Why I am not watching The History Channel's "The Bible", part 2. It sows error and confusion

I believe the contending for the faith over the History Channel's presentation of the miniseries "The Bible" is a pitched one. I have almost never received the number of views on one essay as I have on part one and in such a short time too. Christian blogger Mike Ratliff said the same. Further, Mr Ratliff said the following, with which I agree:

"... As I stated in an earlier comment referring back to this post, I haven’t experienced such a strong level of dark spiritual warfare protecting some stronghold of darkness in quite some time. Our enemy has obviously staked quite a bit into this…"

Why? Why is this such a battle to get people to see the error and corruption in this film?Look how bad it is, as Ratliff describes,
"I've watched extended previews of it Kim that are not available on TV. It is comparable to taking a man-centered version of the Bible and watering it down even further to make it entertainment. I believe the Bible calls that removing the offense of the Cross since the purpose of our Lord’s incarnation, which is the Atonement, is totally submerged into the “Change the World” view that Rick Warren and those who emulate him teach. Paul rejoiced when others preached Christ, but that’s not what this is since the gospel they preach is “another gospel” and the Jesus they preach is “another Jesus.”…
In the film "The Bible", the bible is mishandled, period. It removes sin, the cross, the need for the cross, changes verses, inserts events, takes liberties, and puts man at the center of a feel-good social Gospel. Anything that is this grossly man-centered is bad, a different gospel, and to be avoided. But let me give just a few examples of how the producers and writers and paid 'Christian' consultants have put forward a Gnostic gospel of man to the dilution of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Remember, in the Gnostic series I had written a few months ago, the Gnostic will always seek to change the emphasis of the gospel away from the work of Jesus to the worth of man. Always.

An early example is Noah. As he tried to comfort his family on the ark, we listen to the voice-over tell us something that is simply not true. We hear the reason for the flood was: "Wrong choices, wrong decisions, that's why this [the flood] is happening."

In the pre-flood world according to the movie "The Bible", man didn’t sin but simply made mistakes. An entire world was drowned because some people made a bad choice? The bible says, "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." They diminish the rebellion of sinful man against Holy God by making it sound like someone picked sauerkraut for their hot dog instead of ketchup. God didn't send the flood because of an "oops." He sent it because He determined to wipe out man due to his continual evil. (Genesis 6:7).

The truth is, after the fall, all humans born on earth were born with a total sin-nature. In the Gnostic world they tell us that we still have the capacity to do right by simply deciding to make good choices and avoiding bad decisions. Without faith in Jesus and His indwelling Holy Spirit, we don't have that capacity. We see this incapacity and total sin-nature right away, when the son of Adam and Eve, Cain, became a murderer. (Genesis 4:8). We see it when David says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” (Psalm 51:5). And again, Solomon knows, "Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20). It has nothing to do with man's choices but all to do with man's evil.

Next: When we hear in the film that God 'cleansed the land' by sending the flood, it shifts the emphasis away from man's sin to the oopsies he did. If I poured out milk onto the floor, the analogy would be that in the real bible I would own up to spilling the milk (man is culpable for his actions.) In the film version of The Bible, God just cleansed the land, so the focus becomes the mess and the mop that wipes up the mess, not the man who made it. It changes from focus on the sin of the sinner to the consequence of his sin, which, after all, was just a little dirt to be cleaned up. Just by saying 'cleansed' it removes man's participation in the reason for the flood. But look at what the real bible has to say--

"for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth." (Genesis 6:12b-13)

In another example, in the film series "The Bible," we hear the narrator say after the flood: "it was a new beginning for Noah’s descendants & a chance to restore the relationship between God and humanity."

They would have you believe that the restoration and reconciliation between Holy God and sinful man was up to Noah and his progeny. There was no mention of God's promise of a Messiah to redeem us. According to "The Bible" filmmaker's Gnosticism, it is up to man to make that reconciliation. A Gnostic always changes the emphasis away from the work of Jesus to the worth of man. Always.

In another example, we hear the narrator say the "Covenant between Abraham and God." The covenant was not between man first and God second. The covenant wasn't even between God and man, it was between God and God because it was an unconditional promise of a sovereign God to sinful man, who simply received it.

