forestI agree. Although, I'm sure it wasn't their intent, claiming that Abraham didn't exist is contrary to Islam, and hence an unacceptable insult to Islam. Let the rioting begin...
yep it is - Jews,
July 28, 2008 - 20:20 ET by TruthMongeryep it is - Jews, Christians and Muslims are all close relatives stemming from the very same tree of honest abe:)
Just the Bible ?? What
July 27, 2008 - 08:08 ET by mostlymoderateJust the Bible ?? What about the Koran or the Talmud CBS? C'mon, have the guts to piss of some Jews and Muslim's too?
"selected science"
July 27, 2008 - 08:12 ET by wdhorningPBS is using "selected science." When one examines all the scientific evidence, there is more science to prove historical accuracy than to disprove the Bible. There are dozens of books published that devote full time and attention to the scientific record and make PBS out to be what they really are, "God-haters."
And there is the science of God's personal presence. Non-believers have not the slightest idea and suppose it is all about a set of beliefs brought about by wishful thinking, a desire to belong or some other emotional behavior. But they are completely wrong, because they do not experience how God proves He is who He says He is and that the history in the Bible is precisely accurate.
God, Himself proves Himself to believers through His Spirit, which they cannot experience. Until one has experienced the presence of God in this way, they will barely or never believe anything the Bible says.
Also, PBS will not try to debunk Islamic history (which accepts both Jewish and Christian history, and considers itself to be the successor religion) because they know someone may blown up PBS headquarters. (Footnote: God Himself, through His Spirit, proves to the believer that Islam is not the successor.)
You see, if belief in God were only that, then I too would accept the PBS "science" as fact, but because God Himself makes Himself know to me personally, I am compelled to listen to God, not humans. But I also am not stupid, and I too have looked at the science, in detail, and find significant proof of the historical accuracy of the Bible.
The other think PBS discounts is the power of God, to act a super-being with infinite power to do what he did in seven days. And they are wrong about the big bang too, because the universe has always existed and will always exist, only transforming from one physical configuration to another. The big bang theory is a joke because it does not answer the question of what came before, how the "core" was formed, or more importantly, why? If you cannot answer these questions, then any big bang theory is vanity.
As for historical records, the Hebrews kept more records than any other peoples, with highly accurate chronicles.
Troy didn't exist either --
July 27, 2008 - 08:15 ET by usinkoreaTroy didn't exist either -- until they found it.....and who found it? I believe it was an amateur-self-made archaeologist who was riddiculed by the same type of establishment the PBS is promoting here...
Also, look at the Dead Sea Scrolls: when they were kept under raps (which I didn't like), they were at least saved from this same establishment - because when they did become more available, what did The History Channel and other such outlets do? they went with the most contreversial interpretation of them that was - and of course that intepretation was a direct attack on Paul and the New Testament.
No evidence of the Exodus? Well, that contradicts a couple of documentaries I've seen - but those must not have been promoted by the PBS-types.
But, at least there is a little consistency from time to time --- I remember watching the Brad Pitt movie about the Trojan War -- where this same type of establishment at least eviscerated Homer's epic too --- by cutting out pretty much all serious reference to the pagan gods and the roles Homer (and his ancient culture) gave to them in the epic....
Deep Water
July 27, 2008 - 08:18 ET by harry flashmanWhy was the Old Testament called the Septuagint? How did what we recognnize as the New Testament come into existence?
Because a bibliophile pagan king (Ptolemy II Philadelphus) wanted a cogent telling of the story of the Jews and because a pagan Emperor wanted to unite and save his Empire.
and all of that simply
July 28, 2008 - 20:28 ET by TruthMongerand all of that simply because God wanted His word written down to help with tons of ridiculous confusion on the subject:)!
harry
July 29, 2008 - 16:21 ET by1) there was a Greek translation of the jewish Scriptures sometime around 300? BC. It was done by 70 (sept) scholars. That translation only is called the Septuagint, there are other old testament manuscripts.
2) the early churches kept many different writings and letters from the Apostles and their disciples. There were various counsels convened to determine the Canon (rule) of Scripture by which some writings were included and others disregarded.
3) incoherent assertion on your part does not bear on truth.
"You can not support the Troops if you do not support their Mission"
Hmmm...
July 27, 2008 - 08:21 ET by Crash... intriguing. "Stories" that have been made up, exaggerated, and histories that have been rewritten. Reminds me of how the press are covering Barack Hussein Obama. Does that mean democrats rewrote the bible too?
