Skip to comments.Between humanity and God: the violence of Noah (Movie)
Posted on 03/15/2014 8:16:51 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
With the actual film due to come out in just a couple weeks indeed, it had its world premiere just two nights ago you might think that people would be less inclined to dwell on that early draft of the Noah screenplay that leaked a couple years ago and wait for the finished film.
But no. Today, The Wrap posted a review of the script by Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, and it covers much of the same territory that has been covered by other early critics of the script. (Among other things, he assumes, as others have, that the film endorses rather than critiques the main characters environmental extremism.)
He does make one point, however, that is worth pondering. To wit:
I deeply resent Noah presented as a military fighter rather than as a man of peace. Come on! Here is a story where God regrets how violent humanity is, and they have to make Noah a martial-arts expert?
. . . my main concern about the Noah film is its ambiguity with regard to human violence when that seems to be a major element of the original narrative. Why cant Noah have been a peacemaker in direct contrast to human violence? Isnt that implied by saving him, when the rest of humanity grieved God because of its violence?
(Excerpt) Read more at patheos.com ...
Per Hugh Hewett last night, he was saying that there is not any of this “political correctness” in the film nor “environmentalism”. He said that perhaps that was something taken out of context from a trailer of the movie. Sounds like a good movie. I guess he’s seen it already.
The story of the flood is universal and believable and so is the idea that God may have warned the one guy and told him to build an ark. What is not believable is that God would have wiped the entire planet over sin, only to have sin back in business 50 years later as if nothing had happened; I give God credit for being a bit brighter than that and assume that part of the story was added by priests at a later date.
I am through patronizing Hollywood Californicatia and their libtard movies including libtard versions of Noah. You know you've lost it with Hollywood when you find yourself rooting for the villains in all their stupid movies. I was rooting for Daniel Day Lewis all the way in Gangs of NY and this last episode of rooting for Harrison Ford all the way in Ender's Game was the last straw. Hollywood can go to hell.
There is a better version of Noah in the works involving Joe Bardwell of In Jesus' Name Productions and associated with the McLean Bible Church of Northern Virginia (www.ijnp.org) and you'd be better off waiting for it.
I thought that God destroyed the world because the ‘daughters of men’ were marrying the ‘sons of God’, creating some weird hybrid in the process.
1. Noah was a preacher. (http://www.studylight.org/ls/ds/index.cgi?a=517)
2. There were 7 of each clean beast, not 2 as is popularly visualized.
3. According to the OT, the ark took 120 years to build. The flood did not come until the oldest man ever, Methuselah died (Noah's grandfather).
4. God destroyed the earth because man was violent and corrupt (not environmentally irresponsible).
5. God shut the door of the ark.
6. According to Jewish tradition, Noah invented the plow.
7. It was Noah's sacrifice at the end of the flood that pleased God and He promised never again to destroy the earth by water, and set the rainbow as that promise. It's called the Noahic covenant. And that is what a rainbow really means. It's the beginning of human government - Man's part is that he must repopulate and dominate the earth, and he must punish those who shed blood. Isn't that a wakeup for libs - if they could wake up.
8. Noah is famous for planting a vineyard, getting drunk, and suffering some kind of abuse from his son Ham while naked and drunk. From that comes a bunch of verses that says the descendants of Ham, who supposedly settled Africa, will be the servants of the descendants of his brothers. And that sets a lot of people in a tizzy.
I always root for Darth Vader. Lucas is so liberal, I figured anyone he thought was bad must really be good. And Skywalker is out there now boosting Obamacare, so turns out I’m right.
re: “ What is not believable is that God would have wiped the entire planet over sin, only to have sin back in business 50 years later as if nothing had happened; I give God credit for being a bit brighter than that and assume that part of the story was added by priests at a later date.”
I think you may be presumptuous to assume that God judging the world to the point of wiping out humanity (except for Noah and his family) because of its sin as “unbelievable”, and not so bright of God because sin “is back in full business 50 years later”.