The truth of that covenant is, "This unconditional covenant, first made to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3, promised God’s blessing upon Abraham, to make his name great and to make his progeny into a great nation. The covenant also promised blessing to those who blessed Abraham and cursing to those who cursed him. Further, God vowed to bless the entire world through Abraham’s seed. Circumcision was the sign that Abraham believed the covenant (Romans 4:11). The fulfillment of this covenant is seen in the history of Abraham’s descendants and in the creation of the nation of Israel. The worldwide blessing came through Jesus Christ, who was of Abraham’s family line." (source "The Covenants of the Bible").

But when it came time to mention the covenant, "The Bible" writers put man first and made it sound like man cut a deal with God and God capitulated. That is a Gnostic tactic.

Then there is what Mike Ratliff mentioned, the "Change the World" theology. This is most troublesome.

When Peter is called; he is told that he "will change the world."

When Paul is converted and baptized, he is told the reason for his baptism is so he may "change the world in [Jesus'] name."

When the man playing Jesus emerges out of the water, he says he is going to "change the world."

This 'change the world' theology' is a repeated message in the film and one that the Gnostic loves. Why? They love it for two reasons. First, because it is man-centered. Who is going to change the world? Man. Jesus is a footnote in this world-changing. It elevates man's worth above the work of Jesus, something the Gnostic always likes to do. A Gnostic loves himself more than God, who is enemy to Him. And second because it focuses on this world and all the temptations that the Gnostic offers and wants.

Ratliff said,
The scene that sealed this for me was in Peter’s boat after Jesus had him catch all those fish after he had fished all night and caught nothing. The stuff that went on in that scene is found nowhere in Scripture. Instead of Peter saying, “Depart from me Lord for I am a sinful man!” he asked Jesus what he is going to do if he follows him. Jesus replied, “Change the world!”
I have news for you. This world is going to melt. (Matthew 24:35). It is a temporary world. The SOULS on this world are eternal. Yet the 'change the world' mentality is simply another name for social gospel, and social gospelers say that the kingdom of God is to be realized by social improvement. They would have you believe this is why Jesus came. It is a different gospel, and if it is a different gospel, it is false. (2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:8; Mark 7:9).

The encroachment of the Social Gospel is a tactic and a barometer at the same time. Dr. Paul Hiebert was a Doctor of Missiology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and missionary for 6 years under the Mennonite Brethren Board of Missions. Art Azurdia explained in a lecture on the series, Drive By Discernment,
"Hiebert said that the first generation of Mennonites were a people preoccupied with the Gospel and concerned with some social responsibility. The second generation of Mennonites assumed the Gospel, and became increasingly absorbed with social responsibility. The third generation of Mennonites abandoned the Gospel and was consequently altogether was completely preoccupied with social responsibility. Preoccupied. Assumed. Abandoned."
Over the last century, theological liberals were increasingly defined by the social gospel accompanied by their view of the kingdom. To the liberals the “kingdom was not future or otherworldly, but ‘here and now.’ " (source)

We want to do good for others but the reason we are called to the Kingdom by grace to go out is not to change the world. Often, that is the result. But the reason we go is to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ.

I heard one of the pastors I listen to say that if there is an adjective in front of "Gospel" it is not the real Gospel. We see this split between Gospel and social gospel in David Platt's book Radical.
"A similar voice is David Platt’s and his book Radical. Platt offers better balance than Chan but still propagates a two-tiered gospel composed of the true gospel of redemption and the social gospel. While Platt is careful to elevate the true gospel, the social gospel of feeding the hungry and giving to the poor is the primary focus of the book and accounts for its popularity. He writes, “As we meet needs on earth, we are proclaiming a gospel that transforms lives for eternity.” The author does not advocate the social agenda as opposed to true evangelism, as mentioned above, but he does say that caring for the poor is evidence of salvation. As a matter of fact “rich people who neglect the poor are not the people of God.” However, when we turn to the New Testament, we find that, while Christians are to be loving and generous to all people, they are never told to attempt to remedy the consequences of the sin of unbelieving humanity through social action. Instead, they are instructed to meet the needs of brothers and sisters in Christ, something Platt admits in a footnote (p. 225). In fact, the church is never commissioned to rectify injustices by dealing with the symptoms of sins but to “radically” uproot sin itself through the gospel." (source)
Do you see how insidious The Bible series is and its evil 'change the world' gospel? It shifts the emphasis away from the work of Jesus on the cross to the worth of man, so that he may boast. "Look what I did! I changed the world!"

No...that was Jesus, our beloved and holy Savior.

