Not everyone likes history, but there is definitely a niche for historical games. Why not the areas of history covered by the bible?
Since a major part of the Bible is history, and it is the single most debated and verified group of historical records we have, not to mention one of the most well-read and well-known portions of history, with people reading it across the most ethnic, cultural, and geographical boundaries, to ignore it just because you don't like it seems pretty silly.

No offense, but this is ridiculous.

First: History games are popular because they tend to be alternate history - that is, you can change the outcome. They aren't linear. No Christians would be OK with alternate Christianity games that care about the genre in the first place. Job doesn't kill his son! God loses the bet! would never be acceptable. Luxemburg conquering Europe is quite possible in Europa Universalis, or rarely Victoria or Hearts of Iron.

Second, the Bible is rarely if ever used as a historical source. It doesn't cite sources anywhere, and tends to use both an abstract and personal concept of 'God' to explain everything, which is not a verifiable or reliable source. You bring up Exodus in particular, which is one of the least verifiable parts of the Old Testament - there is practically no evidence that suggests that anything in Exodus happened (there isn't even any evidence that the Jews were ever enslaved by the Pharaohs, even), and certainly not in the numbers suggested by the Bible (Sinai simply couldn't possible support that many people, and there's no evidence of a migration). The Bible is not evidence for itself, and lacking evidence other than the Bible, it is ignored by historians in general, particularly the more fantastic (using the original definition of the word) parts.

18 posts before this thread got terribly derailed by someone. Not bad.

Religion best polemic and discord subject since Homo Sapiens Sapiens :D

ya you could play the angel of death going around killing Egypt's first born children from the hands of the mothers holding them. It'll surely shine some lights on what the bible is all about.
Or you could play some father trying to find his own son so he can kill him because god said so.
It'll be a good game.

I sense a little sarcasm here, is it not? :)

I often think that Christian children may feel a bit left out because their parents deem games like CoD inappropriate due to their beliefs. So, maybe this can provide some kind of alternative.

If you mean non-violent game, I think there is plenty already out there. (Or I failed to see the thing which is innapropriate in COD, apart from killing people)

?I feel the biblical stories would be better for settings in games with original stories, rather than trying to force-fit an existing storyline into a non-linear medium.

I agree, even though creating a game that "teach" a religion can give me a slight after taste of propaganda. it is nevertheless a part of History, as long as you don't go preaching with your game and just use the mythology and history in the bible. (For instance, the Total War series do it really well)

It doesn't cite sources anywhere ...

And so do the stories my parents told me of the past

and tends to use both an abstract and personal concept of 'God' to explain everything, which is not a verifiable or reliable source.

To you.

and certainly not in the numbers suggested by the Bible (Sinai simply couldn't possible support that many people, and there's no evidence of a migration).

I've seen many (recycled) atheists/agnostics arguments but this one, this is new.

The Bible is not evidence for itself, and lacking evidence other than the Bible, it is ignored by historians in general, particularly the more fantastic (using the original definition of the word) parts.

Obviously what a person is expected to say when they don't bother searching.

Perhaps you could create a fictional character that lives at the same place and time as events depicted in the Bible. You would have more freedom to create your own story and could still witness events recorded in the Bible. I can't think of a good core mechanic to the game though. Combat would only make sense for the times of war. Although, you really don't want to have to compete with other, probably better combat games not based on the Bible. I think an adventure game, similar monkey island, would be a good fit. It also might be interesting if the player could choose if they wanted to be good or evil and then they get to see how their actions effected themselves, and others.

Ameise, on 22 Jul 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

It doesn't cite sources anywhere ...

And so do the stories my parents told me of the past

And that's why they are stories and not History

and tends to use both an abstract and personal concept of 'God' to explain everything, which is not a verifiable or reliable source.

To you.

And me. And probably the vast majority of scientist/historian. But we can argue forever about that, ironicaly it's reminding me of the probatio diabolica. As long as you don't have a proof of the non-existence of something, you can't prove that it doesn't exist

Quote

The Bible is not evidence for itself, and lacking evidence other than the Bible, it is ignored by historians in general, particularly the more fantastic (using the original definition of the word) parts.

Obviously what a person is expected to say when they don't bother searching.

What? I'm sorry, I don't see your point? Searching for what?


Edit : Adding some thought about the original subject of the thread ^^'

I guess using of the god game genre for a Christian game is not quite appropriate?

For this type of game, maybe a point and click could fit better?

A lot of "historical fact" that is found inside of the modern Bible, has yet to be actually verified - way too many contradictions .

( Such as: Were did Cain's Wife come from ?! Were did Nod come from ?! )

Any way - there is a 1st person shooter Bible game - not exactly CoD, but still ....

If they could make Super Noah's Ark 3D ... I guess anything is possible

[media]http:

[/media]

It doesn't cite sources anywhere ...

And so do the stories my parents told me of the past

And yet you can find books about it, and proof of it. I don't understand the relevance of this. There are a plethora of contemporary sources referencing the Battle of Crecy, for instance. We even know exactly where it was and can find artifacts. There is only one source that even mentions Jews being enslaved by Egypt - the Bible. There is absolutely no physical evidence, and many of the claims made in the Bible are extremely fantastic given that the majority of Egypt is and was a desert, and there is no evidence of a major demographic shift in that period which would have been the result of such a mass migration.

History is a science (a social science, in particular). The Bible is not accepted by any scientific field as a valid reference or proof. This has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, agnosticism, or whatnot.

and tends to use both an abstract and personal concept of 'God' to explain everything, which is not a verifiable or reliable source.

To you.

Theoretical physicists also ignore the Bible. It is not considered to be a valid source of information by any science, which includes history. Historians (which I studied to be) require verifiable sources of evidence - history relies on the same scientific method as any other field as well. The Bible, from the perspective of actual historians, is a storybook that has some historical fact but should be taken with a grain of salt. The New Testament is the only one that generally has truly verifiable events, but one must take the Biblical account with a massive grain of salt; many events aren't verifiable and are likely untrue - it is generally wanted that contemporary records exist, or at least evidence of the event. Exodus, for instance, was likely written in the same period of time as Darius of Persia lived, or the fall of the Roman Kingdom (and its transition into the Roman Republic) - ~600-500 BCE.

and certainly not in the numbers suggested by the Bible (Sinai simply couldn't possible support that many people, and there's no evidence of a migration).

I've seen many (recycled) atheists/agnostics arguments but this one, this is new.

This has nothing to do with 'atheism' or 'agnosticism'. The Bible is not a historical reference and no historian treats it as such. Very few Christians even consider it such.

The Bible is not evidence for itself, and lacking evidence other than the Bible, it is ignored by historians in general, particularly the more fantastic (using the original definition of the word) parts.

Obviously what a person is expected to say when they don't bother searching.

I don't understand what you mean here, so I will not bother responding.

And that's why they are stories and not History :)

Seriously? That's the best you can say?

And me. And probably the vast majority of scientist/historian.

"Vast majority", good one.

As long as you don't have a proof of the non-existence of something, you can't prove that it doesn't exist :D

Funny (not), though I need a reminder to inform when to laugh for such.

What? I'm sorry, I don't see your point? Searching for what?

"Lacking evidence other than the Bible"
It's hard to see the point of something when you fail to read.

...snip...

weren't you banned?

I apologize if I'm being too harsh - I studied to be a historian and I get very sore when people try to conflate history and religion.