First off, God judged people’s sin several times, not to the point of world-wide destruction perhaps, but He did destroy nations who, after hundreds of years of warning of judgement, refused to stop what they were doing.
Two, we are not given all the information in Genesis as to what possible warnings were exteneded to mankind prior to the flood, but given the pattern God usually demonstrates in the Old Testament, there were probably several warnings and centuries of waiting before ultimate judgement came.
Three, since we as human beings do not have all the foreknowledge and omniscience that God has, it is very foolish of us to judge God’s actions as to whether or not it was “bright of Him”. After all, God’s loving us to the point of coming as a human being and dying on the cross to pay for the guilt of our sins (that we committed against Him) - was that “smart” of God? After all, sin still continues unabated, right?
Fourth, God, as Creator of the universe and all life, it is His prerogative to do whatever He wants with it.
Again, I’m not fishing for an argument, just offering another point of view.
I don’t know how true it is, but I recall a talk radio host as saying they portrayed Noah as a drunk.
well,the Bible says Noah planted a vineyard and made wine and got drunk.So maybe its true.
There is evidence of massive floods in the past, Noah’s was probably just one of them.
That’s a new one on me, worth remembering. Thumbs Up
Is NOAH as inaccurate as SODOM AND GOMORRAH (1962)?
Luke probably has gone over to the dark side of the third trilogy.
I think you have completely misunderstood what I was saying. Re-read the post I was responding to, then read my response - Unless you agreed with the original poster who said he didn’t believe that the part of the Noah account of God destroying mankind because of its sin.
Here’s what I said.....
“God ended it all because of man’s wickedness”.
There is a difference between being drunk one time and a drunkard. I will have to see if they portray him as a drunkard.
It is 10% of the book of Genesis. Creation 6%. Christ's crucifixion has parts of 4 chapters in the Gospels 5% of the chapters. Mary was mentioned by name 17 times in the same 89 chapters and is transformed by Catholics into Assumed into heaven, sinless, and Queen of heaven. So it isn't a surprise that a Catholic aren't bothered if 'liberties are taken with the story'.
“So it isn’t a surprise that a Catholic aren’t bothered if ‘liberties are taken with the story’
The liberties taken are putting words not contained in scripture in Noah and his family’s mouth. The liberties taken are Noah being being proficient in the martial arts and throwing spears at those trying to get onto the ark.
As far as you belittling the Virgin Mary, If I was not such a nice person I would tell you exactly where you can go. But I think you get my drift.
I don't belittle the Virgin Mary, who became just Mary after she gave birth to the Lord, the fantastic, over-the-top depictions given her by the Catholics would grieve her mightily. She was a good Jewish girl who was obedient to God and suffered much as the mother of her Savior. If she could see what has been done to her she would get mad then likely weep for the souls who follow that baloney.
I have to say that I thought the same thing about Catholics not minding liberties being taken with the Bible. A devout Christian might take liberties with a Bible story to create dialogue, etc., but the *spirit* of the story will be of God. What this film has done isn’t of God, and I’m sure the more I knew of it the more troubled I’d be from what I’ve heard already. (cont’d)
The Cathoilic Church takes a lot of liberties with Scripture as well, teaching things that if were taught in Mormonism or by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics would see them for what they are. Only the particular Catholic belief of apostolic authority that’s believed to come from Jesus protects these ideas that contradict the Bible. Many of them have to do with Mary, who is treated as a goddess. There is virtually no attribute given to God that the Catholic Church hasn’t given her. Another would be the two incompatible conceptions of sainthood, with the biblical one taking backseat to the man-made one. Paul talked about wolves who would come into the church, and I believe some of those wolves got control of what became the Roman Catholic Church. As a former lesbian, I say without attacking people in that sin that the sexually perverse (including people committing that sin) seemed to have introduced clever heresies that became accepted and so “sacred” because of priestly authority. (cont’d)
And one more thing to keep in mind: the Catholic Church officially doesn’t believe in historical truth of the stories of Noah, Adam and Eve, etc., only that they tell spiritual truths. This is actually would make the New Testament untrue, among other things, because it speaks historically of Jonah, for example, and lists genealogies for Jesus. And it makes God less than He is.