"Does that mean democrats rewrote the bible too?"
July 27, 2008 - 09:01 ET by Indiana JoeNo, they're mainly concerned with re-writing the Constitution.
Both Sides
July 27, 2008 - 09:36 ET by Remixer96Both sides are rewriting the Constitution these days. I've read in blogs on both sides that if the Constitution was put into legislation today it wouldn't make it out of committee... and to me that shows fault on the part of both parties as well as the American people.
Typical response. Whenever
July 27, 2008 - 10:17 ET by ThisnThatTypical response. Whenever the Dims are caught doing something wrong, defend them by claiming "the Republicans are doing it too". Why don't you come up with a more original thought than that?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
I'm glad to see that you
July 27, 2008 - 10:23 ET by Remixer96I'm glad to see that you agree with my statement, only criticising it for its unoriginality.
There is no prerequesite for originality when it comes to truth.
Come on, you can do better
July 27, 2008 - 10:31 ET by ThisnThatCome on, you can do better than that. Give me your best shot. Impress me with your intellect.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
I take my best shot often
July 27, 2008 - 11:03 ET by Remixer96I take my best shot often around here, but I don't know how to state any more plainly that both parties are at guilt for shredding the constitution as time wears on. The Republicans spend their time telling me who to marry and what controlled substances I can take while Democrats try to keep me a safe distance away from all things firearm and to tell me what and how to eat. And they both do so without defining their clear, objective goals or measures of success.
And also, my job isn't to fight with anyone, but simply to express my views. I don't ask you to be impressed, only to be engaged in debate. If you don't think what I've stated (which is obvious to me) is correct, you're free to contend in whatever manner you like.
Nice try, but keeping
July 27, 2008 - 13:23 ET by ThisnThatNice try, but keeping people from marrying three other people and their billy goat has nothing to do with changing the constitution. And protecting society from mind-altering drugs also has nothing to do with changing the constitution. However, illegally banning guns does directly affect the constitution.
Yours is a typical attempt to equate apples and oranges just to protect Dims.
________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
You're right but...
July 27, 2008 - 16:31 ET by Remixer96You're right in that I was thinking freedom instead of constitutional problems, so I'll point to the fourth amendment for the right. I think it's a fair point to say that both sides, but especially Republicans flex that amendment into meaninglessness for "the security" of the nation.
And I believe mind-altering substances WAS a constitutional level issue. It was changed back, but we should hardly consider the issue erased from the constitutional arena. It still matters on that level, and to say that drugs have "nothing to do" with the constitution is simply not true.
Last, I don't speak just to protect Democrats. I don't think especially highly of either party at the present time. My coment that started this thread defended no one, you entirely read the presumption that I was defending Dems into my statements. I think it's very dangerous when your partisanship has led you to interpret an attack on both parties as a defense of one or the other.
Sorry, those arguments
July 27, 2008 - 18:29 ET by ThisnThatSorry, those arguments don't fly. It was you who stated the Republicans are shredding the Constitution on marriage and drugs. I'm not going to let you get away with that statement. It simply isn't the truth. There is no mention of marriage or drugs in the Constitution.
But you are correct on the 2nd Ammendment. The Dims are trying everything they can to illegally repeal that ammendment --by passing laws to get around it, and by making specious arguments that it doesn't apply.
Here, I'll try to help you out. If you mean that Republicans are trying to amend the Constitution, well that's fine. [IMO, anybody can try to ammend the Constitution if they want, and we can all comment on the particular attempt]. But that is very different than shredding it, and when you make a statement like that, you're simply not correct: thus, comparing apples and oranges, like I said before.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Hmm....
July 27, 2008 - 13:35 ET by Indiana JoeWell, on your "who to marry" point, I guess I'll grant that more Republicans than Democrats are in that column. But when it comes to a nation recognizing a "marriage," and apportioning "benefits" thereto, I believe that nation has a right to define what a marriage is. You also can't "marry" an animal, although it has been tried. And here, the "will of the people" is supposed to rule. And more people are against gay marriage than for it (I assume that's the gist of your objection). But marriage is not a Constitutional right, so it's a moot point.
And on the "controlled substances" issue, I don't know of any highly-placed Democrats pushing for drug legalization. So that's a "both-ways" argument.
