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.