I was extremely intrigued by Amy cross referencing the caseload from the first season against the Bible. I am not really a biblical scholar, nor do I have a lot of expertise in that area, but I'm curious if anyone does have thoughts in this direction.

Also, I think all I managed to see on the first watching was her typing in "The Beast" next to shots of the Transformation monster. I don't know if anyone has better screen grabs of her notes on the other episodes from last season.

I just thought it could use a thread to sort out what kind of ties they are making to biblical elements in the series.

Yeah I thought that was interesting. Maybe all of the events are actually involved with Biblical end times. This would add another interesting element to the show. Also what about the Shakespeare quote that the new agent was saying to Peter before he interrupted her. I heard somewhere that Shakespeare's work can sound a lot like the Bible and vice versa. Maybe she was actually quoting the Bible. Does anyone remember the quote?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167 (http://www.enotes.com/hamlet-text/act-i-scene-v?start=2#ham-1-5-174)

Peter notes that she was butchering the quote (omiting the Horatio reference...much like the oft misquoted "Alas poor Yorrick, I knew him Horatio")
Poor Horatio, never gets any credit.

It would be more effective to try to compose a list of lines in Hamlet that are not quoted often, nor find their way into regular conversation, than to compose a list of those that do.
:)

Great thread. When we get a little more information I can see this moving into the theory section.

There are five postings on the screencaps:

First one: Kingdom against Kingdom and refererences Luke 21:10
Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom (KJV)

Second one: Tests and John 4:1
When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,(KJV)

Third one: A door stands open The Revelation 4:1
After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.(KJV)

Fourth one: Eat the Flesh and The Revelation 19:18
That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.(KJV)

Fifth one: The Beast and The Revelation 19:20
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.(KJV)

The second one, about the tests, doesn't seem to relate to the scripture. I'm wondering if she accidentally mixed up John (whatever) and the 4:1 from the Revelation reference in the next one... because all of the others actually mention the "heading." I'm searching through John for something about tests.
------------

These are the only three references to "test" in John.

3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (KJV) (the NIV uses "test" in place of "condemnation")

6:6 He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do. (NIV)

8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. (KJV)

To me, the 3:19 seems to fit better with the other references she typed in.

DarkTeach

Thanks for these.

Shakespeare used the Geneva Bible, so important to his literature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible
100%
Oh...even better, it was considered a study bible!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_Bible

I heard somewhere that Shakespeare's work can sound a lot like the Bible and vice versa.True, if you're referring to the King James Version, which was written between 1604 and 1611, during Shakespeare's lifetime.

Now, if I might put my mod hat on....

To quote the site rules:Controversial Topics
Topics that will cause controversy or hostility between members are not permitted. If you are worried that your topic may fall under this category, then please contact a moderator. The moderators will have final say on what is and what is not allowed.Any thread on the central holy book of a living religion falls well within the bounds of a topic that could cause controversy or hostility between members. I think that we can discuss the bible as it relates to the show here, in a civil and respectful manner, and that the thread doesn't have to go down the controversial and hostile road. But that means that any comments that can be seen as judgmental -- pro or con -- about the bible or the religions that use it will be deleted. If you have something to say about your own religious proclivities, or about the validity or lack of validity of the bible, please say it somewhere else, not here.

Really Ed? We can't discuss versions of the Christian Bible or any religious text in the content of the literature that was influenced by specific editions for this program? (Shakespeare used the Geneva Bible...which seems to be standard knowledge in the literary world, from what I understand.)
I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but the biblical connections to Fringe needs the ability to use biblical phrases or quotes. I always reference the edition that I "took" the biblical passage from in almost every biblical quote I use in a post. That has always been standard practice with quoting a biblical source... and, to me, a show of respect to the reader.
eta:
Would it help to change the thread title to Literary thoughts or connections?

What we can't do is make judgmental comments about the bible, and its validity or lack thereof. Commenting that the bible is not valid is offensive to those who so strongly believe it is. OTOH, commenting that the bible is unerringly valid is offensive to those who don't believe in it.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that we have to stick to the subject of the bible as it pertains to the show, not as it pertains to religious belief. This sort of thing has turned into an ad hominem shouting match too many times on these boards.

