Riddles of the Bible
For preview only. Get it at Amazon.com  #ad.

Riddles of the Bible

Ratings: 5.19/10 from 37 users.

Riddles of the BibleFind out whether or not the stories of the Bible are based on real events. Today, biblical archaeologists and religious scholars rub shoulders with geologists, forensic astronomers, paleontologists, meteorologists, biologists, physicists, seismologists, and volcanologists. They're all scouring the globe for the most elusive and controversial goal in biblical research: to find out whether or not the stories of the Bible are based on real events.

Exodus Revealed. A scientific investigation of the 10 plagues of Egypt and the parting of Red Sea seeks to determine if the biblical story of Exodus really happened.

Lost Cities. Are Bible stories fact or moral fable? Follow biblical scholars and scientists in their research to uncover the mysteries of the Lost Cities.

Search for Noah. What causes the Noah's Ark flood? Using CGI, we will recreate, based on new scientific evidence, this gigantic ancient flood.

The Hunt for the Ark of the Covenant. An epic scholarly journey around the world, in search of the truth behind one of the most coveted artifacts of the Bible - the Lost Ark.

The Secrets of Revelation. Does Revelations really have the power of prophecy? A new theory holds that all its prophecies already came true.

Cain and Abel. Why would Cain kill Abel over a simple matter? How does the Koran's version of events differ from that of the Old Testament?

Kings of Israel. Both David and Solomon were men of infinite talent and virtue. Are they real men who ruled real empires or are they just fictional heroes?

Riddles of the Dead Sea Scroll. Who wrote text on the Dead Sea Scrolls? What secrets does it hide about Judaism and Christianity? Why is the story of the first millennium kept secret?

More great documentaries

148 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Would the Plagues that attacked the Egyptians not have attacked the Israelite s as well ??

  2. No proof but evidence?? I find all the writtings of scripture hard to swallow. I did thoughtfully enjoy this documentary however !!Peace!!

  3. Dear AntiTheist,

    Thank you for your kind reply. Let's see, business first. You're quite right that I didn't answer point for point. That's because I, too, would need to study Talmud before I'd be fit to comment, and that window of opportunity closed a long time ago. Also, a couple of years ago I resigned my position as sole representative of the biblical religions to disgruntled family skeptics & the world at large. Seders and Thanksgiving dinners had gotten too unpleasant and stressful, not to mention drearily repetitive. It was like taking soccer penalty kicks all evening. I handed in my jersey!

    I may not be up on my emoticons, but I thought (from many a fan on YouTube) that <3 stands for "heart" as in "I heart Nietzsche," which I definitely do. So misunderstood, but alas he was too brilliant a poet and stylist for his own good. If he'd not been incapacitated when he was, I think he would have lived to explain himself & to be THE uniquely qualified judge of German nationalism, racialism, anti-Semitism, and totalitarianism. I would have LOVED to read his review of "Being and Time"!!! Nietzsche & Malcolm X both---my heart bleeds when I think what the twentieth century lost by losing them.

    Re how smart God might be (and note that I do say "might be," I don't want to overstep the bounds of good argument), I guess that springs from accepting the finite/infinite thing. All I can say is that any God that's dumb, mean, and humorless can send me to hell with my blessing. I look forward to meeting you there. :-)

    I highly recommend Hinduism. You might start with Ganesh. I call him "the deity without a downside." He's one deity who's worth his salt. He can take old-fart deities, however venerable, to school any day. And he's the universal mother, too, so it's one-stop shopping.

    The Hindu-Catholic thing has been a strange trip, but it's my experience & I have to be true to it. Nietzsche would say so, for sure. It's the dare we must all take if we want to really live in this world.


    1. @Ch H

      Yes, Nietzsche and Sartre both good atheists. Can you imagine the comments they’d leave if they watched this doc. “Riddles of the BiBBle” And as you say I too would Lurrvve to hear his review of “Being and Time”. I’ve read it, it’s ok, it’s got some good parts. But I suspect N. might have a different view of it. I would sum up his review as going a bit like this. He would start with a rifle shot to the head and then finish him off with a Lance through the Heart. And Sartre would be dead. Dead as Descartes. Maybe you see things differently? I saw it in his eyes before he died, on film of course. Also I don’t know much about Malcolm X, perhaps you could briefly clue me in on the essentials? Please post in the relevant doc to keep things on topic ;-)

      Oh come come now Dear Lady...... isn’t it a bit early in our relationship for you to be asking me to look into Hinduism and Ganesh? (Ha ha, even my spell checker didn’t know him/her?) And what’s so important about the Talmud? I mean this in the nicest possible way. You would need the most convincing argument in the history of mankind for me to do that. Save perhaps Ganesh appears on the main news and gives everybody in the world 3 wishes that come true instantaneously. And even then the chances are I’d rebel against this mysterious, miraculous Elephant? For not saving all those people that have suffered terribly over the millennia. And this is all just for starters.

      Not that I’m sceptical of course. For me any religion is just another turtle and we know where that leads? But if it rocks your boat my sweet sensitive thing, you go for it with my blessings. You just might have to put up with me trying to lead you away from that Nihilism once in a while ;-) Btw Thanks for the emoticon info, I thought for a little while that it was a pair of testicles. I’m so glad it isn’t.
      Riddles of the bibble? What next? Riddles of the Talmud?


      The Crucified One

    2. I've not been routed, but I have been exhausted. What with lovely chats here, work, and some of my own stuff, it's been hard analytical going. Reverting for a sec to the bipolar thing, one trigger for me is intellectual excitement and sometimes I don't catch it fast enough, and need recovery time.

      So, Antitheist, I will try for provisional answers to some of your questions.

      On-topic BIBLICAL point. The Talmud is important because it's the essential deposit of Jewish self-understanding of the Hebrew scriptures. It's the work of many rabbis over many centuries & it's mind-blowing, bcs its task is exploration & comparison of answers. It opens up issues that look open and shut to surface readers (i.e. Christians).
      BTW, keep in mind that just bcs it happens in the Hebrew scripture, it doesn't mean that God approves it, as consequences near or remote may demonstrate. (See below, "karma.")

      FAILED ATTEMPT to graft modern philosophy onto modern exegesis: Just as Charles sees red over Nietzsche, I see red over Sartre. Don't consider him a philosopher in any sense. Am open to new views, but in this case offered conservately lest I collapse in a conniption fit & don't recover.

      WAYS AND MEANS: I don't think we need overt violence with Heidegger. If we set him up properly, he'll be hoist by his own petard.

      A THEOLOGICAL clarification: Not up for Ganesh? I meant to do you a favor. If Jesus, the most worshiped deity in the world, wasn't working for you, I thought I'd introduce you to the SECOND most worshiped deity, darling Ganesh (the Hindu God with the head of an elephant). Don't worry, Ganesh will keep. You won't hurt his feelings if you flee.

      BIBLICAL TOPIC-->COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY. Hinduism doesn't have a notion of salvation as per the West. The fulcrum point is reincarnation, which I find cheerful bcs it means that you get as many lives as necessary to straighten out your head. Karma isn't a notion of sin, but rather the straightforward view that actions have consequences, which can extend from one lifetime into the next. True, Ganesh hasn't been "saving" people all this time---he's been assisting them. He's the God of new beginnings, the remover of obstacles. Ganesh exists to help people. He's a deity without a downside, so to speak.

      NIMBLE SEGUE from Ganesh. My notes say that it's ELEPHANTS all the way down. I am confident that this doctrinal difference of opinion will not result in schism, or even the trading of anathemas.

      Off to recuperate some more. It may be a week or ten days, but I fully intend to come back. I promise to talk Hell next time.

      P.S. Yes, I agree with you about the, um, number 3, um, but have been too delicate to say so. Also, the people who tend to use that emoticon are sweet souls who in their innocence don't have a clue about its potentially jaded applications.

    3. @Ch H

      Thanks for your balletic reply.

      Riddles of Bible, Talmud, Hinduism, Ganesh, Karma, Philosophy and feats of cachinnation.

      Wow, Impressive. But first things first! Logic. Being exhausted is simply not good. Rest yourself immediately. All this talk of Gods, Theology or any other subject means nothing compared to my concern for your health. So look after yourself first. Have no worries about when you get back to me, it’ll seem like a lifetime anyway. I’ve never looked forward to HELL so much in my life.

      The Impressed One

      PS Elephants huh, a refreshing change at least ;-)

    4. I won't argue with people who are impressed with me! But in a spirit of transparency and disclosure, I must admit that I don't just pluck all of this out of my head. As they say, "I read it in a book." Besides, it's what they sent me to school for (well okay, I don't think philosophy was what they had in mind), and I gotta be true to my school. :-)

    5. My Darling, if you were any more transparent you’d be absolutely see through. I sense your subtle sensitivities. Don’t think of anyone other than yourself for the mo!

