"The Bible" Commentary, Part 3

I will admit that thus far this series has succeeded in decreasing in both entertainment value and Biblical adherence. Very disappointing after such a hopeful start. Let me 'splain: Once again, they glossed over or completely omitted some extremely important stories. It seems to me that when you are trying to set up the factual accounting of Jesus being the prophesied and promised true Messiah, recording His lineage would be rather important. But there has been no mention of that at all. However, I'll concede that this omission may be more important to me than to the general populace. But, what is important to the complete story, and vital to show the truth of the deity of Jesus, is a greater emphasis placed upon the miraculous events surrounding His birth and ministry. There was no mention that the man who brought both Mary and Joseph the birth announcement was an angel. Thank God that little boy was there to serve as the conduit which channeled the messenger when he brought the news to Joseph. Nor did any angels make an appearance to the shepherds to announce the birth or direct them to the stable. But how wonderful was it to find out that there were so many people in the stable available to aid Mary in giving birth (By the way, afterward, Mary was sweat-less and doing fine)? And of course, the timely arrival of the one wise man with his two servants can go unmentioned (but I mentioned it anyway!). And they might have considered giving at least some emphasis to Jesus' personal miraculous power. Though they severely underplayed the dissonance between Jesus' humanity and deity in the desert when being tempted, I don't think there were any blatant errors there. But, at His baptism, no dove appeared or voice from heaven was heard announcing His position as God's Son. And then on the occasion of meeting and calling Peter to ministry, the representation of the "miraculous catch of fish" was portrayed merely as "a great day of fishing." Peter, (I never knew he was a sardine fisherman) by himself pulled up a net which my Grandmother could have hoisted on a bad asthma day! Where's the miracle in that?
So, was there anything I saw which I did like? Well, I thought the representation of the events in the book of Daniel were pretty good. They needed to double check at least one fact, however. Daniel was thrown into the lion's den by King Darius, not Cyrus. And I really liked the character portrayals of Jeremiah and John the Baptist. However, though the Satan character was evil looking enough, I found it a bit over the top.
Okay, maybe you're right. I might be expecting way too much. But I don't think so. If this were an Oliver Stone production, than yes. But Roma Downey presented this as a closely held adaptation of the scripture. So that's what I expected. But, save for most of week one, so far, I haven't received it!