On the other hand, many gun-control laws are in direct contravention of the 2nd Amendment (as recently and plainly decided by SCOTUS). And gun-control is almost a completely Democrat concept.
And the left doesn't merely want to control what we eat; they also want to tell us what to drive, when to drive, how many can be in a car (car-pool lanes), what we should pay for gas, how much we should earn at work, etc. That's just off the top of my head, you understand. So, I would hardly say that both parties are equivalent in their desire to control our lives, taking away these kinds of freedoms.
I am reminded of an experiment done years ago, where someone tried to get the public to sign on to the Declaration of Independence. Most people wouldn't sign it, considering it some sort of "revolutionary" document. DUH! Shows how far we've come from those who pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor."
PBS...
July 27, 2008 - 09:02 ET by Indiana JoePromoting Biblical Skepticism.
Our tax-dollars at work.
refund
July 27, 2008 - 10:17 ET by ort777I'd much rather have my tax dollars spent funding the arts. Well, I take that back. Just give me a refund.
If funding were to stop for PBS...
July 27, 2008 - 09:36 ET by Iowa Boy...they would either have to come up with programming their viewers would like to watch or go under. You know, the free market. In fact, PBS is particularly profitable with their licensing of Sesame Street products. My children enjoy watching PBS Kids, an advertising supported cartoon network broadcasting many PBS created (read tax dollars) cartoons.
I always feel very sorry for our Canadian bretheren whenever I watch Discovery or HGTV like "How It Works" or "Holmes on Homes" and see shows which were created with Canadian tax dollars and then sold to TV networks in America. The John Q Publics in Edmonton, Alberta and elsewhere are getting screwed worse then us.
I'd love it if public funding for PBS and NPR would dry up. If there's a large enough audience for what they offer, they'll survive. If not, they'll go dark. That how it should be.
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain." Official Motto of the State of Iowa
It'll be interesting to see
July 27, 2008 - 10:02 ET by danboIt'll be interesting to see what they say. "Exodus Decoded" on the History Channel had glaring problems. Just from watching. And when you start looking closer...
Will this be any better. A bunch of lose translations of text, distortions of translations and not placed in chronological order.
There are limits to what we can learn from archaeology.
I'm an athiest. I have no dog in this race. My question to PBS and NOVA. Is this driven from a desire to study an interesting subject or is it driven by religious prejudice an elitist bigotry. Are we to expect a similar program on islam, hinduism, buddism and all other religions. And even one on us athiest.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
If PBS wants to study
July 27, 2008 - 10:21 ET by ThisnThatIf PBS wants to study Islam, they can start by trying to explain why that religion tolerates "honor killings". It's estimated that as many as 5,000 women are murdered in such honor killings each year for offenses like immodesty or refusing an arranged marriage. Wonder what PBS might have to say about this fact, vs. their non-factual innuendos about the Bible?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Somehow I don't think they
July 27, 2008 - 10:57 ET by danboSomehow I don't think they really want to study islam (honor killings would just be the beginning.) or any other religion.
Rather I think it's elitist bigotry attempting to stick a finger in the eye of the religious.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
it's also estimated that
July 28, 2008 - 20:35 ET by TruthMongerit's also estimated that Christians tolerate MILLIONS of abortion-clinic honor killings every year due to the shame of unplanned pregnancy
Abraham, Sarah and their
July 27, 2008 - 10:40 ET by ThisnThatAbraham, Sarah and their offspring probably didn't exist, says Carol Meyers, a religion professor at Duke University.
Don't you just love how these so-called religion professors are brought out of the woodwork to offer "expert opinion"? Now, the fact is that university professors are 90% liberal -- and what does that mean? Liberal people are all for tearing down our institutions, traditions, religious beliefs, and culture to further their agenda. In this case, PBS has an agenda, and is trying to make us believe that this so-called "expert" is an unbiased contributer of factual data. Bullsh**!
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
I went to a small
July 27, 2008 - 18:29 ET by usinkoreaI went to a small non-denominational Christian school that has long been ranked by US News & World Report as one of the best undergrad colleges in the South -- and the head of the religious department was definately on a mission to alter perception of the Christianity the students entered to campus with.
In one of his survey classes, I heard he would begin the semester by asking how many of the students were Christians and at the end of the semester ask how many of the students still believed the idea that the only way to heaven was through Christ.
