Posted on 03/29/2014 11:42:02 AM PDT by Star Traveler
The pre-release advertising promoting the movie Noah made a point of stating that while the director took artistic license in the production it was still faithful to the biblical story. Early theater previews were carefully edited to appeal to people of faith, but this is the least biblical “biblical film” of all time!
However, to be charitable, the bare outline of the Flood story is present, but after that artistic license has taken the film so far afield of anything resembling the Bible that it is offensive to people of faith. To say that the biblical story was watered down (pardon the pun) is much too mild.
Those who know the Bible were aware of how little the script followed Scripture. Those who didn’t know the Bible still didn't know it when the final credits appeared. It is to the movie studio’s credit that they chose to even make a film with a biblical theme, but the torturous fiction that was the final cut partly written and directed by an atheist is a discredit to both the studio and the actors and is, in result, worse than having not made it at all. Remember the old adage of making a bottle of poison look nicer by removing the ugly skull and crossbones label and replacing it with one that read “essence of peppermint?” The bottle now looks pretty, but is even more deadly because of its deceptive label.
To a generation that already rejects the Genesis account as pure fiction, mixing a little Bible with a film of impure fiction is even worse – and certainly more dangerous to faith. For those who have not seen the movie and may think my judgments too harsh, please consider the following.
The film presents the sole purpose of Noah and the Ark as the preservation of the innocent animals. The pre-Flood world is portrayed as barren and denuded as the result of human corruption. What could be more evil and deserving of judgment in ecologically-minded Hollywood? Therefore, as Noah interprets God’s purpose, mankind – all of mankind, including Noah and his family – are supposed to die so the new world can continue with only with an innocent animal population.
The Ark has nothing to do with the salvation of mankind, but with its punishment. Noah was only chosen to save the animals, and he is so intent on fulfilling his task to see humanity destroyed that he announces to his family on the Ark that they must all die, for “the Creation is only safe when mankind is dead.” For this reason, when Noah learns that Shem’s wife is pregnant, he declares that he will murder her baby, if it is a girl, as soon as it is born! The ensuing drama aboard the Ark has Mrs. Noah trying to help her expectant kids escape, a crazed Noah stalking his newly born twin granddaughters, and Shem and Ham trying to kill their father (especially after he sets fire to the couple’s escape raft).
Add to the drama the evil meat-eating king of the old world, Tubal-Cain, who sneaked on board and remained hidden throughout the voyage, only to finally die in a knife fight with Noah when the Ark lands and breaks in two.
In the end, Noah spares his family because of “love.” Mankind is not so bad after all, for as Mrs. Noah explains, “all the heart needs is love to be good.” God, who has remained silent through the drama on the Ark, despite Noah’s pleas for divine guidance, is shown to have stayed away because, as Noah’s adopted Cainite daughter (the wife of Shem who had been miraculously cured of bareness by a healing touch from Methuselah) states, God wanted to let Noah chose whether mankind should live or not.
So, in spite of the ecological hype, it is about humanism in the end. The film closes with newly sober Noah brandishing his snake-skin phylactery (a relic from the serpent in the Garden of Eden) and telling his kids to be “fruitful and multiply” as a rainbow appears (sans the Noahic covenant).
Yet this summary reflects the best part of the film. To get the real flavor of the added fiction one must consider the four-armed giant rock men, who are actually imprisoned fallen angels (“Watchers”) created on the second day to help mankind and aid Noah by building the Ark. For their good works they get redeemed and taken to heaven (and their wings restored) in explosive shafts of light as the rain starts to fall, but only after slaughtering the masses of mankind who were trying to kill Noah and take over the Ark. At the same time Methuselah eats a berry and is killed in the first wave of water from the Flood (he did die in the same year that the Flood occurred, but not as a result of the Flood). On board the Ark Noah’s family pleads with him to let in the screaming people scratching on the door of the Ark because “there is room,” but Noah as judge and jury says there is no room for such people, and then follows this with the aforementioned announcement to those on the Ark that God wants all of them dead as well.
If you ever wondered where the wood for the Ark came from, the film depicts a whole forest magically growing up around Noah’s family camped at Methuselah’s mountain from a seed from the Garden of Eden that Methuselah had been keeping all this time. And as for the innocent animals, they mostly come by the thousands (same species), mostly snakes, birds, and insects (more dramatic for the special effects guys), following a magic waterway that sprang from the Edenic seed and had spread over the world. Sadly, some species were made extinct on the Ark since Tubal-Cain kept himself alive by eating the animals on board the Ark. They were easy prey because Noah had drugged them all to sleep with sedative-laced incense.