  4. Hi again, AntiTheist,

    Your reply is kindness itself (so divine)! Disqus won't let me post my response as a reply, nor this little note either. But I hope you'll find & recognize both somewhere around here. Take care!

  5. @Azilda

    ”May i ask? ....about The Crucified One. (Odd signature)”

    You can ask me anything. When I was in hell, It felt like I was crucified, I had to lie on my back for three weeks and was almost strapped to the bed to stop me moving my neck. It’s also a tribute to Nietzsche. Who signed one of his madness letters “The Crucified One” I am insane also. Lol. He also wrote a book called “The AntiChrist”.

    And it’s my own little ironical pun about jesus. That an Anti-theist like me could be in support of jesus as real man, though there is little historical evidence of this. It’s possible. I don’t believe in any miraculous divine stuff, or the traditional biblical image of jesus.

    I believe an incredibly charismatic man who preached a simple message of love, peace, kindness etc might have existed, but his simple message was corrupted by religious nutjobs until we get to the monstrosity we call christianity today. Thus not only is jesus crucified but his message as well.

    ”AntiTheist666....does that leave room for a thin slice of gnostical unexpectation? Lol"

    I try to keep an open mind, how thin can you slice?

    The Crucified One

    Unkeep the faith.
    Edit: PS I forgot to add that it's also a tribute to someone else that was crucified. My hero, The Devil.

    1. I recommend Bart Ehrman's latest book, "Did Jesus Exist?"

    2. @robertallen1

      Thanks for the recommendation, it’s on an ever growing list.

    3. If you're pressed for time, I'll cut to the chase. Just about all Biblical scholars agree that "Jesus" existed as a man; but that's where the agreement stops.

  6. Some more Riddles of the Bibble

    This was sent to me, apparently it’s on facebook, I don’t know who the author is but they have my respect. Will there be any coherent replies from the religious to each question here...I wonder?

    The Crucified One

    Dear Dr. Laura:
    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.
    I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate

    I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Law and how to follow them.

    1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

    4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

    5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

    7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

    9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

    Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

    Your adoring fan


    Unkeep the faith

    1. That's adorable.


    2. I found this at Independent Blogs, The article was called:
      “Islam and Christianity must renovate religion: Atheists have to stop trashing it.”

      The screen name was Richard Harris.

      I think it’s outstanding. Riddles of Religion versus Rhymes of Reason. I thought you might like it?

      Here's a Hudibrastic verse on woo,
      for superstitious folk like you.

      The Christian’s Jehovah, an Almighty God,
      is a capricious and cantankerous clod;
      and, so far as I can tell,
      the Christian often is as well.
      Confused by dogma, the god-fearin’ fogey
      can’t fathom the nature of that Bible Bogey.

      Is it a father, his son, and an apotropaic ghost too?
      Well, it should be obvious that’s ridiculous woo.
      And Christians claim this god, in its Empyrean lair,
      is omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent and fair,
      but, with the unresolved problem of theodicy,
      their dogma is eristic, Christian idiocy.

      The Jew’s Yahweh, that
      meshuggeneh, the jerk,
      set Jews strict rules
      on when to work,
      how to dress, and what to sup or sip,

      and giving baby boys the snip.
      The myths of Bronze Age,
      goat-herding nomads,
      have them, metaphorically, by the gonads.

      The Moslem’s Allah, a fierce desert djinn,

      demands under ‘Islam’,
      literally, ‘Submission’.
      Apostasy is treated
      just like a crime;
      they’ll threaten to
      kill you, to keep you in line,
      and if you dare draw
      Mohammad in a comic cartoon,
      there’ll be riots and
      killings from here to Khartoum.

      Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist,

      Zoroastrian, Baha’i,
      Mormon, and Scientologist,
      Confucianist, Shintoist, and Taoist too,

      Spiritualist, Wiccan, and the New Ager into woo.

      Yea, verily, those of each and
      every religion,
      are mired in the miasma of

      So, why should yours be the one true faith,
      in a magic, phantasmagorical wraith?
      Belief, without evidence, is just plain crazy,
      ignorant, stupid, or thoughtlessly lazy.
      When evolution happens, it’s due to Natural Selection,
      so life derives no purpose, at a theistic god’s direction.

      The gods from the Bronze Age up to modern times,
      and from the Arctic down to tropical climes,
      have inspired theology that’s unsubstantiated twaddle,
      on what an invisible and silent god’ll
      devise as its inscrutable, eschatological plan,
      but all the gods were made in the image of man.

      The evidence is that we have just this one life,
      with all its pleasures, challenges, toil, and strife.
      As social beings we evolved our moral sensibility
      to combat selfishness, lust, and venality.
      Religion misunderstands, and so invokes the supernatural,
      while Humanism strives to promote the good and rational.

    3. A religious person here, to give a reply. (Followed you over here with Azilda.)

      Disclosure statement/qualifications: Fair to say that I'm Catholic going on Hindu (looking forward to seeing how that turns out for me). Don't rule out revealed religion, but can't get bothered about other or no belief systems, because am willing to bet that God could be smarter than us and a lot more creative.

      Let's see, what else? I believe the best approach to the afterlife is to be prepared for a surprise just in case. And oh, yeah: It would oblige me if people who want to criticize evolution would learn something about it, and people who want to criticize religions would learn something about them. For my part, I read the dictionary and can tell an agnostic from an atheist from an antitheist like yourself. Funny how deism never gets a look-in.

      Ready for my reply?

      The questioner and Dr. Laura should study Talmud. God's dictums may be eternal, but they're not always obvious.

      All the best, and I <3 Nietzsche, too.

    4. @Ch H

      Hello religious person, all welcome here, nice to hear from you, thanks for your reply.

      Catholic/Hindu, a lovely human being no doubt... without the religion to start with. I’m sorry you think your god is smarter and more creative than us? I’ll take on that misconception any day! You and I are both smarter and more creative than that old fart who didn’t know what to do after six days and had to rest his weary tush! And as for the afterlife. There isn’t one as far experience tells us. Try this life; it’s much more tangible and much more likely to be the only one you’re going to get. Live it while you can. Who would want an eternal totalitarian state anyway? Apart from numbskulls of course?

      And as for learning about religion. I’ve tried, I’ve studied it. Yet I haven’t come up with one redeeming fact about the monstrosity. Perhaps you could tell me something good about it that couldn’t be done without it?

      The questioner and Dr. Laura? I notice you didn’t answer any of the questions? I hope it made you laugh at least. And Dear Friedrich. I don’t know what “<3“ means but I’m hoping it’s complimentary. I love him too. Just a shame you didn’t listen to him.

      And as for you....
      You seem intelligent, bright and charming. Far too good for that nonsense of THE RIDDLES OF THE BIBLE!
      All the best to you too.

      The Crucified One

    5. P.S. It seems self-evident to me that God wouldn't have created us with a sense of humor unless she has one herself.

    6. @Ch H

      Ha ha, "Supposing Truth be a Woman? What then?"

    7. Our poor Nietzsche, he didn't have a clue in that department, did he...

    8. Not outside of his sibling, he didn't!

    9. You are so subtle Dear Ch H.

      I didn’t know if that was a statement or a question?

      I’ll answer anyway, what the heck, live dangerously.

      Tragic indeed. The poor hopeless guy, he had so much love in him too. His Views on Religion keep this little baby on topic. Have you seen the doc here “Beyond Good and Evil”? Have you read the “Anti-Christ”? Sorry for the questions but you know...

    10. Please don't take my bad pun above seriously... From what I know of Fred, I certainly don't believe he was capable of anything truly incestuous.

    11. @Brennilthos64

      No worries, I learnt a long time ago that there is no accounting for bad taste! Even if it is the worst pun in the history of mankind! So shut yer Py hole!... LOL forceful comment. I think I scared away that high flying bird that asked the original question? If you have any questions about N. Ask me @”beyond Good and Evil”

      For me there are no riddles of the bibble. It’s all fairly simple, It’s just some homespun morality dressed up in BLUEprint for power/control clothes. Much like The Emperor’s New ones. The whole monstrous charade is exposed by Nietzche in the”Anti-Christ".

      The HyperBorean One

  7. @robertallen1

    I hope I’m reading the right articles, there doesn’t seem to be much on the birth of jesus but few bits about him being a fanciful malevolent trickster, bringing dried fish back to life and people dying just because they bumped into him. A sort of supernatural jesus ala greek myth.