The school was an oddity --- a large portion of the student body was more religious than the average in American society - even for the South --- but the facaulty was very liberal and had a hard time dealing with the thoughts and opinions the students brought in year after year. The profs I knew were frequently putting down the students in talk out of class and of course that dislike for the type of students they were having to teach bled into their work in class. And a good number of professors would move on after a couple of years.
The head of the religion department has remained. He and some other profs started the first unitarian church in the area. I found out about it through my sister who attended a couple of times - but left - not because she found problems with the "all religions are one" --- which I tried to explain to her was a eviseration of the religions of all cultures - not just Western Christianity ----- but because she was too annoyed by how the young kids of the profs ran wild all over the place -- since - after she asked - she learned they didn't believe in disciplining or breaking the spirits of children....
PBS
July 27, 2008 - 11:54 ET by iamse7enThis is the same organization that tried to prove that Mormons were this mysterious, evil cult that had a history of murdering and lying.
Despicable.
at least they have warner's
July 28, 2008 - 20:36 ET by TruthMongerat least they have warner's vote:)!
Odd
July 27, 2008 - 12:28 ET by TjexciteWhen Penn and Teller show the AGW is wrong penn-teller-expose-whats-behind-environmentalist-hysteria they are great but when they also show the Bible and ID/ Creationism is wrong or at at least misinterpreted they are just liberal atheists that should be ignored.
You tube links to BS (with nomal warning)
Penn and Teller - BS - The Bible P1
Penn and Teller - BS - The Bible P2
Penn and Teller - BS - The Bible P3
Odd?
July 27, 2008 - 18:29 ET by Indiana JoeIs it necessary to always agree with someone that you sometimes agree with? I happen to like Penn & Teller, but I'm sure their politics generally diverge from mine. In the case of the "green hysteria," they're obviously out of lock-step with many in the mainstream left, and it's worth noting here for that reason alone.
I can't believe you're advocating a "right once, right always" kind of mind-set here. That's the province of what are called "mind-numbed robots."
Pray for our "ENEMIES ... "
July 27, 2008 - 13:13 ET by BodiniPray for our "ENEMIES ... " including big government and big government funded organizations such as PBS. Fellow NBers I ask that you join me in the following prayer.
Lord, I pray that the liberal wonks running Congress and their mindless minions at PBS be given a brain and with their ability to think, they will cease their quest to destroy us, the Americans who believe in a Power greater than ourselves, big government, and the taxpayer-funded communist media outlet called PBS.
I too agree with the separation of church and state ... including forbidding, in any way, the regulation of the church by the government. Why is it that the IRS can be used to "regulate" the church and the message of salvation, but the communist separatists never complain about that?
PBS = Pointless Bureaucratic Shamelessness
July 27, 2008 - 14:03 ET by Tito of Custos FideiIf PBS wanted to be 'forward thinking' they should do a documentary on the Koran and Islam. But alas they won't since they're nothing but a bunch of spineless cowards that will do anything to denigrate the only faith on the planet that changed the planet for the better.
Airing Date
July 27, 2008 - 14:06 ET by Dr_LibertyI noticed that the airing date was after the November elections.
Hmmmm...
As one publicly funded religious scholar once said, "Not God Bless America..." (Oh... I will let you fill in the rest).
<insert witty signature here>
The Ongoing Secular Jihad
July 27, 2008 - 14:35 ET by Kirk TurnerWhat we have is an ongoing secular jihad aginst religion in general, and object morality in particular. You see the same thing on the Discovery channel and the History channel. The truly amazing thing is that these entities have found "experts" who take devilish glee in trashing our most treasured beliefs. BUT when you realize that these "experts," by and large, are professors, it begins to fit.
Much as the military has been infiltrated with lawyers whose goals are vehemently anti-military, so religion is full of "experts" whose agenda is vehemently anti-religion. Most of these experts are professors and can be found in PBS, Discovery, and History channel shows that bear titles that seem religious. But when you view these shows, it becomes immediately apparent that they are secular "trojan horses" that lure viewers in under the pretense of expouding upon interesting religious themes; however, the show quickly becomes a refutation of its particular theme. The religious studies professors from, in this case, Duke University, are a mainstay.
The purpose here is for you to forego your own beliefs because of the "experts" assertion. No, Abraham didn't exist because "experts" say so. What they don't tell you is that many, if not all, of these assertions are just trendy "current theories" of the existing set of facts. When watching these shows, pay particular attention to the language used in these programs. You will often hear language used such as the following:
Could it be that Abraham didn't exist at all?