“The Cathoilic Church takes a lot of liberties with Scripture as well”.
That document that Catholics take “liberties” with is a Catholic document and without that Catholic document there would be no Bible. Not the first protestant helped compile the Bible and not the first protestant established what is divinely inspired scripture.......that protestants for some reason believe in but at the same time give no credit whatsover to the people that put it together to start with.
Absolute balderdash. Straight from Humani Generis:
In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies. This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
"Officially", Faith, the Catholic Church assumes the historicity of those parts of the Bible which are meant to be historical, while acknowledging that allegorical and other interpretations are possible depending on what the sacred author wanted to convey.
The same document states that original sin "proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own."
“The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.” A.B. Fulton Sheen
The Bible says that Noah, his wife, his 3 sons and their wives go on the boat. It is from these 3 couples that the earth is repopulated.
I don’t see the 3 wives in the preview. How is the earth repopulated, through incest through Emma Watson?
I seriously considered becoming Catholic twice in my life, and because I’m human and can have less-than-perfect understanding, I would become Catholic if the Lord ever showed me my understanding was mistaken. But up to this point, I’ve believed less and less in the faithfulness of the Catholic Church as time has gone on, since I first read the whole Bible a decade ago.
I think what you write is how I used to look at things. You say I “give no credit whatsoever to the people who put it together to begin with.” Exactly. I don’t. Anyone who was involved in any way in putting it together, if they did it out of faith, wouldn’t want any of the credit. (Cont’d)
Paul wrote in Philippians that we were have the same mind as Christ, who didn’t grasp for equality with God, but emptied Himself. Spiritually we should owe no debt to anyone nor give credit to anyone but the Lord. “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” Paul knew there was nothing good in himself. If we can do any good, even up to the miraculous, it is only through being given that ability.
How did Catholics answer “The DaVinci Code” claim that the Bible was put together according to man’s whims, egos and selfish desires? Isn’t the answer that God was in control, and that heretical books had never really been accepted. God’s Word is able to protect itself, even if people turn from it. (Cont’d)
I don’t know when what’s the Catholic Church today decidedly turned from the Bible, but I know it did from what it teaches. It’s possible to have teachings outside of Scripture but they won’t contradict either the spirit or the letter of it. There are many “practicing” Catholics today who are Protestant Catholics themselves. They question the fidelity of the present leadership and even the Pope. If all that the Catholic Church teaches is true, they shouldn’t. For a long time God’s Word was kept from Christians, but it isn’t now, and the only blind faith I want to have is in the Lord Himself.
I have to ask, too, since you’re a believer in Christ: are you a saint?
I left out the “the” before historical truth, due to writing through my phone, but still I believe what I meant was clear and is the same thing said in what you quoted. The Catholic Church says it believes in the inerrancy of the spiritual truths conveyed, and the actual history in Genesis is true only to a point. That’s not accepting the Bible as is. And the Catholic Church doesn’t. It officially believes in evolution, which Genesis contradicts on many points. If you don’t mind, I’ll ask you this also: do you consider yourself to be a saint?
The Catholic Church believes in the inerrancy of the Bible. Period. Not "up to a point". All of it. But "inerrant" does not mean "always literal", and if you confuse the two, you are going to land yourself in a heap of trouble. Do you not remember that's exactly what the opponents of Galileo did? They used that passage about the sun "standing still in the sky" to "prove" that the sun went around the earth.
The Church also does not "officially" believe in evolution. It takes a neutral stand--saying that Catholics are free to believe in it or not believe in the strictly scientific aspects as they see fit. But the Church has also condemned certain associated theological propositions like polygenism. Pius XII in that document I linked to teaches that Adam and Eve were historical people and that original sin passed down through humankind by heredity.