    1. Try the Proto-Gospel of James. You can find it in Ehrman's "lost Scriptures." Wikipedia has an article on it.

      P.S. I like the story of the dried fish (or in the words of the Kingfish, the holy mackerel.)

  8. Riddles of the bible indeed!

    Surely the biggest riddle is why people believe in this collection of myths and fables at all! It is a testament to wilful ignorance and stupidity! And if anyone believes it to be the inerrant word of god, they should do just a little bit of research to back up their extraordinary claims. Watching this doc is a good place to start. National Geographic’s production values are usually pretty good and they’ve done an ok job with this one.

    I can only offer a partial review as two parts were unavailable for my location (UK). I’d like to say I like this doc but I can’t. It’s just ok. (Imho).Good points: - Lots of info, some decent re-enactments of biblical events, some half decent graphical interpretations, unbiased. Bad points: - Overblown, overproduced, repetitive, way too PC. Way tooooo much credence is given to the religious point of view. Some of the major riddles are omitted. Its waaaaay too long. It’s unbiased. Lol.

    Watching one episode at a time makes it more manageable. I only persevered with it from a research point of view. If I may be permitted for a moment to adopt a typically religious stance and position myself on the moral high ground. I watched it out of duty, obligation and of course my own moral code for truth and information. Moment over, - now down from high ground to the lowlands of Imoralism where I mainly reside. I watched it to be a better Anti-theist. I watched it to help me slay the monster of religion. This is my Crusade.

    Some time ago I struck a deal with The Devil himself, aka Satan, aka Lucifer, aka The Dark Lord of Chaos, more accurately known as legendary TDF poster robertallen1 and agreed to read “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman. Good call Robert, I enjoyed it immensely. I wish I knew what I learnt from this book years ago. This book exposes more than just riddles of bible, it questions its authenticity.

    Right from the beginning you can appreciate Ehrman’s scholarly approach to the bible. He’s won awards for it. He’s studied the subject for over 30 yrs. As a young teenager and evangelical christian he made it his mission to learn all he could about biblical texts, which included learning several ancient languages to better understand what these “words of god” mean. An important point to remember here is that many take the biblical texts LITERALLY; some of them are featured in this doc. Bleughhh!

    “Misquoting Jesus” was a New York Times Bestseller in 2005 and is subtitled “The Story of Who Changed the Bible and Why”. (Please pronounce bible with a soft “i” as in quibble lol). The bibble is full of quibbles. Christianity, from its inception to this day has been quibbling amongst itself about what the texts mean. Remember, a church divided is no church at all. For those seeking the truth about this most important of subjects, try for a moment to imagine what christianity would be like without the bible?... Nothing?

    Bart Ehrman’s book is chock full of interesting info, he describes how early christians were already very bookish and literal. Some of Paul’s letters contain instructions on how they are to be read, where they are read, when they are read and who to. He also gives instructions on how the message is to be copied. Some of his instructions are ambiguous and some downright baffling. One can only guess at what literacy rates were like for early christians but it would be a fair assumption that those who could read and write would be in the minority. In the early days you were considered literate if you could write your own name and in some cases this would be enough to qualify you as a scribe!

    Some of the revelations in Mr. Ehrman’s book are quite shocking, If you’ll excuse the pun. (Lame I know, but I try ;-) My favourite part concerns one of the best known stories in the bibble, I refer to “The Woman Taken in Adultery”. It’s the story of the adulterous woman bought before jesus by some Pharisees who claim that according to the Law of Moses she should be stoned to death, what does he suggest? Jesus thinks for a minute, draws something in the sand and says “he who is without sin cast the first stone”. I have heard the god squad quote this numerous times. Despite the popularity of this story it only appears in only one passage of the new testament. John 7:53 – 8:12 and is known throughout the world of textual critics as being a later addition to the gospel and not forming any part of the original. Shocking or what?!!!

    Here’s another gem. I like this because I know a few pious twits who quote “The King James Bible is the greatest book ever written.” Ha Ha! It’s known to be based on inferior manuscripts and does not accurately represent the meanings of the original text. The Bible we read today is a copy of a copy that has been shaped on mistakes and changes. Can this catalogue of errors really be taken seriously??? I recommend “Misquoting Jesus” to the religious and atheists alike.

    The Crucified One

    Unkeep the faith

    1. I'm glad not only that you read the book, but that you got as much out it as much as I did. I only wish to add that Dr. Ehrman is a full professor at Chapel Hill College in North Carolina and has gone full circle from evangelist to practicing agnostic.

      I have read at least seven of Dr. Ehrman's books and also recommend "Forged" and "Lost Christianities" as well as his debate with James Lane Craig on You Tube. It might interest you that during this debate, Mr. Craig offers a mathematical proof that the resurrection probably occurred.

      Something else I like about Dr. Ehrman, he answers his E-mails. Yesterday, I asked him three questions and he was kind enough to respond to all of them.

      Out of curiousity, have you read any of the Proto-Gospels, especially the Proto-Gospel of Thomas? Again Dr. Ehrman has published a book of them with introductions to each.


    2. @robertallen1

      Mr Ehrman seems a very engaging fellow, but who could fail to respond to an enquiring mind like yours with your ever pertinent questions. I too enjoyed the Q&A at the back of the book about his conversion. I’ve been recommended to read “Jesus interrupted “also. Time permitting. I don’t know anything about the Proto-Gospels but might look into them as I’ve come this far. Are you still pushing that boulder? Lol. I haven’t forgotten I owe you an anecdote about philosophy; I’ll get back to you soon on that.

    3. "Jesus Interrupted" is O.K., but it's not my favorite.

      I suggest you look up the Proto-Gospel of Thomas on Wikipedia. It won't take you long and then I would appreciate your opinion.

    4. As you wish my lord. lol

    5. As you can see, I'm looking out for you. Please read and let me know.

    6. @robertallen1

      “The Proto-Gospel of Thomas”. Strange that Google brought up the Gospel of James when I typed those very words into its search engine? I got there in the end. I’m so glad I did! It’s quite long and I don’t feel I could do it justice in a brief reply but for now I will say this. It’s an excellent and extremely interesting article. I’m sure you knew I would be interested in the philosophical side of it.

      Weird that an excerpt of “The Republic” was found with it in 1945? I like Thomas’s idea that jesus had some divine catchphrases lol.”By the Power of Greyskull”. I will have to go back to the article to find out about “the parable of the wicked tenant” and “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas” it sounds very interesting, Another thing I enjoyed was that the article had enlargeable pictures of “The Nag Hammadi Codex II” Which looked fab! Thanks for the tip! I see Mr. Ehrman gets a mention.

      This also caught my eye, it’s a quote by Bruce Metzeger, who Ehrman dedicated “Misquoting Jesus to. He wrote regarding the formation of the New Testament canon, "Although the fringes of the emerging canon remained unsettled for generations, a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained among the very diverse and scattered congregations of believers not only throughout the Mediterranean world, but also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia."

      Perhaps historical jesus was really nice guy who could tell a really good story with his power phrases but his message and his image has been ruined by religion. I have a feeling you’ve thrown me a little fish here. Lol. What’s with all the sheep references?

    7. But have you gotten to the birth of "Jesus?" That's the really good part. Also Jesus' puerile pranks.

  9. In the final passages of Exodus Moses has an argument with God. God has given the Ten Commandents to Moses and they both see that the Israelites are worshipping a golden calf (an egyptian deity) and God says that he is going to smite them. Moses says that the Lord has brought them out of bondange, brought the seven plagues on Egypt to do so, made him part the waters and drowned Pharoahs army to keep them safe, and now your're going to kill them? God relents. In the ancient world, one did not argue with a god, let alone win the argument. Who was he talking to?

  10. the only parts I really wanted to see have been blocked, why????
    the bit about race bein the mark of Cain its not. it was hamm that was the first coloured male, his ancestors founded Islam beleifs, I thinks i might be wrong. and also why would God protect Cain, cos he was the only male air and thats how much he loves us. from Cain we have Noah and Enoch who was saved from death and carried to heaven one of only two humans the other being elijah. ps check out the book of Enoch it explains most of the riddles in the bible, it will blow u away.

    1. Do you really believe all this stuff?

  11. alot of the basic answers to the questions they pose are actually there along side them in the same books, Cain n Abel, it says that the reason God wasnt pleased with Cain's offering was because Abel gave his first born Lamb from his best sheep and Cain held back the best of the best from his crops for himself and instead offered second best to God. Cain was angry at how easy his brother had it rearing sheep spending hours just keeping watch while Cain spent all day digging and weeding the crops, which made him feel entitled to the best for himself, where as his brother gladly gave his best lamb to God. Cain felt he gave it away so easily because he didnt work for it. jealousy inraged Cain. and later on in his life God does stop punishing him and bears him with gifts, children, land etc

  12. this is the most ridiculous bible justification piece I have ever seen. Case in point the Goliath pottery! Just silly.