It might be the case that Exodus is a myth.
My point is that words such as could and might are a dead giveaway of theoretical knowledge, not fact. Academic writers get big points for refuting any prevailing wisdom, but refuting religious beliefs is the Holy Grail of their secular quasi-religion.
So next time you see an interesting show on Jesus, Exodus, Abraham, et al., just say no. You'll save yourself an hour of posturing, hate, and ridiculous theories spun by socially awkward people who hate you and all you stand for.
The fact is that these programs reveal what they know they must do before their secular paradise exists, and that is kill your belief in God. Don't let these geeks do that to you. These are the people who sit next to you on the train into town and creep you out. Just because they are on TV doesn't make their blather any more credible.
It would be interesting to
July 27, 2008 - 18:47 ET by usinkoreaIt would be interesting to take a look at many of these documentaries --- and survey what institutions the religion experts are coming from -- and specifically which are from institutions at schools where religion is a specific focus and which are from departments of religion of largely secular colleges.
I'm sure some would say that the profs in the field of religion on a secular campus would be more prone to "objectivity" than profs who are true believers doing their academic work at a non-secular institution.
But, as several of us here on this thread know from experience --- higher education is dominated by liberals which makes the message you receive on campus almost a quasi-religion in itself...
NO EXODUS, NO ABRAHAM = NO ISLAM
July 27, 2008 - 14:36 ET by Spook51PBS better watch their backside 'cause the crazies will <i>beheaded</i> (get it? be headed) to their studios. Simply put if Abraham never existed then <u>neither did his sons Issac and Ismael</u>, one the future father of Judeo/Christianity and the other the Sire of Islam. If the exodus never happened then neither did Allah or Muhammad. If bin Laden wants the headquarters office address of PBS he can click here=> http://www.aliennationreport.com
I recommend the author Josh
July 27, 2008 - 14:56 ET by alamojbI recommend the author Josh McDowell, former agnostic, who wrote "Evidence for Christianity." Great book.
Ah, the old discredited JEPD theory rears it's ugly head again.
July 27, 2008 - 15:01 ET by Free StinkerAll of this "Moses didn't write the Pentateuch" stuff comes from the *discredited* JEPD theory.
Of course, the Code of Hamurabi and the Elba tablets show that JEPD is bunk. The theory behind the creation of JEPD - namely that no nation at that time had writing - disintigrates in the face of writing found from the time of or preceeding the time of Moses.
The theory isn't discredited
July 28, 2008 - 11:09 ET by mbuelThe theory is sound, and upon reading the bible's various translations, you can SEE that there were multiple authors, how else can you:
1) Explain 2 creation stories?
2) Explain why Noah enters his ark twice? Why in one narrative is he only taking "pairs" of animals, and in another he is taking "seven"?
The problem with this show is that even though the bible may have been written by various sources, and some of it may not be "literally" interpertative history, it still has relevance even in today's times.
mbuel
July 28, 2008 - 19:08 ET byare you serious???
"You can not support the Troops if you do not support their Mission"
botg.
July 28, 2008 - 21:20 ET by Free StinkerOf course he isn't.
For those who aren;t familiar with the simple answers to the "problems" that mbuel lists:
No one would suggest that Robert Heinlein and other authors wrote Starship Troopers merely because the first chapter describes something that chronologically fits in the middle of the book.
Free
July 29, 2008 - 16:26 ET byi think he is still meditating on "God spelled backwards is dog" and stuck on the profound implications
"You can not support the Troops if you do not support their Mission"
problems arise
August 12, 2008 - 09:27 ET by mbuelHeinlein doesn't send his starship troopers off 2 by 2, then details the fighting, then in Chapter 2 details that he sent the troops off in sevens, unless they were unclean soldiers.
1) Both creation stories are different, and you can tell this by how they reference the creator. The first story calls god, Elohim, which is generally referred to as the council of creator gods. The second creation story refers to god as YHVH, the unspeakable god.
Gen 1: 27 So Elohim created man in his own image,
in the image of Elohim he created him;
male and female he created them.
Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] 7And the LORD God formed man of
the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life; and man became a living soul.
Man is created last in the first creation story. AFTER the plants and animals. Woman is created simultaneously with Man.
Man is created FIRST in the second creation story, and Woman is created LAST.
