I turned to this History Channel production of The Bible with a cynical skepticism. My preconceptions weren’t aided by claims from some news media that the first installment of the series was TV’s most watched event. 
These claims were later brought into perspective. In fact the initial program was seen by 13 million viewers and outscored other shows that evening. It ranks as cable’s most-watched entertainment telecast this year. It did nearly as well for the History Channel as the record setting “Hatfields & McCoys” last year.
As I watched, my cynicism turned to admiration and I found myself on the edge of my seat, my attention never wavering, and I feel far more informed about the Bible and its characters than ever I thought I would be.
The opening of the superbly filmed and produced miniseries brings us to Noah’s Ark, looking as it should, and ravaged by terrible waters. We see many animals on board, as we thought we might, including zebras and ostriches; but our attention is grabbed by goats, and small cows, and two young and frightened deer, who like all the ark's occupants are being saved from drowning by Noah and his family. Noah explains to his anxious children that God is saving them from a terrible flood. The tempestuous sea fills the screen, and Noah fights to save the storm-ravaged ark from being dashed into submission.
We move from this opening sequence to the story of the seven days of the creation of the world, told in a way even disbelievers won’t disdain, and to the Garden of Eden. This comes as Noah is speaking to his family about the history of the world. The special effects are a thrill to behold. Noah shows that God has already seen too much evil in the hearts of men, as Cain kills Abel. We have a brief glimpse of Adam and Eve, a striking couple. Noah tells us that on the seventh day, God rested. We are told, "There is one father in heaven and one teacher and he is Christ."
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - Joe C
Well I guess nobody is reading the blog?
2 - John Lake
If you mean this blog here at BC, readership is sluggish; only about 600 the last day and a-half. People are slow to comment.
3 - katie
I'll comment:
Not sure what mini-series you were watching or where you got the idea that Hagar had two children by Abraham. There is no mention of a daughter in either the Bible or this HORENDOUSLY MISGUIDED TV version.
Here's how I feel about the rest of it.
4 - John Lake
I took another look at some reference materials, and they indicate that in fact Mahalath was not Ishmael’s sister, but rather his daughter. I'm not sure if she (assuming the materials are correct) was born before Hagar and her offspring were sent into the wilderness.
5 - John Lake
I read through the material that Katie in #3 mentions. While I certainly don't have the capacity to defend the History Channel version, I note that it relates to the Bible seen as literature, rather that absolute history. This is an alternative view, not necessarily a conflicting one.
6 - Irene Athena
Joe: There's some as reads which leaves no comments. There's some as comments who does not read.
Thanks for the review, John. I'd been curious about this show, and I don't have cable. Roma Downey...that name sounds familiar...
7 - Irene Athena
Katie, isn't it frustrating when atheists insist there is ZERO evidence that God exists? How can they possibly know everyone's experience? Maybe they know they can't possibly know, and the defensiveness is part of a gradual slide toward agnosticism.
But Roma Downey. Yes. She was the star of "Touched by an Angel"...shows like that, and this Bible show John is reviewing, and "Joan of Arcadia" can be uncomfortable for us Christians, because they are the stories of people who don't understand the Bible the same way we do, and yet they claim to be hearing his call to love through it. Does this mean that everything we are hearing from God is wrong? Do we have any evidence that they are really hearing God?
Please don't insist, the way atheists do, that they are not.
8 - Dr Dreadful
When someone asserts that there is zero evidence of God's existence, they are talking about scientific standards of evidence: that is to say, to be valid it must be observable, measurable, testable, falsifiable and repeatable.
Is somebody's testimony that they have experienced God evidence for his existence? Yes, of course. Is it sound evidence? Not by scientific standards.
9 - Irene Athena
Dr. Dreadful, are you sure you speak for all atheists when you say they are talking about scientific standards of evidence when they say there is no evidence for God? I appreciate that this is the way you mean it, but you may be an atheist who is dancing dangerously close to the fringes of agnostic apostasy.
You get old Christomper over here to tell me:
...Is somebody's testimony that they have experienced God evidence for his existence? Yes, of course...
...and I shall consume my Easter bonnet.
10 - Dr Dreadful
Irene, I claim neither to be an atheist nor that I speak for all atheists. There are certainly atheists who will claim in a dogmatic sense that there is no evidence for God, but the ones I'm talking about - and I will stick my neck out a bit here and say that Chris is one of these - are the ones who sincerely require empirical evidence, the same way a thoughtful person would require such evidence that a particular medicine worked, or that a particular subatomic particle had been detected.
11 - Irene Athena
...still waiting...But Easter's still a few weeks away. I'll try to remember to come back after that to check.
12 - Dr Dreadful
Well, it's six in the morning over in England, Irene, so I don't imagine Chris is in a position to be serving up unconventional Easter breakfasts right now...
13 - Christopher Rose
I suppose testimony can be considered as evidence, in the broadest sense of the term. Testimony is allowed in legal trials for example, even though we know that people can and do lie under oath.
However, in the case of the discussion of the existence of a deity, it can never be taken seriously as there is no way to test it, so one is left in the situation of either accepting a story that defies logic and, yes, belief, or simply ignoring it. The wise choice is to ignore it.
For the record, I've no objection to the existence of gods, indeed, in many ways life would be both simpler and more, er, interesting if there was.
The god depicted in the creation myths and stories of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is too implausible to be taken seriously and the sooner otherwise good people start to free themselves from some pretty offensive and damaging dogma, the better place the world will become.
14 - Irene Athena
Ah, Chris. When I noticed William Lambers' article on the Yemen food crisis, I was hesitant to distract with arguments more than I have already.
So I'll agree where I can agree: ...the sooner otherwise good people start to free themselves from some pretty offensive and damaging dogma, the better place the world will become.
Some highly offensive truths will still make the cut. You and I would agree it's best not to ignore them.