The Bible miniseries on The History Channel is not worth your time or energy. The Lord is too Good, too Pure, too Precious to waste even a moment on the darkness and corruption of that show. I am personally convinced that the show is a pivot point in the deepening apostasy of the church. The show sows error, confusion, and corruption.

Like Chris Rosebrough said, lol, don't watch the movie, the book is so much better!

 Part one here


  1. Hi Elizabeth- very much appreciate your thoughts on this clearly controversial production.

    My brother-in-law (and in Christ) were watching the premiere, and noticed multiple glaring errors, omissions and overall un-Biblical content.

    And we sat there and furrowed our brows, and criticized the mistakes, and - no doubt- patted ourselves on the back for being so spiritually discerning. Why aren't more believers like us? (Isn't spiritual pride so subtle?)

    And then the Lord reminded me: if he can use a jackass (Num. 22) to speak truth - and there is plenty of truth amid the whitewash of the Gospel - cannot the Holy Spirit of God use a botched production to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment?

    Brethren, this is not a matter of being a good Berean, because in all truthfulness, if you are watching the History Channel, the Science Network or any other worldly source for any kind of spiritual (or even wordly) truth, a Bible miniseries is the least of your concerns. (Google 'Hearst history yellow journalism' for more.)

    But the lost and dying world IS watching those channels, and if they should stumble by God's providence across the Word, who are we to intervene?

    I know we are entrusted with the Gospel, and we should speak only what God has declared in His Word. He alone will Judge Olsteen, Warren and those other false teachers.

    But at a minimum, opposing the broadcast and/or viewership by Christians of this miniseries seems petty when so much other spiritual harlotry continues to run rampant in the house of God today. The world - and its productions - will always be the world. It's the church that needs to be rebuked, not Hollywood producers - at least in this particular case.

    Grace and peace

    1. Hi Ian,

      As I said before, a different Jesus is not a crumb to be taken when the world offers Him. Because there is so much idolatry and sin in the world is precisely why we cannot compromise our standards. If we were to do that, Paul would have used the demon possessed girl to proclaim the message. But the source matters.

      When Jesus comes, He will judge the eternal destination of Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. Meanwhile, I DO judge them as false teachers based on the gospel they preach.

      I agree that rebuking the world for being the world is pointless. This blog series about the movie IS aimed toward Christians, pastors, and anyone who says they love Jesus. In other words, the Church.

    2. I absolutely agree; there is no other Jesus but the one described in the word of God.
      Which I think is ultimately my point: no mini series-or church or celebrity pastor or even godly public figures-can ever add or subtract to the authority of the Word.
      If any thing, the Spirit could use this show to draw the lost to the Bible, not repel them from it. That's all i'm saying.

    3. I understand your concerns about the series. I don't think the series was meant to see people become a Christian, but to give a view of the history of the Bible. Isn't God sovereign and does He bring His Elect to Himself in the first place. God can use different means to bring about His glory.

    4. Hi Charles,

      Thank you for your comment. I write last night about the series again. The series doesn't give a very good overview of the bible, even the lowest stated aim. There is no context and many of the events and situations have been either omitted or twisted.

      As far as God 'can' use anything to bring about salvation, that is true. But it isn't a matter of what God *can* do, but of what he has promised to do. Here is an excerpt from an essay I wrote last night about the bible tv series, containing a quote from someone answering your very comment:

      Q. Even though there's a lot of error in this movie, still, don't you think it's a great way to show people who God really is, I mean, can't God use anything to save someone?

      A. No, I don't think this movie is a great way to reveal the truth about God since it's filled with lies about God. And yes, I realize God can use anything to save someone, but He only chose to use the message of the true Gospel to save all men (John 14:6, Acts 4:12). Nowhere in Scripture does God command or allow His children to use the work of Satan to proclaim His truth. And God is clear, anyone who denies Him and defiles His holy character or word, works for the devil, not for God."

      here is the essay I wrote

  2. Why the producers of The Bible Series should have gone to Sunday School


    "It’s not the selectivity of events that is the problem, it’s not the special effects, it’s not the limitations of the medium, it is the lying."

  3. I have read the same thing from Ian in similar ways, like God using a perverted Bible version to bring someone to faith, granted nothing is too hard for the Lord except He does not lie, but this just doesn't agree with what I know of scripture...mostly:

    Romans 10:14-17
    Acts 20:27

    As for the donkey; truth was spoken.

