Banned from the Bible II (2007 TV Movie) User Reviews

A fantastic source of more information

[jjgarris7 · 10/10 · 16 July 2007]

I am not nearly as eloquent as the first person commenting on this documentary but I thoroughly enjoyed this program. Regardless of the validity of the claims outlined, the sources are real and the information is factual. Unfortunately, the major pitfall with respect to all these things biblical is that you dwell in the realm of fiction since it is a collection of stories passed down. I would, however, add that many things retained within the Bible are just as unbelievable and nonsensical as these things that were cut/removed and subsequently "found" and brought up in this program.

With that said, it is interesting to find information on texts that are not as well known or views of scholars who describe sources cut from the "greatest story ever told." Not only does this program challenge the paradigm of mundane Christian belief, but it is thoroughly entertaining as though it were a movie. Because the information contained was completely factual (in that the references were all real) and I came away with a deeper understanding of the history of western Christianity I must give it 10/10.

I recommend this program to anyone with an open mind regardless of your religious tenets; it helps shed light on how religious tradition is formed.

Incredulious and Enraged

[mrs-thilo-young · 26 December 2012]

I was absolutely dumb-founded when I watched this "historical" account of how the canon of the Bible was formed. It was stated that Constantine did this on a political move and required the already divided church to choose what books would compile the book we now call the Bible. The "re-enactment" depicted 10 red-faced religious leaders thrusting parchments at each other while Constantine looked on. The church had to begin to officially state (though that which was accepted as scripture was already clear) what writings were considered canonical early on because of Marcion the heretic who created the "first" canon - excluding any books that looked favorably on the Jews. Also, the church was ecumenical at the time, in agreement in doctrine and practices as still evidenced in the liturgies. And it was 318 leaders who had survived the persecution of Diocletian, who came together to refute the Arian heresy(which stated that there was a time when Christ was "not")at the Council of Nicaea. Not 10 morons. And it's historically known that it was Athanasius who officially first presented the 27 ecumenically, unanimously accepted books of the New Testament, in his Festal letter of 367. I am just incredulous that the History Channel could get away with such a travesty of presenting this as a historical account when the truth is so readily acceptable. Heck, one can Google "Athanasius", "Council of Nicea", "Arian Heresy", "Marcion" and take 5 minutes to learn what really happened. Absolutely unbelievable.

Obviously flawed

[steve83-1 · 5/10 · 27 December 2008]

While much of the material presented MIGHT be accurate, and all of it is certainly interesting to consider, I couldn't help be distracted by the opening segment's blatant omission of details that are obviously IN the Bible.

Much ado is made of the "fact" that the Bible doesn't explain Cain's wife, but it DOES. Not only are Adam & Eve specifically described as the FIRST people (not the ONLY people) god makes; it specifically says that Cain joined another tribe (apparently a tribe of PEOPLE).

The program goes on to make several wild hypotheses about the possible source of Cain's wife (including incest) which are not only unnecessary, but totally lacking in any believable basis. The fact that several "experts" spend so much time trying to explain something that's already explained makes their later opinions that much LESS valid as the show progresses.

So as interesting as this program is (and it IS), such a glaring error at the beginning makes the entire thing appear to be pure fiction.

Motive, and Opportunity

[Loquacient · 1/10 · 28 June 2007]

The devil is not in the details, but in the underlying motive of those who have a bias they desire to promulgate.

Interesting anecdote: in my own studies of these historical documents (which have always been available, not "hidden" as the program deceptively portrays), I came across one of the epistles of Clement. Reading it, I thought that it would have fit rather nicely with the rest of the New Testament letters. The tone and content was very much like those letters attributed to Paul. However, the early church fathers rejected the epistle for inclusion into the canon of scripture. Why? Depends on your view, I guess. My view is that if God is as real and active as the books of the New Testament claim, then it stands to reason that He also guided those men to choose the correct books.

But why not include the Epistle of Clement? Well, contained within is a comparison to the phoenix arising out of its own ashes, not in an illustration, but speaking of it as true and factual, that this bird really exists and this is how it lives. I can imagine that if the Bible contained this story today, then it would be useless, for everyone now knows that there has never been such a creature in reality, and anyone could then point to a part of the Bible that is clearly and unequivocally false.

As it stands, now, no one can do that. People can and do offer their opinions and interpretations, but excluding recorded miraculous acts there is nothing so easily debunked in the Bible as an analogy using a completely fictitious creature.

People who disbelieve in the Bible have pretty strong opinions, sometimes. But their arguments are entirely unconvincing, to me. They're going to have to do a lot better than digging up old books and presenting them as if they were just discovered, and tinting the exposition with conspiracy. So very lame.