  13. just keep it to yourself your beliefs are yours only, don't come to this video just to show your ignorance by stating that god isn't real because you can neither disprove it , its mostly a question of faith -recommend reading Thomas Aquinas for a change than come and argue all you want.

    1. What should we keep to ourselves?

      "It's mostly a question of faith." What part of such a belief isn't faith?

  14. Has anyone watched the videos of the archaeologist Ron Wyatt? I would like to know what people think of his findings.

  15. The Bible is a mystery book, and should not be considered a history or geography book. If you visit, hidden meanings dot com, you may learn the real story. But I guess that would require the majority to change their minds and admit they are wrong. The whole book is about how your mind works and how Christ consciousness is achieved. It is also proven by science. Their is NO conflict when you have the intelligence of mind to forget EVERYTHING religion has ever taught you. God is not the problem, MAN is. The two are unrelated, as religion wants your money, God wants your mind. The church wants 10% of your wage, God wants you to use the other 90% of your mind. Tithing was about you giving over your ego driven 10% mind, not being fleeced by fear mongering liars. Time to grow up folks. Your religions are killing our world. I care not what religion you are, as it is utter madness. God is LIGHT, not war and greed and self righteousness. You are a stiff necked generation.

    1. @farkusmilby:

      First you have to show proof there is a god, you talk as if your god is real and a person.

      And then you are referring to Christ consciousness whatever that means, again show proof among all the deities since recorded history that your invisible Christ is real and the one and only. And no, LIGHT is not a god, strictly a electromagnetic wave/particle that shows up in our retinas as one spectrum of light so that we may see per evolution.

    2. What makes you think that you know anything about god and for that matter, that a site as idiotic as hidden meanings has anything of value to offer?

    3. the 10% of the brain thing is a myth btw.

      also god is a figment of your imagination. settle down.

    4. @farkusmilby

      You assert, "The Bible is a mystery book"

      I say, Incorrect - the Bible is a mythological superstitious narrative and not a great one and extremely cruel to boot. I suggest the drama and intrigue of say the Greek or Egyptian or Norse mythologies or I also like the pantheon of characters in Loony Tunes or the mighty Star Wars. "I am your father", says Obi Wan which on the silver screen is possible whereas Jesus claims, "I am the father, son and holy-ghost", ya-right, which is not possible. I took a pass on that (be-eep -wrong) and I did so by using an iota more than 10% of my mind.

      Which brings us to... and I quote.

      You declare, "The church wants 10% of your wage, God wants you to use the other 90% of your mind. Tithing was about you giving over your ego driven 10% mind, not being fleeced by fear mongering liars."

      I say, wildly absurd - First it is a poorly constructed sentence - you failed to deliver your thought in a coherent manner. However I will touch on the two distinct points that you somehow mashed together.

      Tithing - is about money, don't let them kid you. Read your bible. See - Exo. 22:29- 30 - Exo. 23:19 - Lev. 27:30 and for the 10% gambit clearly stated see - Gen. 14:20 - Gen. 28:22 and Lev. 27:32. When it was really ramped up tho' was in the dark ages. The church needed money to maintain its life style of debauchery. As an aside it was during this era the church played the 'indulgence' card which as we know like tithing it promised some sort of express lane to heaven - no purgatory and the best seats I guess.

      As for only using 10% mind - (be-eep wrong again) as Epicurus pointed out above is myth. Fantastical that you would believe, here in the 21st century, that to be true, although it certainly is a pervasive myth. Simply stated we have these really slick machines MRI, fMRI etc. that image our brains in 3D and guess what? the entire neural network is aglow like fireworks on the fourth of July (state-side). 100%


  16. many will claim followrs of him and he will say I never knew you,christ worshiped God,not to be worship,the dome of the rock are written inside the verses of mary and jesus,(pbuh)were gabriel came to mary,and you want to be apart of its destruction,when your on the side who always rejected over jesus instead of the who declare jesus as gods messiah...then you must follow the many false christ

  17. well the quran verifies the same episode with more info,its the time that is off when it all took place as, the documentary on who wrote the bible with archiology facts that many stories of the bible arounf 900 bc.

    1. @joe31,

      900 BC you say? You just ougt to be a Moslem or some sort coze as most do, they forgotten that the Bible is a set of assembled scriptures selected by a "Selected Yesmens" of a Byzantinian emperor who converted to chritianism much after the fall of the Romans.

      Here, I mean that within that Bible, there is the "New Testament" and the old one based on the jewish Thora.
      Although, parts of the original Thora were ignored by the new "Christians", b-coze of "X" vague reasons.

      Again, the exact date at which these scriptures that you qualify as "Same episode" as in the quran & in the old christian testament (Which is facts is part of the jewish Thora scriptures) may well be archiology facts in the sense that they were indeed written by one of those peoples at that approximated at that time, but this sure doesn't mean that whoever wrote those scriptures was or were of good faith or reliables in any manner.

      Second, we all sure know that old "Holy" scriptures began by oral teaching first.
      And that in those days, there were as much Bush, Powell and Cheney as there is now days. I mean the same % ratio of such guys in any given homosapien population.

      Their only interest is money and power.
      Nothing else. Mongering war, torture, abuses of all sort are an addiction for that type of lesser men.

      It just can't be otherwise considering the nature of that beast, humankind. And this includes many if not all priests of all confessions who base their life to stuff up other good doers.
      Why "If not all", coze they promote and help the perverts.


    2. why dont you get the latest info on this subject,and watch the bible unearth on this site,by a famous isreal archeology and others,abraham isac and jacoub site only date back to 900 bc and moses was after them,and is baffling to them why the scribes chose the dates they did and this was time when the scribes started writting down the torah,this has become factual is isreal ,watch dock then say your peace.

    3. @joe31,

      I certainly did viewed the "The Bible Unearth" a few weeks back.
      But I'm also aware that the jewish confession (One who possess one of the oldest "Original" Thora is not much friendly in submitting its archelogogical specimens to scientists, understandingly.
      Every time it comes in direct contact with air...

      And there may also be other offusctated reasons behind this.
      Same as the christian vatican who simply consider that if one doesn't have enough faith to believe what they claim to be, the problem is the "Unbeliever" by itself.
      This, up to a point where there are many vatican reports dating back to the Inquisition in Spain that were not permited to be rendered public.

      But I remember viewing a documentary on the TV (Before I hit the Internet based documentaries such as TDF) in which they carbon dated the oldest Thora book kept in Israel.
      TV docu dating back to ~ 10 years back...
      As you meant to say, its age is far less than what should be expected.
      I do not and didn't deny this? I don't think I done that?

      That documentary lasted a few episodes.
      It was not in English. Produced in France.

      In short, that was the reason why I stated that these so-called "Holy Books" were first "Hear Say" through a few generations before a religious authority decided to get them written.

      Imagine how would you give an answer to a (7-15) year old in those days, who'd ask you : -"How did the world began father"?

      I don't have any doubt that they found a reply that was later on put in writting. And around the date that you mentioned.
      But it remains that these scriptures were mostly the stories of the important events in the lifes of the first "Mid-East" inhabitants.
      New born listing, deaths, marriages along with the beliefs they transfered to their childrens in order to be remembered.

      The children asked questions time after times?
      They needed to an answer.
      Let me take for ganted that parents in those days wanted their children to ideally good, better then what the parents been?
      So, what was said or written in those anciant "Holy Book" was of good faith.
      I don't see the point of having a doubt that Jacob married this or that woman, had this or that child and so forth.

      But in the case of the "Super Natural" things that some of these anciant scriptors mention, I know for a fact that they did't had the proper tools to discriminate! They had "Orders" to execute.

      This is what I had in mind.


  18. Why wouldn't everyone go back to main question I seen a few weeks back?
    -How much modern man should rely on datas that were first transmited by "Hear Say" through generations.
    Because in the end, that is the leading idea in that docu?
    In the end, if "I" as a scientist believe that there's a God anyhow, many of the "Blah-Blahs" in the Bible are something that was put forward at the best capacity of the original author, at that time and this is it.

    This being said, these Holy Books from the mid-east, all have cause more griefs than goods, based on what factual history tells us.
    To begin with, the judeo-christian bible was not a exacly a religious book at its beginning but rather sort of a diary of the peoples who lived (Passed away) & of lifes of the ones where living in those days.
    If one would call "Israelites", these Israelites wanted to have a special status that once "Their God" would show up on planet earth, their names and identification (Through certain rituals) would be in God's list.
    And that in order to get "God's list" a little more complete, christianity was born.
    So, you have Papa Judeism & the son Christianism while we're still waiting for the spirit!