As for Genesis "contradicting" evolution, I've made a very serious study of this, and I don't see that contradiction frankly. Genesis 1 says very clearly in verse 12: "Let the earth bring forth the green herb", and in verse 20: "Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life".
God commanded the earth and the water to bring these things into being--and isn't that what an evolutionary outlook tells us to expect? The text says in black and white that God created these creatures *through the agency of the earth and water*--i.e. through some kind of natural process.
Evolution as Darwin laid it out may be right or wrong. But I don't see any contradiction with Genesis. Genesis tells us the fact and the theological truth, and good science then fills in the details.
If you dont mind, Ill ask you this also: do you consider yourself to be a saint?
I don't mind of course. But let's focus on the historicity of Genesis here rather than spin off into justification and the cult of the saints, etc.
I’m not personally offended, but let me say about your point on “confusing” inerrancy with absolute literalism that doing so is really below the intellect that God has given to most everyone but small children.
On Galileo, it would be nice to look closely at that whole situation and I hope to sometime, but right now I don’t have the time to. But to begin with, I note it was the Catholic Church that opposed Galileo, and they were defending something that I don’t believe the Bible says anything about, the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe. Over time I’ve come to see that the Catholic Church tries to definitively answer questions God hasn’t given us the answers to, and that may be another example of it. (cont’d)
And on the passage about the sun standing still, that happens to be a special case of how God created nature in that in our daily experience it does move across our sky. We still say that the sun or moon or star “rises,” when they’re not going anywhere. It’s the why behind what we experience that’s the issue. And that case shouldn’t make Christians bow to science whenever there’s a conflict. Hundreds of years ago in the “Enlightenment” its leaders determined that only natural explanations for things would be allowed, thereby excluding God as the explanation anything. It’s one thing to be open to the idea that you may be studying God’s Creation, but science was made atheistic back then. (cont’d)
Post 34 also should have been addressed to you.
On Genesis, it’s taking things out of context and reading into them to say they support evolution. Genesis 2 talks of Eve being fashioned out of Adam’s rib, and God also formed animals out of the ground to bring them before Adam (which wasn’t their creation, but miraculous nonetheless). If Genesis 1:1 is true, then God can do “smaller” things. When God created Adam, he would have appeared a certain age, and the same for everything else God created. I’ve seen how atheists hate that idea and say God would be “deceptive” then, but He isn’t. He recorded what happened, and He’s given us the choice to believe Him or not.
Claud, on the question about saints, if you know the Bible then you know that it’s a basic point of the Gospel that the first believers in Jesus, most of them without any education, understood. I’m sure it’s not needed for me to point out to you that you didn’t answer that question, but to me it speaks volumes that you didn’t. I say that humbly asking you to consider why that may be so.
But it’s not a case of religion bowing to science at all. Pius XII clearly separated what was a legitimate area of scientific inquest, from what was radically contrary to the faith.
And this attitude goes all the way back to Augustine—who on many scientific issues offered some competing theories without choosing between them, but also drew bright theological lines in the sand when he had to.
And no, I’m not accusing you of being a child. But you are basically claiming that the text is so obvious that it should be immediately apparent what it means—and I say well if that’s the case, how come from the second century on, you have such a diversity of Christian views on what it means?
The modern idea of an obvious interpretation of Genesis is fed by limited reading and vast unfamiliarity with the history of Christian thought on it. Go read Augustine’s literal interpretation of the 6 days. He has a completely different take on it than anything anyone is saying today.
Well, did you know that Darth Vader supports homo marriage?
I didn’t get back on this sooner since I didn’t have much time, and I don’t at the moment, either, but on what you’ve said, first I’ll say that the Wikipedia article on “The Catholic Church and evolution” seems to besr describe in general what I’ve learned about it, in which the Catholic Church is more than neutral, and that’s saying a lot since even neutrality denies Scripture.
I’ve also been aware for a long time that some early Christians argued for the seven days of Creation not being literal. With not much time to reply right now, I’ll just say for now that while I might sometime look more deeply at that part of the issue, there are a great many reasons why Christians should take the Genesis account literally.