Moses Was a Terror Threat

If the 24-hour news networks existed a couple thousand years ago, it’s unlikely anything would be different…

(via SpaceboyProductions)

"It is a fact that abortion kills a human being...."

Here’s Why the Fertility Clinic “Dilemma” ..."
"Not everyone on medicare is over 65.Medicare does cover pregnancy.Any other stupid objections?"

Atheists Support Abortion Rights More Than ..."
"It's not immoral to want unborn children protected."

Here’s Why the Fertility Clinic “Dilemma” ..."
"No, it is not ok to remove the fetus at viability unless a doctor believes ..."

Here’s Why the Fertility Clinic “Dilemma” ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Larry Meredith

    would women be showing that much cleavage back then?

  • Ed-words

    (I think you want the Playboy Channel.)

  • Greg

    To be fair, would they be on TV let alone allowed to host a news program back then either? 😉

  • Larry Meredith

    I wasn’t joking  =( I seriously want to know if women showed that much cleavage back in that era.

  • TerranRich

    No. Women weren’t even showing that much cleavage 100 years ago, let alone thousands.

  • Greg

    Actually, that simply isn’t true. If I remember correctly prudishness largely came in with the Puritans. 

    Take a look at some Greek or Roman history. The Greek word ‘Gymnos’ (from which we get gymnasium) means naked. (‘Gymnologise’ means to debate whilst naked! :))

  • Josh Pearson

    And the original Olympics in Greece all the men competed fully naked.

  • TerranRich

    You’re both right, of course. My comment was more aimed at the usage of cleavage to attract attention, and to act as a sexual signal. That’s only a recent thing we humans have been using, a way of breaking from the puritanical (and often American) idea that any nudity is sexual and, as such, shameful and necessitates covering up.

    Although it has been argued that the human breasts are meant (through evolution) to look like the human buttocks… I don’t know, my point got muddled somewhere along the way. :)

  • Anonymous

    IIRC, much of Egyptian fashion left the breasts bare. I could be wrong, but…

  • Silent Bob

    No, you are right.

    Ancient Egyptians didn’t have “low-cut” dresses showing “cleavage”, but that’s only because they didn’t have a taboo against the breast.

    were dresses that covered the breasts completely, and dresses that left them completely exposed. Either was perfectly acceptable.

    Incidentally, if you were a higher class woman with your breasts exposed it was not unusual to wear makeup on your nipples. Kind of like lipstick (which they also wore along with eye-shadow, eye-liner and a wig).

  • Anonymous

    Can someone tell me what this object is, or is supposed to represent? It looks like a ball of goo…

  • Erik


  • Anonymous

    Thank you! ^_^

  • Joshua Zelinsky

    This is well done and quite amusing.

    Minor historical note: The pyramids as depicted in the video, look like they do in modern times. In fact almost all modern day depictions of the pyramids make them look that way in ancient times. But they in fact originally had limestone coverings as well as a large capstone that was either gold or electrum. 

  • dauntless

    Yeah. You see the same thing in a lot of movies that are supposed to represent ancient Greece or Rome. Apparently ancient people lived in ruins 😉

  • Silent Bob

    Actually, this is set circa 1200 BCE. Believe it or not, the pyramids were already about 1,600 years old.

  • Silent Bob

    Correction… after checking my facts, 1,200 – 1,300 years old.

    But still, not exactly new.

  • Joshua Zelinsky

    True, but the outer limestone was still on the pyramids into the Middle Ages. (I don’t know when the capstone was removed). It was only in the 1300s that most of the limestone was removed to be used for other  buildings. 

  • Rick Evans

    Wow. “Newscasts from the Past” times ten!

    Also, cleavage might not have been an issue, according to some sources, ancient Egyptian women went topless.

  • Alla & Greg M

    First, History teaches us that History teaches us nothing.

    Second it may be necessary to aim higher – God planned and executed those terror acts as far as I know.

  • Stephen Ro

    How do they know whether its 1248 BC or not…

  • Silent Bob

    By tradition, the pharaoh of the bible is supposed to be Ramesses II (also known as Ramesses the Great). So I think they’ve just picked a year during his reign.

    Amazingly, he’s still around (though looking a little worse for wear):

  • Dan W

    Funny. I doubt the Moses of the Bible really existed, but if he did exist he was quite a jerk.

  • Alexis

    The book of Exodus says that Pharaoh relented several times and that god hardened Pharaoh’s heart just so that god could screw him over yet another time. Most of the plagues weren’t even necessary. That goes beyond terrorism. (Although it’s just a myth anyway).

  • Brian Macker

    This video was quite a bit slimy.   The modern situation and the story of Exodus have little in common and they had to do quite a bit of fabrication to the facts in both cases to get them to “fit”.

  • Yaweh

    Do you have any examples of ‘fabrication of facts’? They fit surprisingly well for conflicts seperated by thousands of years (even if one is fictional).

    Exodus 1.8 “The people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply”.
    Exodus 5.4 “Pharoah commanded the taskmasters of the people and their foremen, “You shall no longer give the people straw for themselves…Let heavier work be laid on the men”. The Israelites get angry at Moses for increasing their labor.

    There are more examples on this page, linked to in the video description:

  • Anonymous

    Wow, did you even watch the same video we watched? You’re missing the point entirely!

    You might benefit from reading this article:
    God as Abuser: Similarities Between the Christian God and Abusive Spouses

    BibleGod is nothing more than an abuser, and worthy of the same respect: NONE.