Other fictional elements include a Zohar stone that instantly bursts into flame when struck, no wives for Ham and Japeth so only six people in Noah’s family go on the Ark (though eight get off), big windows staying open during the Flood (compare Genesis 8:6) and the family running around on top of the Ark while it rides out the Deluge, and the inclusion of evolutionary development on the fifth day of Creation (which is implied in the succession of creatures and landscapes as lasting for millions of years).
The producers tried to keep these details secret from the faith-based public in order to not have a backlash from negative reviews that would affect the all important opening weekend box office. I learned about some of these details last year from a French graphic novel (which I was shown in Germany) upon which the film’s script was based.
As far as I know this was not translated or released to the English-speaking market, presumably to prevent these fictional elements from getting out to the faith-based American audience. Now, the secret is out and it is hoped that informed audiences will, like Noah in the film, judge this parody of the biblical account, unworthy of cinematic salvation.
Seven pairs of “clean” animals. A pair of “unclean” animals.
After all these years of a Catholic education in grade school, high school and college, I have never seen Noah depicted wearing trousers, a shirt, boots and no long beard.
Am I missing something?
saw it as an atheistic human secularist mockery of the book of Genesis,/ in a word : silly
Eric Ericksons account of the movie tells all. It almost sounds like a comedy it’s so out there.
....
Noah and family rush past a mountain of skulls and are attacked by giant rock monsters. The rock monsters hate people. Turns out they are fallen angles who decided to take care of Adam and Eve once the “Creator” cast them out of Eden. To punish them, the Creator covers them in lava making them rock monsters. They protected Cain’s folks until the people turned on them. Only Methuselah with his magical powers and flaming sword could protect the rock monsters from men. The rock monsters are rock like Ents, but behave like the green space aliens in Toy Story. They always look up and sing “the Creator” instead of “the Claw”
http://www.redstate.com/2014/03/27/darren-aronofskys-noah/
I like watching science fiction movies, too - and that’s what this sounds like. However, no one should confuse this movie with the account that God gives us in the Bible.
So why did they name in "Noah", then?
.....” create a “controversy.” People are so trivial and vain that the excitement of a “controversy” causes them to attend in order that they “may judge for themselves”.....
I agree...and they knew from early reviews by the Christian Community they were not happy campers, so rather than scrub it, fan the flame to bring in the bucks anyway. So much like liberals do....get the cash no matter what story you have to tell.
Bingo!
That’s “Hollywood” for you (or the secular movie industry).
This first paragraph of the article says it all ...
“The pre-release advertising promoting the movie Noah made a point of stating that while the director took artistic license in the production it was still faithful to the biblical story. Early theater previews were carefully edited to appeal to people of faith, but this is the least biblical “biblical film” of all time!”
They don’t care about what the Bible says ... they only care about the “dollars” they get by saying the word “Noah” and fooling all those poor people!
How do you expect that to be two hours? Seriously you are asking too much.
Throw in a few car chases and an exploding bridge and a shootout in a shopping mall. It’s already inaccurate so why not go for broke?
The story of Noah is an allegory. So it seems a bit silly to criticize a movie about an event that didn’t actually occur.
I truly don’t understand some of the criticism. First, it’s a movie. Second, wife and I loved it. Third, Noah is a VERY small part of the Bible with actually two, somewhat, conflicting accounts. Were they supposed to make a 3 minute movie? I certainly found none of it disrespectful to what we know or the spirit of the story.
Worshipping the bible as a Yarn(lore) with scientific accuracy is superstitious..
So many bible stories could be and probably are metaphors to explain things in a primitive way..
Other storys may be fairly accurate as history..
The Noah story tells a tale not at all needing Zoological accuracy..
Whether a few dragon-flys were not included or even a Lion or Tiger strains the point..
There was a flood(probably).... could have even been fairly local..
But indeed there are people that NEED spiritual fiction to justify their faith..
Fairy tales inspire imagination much like the Big Bang imaginations..
Many need an imagination tune up.. i.e. https://vimeo.com/90279986
Not according to God’s Word, in terms of what God says about it Himself. Jesus didn’t refer to it as an allegory, but as a real event and a real person.