Ah! Thanks for the clarification Ed!
(Don't know what "OTOH" means...)
I'm on board that that reasoning!
eta: Okay, I "ciphered" it out... LOL!
(Took me a second there...)
"on the other hand"

I was also very interested in the bible shots in the episode (which I just watched last night). Abrams loves to mix the religious with the scientific (as we learned in Lost) and clearly, Fringe is going down that route as well. Just based on the passages shown in that shot, it seems to me that perhaps and apocolyptic thing is going to go down. After all, Olivia did say that all of their lives were at risk.

Hum...I wonder if they are going to be using 2012?

Hum...I wonder if they are going to be using 2012?

Now that would be an amazing tie-in. :rolleyes:

Hum...I wonder if they are going to be using 2012?


Ohh wouldn't that be deliciously devilish? :devil: I love tie-ins!

What we can't do is make judgmental comments about the bible, and its validity or lack thereof. Commenting that the bible is not valid is offensive to those who so strongly believe it is. OTOH, commenting that the bible is unerringly valid is offensive to those who don't believe in it.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that we have to stick to the subject of the bible as it pertains to the show, not as it pertains to religious belief. This sort of thing has turned into an ad hominem shouting match too many times on these boards.

Yes. My intent was to discuss the biblical themes from a literary/conceptual sense, like a writer looking at influences to plot development and storytelling, certainly not to engage in a debate on the validity or lack thereof of any religion.

Thanks Ed for doing the tough task of putting out an advance notice and clarify that, and I'm sorry if I left it too wide open. I understand that you do have to be careful and sensitive.

That said, thanks to Dark Teach for the information there. That'll give me something to digest and go back and look at.

Looking forward to where they might go with this.

Actually, I don't mind saying (though I won't say much more) that it wasn't just a careful "advance notice." Sometimes you have to take into account that you might be seeing (or not seeing) the results of the mod edits in a thread, and that a warning might spring from one or more deleted posts. For instance, not too long ago, after an admonition to "watch your language," some users got a little upset at me, saying that nobody was using bad language in the thread. That was because I had already edited all of it out. :rolleyes: So if a mod warning seems a little cryptic and preemptive sometimes, assume it's because there have been deleted posts.

And just to make it clear, I'm just as liable to delete posts whose I agree with as ones I disagree with, if they violate site rules.

So what do I have to add to this thread? Because I'm definitely interested in the topic. I'd like to add that Fringe seems to me to be a show that's ripe for conspiracy theory tie-ins, and plenty of those relate to the bible. You know, like numerology and various numerical codes that have been postulated to have been written into the bible, stuff like that. So I saw what's-her-name's digging through the bible for evidence as a signal that the character is prepared to work along the same lines as Fringe Division, that she wants to know what's going on, that she has an open mind to what they're doing, and that she's on their side.

I could certainly be wrong, but that was my impression.

I'm particularly intrigued about that passage from John that didn't seem to have anything to do with the heading she had put with it. I wonder if the idea was that it "should have" fit, due to some numerical pattern with the other passages, but didn't....

I too was happy about bringing this aspect in with relation to the new character (Amy?). At least this gives purpose to the character. You should never have a character just to have a character, and if her purpose, or at least introductory purpose, is to infuse the element of biblical tie ins to the series, it's a lot better than just putting it in because X-demographic felt they "needed another female character" or whatever the reason (I'm not saying that's why it was done, just that networks have a tendency to issue mandates like that).

So, yeah, it gives her character a purpose in the narative, making her a member of the team that's a useful storytelling tool. Walter brings crazy to the table, Olivia is the heroine and driving force, Peter is the sardonic wit and skepticism, Astrid is the plot exposition, etc...

Time will tell if she will develop into something with more dimension, but it's not a terrible starting point.

I think the ideas of religious symbolism and themes are important because they're so infused in our unconcious, part of the background of what we understand. I think they tie into millenial conspiracies (now I guess it's updated to the Mayan 2012) and we see many of the stories, so it's an instant hook to themes that we already understand...it's like a shorthand.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this spools out, and also that they seem to be sowing seeds for much more leisurely development, rather than trying to solve things in single episodes...dropping clues slowly over time is that much more tantalizing, but that much more rewarding when they pay off.

Plus, it gives me stuff to think about during the other 167 hours in the week.