    Because, it appears that even before this mid-east societies began to have a viable language, there were other societies who already had their "Written" languages elsewhere on planet earth.
    Just as if the mid-east society was & still is the world's navel?
    -Remember the sun going 'round the earth?
    -A little correction, please... Among a few thousands other ones as well!

    Here, I mean that I viewed a docu on another webstite where they dated language artifacs at a much ealier time.
    And weird ones. In south america & Autralia.
    More over, surgery tools... & many other weird things.
    It was a good one since they explain new technics for dating things that are minerals, not based on the carbon atom...

    Alas, that docu is on a french website but it seems that the production wanted the movie to remain "International" & the main speaker does his speech in English (95% of the Blah-Blah). He's Italian.

    The name of the docu is "Inquiry on the Autralian Giant man" located on the
    "Documentaire Streaming" website, not typing a specific HTML link here.
    I think... Cause I viewed another one on "Free Documentary" as well.
    A much more "International" website baring many languages.

    I almost stopped viewing the TV excepted when I need to hear, view silly aberrations issued from mouths to hears proofs.
    Going back to "Free Docus"...
    Later on I'll check what's new on TDF.


  19. Interesting doc I only have one thing to say "Faith is not a virtue"

    1. But it sure masquerades as one.

    2. Faith is a virtue if it was given you as one of the gifts from the spirit of God (Holy Ghost)

    3. Faith is simply ignorance and stupidity masquerading as a virtue and spirituality, a euphemism for fraud.

  20. LOL who cares about Noas ark like that?

    If Jesus could walk on water couldn't Noas boat have worked even if it was crappy little boat? Some miracles in the Bible is supernatural you know.

    If you believe a man could walk on water why could you not belive an old boat with some animals in have survived a flood. Remember that God/Jesus also diveded the sea once. Even if God would have let Noa do everything on his own without help and he would probably have failed then, would a God not save his only chosen man and all his creation?

    Wasn't it Gods idea to wipe out everybody and everything except Noa? So this is just another miracle like Jesus walking on water.

    Next time maybe they could think about who made Jesus' sandals that could make a grown man walk on water. That was some good shoemaker.

    ...or maybe we believe God had something to do with it.
    ...and some believe God doesn't exist and in that case why would you think about these things in the first place, dont you think they are made up anyway!

    1. It's Noah, by the way.

      God/Jesus divided the sea? Wasn't it actually Moses who divided the sea with God's help? I don't recall Jesus having anything to do with it...

      The people that don't believe God exists are just trying to find facts to prove or disprove Noah's Ark. And proving that Jesus walked on water is pretty much impossible. Finding a ~450 foot boat that was supposed to have landed on a mountain is much more plausible.

      Not trying to sound condescending, just wish people would think a little more.

  21. Any true understanding of the "burden of proof" is squarely on the believer. I don't have to "prove" . . . nothing. You (believers) have proposed, designed, imagined and abandoned multiple gods. Those of us who are skeptical have consistently maintained the same truth. We are still waiting.

  22. ...Yeah I commented too early.

  23. Guys, I'm watching this now, I've decided to finally watch it as I've been getting alot of emails of comments since my last comment...I'm still on the first video about Noah and the Ark...Last year or a few months ago can't remember, a friend told me that they found Noah's Ark (No Hoax)....Did anyone pay attention or remember or do any research?...or maybe I commented too early...will see...

  24. Bible, yeah right. Noah's arch, yeah right. There are more then 24 000 species of spiders just in area of Amazon, good luck in getting all of them in pairs into the ship, and there was no place for dinosaurs and they were totally ignored :( and left outside the arch.? Just in one national park of Peru holds more then 1500 species of butterfly did they all mad to the ship and countless others?
    It must be really hard to understand things in life and environment all around us when you are as dumb as it gets, so applying any spirits, angels, gods, demons into explanation is a commonly used tool for ignorant and uneducated. Age of reasoning for me came around when i got 16 and i am still looking for any scientific proof of any god.

    1. Just a technical point. By the time of Noah (whenever that was, but assuming Noah was a hominid), the dinosaurs were long extinct

  25. This was an entertaining documentary (I admit I didn't watch all sections, made it half way through Exodus). First of all, it was National Geographic, so there was a basis of quality production to it. The fundamental critique I have with this and all Biblical "history" is that academics set out from a point of view that these events actually had some historical basis in the first place, e.g., the Flood or the Plagues. So, here we have academics saying, "If it did happen, this is how it might have happened."

    I hear true believers (read: Fundamentalist Bible Belt types) use these conjectures as PROOF that such events happened. This is the fallacy of authority, the irony of which is that Fundamentalists are notoriously anti-science, but are quick to point to "scientific explanations," but they fail to mention these are conjectures of events for which there is zero evidence such an event ever happened.

    In fact, usually relegated to the obscure sidebars of Bible "history" documentaries, the archaeological evidence does not support that these events ever occurred to begin with. We must skip over the absence of any basis for exploring these subjects--no basis, that is, except for their mention in the Bible.

    Note how some here say the "Flood created the Mediterranean", and others, the "Flood created the Bosphorus." Equally, in order for the parting of the Red Sea to be plausible, we have to reinterpret what Red Sea means, and come up with a place and conditions where such an event could be remotely possible. In other words, there is a constant adjusting of conditions in order to MAKE the Biblical accounts possible. At some point we have to admit that we could do this with any allegory or fiction, even the Lord of the Rings or The Chronicles of Narnia. It depends on how willing you are as a researcher to contrive sets of conditions to satisfy the story. Yet, that is not science.

    Science is the part that says, "There is no evidence of a tribal migration out of Egypt," and, "It is highly unlikely that one family gathered two of each animal in a ship that was so big it is highly unlikely it ever existed." Of course, you could take the position that science is moot because in God all things are possible, but if that is your belief, then why bother substantiating any of the events at all? Don't let facts get in the way of your cherished belief system. There is no point in validating any Biblical event if "God did it."

    Even so, if you believe “God did it, no confirmation is required,” you are left with a very big, big plot hole in the narrative. Even if the Flood was a flooding of the Bosphorus or a flooding of the Mediterranean, the Bible would still be wrong, because those would not have been global, world-wide floods. If Jehovah, the All-Knowing, Great Oz of the Universe really did write the Bible, then it seems no small point that He should have known the Bosphorus or the Mediterranean was not the entire earth. Instead, the Bible is full of these little lapses of exactitude, which add up to a profile of a God whose limits of understanding coincidentally matched the limits of human understanding for the time in which the events were written. Almost as if God was really as imperfect and variable as the people who wrote the Bible…

  26. The 2 most interesting episodes is missing.Howcomw.

    1. Yes they are as they are also unavailable on YT. I clicked around and couldn't get at them anywhere in cyber orbit. I wonder, is this just an issue in Canada? Can my friends in other ports of call access these missing episodes?

      Do you know anything about this Vlatko?

  27. Another attempt to disprove the Bible and God.

    1. @AndyA121,

      U're simply a little late...
      "Been a while since we know that the world wasn't created some (4-5) thou's years ago.

      I rather stop here, don't want to shock you.
      There's a few things like that...
      But again, if you need a few proven hard facts for your faith to survive, that may well not be faith at all.
      Who care if modern homosapien come from ape if in any events one day, any day, God gave him conscience?
      Nah! You ain't gonna find any justification in faith on the Internet
      Or whitin any docu.


    2. Humanity is divided by those that believe in a creator and those that don't .
      Those that do, understand that what we are discovering in this modern age is how God has done things in the past, where as those that don't are the big bang people that think a Harley came from a tricycle from an explosion in a garage.
      How come you can give God credit for giving you a conscious but you can't see how He created the universe? It reminds me of the joke about the scientist wanting to get rid of God.

      Here goes;
      There was a group of scientists and they were all sitting
      around discussing which one of them was going to go to God
      and tell Him that they didn't need him anymore.

      Finally, one of the scientists volunteered and went to go
      tell God he was no longer needed.

      The scientist says to God, "God, you know, a bunch of us
      have been thinking and I've come to tell you that we really
      don't need you anymore. I mean, we've been coming up with
      great theories and ideas, we've cloned sheep, and we're on
      the verge of cloning humans and controling the weather ourselves, So as you can see, we really
      don't need you."

      God nods understandingly and says. "I see. Well, no hard
      feelings. But before you go let's have a contest. What d'ya

      The scientist says, "Sure. What kind of contest?"

