I saw only about 25% of it, but it looked pretty good. Funny thing was Moses and the Exodus. In reality there were somewhere around 1-3 million Israelites who left Egypy with Moses. Last night it looked like there were maybe a hundred! Cecil B. DeMille did the grand scale better.
Not trying to be too facetious here, but in the Sodom-being-destroyed part of the show, I think that one of the angels fighting in the streets was the forerunner of the Ninja. He is a real two-fisted sword fighter. Or, should I say, two fists, each filled with swords.
I thought there were good visual effects and for the most part, the story line was pretty accurate.[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
So, how did they portray Lott? Did he tell the hooligans that if they let the angels go, they could have his virgin daughters to do with as they would?
I thought there were good visual effects and for the most part, the story line was pretty accurate.[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
So, how did they portray Lott? Did he tell the hooligans that if they let the angels go, they could have his virgin daughters to do with as they would?
I haven't seen it, but I don't trust anything the History Channel shows with respect to religion. Historians always have to put their own spin on things to make a name for themselves, otherwise they'd never be able to differentiate themselves from any one else to sell their books (or tv shows). It was historians who changed BC (Before Christ) to BCE (Before Common Era), just so they could be politically correct (even though 200 BC is the EXACT same date as 200 "BCE").
So, how did they portray Lott? Did he tell the hooligans that if they let the angels go, they could have his virgin daughters to do with as they would?[/QUOTE]
Iggy,
No, there was no offering of the young daughters. When the citizens of Sodom were banging on Lott's door, that is when the angels removed their cloaks to reveal armor and weapons. For those that are squeamish, it is a violent show in some respects, but that was the world of the Old Testament.
SoonerATC,
Normally, I would agree with you completely about the issue of historians "spinning" biblical stories and events. However, Rona Downey and Mark Burnett are NOT historians. They happen to be believers as well as Hollywood people, so they know how tell the story as well as be "accurate." At one point in the show, my wife asked, "Did that really happen in the Bible?" It was the part of Abraham going to rescue Lott and his family from brigands. She looked it up and we both felt a bit of shame because we somehow missed that in our readings. In an interview with Glenn Beck, Glenn had mentioned that Samuel had "stabbed" the king that Saul should have killed along with all the rest of the citizens of that country. Mark Burnett corrected Glenn by telling him that the Bible tells that Samuel "hewed Agag" to pieces, not just stabbed.
As I mentioned in my first comment, from what I saw last night, it appears to be pretty accurate for the budget they likely had to work with. After all, how does one pay in excess of a million extras to play the part of the nation of Israel, not to mention the time needed to show that many people crossing the Red Sea.
It's okay if you're not a detail person, and don't know the Bible very well.
I knew they wouldn't be able to cover the entire Bible, but at least they could be a little more accurate with what they show.
They definitely take a lot of "artistic freedom" with it, and add a little here and there for dramatic effect.
I knew they wouldn't be able to cover the entire Bible, but at least they could be a little more accurate with what they show.
They definitely take a lot of "artistic freedom" with it, and add a little here and there for dramatic effect.
I liked the book better
Now my interest is peaked. Glad I DVR'd it.
