The movie critics and Hollywood are saying that it is a movie, “that might not be as literal-minded as they’d like.”
That is a gross understatement, and very misleading.
Listening to people who have seen it, it is clearly meant to turn the teachings of the Bible associated with the flood on its head.
1) It represents God as the “Creator,” which in itself I do not have an issue with. The Founders, in the Declaration, named Him as the Creator...which He is. But when it becomes clear that God in this sense is meant to be the Earth itself, then that is something quite different. Mother Gaia is not God or the Creater, the earth was created by God the Creator for mankind, God’s children. This movie is a progressive effort aimed at changing people’s hearts and minds about the very Being of God.
2) When it reflects the great evils of that day as something different than they were in the Biblical account...this is also very serious. In that day Idol Worship, sexual immorality, perversion, murder, etc. were rampant amongst the entire population according to God. So miuch so that God decided to begin again with a rightous family. This movie makes the great sins of that day out to be, building huge cities, mining the earth in “excess,” and polluting the ground. Basically everything that the rapid environmentalists say we are doing now. In other words, this movie depicts the “earth” of that day’s great sin as being too much like “us.” And that, I believe is its intent.
3) When it portrays Noha’s biggest moral decision assocaited with the whole episode being him, in the end, having to decide whether or not to allow mankind to survive (which was God’s whole purpose in calling him to build the ark), by showing him struggling to decide whether to use a knife to kill his own grandchildren...then the movie clearly goes right over the cliff. Presenting the idea that man is not worthy to live because it will just mess it up again.
Now, in the end, Noah decides to let his grandchildren, and thus mankind, live. But the very idea of it is an affront.
I like Russel Crowe movies. Always have. He’s a good actor. In this movie and there are a lot of neat scenes and compelling acting. But the entire underlying theme is an affront and is also why Christians everywhere are in an uproar about what could have been avery good Biblical movie...but in reality turns out to be an attack on the very teachings of the scriptures.
The Director, who is an avowed atheist, couldn’t help himself. He spilled the beans before the movie ever aired by stating that Noah is the least biblical, biblical movie ever made, which drew all of this attention to it. That admission and comment was a God send IMHO.
In the end, I believe that admission will...and should...cost them tens of millions of dollars at the ticket counter. And, as I say, well it should.
It’s a remake of “Evan Almighty”, all that’s missing is Morgan Freeman.
To be fair this actually was an issue and came up again in The Babel Incident... it was (is?*) directly an opposition to God's command to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it.
* One could argue that man has filled the whole world... kinda. This map, however, shows that the entire population of the world at [the city of] New York's population density would fill all of Texas and at the population density of Houston still wouldn't fill the entire US.
You saw a different movie that I did. I loved it, but then again I had no illusions of it being 100% based on scripture.
And the movie was definitely about God destroying the world because of man’s wickedness. Crowe and Connelly should be nominated for academy awards.
Same here. I told my wife just yesterday that I would not go see that if they were paying us, and I mean it.