# Discovery channel documentary



## terryl965 (Jun 4, 2006)

Today June 4th 2006 they had a documentary about who wrote the actual bible, did anybody have a chance to see it and if so what are your thoughts about the show.

Terry


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 4, 2006)

missed it i'll try to see it on rerun


----------



## pstarr (Jun 5, 2006)

Programs like that never take a stand one way or another for fear of alienating a part of the audience(s) and subsequently hurting their ratings.  They generally take what I consider a "gutless" view and sit on the fence...They present two sides of an argument and then simply leave it hanging so the viewer can make her/his own decisions...

     Some of what they say is certainly interesting but some of it is utter hogwash.  I know of the people who was featured on the program and his understanding of the subject is really pretty minimal although he's presented as some kind of high-muckey muck authority.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 5, 2006)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> Today June 4th 2006 they had a documentary about who wrote the actual bible, did anybody have a chance to see it and if so what are your thoughts about the show.
> 
> Terry


 
Like other programs of its ilk, I thought it was populist garbage.

You can't ever have a real discussion of an academic subject without going into the details and the particulars and the specifics. Nor do you ever hear a discussion about the methodologies and sources of the information.

Wasn't impressed.

Laterz.


----------



## desousae (Jun 6, 2006)

I missed the show, but I have to say I don't agree with some of the posts related to the show.  

Yes, they do sit on the fence, and there is a reason for that.  If they were to come out and take one side or the other, they would have to have some pretty hard evidence.  The world has had very little documentation up that point, which leads to a lot of speculation.  If they had chose a specific stance, we would be calling them on speculation.  However they take a scientific approach and present numerous theories, this way the viewer can use it to expand there mind.  I personally have enjoyed the shows I have seen on discovery and hope I can catch this one.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Jun 6, 2006)

I only rarely watch shows of that type.  It's been my experience, as pstarr sez, that you don't get a valid viewpoint.  Infrequently, I may glean a cited reference from the program and have a starting point for my own research; however, usually, shows like that are barely even edutainment.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 6, 2006)

desousae said:
			
		

> Yes, they do sit on the fence, and there is a reason for that. If they were to come out and take one side or the other, they would have to have some pretty hard evidence.



Actually, there _is_ a lot of "hard evidence", but it's of the variety that the general public just isn't willing to accept. 

Everyone still likes to entertain delusions that the books that make up the New Testament are independent "eyewitness" accounts written by "saints" in the first century. Yet this view has been all but discredited by modern scholarship.

I think shows like this are made the way they are so as to distill little baby moursels of truth that their audiences are at least somewhat capable of digesting.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 6, 2006)

OnlyAnEgg said:
			
		

> Infrequently, I may glean a cited reference from the program and have a starting point for my own research; however, usually, shows like that are barely even edutainment.


 
Ditto.


----------



## Beowulf (Jun 15, 2006)

> Everyone still likes to entertain delusions that the books that make up the New Testament are independent "eyewitness" accounts written by "saints" in the first century. Yet this view has been all but discredited by modern scholarship.


 
Depends on which circles you run with


----------



## Beowulf (Jun 15, 2006)

If by "modern scholorship", you mean a majority of western scholars, remember that "modern scholarship" of other era's where often wrong. 
A "majority" of "modern scholors" of their time won in the gallileo affair. They "discredited" his views.

The majority of "modern scholorship" also believed the mind was controlled by five humors at one time.

Oh but wait, they weren't modern.

Well someday we'll die and the new "modern scholorship" majority will "discredit" our outdated views.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 15, 2006)

Exactly.  They also "proved" that the earth is flat, taught that eating tomatoes causes cancer, and a host of other scholarly issues...


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 19, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> Exactly. They also "proved" that the earth is flat, taught that eating tomatoes causes cancer, and a host of other scholarly issues...


 
Except that you are precisely inverting positions here.

The fundamentalist apologists and evangelicals are the "flat earthers" here, the modern minds stubbornly arguing for the traditional "science" of centuries past. The scholars that partake in things like deconstruction and form-criticism (such as, say, Burton Mack or John Dominic Crossan to name a few mainstreamers) are the "new blood" (well, old "new blood" really, as the new "new blood" would be neo-mythicists like Robert Price, Earl Doherty, Michael Turton, or Jay Raskin).

Another parallel could be drawn to proponents of "creation science" and "intelligent design" in biological circles. These individuals are modern scholars whose arguments are essentially pre-formed from commitment to religious tradition, not from investigation and evaluation of all the available evidence. They are precisely apologists in the field of biology.

In fact, one could sum up the apologist position in Biblical scholarship as follows: "The Bible is literally true from beginning to end, dangit, and now I'm gonna prove it!" It is bad, bad, bad science to begin with a conclusion and then to "find" the evidence to support it.

Laterz.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 25, 2006)

Nope. Didn't see it.


----------