Order of creation:
Gen 1:
1) Heavens and Earth
2) light
3) Sky
4) seas and land
5) vegetation
6) stars and moon
7) fish and birds
8) land animals
9) man and woman
Gen 2:
1) heaven and earth
2) Man
3) vegetation (in one specific location)
4) rivers in eden
5) beasts of burden, birds
6) woman from man's rib.
The man said of the woman (inferring ownership in the way god does of man and woman in the first story.)
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [j] '
for she was taken out of man."
HUGE difference in narrative and direction here.
the difference is from
August 12, 2008 - 23:06 ET bythe difference is from who's perspective is the narration. But you knew this, no??
"You can not support the Troops if you do not support their Mission"
completely.
August 12, 2008 - 08:54 ET by mbuelSome brief differences (do what you will with this info)
Gen 6:11-13
11 Now the earth was
corrupt in GOD's sight and was full of violence. 12
GOD saw how corrupt the earth had
become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So GOD said to Noah, I am going to put an
end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am
surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
Gen 6:5-7
5 The LORD
saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every
inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth,
and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD
said, I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men
and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the
air--for I am grieved that I have made them.
How man animals?
Gen 7:2 Take with you SEVEN of every kind of clean animal, a male
and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3
and also SEVEN of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their
various kinds alive throughout the earth.
Gen 6:19 You are to bring into the ark TWO of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive
with you. 20 TWO
of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature
that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.
Notice the "lord" version Noah is told to differentiate between Clean and Unclean animals.
now the fool was foolish
August 12, 2008 - 23:04 ET bynow the fool was foolish in his assertions and the fool made a mountain out of a mole hill. For the fool has said in his heart there is no God.
and mbuel failed to understand that most persons are called by more than one name and thus mbuel has made a mountain out of a molehill.
notice that both of these reference the same person no differentiation needed.
"You can not support the Troops if you do not support their Mission"
PBS better be careful!
July 27, 2008 - 15:08 ET by a12iggymomThey'll piss the muslims off, they believe this stuff too. You can slam the Jews and Christians but Allah hepl you if you slight islam!
this is unlikely
July 28, 2008 - 11:04 ET by mbuel"The Bible's Buried Secrets, a new PBS documentary, is likely to cause a furor."
Maybe if they were attacking the Quran, most Christians will just roll their eyes and turn the channel.
Show The Proof
July 28, 2008 - 11:32 ET by UtherpendWhile I am not supporting PBS or a lot of the liberal left leaning sentiments and shows I would have to bring up one point that seems to stump most of my truely religious friends.
During the time of the Exodus the Bible lists out all the plagues set upon the egyptians by Moses, and then the actual migration from there to the promised land. The civilizations at that time kept very good records and even those records they wanted to hide or destroy still managed to find it's way out when searched hard enough. No where in all of the Egyptian history is there any mention of the plagues or the escape of thousands of Jewish slaves.
Why?
No where in all of the
July 28, 2008 - 11:42 ET by bassndudeNo where in all of the Egyptian history is there any mention of the plagues or the escape of thousands of Jewish slaves.
On that point your wrong. They have found a few obsecure indications of jewish inslavement and the subsequent release of said peoples. If you look at the records of the Egyptans, you will find they never lost a battle either. There is not one defeat listed. It was an Egyptian practice to remove all traces of things that were not favorable, from all writings.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Utherpend: A papyrus
July 28, 2008 - 12:05 ET by bassndudeUtherpend:
A papyrus dating from the end of the Old Kingdom was found in the early 19th century in Egypt. It seems to be an eyewitness account of the events preceding the dissolution of the Old Kingdom. Its author, an Egyptian named Ipuwer, writes:
Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere.
The river is blood.
That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin!
Trees are destroyed.
No fruit or herbs are found...
Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire.
Forsooth, grain has perished on every side.
The land is not light [dark].
Of course, this in not widely known. Many Archaeologists view this as an eye witness account of the plagues.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
False premise
July 28, 2008 - 19:48 ET by WingletDriver"The civilizations at that time kept very good records and even those records they wanted to hide or destroy still managed to find it's way out when searched hard enough."
A lot of current Egyptology is based on educated conjecture because the Egytians often destroyed records of political rivals and defaced their monuments. For example, read about Akhenaten who destroyed his predecessors' works, only to have successors attempt to do the same to his.