      God: "A man-making contest."

      The scientist: "Sure! No problem" The scientist bends down
      and picks up a handful of dirt and says, "Okay, I'm ready!"

      God replies, "No, no. You go get your own dirt."

    3. Humanity is divided on this issue with greater complexity that you can imagine.

      Your anecdote, while cute, says nothing one way or the other.

    4. Analogous to that is, "If one wants to make an apple pie from scratch first they must invent the universe." (multiverse nowadays)

    5. i dont get it.

    6. @AndyA121,

      About that scientist you talked about, could you be kind enough share the name and the publication in which he publish the anecdote or the interview in which he stated this?
      'Coze it sound as a "Personnal" bible.
      Some call this preaching.



    7. To disprove something doesn't it have to be proven in the first place?

    8. First of all there is no scientifically based evidential prove that there is any kind of god.

    9. Rolands, you don't get it. You cannot have any scientific proof of anything which is a non-physical reality. If there were such proof, it would be in all the papers, and everyone would believe it.

      Show us your scientific proof that God does not exist. You don't have any? Then your belief that God does not exist is based on faith and faith alone. "Faith and faith alone." Where did I hear that before?

      There must be no such thing as love, or hate, or despair, or beauty, or thought because you cannot offer scientific proof for them even though you know these things exist irrefutably, don't you?

    10. Roland Jaunzems did not assert that god does not exist, merely that there is no scientific proof for the existence of one, two, three, etc. The intangibles which you cite are by their nature subjective and hence outside the purview of scientific proof, just like god.

      In short, as Mr. Jaunzems did not make a statement based on faith, don't say he did and if you assert there is a god, it is up to you, not the denier, to present scientific proof.

    11. @Old Fox
      there is no proof that god doesn't exit, you are right. but i also cannot prove that unicorns,leprechauns,aliens,all other gods (28 000 000 of them),dragons and so on do not or have not existed. good thing that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim and not those that dismiss them for lack of evidence.
      your claim that we cannot prove emotions existence somehow lends credibility to the existence of god is wrong. bringing up something that (in your mind) cannot be proven does not in any way prove something else exists.
      i read the link you provided there are questions,a lot of if's, some opinion and a lot of misrepresentations and/or ignorance of basic science. but you keep hiding god in the gaps because as our understanding and evidence grows your god is forced to get smaller and smaller as those gaps are closed

    12. The agenda of scientists in the scientific community is the promotion of their individual careers, not the promotion of the discoveries of others. If one were to discover a scientifically verifiable understanding of a "first cause" or "God" and this threatened the fear- driven belief systems of scientists, they would not even consider the new discovery. Without very large amounts of money to force the discovery into the mainstream media, the discovery would simply "gather dust on the back shelf so to speak." It doesn't just require straight thinking, it also requires a lot of money to "rent the ears" of everyone else.

    13. 1. On what do you base your alleged knowledge of the agenda of scientists in the scientific community?

      2. What makes you think you know anything about what would happen if a supreme being could be scientifically verifiable (even though the nature of the concept militates against it)?

      You're so typical of others of your ilk.

    14. @gsjikwblao
      you really think this way? Einstein had no money ,wasn't working in the field at the time and couldn't find a job in his field. but when he showed the proof for his claims and they could not be disproved they were accepted. Darwin had the scientific community against him ,the church (rich and very powerful church) against him politics and the vast majority of the public (at the time) against him and his theory was accepted after it passed the trials of science. i can mention Galileo and many others who succeeded against all odds. the fortunate thing for all these people is science cares for proof and facts it is not a popularity contest. if a "first cause" or "god" was shown to have more empirical evidence than the accepted it would be adopted as long as it wasn't talking about a supernatural cause. because science doesn't deal with the supernatural

    15. Fine answer, but perhaps you can enlighten me on one point.

      How much of the scientific community was actually against Darwin, especially since one of his strongest champions was Thomas Henry Huxley who soundly trounced Samuel Wilberforce in the famous debate of 1870?

      All and all, you must admit that the individuals you cited only prove the rule that in just about all cases, the scientific mainstream is correct--which leaves religion--.

    16. @robertallen1
      at the risk of being lazy i will ask you to look up the wiki page on Objections to evolution . also i cannot remember the quote (i know convenient lol) but i will post as soon as i can find it but when darwin first published he sent signed copies to his mentors and one of them (again i cannot remember) sent it back with a nasty reply inside. again please look up the page because i know that without providing the quote and the author of said quote i am providing no evidence at all

    17. Thanks for the referral.

      However, I'm sure you agree with my conclusion.

    18. It's a fine article and I think you for the recommendation.

      Just one thing, the creationist argument against the accuracy of radiometric dating does not seem to have been included. Your thoughts.

      Incidentally, have you read "The Creationists" by Ronald Numbers, a book menionted at the beginning of the article?

    19. @robertallen1
      to start the argument against radiometric dating (at least the argument that i have heard) tend to be that mistakes have been made or that the dating is mot verified. if there are other arguments please point them out? mistakes have been made but for the most part they were caught by other scientists (score one for science). next there are many types of radiometric dating that confirms each other as well as using other methods. i pointed out one of these other methods as well as a link to a very good book covering the process as well as debunking most of the claims of creationists while showing the proof for evolution . the comment i am referring to is addressed to epicurious on " the genius of Charles Darwin" about one third of the way down on the first page. the reason i am pointing you there is to avoid the link going to moderation. lastly i have mot read the book. have you and is it worth my buying it or looking for pdf?

    20. I only mentioned radiometric dating as an argument against evolution which was not included in the fine article to which you referred me. Actually, I was wondering if you could conjecture as to why the omission.

      As for the volume I mentioned, it looked interesting and I have just ordered it from Amazon for a penny. There were several copies available at the same cost.

    21. @robertallen1
      this is going to be way off topic but i watched/read this yesterday and i thought of yourself and achems. look up Greta Christina's Blog on why atheists are angry there is also an hour long discussion by her on the same topic on youtube. she hits the nail right on the head in my opinion as to why myself and possibly yourself and others (don't want to assume) come across as angry and aggressive. enjoy OTE

    22. First of all, I never said I was an atheist, at least in the generally understood sense of the word (not in the more subtle sense employed by Dawkins, et al.)

      It doesn't bother me to come across as angry and aggressive. I basically hate stupidity and ignorance (of which we have all been guilty in various degrees) and religion provides a generous helping of both all rolled into one inharmonious, deceitful whole. Therefore, Ms. Christina's blog is irrelevant to me, but thanks for the suggestion.

      P.S. How many evangelists (tele and otherwise), faith healers and, for that matter, religionists in general also come off as angry and aggressive in addition to misleading and fraudulent?

    23. @robertallen1
      you are correct and i apologize if i made any assumptions

    24. Yes, your reasoning is sound. But the people you mentioned did have some access to the mainstream scientific community. Also remember that the knowledge we have of these historic figures was formed by the history books that we read. When you say"science cares for proof and facts" I say that scientists (who oversee science) who are people,
      have a psychological agenda that they address through the construction of belief systems. it is natural for them to "not look at" anything that is a threat to their personal "status-qo" Do you honestly believe that if you were to discover a first cause for everything else and sent the proof in your reasoning, in written form, to a mainstream scientist that your face would be on the 6 o'clock news? Remember that "science" is run by people.The discovery of a "first cause" may be of a nature, that it may be a giant threat to the naturally constructed belief systems of a great many people. These belief systems may be the very thing that stands between the minds of us all, and the discovery. This is entirely possible, if the purpose of the universe is to produce consciousness that is in diametric opposition in its capacity to motivate from a form of consciousness that drove the expanding singularity, 13.7 billion years ago.
      It is also significant to note that a discovery of a "first cause" would, in its signifigense, over shadow all the discoveries made by the people you mentioned. And Einstein stated this himself.
      But I should also say that your reasoning is very sound.

    25. @gsjikwblao
      you seem to be saying that if we found the proof of your first cause or"god" then nobody would say so me may have already found it. this is not proof of anything. also you think every journal and editor of every journal would hide something that would make them rich. bring prestige to the journal and make them at least moderately famous? not to mention the Nobel prize for the person who discovered this. also any theory (regardless of proof) that would help prove a god or creator would be immediately be funded,publicized and voiced by religion. you would have the combined weight of billions of followers and some of the most powerful richest organizations pushing it (example irreducible complexity even tho proven false). trust me if there was evidence for what you propose it would be screamed from every church tower in the world.

    26. You are protecting a very important belief system. I have no intention of attacking it.

    27. Over the Edge is trying to explain to you how science (and,for that matter, any other intellectual discipline) works--he is not trying to do anything else.

