Is Genesis History?

I watched this without any idea of what it was going to be about except that its clearly about the bible. What impresses me so much with this is the number of serious scientists that present views that we may not necessarily expect of scientists.

Its compelling, it really doesn't matter of you are a bible person or not, for that matter it doesn't really matter what if any religion you follow. The fact that it presents a view that challenges commonly held "facts" and makes such a strong argument tells me that we just cannot trust what we are told just because its presented as fact. An no matter what you believe, there will always be another view that has validity.

I will not say that I have come to any real conclusion about genesis and if its true or not, but I have a lot more questions now that I had before and that's a good thing.

Look, if you're not a scientist or a geologist, it ultimately doesn't matter whether you believe that the ancient Book of Genesis is fact or fiction. You'll probably go your entire life unaffected ultimately by your belief on an ancient flood, or a deity creation myth, or anything in the Book of Genesis.

That being said, what struck me the most about this documentary was this wasn't made from facts, it was made from statements of belief.

"I believe...."

"I believe...."

etc. Through the ENTIRE documentary, over and over and over.

These are BELIEFS. That's all.

If you think this doc might answer the question "Is Genesis history?", unfortunately it was not and will not be answered.

Maybe one day we'll get the documentary that many have wanted "What parts of Genesis are based on fact?", but until then, we'll have to settle for pseudo-scientists and others waving their hands at the Grand Canyon and regurgitating quasi-scientific technobabble.

Noah's Flood is a much older story than the one that is included in the Bible. Flood myths stretch back thousands of years before the Bible. We even found one, in The Epic of Gilgamesh, virtually identical, except someone else building a boat, not "Noah".

So the "literal" flood is a retelling of a story that didn't even involve anyone named Noah.

The documentary didn't even notice this little fact, so what else did it leave out while talking endlessly about what they believe the Bible says? So a book that's been translated, not once, but three times into modern English. Ancient Hebrew to Ancient Greek to Latin to Vulgate Latin to English contains accurate history and nothing else?

OK...time to move on to another documentary...

I gave it a 3 because it's very well made with excellent production values. However, it's such a godawful load of crap that I can't even be bothered giving an example, except to say that it quickly devolves from outlandish claims about the origins of various geological formations to going on and on about the Bible.

Curious how this movie was received, I came to check out the reviews and was very disappointed with the posts on here. I feel like an honest review is needed to hopefully provide a moderate's perspective.

First off, do not watch this movie as a way to definitively answer the debates that have lasted for years and years and years and years. The people rating this film low under war cries of no in-depth science need to realize that they are being foolish. The movie highlights the scientific communities unyielding devotion to one theory of the planets creation and it invites people to consider a different perspective. If you want a full-fledged dissertation on the intricacies of geology, philosophy, and historical credibility, maybe you should go sign up at a university; a two-hour film is not going to be able to deliver this. I agree the movie could use more visual aids and helpful cinematic (the constant shots of two men talking got old after a while), but, lets be honest here, even if there were, many of the low-rating critics would still say it didn't cover X, Y, and Z.

Secondly, if you're already ingrained into one ideology with no room for considering the possibility that an alternative explanation could be plausible, then don't watch this movie. Any intellectual conversation that furthers open discussion has to begin with both parties willing to entertain the idea they might be wrong. Know that you will end the movie with more questions than when you started. Or at least you should, if you're truly searching for the answers to big questions like the ones presented in the movie. If your ultimate goal is to jump on IMDb and hurl accusations about the Creationists or Young Earthers or (insert encompassing term here), why even bother watching it?

Overall, the movie was good from a speculative approach. The stories are mentioned in passing and much of the time is spent looking at geological records to validate The Great Flood. This challenges conventional, long-held beliefs about the age of Earth, and it encourages inquiring minds to look further into the alternative arguments.

The definition of delusion is a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary according to Mirriam-Webster. I would like to be respectful of the assertions made in this film but honestly, I have too much respect for "facts" and science to "suspend disbelief" in the same way required to enjoy a fiction. Just another desperate (and deluded) attempt to reconcile a fable with science.