|
Posts:
1
From:
Bristow, VA
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1 of 6)
Jun 29, 2009 6:41 PM
|
I am shocked and appauled that the History Channel, with what I consider a genuine desire to provide acurate depictions of the history of man, so utterly distorts and otherwise invents history when it discusses anything about the Bible, Christ, God and/or Christians. As I know little about Islam and other religions portraited on the channel - I can hardly say that they are also badly done but, if the treatment of Christianity is any indicator, then I'm sure their objections mirror mine.
What is so hard about an accurate reading and presentation of the Old and New Testamets of the Holy Bible, and the Plan of God therein depicted? Who's in charge over there anyway. Is there a Christian anywhere on the premises? I can't tell you how many times I've been disappointed at your careless treatment of the Christian faith. Here you have a wonderful platform, an opportunity to simply present what's there and instead you spin it, twist it, mutalate it and present it as accurate. Shame on you. What a hugh opportunity lost.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
From:
New Jersey
Registered:
9/13/09
|
|
(2 of 6)
Sep 13, 2009 5:31 PM
|
|
I disagree with some of your assessment of the History Channels coverage and distortion of Christ, God and the Bible. You can't grade their entire coverage by one show. If you ever watched The Naked Archaeologist you would have to admit it is a very fair and honest show, and there are others. However, where 'God vs. Satan' was concerned, there is so much more to know about the subject that I was wondering if the show was sponsored by the producers of the 'Left Behind' series and Charismatic's, or if it was simply bad research. I wish they had used the King James Bible and spoke with scholars of Greek and Hebrew. They could have spoken with Melissa Scott, Harold Camping, or even Doug Bachelor to name a few with differing interpretations. I would have liked to even see 'The Naked Archaeologist' uncover some of the true historical facts of the subject and how views have changed through history. It is too wide a subject to be covered by such a narrow view for sure. I would be disappointed if they had a show called 'The Bible' and spoke only with the Catholic Church. The History Channel would never produce a show about Pearl Harbor with only a Japanese viewpoint. I expect them to be better and do more without sensationalism. I hope they adhere to their better standards next time.
|
|
|
Posts:
4
From:
United States
Registered:
9/20/09
|
|
(3 of 6)
Sep 20, 2009 2:31 PM
|
|
I agree that a commentary by the Naked Archaeologist would produce a fair minded position despite the fact that Simcha had a dedidedly Jewish point of view. Probably his "Canuck" background makes him less controversial. Being one myself I feel that I can comment on this without ruffling too many feathers. I would point out that untill the Reformation, almost the only Christian point of view was the Catholic one. The History Channel's "broad brush" approach in God vs. Satan was not that inaccurate given the context. In the meantime, the "left behind" club can be trying to work out a new date for the rapture; their track record is dismal thus far. Sincerely, Grisonette
|
|
|
Posts:
2
From:
Cuba, Mo.
Registered:
9/22/09
|
|
(4 of 6)
Sep 22, 2009 6:59 PM
|
|
I have watched a number of Biblical programs on the History International, but I haven't seen the naked arch. But I find myself with my jaw dropped when I here some of the conclusions that come out of the poor narrative of the producers of the biblical shows. I really just don't understand that when a channel is bent on the truth of history, they can produce propaganda that seems satanic in itself, falsely interpretating the bible, using never heard of "scholars, and professors"( except for Tim Lahaye, who is bent on spreading his own spin of things) that have no clue to theology of have no understanding of the bible whatsoever. Like Elaine Pagels, she stated Christ failed, that he came to be the king, but died, and how can we explain that. That's when they faded to a commercial, then came back with no explanation to her statement, moving on to the next topic like her statement was based on truth. I am a Christian, I was once a gang banger, who broke every commandment, bent on death, money and drugs, I kicked in doors, shot people,didn't finish high school. went to prison 5 times, I was a straight killer, satanic, with no love for God. Now if I can see that these programs are straight jacked up, how much more, a person that isn't messed up can feel misled. I really want to learn, the topics sound great when the commercial is on, but when the show starts, I get mad, powered to express my feelings on a blog, which I never do. If you are going to talk about the bible, or the torah, or Islam, or any religion, get your facts straight. I love some of your programs, and I really think you do a great job on most, but when it comes to biblical understanding, you have none. And please, leave Elaine Pagels out of anything you do if you want any substance in your articles.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
11/11/09
|
|
(5 of 6)
Nov 11, 2009 8:48 AM
|
Right on Holysoldier!
I too have lived a life that could be described as questionable, but I've changed my ways. The History Channel doesn't seem to want to do anything positive where Christianity is concerned. Elaine Pagels and her ilk should be deeply ashamed of their contribution to the distortion of God's word.
I know the History Channel for what it is. And I beg you to change your secular spin which seems to be bent on the distortion and or destruction of the very things that built America and made her the greatest country on earth.
Shame on you, "History" channel.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
11/19/09
|
|
(6 of 6)
Nov 19, 2009 2:11 PM
|
|
im a christian myself and i feel this God vs satan segment was pretty accurate and interesting indeed...
|
|
|
|
|