      Belief systems are as silly as you are.

    28. Are you saying you don't have a belief system to protect? This would be contrary to human nature. And also contrary to your use of the word "silly".

    29. Now you're an expert on human nature as well as the workings of the world of science.

      I simply call them as I see them--and if you consider that a belief system, sobeit.

    30. I ask you again on what you base your assertions of the way the scientific community works or your conjectures as to the way it would work were a "first cause" to be found. So far, Over the Edge has clearly demonstrated that you know nothing about this.

      "This is entirely possible, if the purpose of the universe is to produce conscioueness that is in diametric opposition in its capacity to motivate from a form of conciousness that drove the expanding singularity, 13.7 billion years ago." What in the name of all that's holy does this mean or is it merely a snow job gone wrong tantamount to your reference without citation to Einstein.

    31. are you asking where I heard that einstein said that the discovery of a first cause would overshadow all else?
      Please forgive me for being sloppy but it was steven hawking that said it and it was on a pbs doc. called "Nova.
      And yes, An important part of your belief system is to have "over the edge" clearly demonstrate that I know nothing about this.
      I would like to complement you on your spelling, punctuation and grammor. (I know i spelt "grammor" rong). I for one must struggle very hard to make the good sense that I do.
      Just figure it's a snow job and you can "WIN" and we can stop talking.

    32. What I'm mainly asking you is on what you base your statements about the way the world of science works, for Over the Edge's explanation conforms to reality and yours conforms to nothing of any significance.

      Anyway, thanks for the COMPLIMENT.

    33. I base my perception on the way things work on an understanding of the motivational dynamics that are fundamental to all human experience. This includes scientists who all construct belief systems as a result of being more influenced by their mechanical reasoning then by their convicting conscience. This may not be clear but to elaborate would be difficult on a web site. Depending on your response, I may try to go a little farther.
      P.S. You should not say "yours conforms to to nothing of any significance" You should say "yours conforms to nothing of any significance that I know of". Otherwise you would be claiming to know everything and I'm sure you are not doing that.

      It is not may intention to attack someones belief system but your statement "yours conforms to nothing of significance" suggests that you are close-minded and close-minded people construct the most powerful belief systems. This is completely natural.

    34. Over the Edge has made short work of your perception of the way things work and tangentially with your knowledge of "motivational dynamics."

      What is "convicting conscience?"  As a matter of fact, can you epitomize what you are trying to get across in a clear, concise statement or even two?  If you can't, then you have nothing to offer.

      You're right.  I'm close-minded--to nonsense masquerading as profundity.


    35. @gsjikwblao,

      As far as I can see your original concern is: "Do you honestly believe that if you were to discover a first cause for everything else and sent the proof in your reasoning, in written form, to a mainstream scientist that your face would be on the 6 o'clock news?"

      Now, @over the edge gave you a solid answer, but your response was very disappointing. You did nothing to answer his arguments.

      There is no belief system in science and you know that very well. You just play games. There is a reluctant attitude in the scientific circles for sure (which is good) but that is not a belief system.

      If you were to discover the first cause end sent the proof to the mainstream science, for sure you'll be laughed at. But, if your theory is solid, it will gather the needed momentum. It may need 5,10,15 years to get out of the closet but eventually it will, like any other bold IDEA presented in the past.

      Special relativity was widely accepted in the physics community by 1920 - it was published in 1905, and the final form of general relativity was published in 1916.

      If there was a belief system the "Newton supporters" of that time would have burned the papers and killed Einstein ASAP. That what belief system does by default.

    36. Yes. thank you for your very useful comment.

  28. Challenge yourself. Google First Scandal.

  29. i think i'm watching this for the giggles.

    i think it's funny when the narrator seems AMAZED that the biblical myths have their roots in earlier pagan myths.

  30. I watched the first one and was quite amused that some very shall I say intelligent people are seriously looking for Noah's ark come on. Religion has been the cause of War's, people being put to death for not believing and all sorts I dont think an all forgiving god would be so cruel Religion was invented to control the masses and keep the simple people scared. //..\

  31. Prologue - I note from comments so far that some are opting out of viewing this doc. Too, I note, by absence, the nucleus of the board (you all know who you are) have not yet spoken. Hey it's festivus - folks are busy. So I the indolent one will comment and try to fill some pretty big shoes.

    Preface - I know a bit about the bible because I went to Catholic school as a lad. And there we said prayers and there we took catechism aka bible-study. I have no regrets about my RC education for it taught me the inanity of not just the RC religion but of all religions. Fortunately I saw the light of reason when I was about ten and I ain't never looked back. My game now is not to proselytize but to bring to light obvious absurdities and just the plain sillyness within the so called 'revealed' or holy books. I believe by so doing it might help to inch along a fellow traveler toward freedom as a human in this very short time we exist.

    Comment -I started to watch this doc and near the three minute mark - the flood was being discussed. Here then are a few thoughts on that massacre.

    Well, to start I googled 'population at time of biblical flood'. The range makes zero sense in that some say 10 million others say 30 million and some even say 10 billion. I agree that this sounds extraordinary but check it out. Needless to say this is a jaw dropping discrepancy.

    My point tho' is this. Even at let's say a population of 100 million there would be no less than 30 million young children and, perhaps 10 million very old folks. Now the kids being kids knew not right from wrong and as such could not be held accountable for their occasional improper actions (pinching a peach or a fig). And as is the case to this day the old folk - many, nay most had come to that point in their lives when they turn their eyes upward beseeching forgiveness and hoping for admittance to paradise.

    And what happens? - because the bible tells me so. God - the benevolent one, the one who is there to forgive even a death bed entreaty - what does he do? We all know, because again -the bible tells us so - drowns the lot, every man woman and child. Infants in their swaddling clothes, aged and infirmed living their last miserable days on their knees crying and praying mightily - drowns them all. Benevolent?

    I think he had options...

    Being omnipotent He could've with a minor swoosh of his mind or being all loving He could've with a kindly throb of his heart dealt with the pinnacle of his creation, humankind, made in his image I might add, in many others ways. There was no need to murder them all - for it was murder. There was no need to murder any. For starters He could have just given them a little reminder - a heads up so to speak. Or maybe a warning; like three strikes and then the rain starts. Or the easiest, because He created them, would have been to slightly rewire their neural circuitry so they would've been more inclined to do his bidding. Anyone of these or a myriad of others would have worked and thusly obviated the global slaughter. And He knew it - I mean He had to know for it is God we are talking about and is He not omniscient?

    ... reporting from Vancouver aka paradise.

    ... keep 'em coming Vlatko

  32. I stopped after 2:19...

  33. Good doc, good stories, but total bullshit :)
    Can't believe there is people who believe in Noah's arch as in the Bible.
    The massive flood is probable (for example, at the creation of the mediteranean sea) and a certain nuts who worked his ENTIRE LIFE to construct a big boat for personnal reasons and saved his family from flood is probable too. But the story stop here certainly.

    If one thing, only one thing in the Bible is confirmed wrong, and there is a lot of crap in the Bible, that is proven at 100% as bullshit, then you can consider the rest as the same. If the Bible has been written by god, it should'nt contains any mistakes, especially about the dinosaurs and the creation of the earth and the universe. The biggest mistake of the Bible scribes are about the science "facts" they have invented and also, the too many brutal stories, often encouraging murders or violence. And certainly enough misogynist comments to not have a single women on those religions.

    After that, if you believe in the Bible, this mean you are pretty naive, or you take only what it serve you, or your messages for different reasons.

    Now in 2011, with all the medias we have, i can make a claim, and im sure at 100% that until the end of humanity, we wont have any writings, "seings" and prophets who said they are the son of god.
    Why? Anyone will buy it, but strangely they believe in old texts, written in a time when almost everyone could not write their own names, believes in a flat earth, in monsters, and when we think we where at the center of the universe.

    I respect religious people, but seriously, you have to think about your beliefs, read serious research, read about other religions.
    And about other religions, why for example, Hinduism is not the truth over christianity or islam or the thousands other religions? Don't tell me YOUR religion is right and the others are bullshit.
    Religions are crutch for humans who fear in death. And the religions has been good to control the mass and to justify the injustifiable, like wars.

    To all religious people, please note that YOU have the work to prove the truth of your sacred books, not me to prove you wrong. THe problem, not a single proof, only faith.

    I have to add that im an agnostic, i believe in god, or a certain form of superior force.

    1. "Religions are crutch for humans who fear in death. And religion has been good to control the mass and to justify the injustifiable."

