55 replies to this topic 6 votes

[Hum]

Washington (CNN) - The third episode of the History Channel's miniseries “The Bible” was supposed to be remembered for the brutality of Babylonian ruler Nebuchadnezzar, the strength of Daniel in the lion’s den, and the birth of Jesus Christ.

But after viewers claimed there was a striking resemblance between Satan’s human form and President Barack Obama, that probably won't be the case.



Buzz on Twitter quickly grew. According to Topsy.com on Monday, there were an estimated 20,000 tweets containing the words “Obama” and “Satan” since the 9:00 p.m. ET hour on Sunday, the hour in which Satan appears in the two-hour show.

In a statement, miniseries producer Mark Burnett called claims there was a resemblance "utter nonsense."

Burnett said the actor who played Satan, Mohamen Mehdi Ouazanni, "is a highly acclaimed Moroccan actor. He has previously played parts in several Biblical epics – including Satanic characters long before Barack Obama was elected as our President."

Ouazanni has had roles in two biblical TV movies – "Jeremiah" and "The Ten Commandments."

Executive producer of the miniseries Roma Downey, Burnett's wife, added, "Both Mark and I have nothing but respect and love our President, who is a fellow Christian. False statements such as these are just designed as a foolish distraction to try and discredit the beauty of the story of The Bible."

source

[Draconian Guppy]

but what if i'm buddist? satan doesn't exist in that form.

[+Fus10n]

..lol

[jakem1]

A bit.

[Hum]

This explains much.

[TPreston]

Remember when the history channel actually showed history programs ?

[+Majesticmerc]

[Order_66]

Hum, on 18 March 2013 - 20:37, said:

viewers claimed there was a striking resemblance between Satan’s human form and President Barack Obama

Seems quite fitting actually.

[Stoffel]

I can see the resemblance, but did they do it on purpose? I doubt it.

[+techbeck]

Well, doesnt Satan make bunch of promises while fooling millions....??

[theyarecomingforyou]

What does retelling The Bible have to do with history? I can certainly understand a programme exploring the impact of The Bible on society but to pass it off as historical fact is scandalous. Then again, the History Channel lost any credibility it had a long time ago when it started producing "documentaries" about aliens. Now it's nothing more than a propaganda machine designed to make shareholders money.

[Gerowen]

There's been a video floating around the facebook pages of religious nutjobs claiming that, in the original Hebrew (or Aramaic?), when Jesus described Satan, it was pronounced as "Barrack O' Bamaw". People are really scraping the bottom of the barrel for crap to fling at the guy now. I don't like his politics, but I don't think he's a demon or satan or any other make believe monster.

[redvamp128]

theyarecomingforyou, on 18 March 2013 - 21:45, said:

What does retelling The Bible have to do with history? -snip-

You asked how....
To some Christians the Bible is the definitive and only approved history. That is why the history channel opted to do this.

I think it was unintentional that the two look the same.

[z0phi3l]

theyarecomingforyou, on 18 March 2013 - 21:45, said:

What does retelling The Bible have to do with history? I can certainly understand a programme exploring the impact of The Bible on society but to pass it off as historical fact is scandalous. Then again, the History Channel lost any credibility it had a long time ago when it started producing "documentaries" about aliens. Now it's nothing more than a propaganda machine designed to make shareholders money.

Quite a few of the events in the Bible can be historically verified, so it's partially historical, now get over it

[TPreston]

z0phi3l, on 18 March 2013 - 22:09, said:

Quite a few of the events in the Bible can be historically verified, so it's partially historical, now get over it