I think Sampson was cast as black because the actor showed up at audition and they thought shit see the size of that guy? and they cast him. He certainly has the physique of a Sampson.
The History channel has produced several really good shows documenting current archaeological work in Israel. I saw one last year on work they’re doing in Philistine settlements. A lot of settlements and ancient civilizations mentioned in the Old Testament have been located.
So far they haven’t found a 8 ft skeleton with a cracked skull. 
Not really. It meant that he took his obligations as host seriously enough that he would offer his most valuable movable possessions (his virgin daughters) as a payment for the safety of his guests. It would be similar to somebody offering gold or a horse or jewels.
[QUOTE=Tony Sinclair]
The fact that Ezekiel drew a different (or additional) moral from the story over a thousand years later doesn’t seem very compelling to me.
[/QUOTE]
The events of Ezekiel take place “over a thousand years later” but at most it would have been written a few centuries later. The writing of Genesis is usually estimated between 1000 BC-600 BC with later tweaks. It’s not even inconceivable that Ezekiel was written contemporaneous with or even before the story of Sodom in its present form.
I haven’t seen last night’s episode, but the resemblance of Satan and Obama is a trending item today. HuffPo.
Well, no, it wouldn’t. Offering your virgin daughters is quite a step up from offering money, especially as a first offer.
But this is a silly thing to argue about, anyway. Thanks to the internet, we can quickly look at dozens of translations, most of which were done by serious scholars who know a lot more about ancient Hebrew than you or I. And without exception, they either translate the relevant verb as “know,” trusting that we can make the inference, or remove all doubt and say “have sex” or something equally unambiguous. If you can show me a single published translation that translates the yada verb in that verse as “question” or “examine” or “make sure they aren’t spies,” then we’ll have something to talk about.
Even commie hippie secular scholars acknowledge that the redactor drew from ancient legends. If you’re arguing that the story of Sodom was originally invented around the time of Ezekiel, then I’ll just have to say you’re entitled to your opinion, and leave it there.
When you are sheltering visitors who are so obviously supernatural that upon seeing them approach the gate of the city you bowed with your face to the ground and begged them to come to your house (which Lot did), this presumably in view of whoever else was in the gate of the city (a city that, again, had been recently conquered), I don’t think normal rules of negotiation and bargaining are applicable. And if you know for a fact that the people you shelter are direct emissaries from God and you have pledged to keep them safe, knowing full well that your guests’ boss has a bit of a temper and therefore this is the single most important obligation you’ve ever undertaken, you will give anything including your life to keep them safe. (Abraham was willing to kill his son to show his loyalty- that trumps the virginity of your daughters [which of course Lot himself will soon take].)
[QUOTE=TonySinclair]
And without exception, they either translate the relevant verb as “know,” trusting that we can make the inference, or remove all doubt and say “have sex” or something equally unambiguous. If you can show me a single published translation that translates the yada verb in that verse as “question” or “examine” or “make sure they aren’t spies,” then we’ll have something to talk about.
[/quote]
That’s because the verb has never been translated as “to question”, but as “to know”. And I can point you to several scholarly articles by scholars of Hebrew who argue the ambiguity of the term, some of whom dispute that the verb yada was never used in a sexual context (undisputed for all but a dozen of the more than 900 times it was used in the OT, but they dispute those dozen). And do you believe that there are any error free translations of the Bible?
[QUOTE=TonySinclair]
Even commie hippie secular scholars acknowledge that the redactor drew from ancient legends. If you’re arguing that the story of Sodom was originally invented around the time of Ezekiel, then I’ll just have to say you’re entitled to your opinion, and leave it there.
[/QUOTE]
Invented, almost certainly not, but does that mean the notion of Sodom as a white party had been around for a thousand years? And should Ezekiel be wholly discounted because that book disagrees with the traditional Christian interpretation for the cause of the destruction? (Perhaps Ezekiel was a commie hippie; that would explain the wheel vision.)
The best remark on the incident I’ve read was “It would have been interesting to see the faces of Lot’s wife and daughters when he made the offer.”
Yes, and that’s just a tiny part of the problem with this miniseries. You see, we don’t need a “novelization” of the miniseries, with all the errors and omissions it contains. What we need is for people to go to the source document that the miniseries claims to be based on: The Bible. (Buy one at any bookstore, or read it online in various languages and translations at places like http://www.biblegateway.com/ and http://bible.cc/).
I guarantee that comparing the source document, the Bible, with the miniseries will give you many “say WHAT?!” moments.
As with anything we watch or read that claims to expand, expound, or explain the Bible - which is God’s Word to mankind, the Scriptures - we need to follow the Apostle Paul’s stern direction: “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good”
The actor playing Jesus did a good job. He brought a quiet dignity to the role. They spent a lot of time portraying the miracles of his ministry. I would have preferred more emphasis on his teaching, but it is a tv show. They needed to keep it entertaining. It’s important to keep in mind that it is a dramatization of the Bible.
I thought they did a very good job showing the delicate balance between the Roman occupiers and the Jewish leaders. There had been various rebellions over the years. The Romans were ruthless in putting them down. Jesus’ ministry and the large crowds that followed him potentially could have sparked another crushing blow from the Romans. The show’s dramatization of these events puts the Jewish leaders’ actions in a more sympathetic light. They were trying to protect the temple and their people.
The last episode is Easter night. It’s going to be difficult for me to watch. But the destruction and humiliation of Jesus and his resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. It’s why Christians observe Easter and attend services.
Ah, Lot’s wife. What a salty wench.
That’s exactly how I became an atheist.
If you want a really good documentary on early christianity see if you can catch the CNN special After Jesus: The First Christians. I’m watching it now and it’s fabulous.
I’ve seen the crucifixion scene in various movies, but the Bible series really packed an emotional punch. I was crying for awhile.
I credit the actor. He had been so convincing as a compassionate and loving prophet that seeing him brutalized was just shocking. Literally a helpless lamb to the slaughter.