      Exactly right. Some smart bastard years ago realised everyone was scared of death. He offered a solution (religion), and then some other bright spark realised that solution could also be exploited for profit and control. Simple.

      I don't see why atheists or agnostics debate the religious folk...even if you turn them to your side, there is always someone else to educate. Who is stupider. And more stubborn.

      Its a waste of your "god-given" life!

    2. education is never a waste. if i can make one theist even stop to think about what they blindly believe in then the work was worth it. if the only reward for this is to move on to the next theist then that's what has to be done.

    3. C'est vrai - very true. And not to sound heavy handed but as an agnostic my intent when I choose to speak on matters of assumed gods either to believers of any stripe or the undecided is to state unequivocally - "Ponder a world without god(s) for I believe it is there where you will find freedom."

    4. heh i like to have them think of a world with ALL the gods existing! there is no more proof for the christian one than for marduk, osiris, or zeus. :3

    5. except that the bible recognizes them as gods, but attributes no real power to them.

    6. and we all know how good the bible is as a reliable source of information...

  34. This is a load of crap - The Kouran was writen between 610 and 653 A.D. and therefore has no authority in the debate - stupid people who think it does!

    The story of Cain and Abel was purportedly written about 1500 BC. All the K is doing is repeating ancient history (2,000 years have gone by).

    That is like asking historians today to write authoritavely on the sacking of Rome!!!!

    What is Cain and Abel about?

    It is about trust in God in the future.

    The lamb was a figure of the lamb of God (Jesus). God created, God destroyed (Noah) God redeems - Jesus.

    The redemption is by the shedding of blood - and in some way Abel understood that and Cain did not.

    That's it in a nutshell

    1. @DaveJay
      if i read your post right the Koran is just repeating ancient history because id id written long after the event? but many of the stories in the bible are written long after the events. now i am not religious at all and i find it interesting that you argue that something written after an event or borrowed from other (older) writings as having "no authority in the debate" i tend to agree with you but..... finally you say the story is about god of the future and jesus (1500 years later or as you say ancient history) or are you claiming that god knew what was going to happen in the future? if the second is correct then our future and our actions are already written so we have no free will .

  35. At 6hrs18min it is ridiculously long and the only reason is because it is a propaganda piece by those who choose to believe in fairy tales over scientific fact. Dont waste your time people

  36. Well that's 6h 18mins of my life I`ll never get back.....

    1. really? is it not worth watching? do they try and claim that archaeology verifies the stories in the bible?

    2. @Epicurus
      quite the opposite in many cases it shows how the stories could have been embellished,borrowed from other stories and how some of these stories could have come about by natural causes

    3. alright, thats what i figured. just like the last one. why are so many people not enjoying it then?


    4. Few documentary types are more disappointing than the ones where theology drives the outcome of science, archaeology, and history. They rank about with Giorgio Tsoukalos saying, "Only an alien could explain this artifact!"

    5. It's kind of a mish mash of stuff like: did the ark exist, did the flood happen and examination of possible scientific reasons for any of it. Nothing new. Has religioids claiming it must be true because it's in the bible.....

    6. I couldve told you that 6h 18mins ago... ^^

    7. There is no way you watched this whole doc. You posted at around 2pm CST and it's now 6pm CST that would be 4 hours, the doc is 6hrs long and i've never seen a new doc on this site before 12 noon CST. I was off work the whole month of November and checked this site every day NEVER BEFORE 12 NOON did i see a new doc put on the recently added list. So not only are you embellishing your post but if it took you 6 hours to figure out that this doc was a waste of time then maybe you should keep your post to your self.

    8. I have subscribed to TDF for over 2 years. I watch pretty much every doc and here's the interesting thing. You can subscribe to TDF and get email updates! They tell you of new docs being added! The marvels of modern technology huh!!! I don't have to be nerdy and search the site every day.

      I received email notification and links to this and the Mark Zuckerberg doc at 3.27pm GMT and watched this one as 1) I only just watched the MZ one on TV about 3 days ago and 2) docs like this are usually good for a giggle.

      I commented 14 hours ago. This would have put the time at about 10pm. That's roughly 6 1/2 hours after starting to watch it. As for me taking 6 hours to figure out my opinion? I didn't. I realised very quickly and played an MMO with it on in the background.

      So maybe you should keep your insults to yourself Sherlock.

    9. @Yavanna,

      Seen your post in the "Recent comment" but not Vlatco's. Secondary matter though...

      I just wanted to mention that I'd really like to see the all TDF docus listed by age, date at which it was first posted.
      Just like you, I seen quite a few and sometimes, I feel I already seen one while viewing it!

      The thing is that I wouldn't want to miss one of those (Topics) that interest me go by unoticed. Christmas vacation is coming & I'll have to select a few good ones.
      If only there could be a date aside the docu listing, I copy & paste into either an Excell or an Access format and request a list by date.

      At present time, it sometimes take me an hour to decide which I should view!
      Then, it's time to go to sleep!

      That was just a comment.
      I already choose one yesterday before falling asleep! :-)


    10. Hi Pierre

      I agree - It would be nice to know the date a doc is added. I`ve often thought that myself. However, in some respects it's only really useful information if you want to get engaged in current arguments on the commentaries, because most people watch the most recently posted docs then comment if they feel it's "their bag."

      I often watch some "older" docs when I`m up to date (watched all the recent ones), and / or my Youtube subscribed channels have dried up. Recently some of the more recent docs on TDF have been on TV lately too. But there's still some good "older" docs listed on the site by category and sometimes you can find a real gem by trawling through a few.

      If Vlatko doesn't pick up on your suggestion I'm sure he'd appreciate your feedback via the contact email address for the site.

    11. @Yavanna,

      Just as a follow up...
      Have you ever heard of a "TDF's Blog" since thhe time a few peoples though of it a little while back?

      Not expressly to nessarely discuss any futher but to pick up websites addy where there would be complementary informations or other free docus, movies?

      Understandingly, I just got filtered from this on the comment list on the "The Iron Wall".
      I don't even know if I'll be filtered here once again regarding the question here in this post.


    12. Do you mean a forum space for TDF? If so there was one 1-2 years back when Vlatko wasn't so damn lazy as he is today!!!!! (all those Ohh Vlatko your're so wonderful comments have gone to his head)

      But seriously it was abandoned as hardly anyone used it.

    13. Looking for attention? You hit the DON of TDF and you'll get arrows on your asss...and not from Cupid.
      Life is easy when all you have to do is harvest the fruits of other's labor.
      Send us a link to your site and let's see how it compares.
      But then again...this may have been a joke....i don't get
      edit: Ok confirmed by the "blade", it was a joke i didn't get!

    14. Az,

      Az, my dear, Yavanna was joking, wow! would you stand up for me like that? I guess if you got it, you got it, Vlatko that is.

    15. every time i stand for you...you run away...or is it you bike away? lol

    16. Ty AR I`m so sick of being picked on lately - you are my new hero!

    17. I guess I will have to make my humour and comments a bit more obvious....

    18. As you can see after my couple phrases i included a doubt...so yes, your humour is coming through....through the cracks...you now crack me up as they say!

    19. Sorry Yavanna i stand corrected, just read Vlads post about subscribers to this site. I'm not a subscriber because i come to this awesome site EVERYDAY maybe that makes me nerdy but it's funny that you put in your post "MODERN TECHNOLOGY" but im nerdy for doing it the old fashion way, whatever. Also in your post you say "GOOD FOR A GIGGLE" so you took your 6 hours and watched this doc then you post "Well that's 6h 18mins of my life I'll never get back....." why complain when you CHOSE to watch for a giggle. And how exactly did i insult you? Yes, my bad for claiming you didn't watch the whole doc i do apologize for that, but i stand by my appeal not to post complaints only, give us some of your insights on the doc not just complaining. Oh snap just read your post again "i played it in the background while i played MMO" and I'm the nerd. Bye Bye now Dr. Watson, hope to hear your complaining soon, NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    20. @greyspoppa,

      Subscribers (via email, RSS, Twitter, FB) are getting the new docs sometimes way before they actually appear on the listing on the site.

      So when a comment on a new doc (listed moments ago), says I've watched it, actually it might be true.

  37. Interesting indeed. I was looking forward to the next Documentary...but 6 Hours???

    ...I'll watch it some other day.

  38. Very interesting.

  39. I'd like to watch it, but the screen say's it's unavailable.

  40. I don't even have to watch this to know what the comments are gonna look like.

    Think I'll pass on this one.

    1. It's getting to be that way! Scientist minded bashing religious minded on religious docs and religious minded bashing scientist minded on scientists doc... and a few of us sitting around watching the match with a full hand of popcorn, some getting involved here and there...most times with regrets.