Bible is 'lies and spin,' says C4

[aikido15]

'Sensationalist' film sparks anger among church groups

Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
Sunday December 19, 2004
The Observer

It's the season for Channel 4 to cause controversy. Each year the channel strives to whip up a furore surrounding its programming on Christmas Day. If it is not trying to break the record for the most f-words (2002), it's asking Ali G to present an alternative Queen's speech (1999).
Now it has attracted anger from Christian groups over its plans to screen a documentary which dismisses some parts of the Bible as untrue and attacks others as being a 'masterwork of spin'.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1376922,00.html

This will get the evangelical nut cases going...wonder if it will be shown here in the US?

[Peak_Oil]

1. I hope it does.

Anyone who believes in an invisible man who is incredibly interested in what humans do with their genetalia to the point of obsession is undoubtedly sick.

Frankly, I think the Earth needed plastic, and that is the reason for the existence of humans. The Earth needed plastic and couldn't make it by itself so it needed us. Once we've made enough plastic, we won't be needed. Then, we'll be shaken off the Earth's back and the Earth will spein on with its plastic, happy and fat.

[aikido15]

2. They listen to....

Rush, O'Lielly, and TV evangelical and then call US delusional. huh?

[Swamp Rat]

3. LOL!

[GoBlue]

4. This will get the evangelical nut cases going.

They'll use any excuse they can to be untrue.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. There was a huge discussion of this in

religion and theology a few days back. My comment is it is interesting to have modern scholars go back to the earliest extant texts of the time (including Coptic texts and others not found in the current makeup of the Bible) and have them directly translated into English. Many don't know that when the Bible was translated earlier, whole words in the original text were misinterpreted or ignored, words that change the tone and meaning of many passages.

Neil Douglas-Klotz is one scholar who is going back to ancient texts and doing direct translations. I would recommend his books to anyone who is interested in this subject, because his interpretations throw a whole new light on the concept of God and our relationship to It.

Here's just one example: the first line of the Lord's Prayer says "Our Father Who art in heaven"....in Douglas-Klotz's translation, there is no mention of gender. The words for "Our Father" are more the creative process that brings all things into being. A very good read if you wish to change your concept of God as it is shown in the Bible.

[Karenina]

6. I'm always amused by this

infantile "literal interpretation" of the Bible. Anyone who "witnesses" such a silly fantasy to me is IMMEDIATELY put on permanent IGNORE. Multi-lingual "Telephone" is a fun game, what comes out at the end is consistently hysterical but what's FASCINATING is going back and getting each person to repeat what they whispered to the next person. And this is in one sitting with no priests or nobles to muck it up!

It is my contention that the reason the museum in Baghdad was destroyed was to ensure that the many ancient documents there NEVER BE EXAMINED BY SCHOLARS.

[InvisibleBallots]

7. Socrates? Myth. Dante? Myth. Homer? Myth. Tacitus? Fraud.

If we are going to do "higher criticism" we need to include all the "ancient" sources - not just Christian ones. If we are going to speculate that Jesus was not a historical character, let's look into Socrates as well. If Josephus is false history - have we looked at Homer?

Unless, that is, the new revisionism is strictly an anti-Christian exercise, not a historical one?

http://www.revisedhistory.org/investigation-historical-dating.htm
http://www.revisedhistory.org/dante.htm
http://www.revisedhistory.org/classical.htm

[mmonk]

8. Parts of the bible

weren't meant to be taken literally (particularly New Testament), especially given the writing style (midrash and exageration to show the greatness of Jesus to others that came before him). Funny that we have people in the 21st century that do.

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. Yeah, sure..

dumbos!

How to win friends and influence people.... Christ's number-one sales pitch: "Take up your cross daily and follow me".

Another gem of spin, said by Jesus to the rich young man: "sell everything you have to the poor; so the treasure you have shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me". Watch you don't get killed in the rush.

Go back to sleep, kiddies.

[Sara Beverley]

10. In order to get angry some will have be educated in the process

They will have to hear and see the new opinion and they won't be able to NOT think about it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

11. If only Jesus, in person,

could have been co-opted by Bush to be his propagandist*, instead of Rove...

If, on the other hand, Jesus, in person, had acted as Kerry's propagandist*, it would have worked in Kerry's favour, since Kerry purports to share his main concern: the prime importance of economic justice for the economically disadvantaged.

*Not necessarily a dirty word.