The epical 10-hour mini-series on History, formerly known as The History Channel, is proving to be more than enlightening; it’s also a liberal-leftist crock in many respects.  

The History cable channel features programs such as “Pawn Stars,” “Swamp People,” ”Ice Road Truckers,” “American Pickers” and “Ax Men,” shows that can be entertaining although they have absolutely nothing to do with historical events unless people think hocking an heirloom, gator hunting, driving Alaska’s Dalton Highway, junk shopping, or tree chopping constitute historical events.  

However, they happen to pull in pretty good ratings–and advertising dollars–sufficient reasons for History to continue producing them.   

After unprecedented hype including hour-by-hour countdowns, History scored a blockbuster with the first three installments of its interpretation of “The Bible,” topping “American Idol” in viewership.  Even before its initial segment on March 3rd, celebrities Shakira, Kate Gosselin, P-diddy, Christina Aguillera, and Sarah Ferguson, and others weighed in with fulsome praise. 

Those endorsements were the first clue that History’s interpretation would be something less than biblically-correct.  

Seriously now, have celebs like P-diddy actually read the real Bible and, if not, should they be babbling on about the merits of what is essentially an almost farcical television production?

  A second clue as to History’s biblical stretch were “The Bible’s” early ads, since judiciously  dropped, citing it as “The Greatest Story Ever Told.”  

The Bible is undoubtedly the most popular book ever written but “The Greatest Story Ever Told” refers not to the Bible specifically but to the title of a 1965 movie, the story of the life of Jesus Christ from His conception and birth to His Resurrection from the dead and not about the entire Old and New Testaments. 

Now, admittedly, we live in an extremely politically correct, media culture which tends to doctor reality in order to be PC and to avoid allegations of unadulterated truth but shouldn’t we expect some fundamental honesty at the minimum? 

Should, for example, “The Bible” have graphically re-created the destruction of Sodom  and Gomorrah without explaining that the cause of God’s wrath was instigated by the rampant homosexuality in those ancient cities? 

Or, did the miniseries’ creators Mark Burnett and wife Roma Downey omit that critical detail out of fear they might alienate certain segments of their audience with an ugly truth and opted instead to sanitize reality?

Navez Agar et Ismaël.jpg  Should History have depicted the expulsion and disinheritance of Hagar, Abraham’s Egyptian concubine and mother of his first born son Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arabs including the ultimate Arab Muhammad, as simply the result of Abraham’s old wife’s jealousy? 

Or did Burnett and Downey try to conceal the truth that Sarah’s first born was first in line to rule the Jewish people, a truth, had it come to fruition, would have made the world a safer place today and made Abraham’s second son Isaac an historical footnote at best? 

History Channel's new epic  Should History have gone so PC that dozens of Philistines and various ninja-like angels had to be black and even Samson became a huge black man who foolishly allowed the white temptress, Delilah, to give him a haircut? 

Was catering to black viewers so important a goal to History that the channel felt compelled to supplement sacred biblical text by inserting racial elements into its version of “The Bible”?        

As of this writing, there are two more installments due on what History considers history.  I wouldn’t be surpised if they out Jesus Christ as a flaming gay, if Judas Iscariot is portrayed as black martyr, or if Pope Francis is exposed as a closet transvestite.  

I can hardly wait for History’s final two episodes.  Still, no matter what new liberal-leftist revelations they spring, I still prefer “Swamp People”.  At least killing alligators is real.