    Though truly saved Christians are imperfect, through God we can speak His truth and warn people with the whole counsel of God.

    Galatians 1:8-9

    And Paul had gravity concerning the gospel:
    1 Corinthians 9:12-14

    -Also, I did start with an NIV, but I began to see how it was perverted and went away from it. John 6:44 John 6:65

    1 Corinthians 15:1-4

    Love, from Drew

  4. Wonderful article. I could not agree more. Would not waste my time listening to lies and errors of "this bible" presentation.

    The Roman Catholic Church has been twisting, distorting and changing the Word of God for centuries, should we be surprised by this presentation.?. Since the series producers are devout cathloics and their biblical "scholars" less than scholarly - why would one expect this endeavour to be any different.??.

  5. "cannot the Holy Spirit of God use a botched production to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment?"

    Well, sure... He COULD.... if He was not holy and righteous. But He does not use untruths to convict. To even hint that God would ever join hands with the devil to accomplish His purposes is blaspheme at its finest. And scary to think about.

    1. Anonymous,
      You are not seeing this rightly. To presume that this is God's work is a mistake from the beginning. It is the work of man.
      It is the devil who seeks to join with the truth and pervert it. Injecting his lies just like the one he used with Eve.
      You are on the road for calamity if you think we as God's own people need to take the distorted truth from satan's stinking, scaly hand.
      Replacement Theology. That's why.

  6. Satan knows his time is short and is fighting with all his might by blinding millions to the truth! We should strive to work even harder and give that sorry devil a nice kick in the face. I was extremely skeptical when I first heard about this series. God will bless you for sharing the TRUTH!!!!! Another great post as always!!!

  7. A blog entry that continues the conversation . . . This show is not something that Christians should embrace.


  8. Thank you so much for explaining exactly why I was feeling so odd while watching the miniseries “The Bible.” In fact, I only tuned in to it for the first time tonight, and I don’t know how to describe it but it just felt as if the heart, spirit or inherent purpose of the stories were missing. It didn’t touch the soul or convict the spirit or really do much of anything for me or my mom, especially with its heavy emphasis on violence in each storyline. Then when I saw the crowd jarring and pushing Mary around calling her a “shameless whore” after supposedly finding out she was pregnant, we turned it off. I don’t remember that being in the Bible at all. When there is one inconsistency there are bound to be others and so I went and googled to see what others thought and found this editorial.

    I think one of the most pertinent scriptures for this would be Galatians 5; 9, “A little leven leveneth the whole lump.” Meaning of course a little untruth is like having a speck of black paint in a white bucket; it’s useless. What I don’t think some people are understanding is that what they are omitting and displacing are all the reasons Jesus had to die for us. None of the storyline really shows the need for a savior or develops any of the characters in any sort of meaningful way. As this article said, it attempts to once again place man in charge of his destiny. Whether the Bible stories in between are 80, 90 or even 100 percent accurate is of not bother to Satan because as long as the need for God and a redeemer for mans sin is taken OUT of it or convoluted to even a small degree, SURE he’s gonna let us have the rest.

    In fact, this type of show has to potential to do FAR more damage to the unsaved than anything Hollywood can put out there, because with that at least you know you’re getting for the most part. Satan is in fact counting on people to watch this who are NOT familiar with the Bible. He hopes that they will then come away thinking they know the Bible and will then be led straight through the doors of another Joel Osteen, Rick Warren- like church. There they will be taught how to make their lives better here on THIS earth, while giving no mention of true repentance and the eternal soul.

    We know in the Bible it also says that Satan will come as an angel of light and that even the very elect will be deceived — THIS is exactly how he is going to do it. Christians who deny this do not understand how Satan works. He is going to use a semblance of right with just a few minor changes here and there. After all, we don’t have to miss the mark by much as long as we miss it, it is still eternal separation from God and he knows that, but do we? Many do but sadly it seems that many Christians still don’t.

    Again, thank you so much for this very informative and detailed piece. I learned a great deal from it and will make sure to pass it along to anyone else who inquires about this new miniseries.

    1. Anonymous, thank YOU for your wonderful reply. Very thoughtful and insightful. I loved your comment about satan letting us have the rest, so true!

      I wrote about the series in part 1here

      and here, about the scarlet thread they have removed

      and last night the sorry news about the executive producer being fired, here


Post a Comment