The first installment in History Channel's miniseries is labeled "In the Beginning." This part of the The Bible series focuses on about the first two thousand years of history. As you can imagine, there is a great deal of abbreviation with the story since it is impossible to fit every detail of Bible history from Creation until Moses in just under an hour. The story of Creation is narrated by Noah, and he summarizes the seven days of the first week accurately. The images flashed on screen from the animal kingdom are impressive and remind us of the masterful artistry of God when He spoke all things into existence. Very little attention is given to Adam and Eve, except to explain their disobedience. This segues into Noah's statement that the world became wicked and that God was cleansing the earth because of the abundance of evil. You will appreciate the emphasis on the universality of the flood, since not many today are willing to admit this catastrophic global event as a part of history. From the flood, the story moves to Abraham and this occupies the bulk of the first segment. Even though the series is visually stunning and many areas of poetic license will make you ponder the setting of the story, there are a few concerns with this first installment. Since you asked for help with this part of the series, this is where I want us to focus.

     First, our knowledge of Creation comes from Moses and not Noah. Even though Noah is a part of the Genesis record, the record itself was written by God through Moses. There is already a corrupted theory, a prominent one at that, which purports Genesis is a collection of narratives from different writers. The error of this is that the Bible clearly identifies Moses as the inspired writer of the first five books of the bible (John 1:17; Lk. 24:47). To have Noah narrate the story recorded by Moses is misleading at the least, and might be used as fodder by those that hold an erroneous view of authorship for the Pentateuch. 

     The second major strike against the presentation is the characterization of Abraham and his family when he is called to leave for Canaan. To the credit of the producers, they do acknowledge the seed-promise through Abraham but they present the family as questioning the command of God. They hesitate to leave their place which is contrary to the way they are shown in Scripture (Gen. 12:4-5; Heb. 11:9). Lot's wife is immediately shown to be a doubter and Lot's character is clearly torn because of her. Peter calls Lot a "righteous man" (2 Pet. 2:7-8) and it is wrong to present him differently. After the confrontation between herdsmen, Abraham questions "how can I lead a people when I can't even lead my own family?" However, God acknowledges that Abraham was more than a capable leader (Gen. 18:19). When the war of the kings is presented, there is no pursuit to Hobah as in Scripture and the absence of Melchizedek is disheartening--especially since his role in redemption is essential (Heb. 7). 

     A third problem surrounds the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. No one could derive from the series that homosexuality was the principle problem of the citizens. Men are shown kissing women which implies the problem is unbridled heterosexual activity. The men of the city only plead "give us the strangers." This is a serious compromise by the producers, and will have an influence on the way people perceive the history of those cities.  

     Finally, you will be saddened by the series when it presents the story of Isaac. When Abraham   is told to sacrifice his son, he pleads "No. No. Have I not shown you enough?" According to the Scriptures, Abraham never questioned God on this (Gen. 33:3; Heb. 11:17-19). From here you will notice serious departures in the story. Abraham takes Isaac the same day, but in the Bible Abraham gets up early the next morning (Gen. 22:3). In the series they go alone, but in the Bible two men go with them (Gen. 22:3). In the series they go to the top of a hill overlooking their camp, but in the Bible they go to one of the mountains of Moriah three days away (Gen. 22:3-4). In the series Isaac pleads against his father, but the Bible implies his faith and cooperation (Gen. 22:4-9; Heb. 11:17-19). In the series Abraham asks his son to forgive him for what he is about to do, but in the Bible Abraham is not sorry for following the will of God. In the series a lamb is tied to a tree, but in the Bible there is a ram caught in a thicket (Gen. 22:13). Finally, in the series Sarah runs up the hill only to find her son alive.

     Some may not think these are worth noting, but we are not at liberty to change the story of the Bible. When we do, for example, people will believe that Noah wrote the story of creation, that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for something other than homosexuality and that Abraham was a doubter that lost control of his family. As we said before, when we change the story we change the meaning. Accurate history is important. We will see next week what happens in the portrayal of the Israelites. ~ David B. Smith