On April 16, 2010, In Uncategorized, by admin
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Use the form below to search the site:
Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!
All entries, chronologically...
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
@yamila2068 well? actually some things they said is correct and most things are wrong! I checked the Bible, David didn’t crucified or hanged the 7 sons of Saul, David had to gave them up to an angry tribe because that tribe was very angry at Saul and Israelites, they wanted a bloody revenge! so David? gave the 7 sons to that tribe! they are the ones that hanged them! Also when the Philistines hanged Saul, David took his bones and berried them by Saul’s fathers grave, he respected Saul.
@Pomka07 I agree. This is all wrong. History Channel put too drama into the story to prolong it so it fits a 1 hour episode. The real story is plain and simple. Their point of view of this episode is all based on speculation and assumption, not fact.
boom headshot!
History Channel is wrong about this story! Read the Bible to see what really happened at that time!
@dstncowles and you say this is all in the name of God?
I never said their opinion was infallible. I was talking to a Christian who offended that the interpretation of these scholars contradicts what he believes to be true about Biblical history. People with degrees can often be wrong – that’s what research is all about. But the person I was arguing with is certainly in no position to be calling distinguished scholars in their field non-historians, whether their interpretation is proven to be false or not.
12,000 years later and everything but slavery happens still and instead of warriors being thebloodthirsty opportunists our politicians and corporations now take tha role so in essence nothing has really changed
I wish, sir, that you would use the same logic and reasoning vis-a-vis the obvious fraudulent and historical inaccuracy and inconsistency of the bible. Just a thought!
by OUR standards, maybe 12,000 years later. In the early days of civilization being a blood thirsty opportunist, would be very standard. So would theft, murder and slavery!
Just because someone has a degree doesn’t mean that their opinion is infallible. I’m sure there are opinions of dissent in all major historical fields. It seems to me that this show twisted some facts and read their own opinions into it. It does make for an interesting interpretation, but it seems to fly in the face of established historical opinion.
one giant problem with this documentary is that crucifixion came from Rome so how did David do this to the airs to the thorn?
@SuperP3 “one the best, well documented history books” according to whom exactly. missing dates, events, age discrepencies with Jesus Christ. vague descriptions of lands at best, and information masked is metaphor, and then contorted by followers who try to convince everyone that its “based on fact”. you bible thumpers are a complete trip. no logic, intellect, impervious to facts, and are entirely too pompous to hear outside ideas. you reject the logic, but applaud blind superstition. LoL
This is so illegitimate, this is like watching a Michael Moore film. So inaccurate and full of misinformation. The History channel has lots its credibility? on so many accounts.
Hmm the Bible is actually one the best, well documented history books. Please explain what facts have been left out of it? And calling David a “blood thirsty opportunist” compared? to all his other historically documented background would be like calling Hannibal a phenomenally good cook.
LOL
WOW! I can’t believe that they are comparing David to Michael Corleone in the Godfather!
well as historian, he has these little things called “facts”. the bible tends to leave out that, as well as the fact many of the crap people did in the name of “God” consisted of murder, theft, slavery, etc. so to call David a “blood thirsty opportunist” wouldn’t be that far off the mark. also, in order for him to give commentary, he would HAVE to have read the bible numerous time genius. as your spelling has conveyed, being bible-savy isn’t synonomous with being intellegent. LoL
from what ancient historical documents do we know that David was such a man
i dont like when one of the comentator when he says DAVID is a BLOOD thersty oportunist? oh my he should read the bible before he says this kind of thing.
this docu dosnt go into detail about the capture of jerusalem
may i ask are you saying that scholars are limited to universities, or school?
ya exactly thts the same guy who is standing in the nose of the boat
@y0ungPh03n1x David was Saul’s musician but he was also Saul’s armorbearer. And if you read I Samual he actually killed a lion and a bear with his bare hands.
The guy at 5:16 is the same one who plays Themistocles in the Last Stand of the 300.
isn’t this vid slightly inaccurate? from what i remember in reading the bible David was sauls musician not a cut through pirate; it was in fact saul who was blood thirsty and he was even recorded as crazy he tried to kill David on many occasions, but David spared his life on so many occasions when he had an opportunity to kill saul