Here’s a statement from Christians, about the Inerrancy and Infallibilty of the Scriptures. SO ... while “you” personally may take it that way, God’s Word doesn’t take it that way and these Christians who make this statement for the church, at large, don’t take it that way as you do.
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
The “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986. The following text, containing the “Preface” by the ICBI draft committee, plus the “Short Statement,” “Articles of Affirmation and Denial,” and an accompanying “Exposition,” was published in toto by Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation And Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), on pp. 211-219. The nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, with a brief introduction, also appear in A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, rev. 1986), at pp. 181-185. An official commentary on these articles was written by R. C. Sproul in Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary (Oakland, Calif.: ICBI, 1980), and Norman Geisler edited the major addresses from the 1978 conference, in Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).
Clarification of some of the language used in this Statement may be found in the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Preface
The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God’s written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.
The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God’s own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstandings of this doctrine in the world at large.
This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition. It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life, and mission.
We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God’s grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.
We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God’s Word we shall be grateful.
— The Draft Committee
The complete archives of this church-wide statement - to counter this who say stuff like you have - is housed at Dallas Theological Seminary (Dallas, Texas).
The truth of Genesis is FOUNDATIONAL to the rest of the Bible and this particular episode in the Bible was used by Jesus to indicate the “coming judgement” just before his return to this earth to establish his world-wide government.
ALL of Genesis is absolutely essential and a “foundation rock” for the rest of the Bible. That’s why it is attacked so viciously - as is evident in this movie.
Director Darren Aronofsky explains things here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darren-aronofsky/genesis_b_5037704.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada
Yes it is. So many people know so little about the Bible. I saw a poll from a few years back, and Catholics actually did the worst of the Christian denominations, with only about 30% being able to name Genesis as the first book! (It’s a Pew poll on religious knowledge, IIRC.
This film will ultimately cause more harm than good. It’s an evil work, and as Paul wrote, “shall we do evil so good should result?” (from God’s grace). “God forbid!” God brings good from evil, but it is never His first choice.
If you don’t know the Lord, how can you discern about this movie? People “learn history” from entertainment. That’s why liberals re-wrote the Scopes trial in “Inherit the Wind,” slandering Christians. I know a lot of liberal editors at Wikipedia heavily resisted including anything about ITW’s historical inaccuracies until they just couldn’t deny them anymore.
It’s not to their credit. They hijacked the story for antichrist purposes, and then they’ve tried to conceal what they’ve done by deception and lies and by predictably attacking Christians who’ve spoken out about the true nature of the film.
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about, from someone else who wrote about it.
Why is Genesis Important?
http://joelkontinen.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-is-genesis-important.html
Genesis is the key to understanding the Bible. Chapters 1-11 tell us about:
· The origin of the universe
· The origin of man
· The nature of man
· The origin of sin, suffering and death
· God’ goodness and faithfulness
· The horror of sin ( the Fall, the Flood, the confusion of languages at Babel)
· The biblical model of marriage (one man, one woman)
In addition:
· Genesis is the key to understanding the gospel and atonement.
. Genesis is history.
· A consistent Christian worldview requires us to accept Genesis as a historical account of beginnings.
· We cannot defend Christianity or even proclaim the gospel logically, if we do not accept the historicity of Genesis.
Theologians have developed many explanations (for instance, the gap theory, the day-age theory, theistic evolution) in order to make the creation days in Genesis compatible with the assumed millions of years of geology.
The theories have huge problems:
· Has God really said?
· Who is our ultimate authority?
· Radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions. It is impossible to test whether the assumptions are reliable.
· Carbon-14 in diamonds, dinosaur soft tissue, comets
· In the Old Testament, day + number always means a literal day.
” For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them but he rested on the seventh day.” (Exodus 20:11).
God does not say one thing in the Bible and mean something else. He did not need billions of years for creating the universe. In the New Testament Jesus turned water into wine in a second and raised Lazarus from the dead in an instant. He is almighty.
Another one ...
Genesis: Real, Reliable, Historical
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.
Introduction to Earth’s Catastrophic Past
Why Take Genesis Seriously?
The first eleven chapters of the Bible have been relegated by many to the category of myths, not real history. These are said to contain spiritual truth, but they cannot be taken seriously as records of real people and events. Many sincere Christians who believe the Bible do not know what their pastors believe about the historicity of Genesis. Is it safe to assume that these believe in the following truths?
God created everything in six 24-hour days.
Adam and Eve were real people.
God cursed a perfect world as a judgment for sin.
Noah constructed an Ark by which two of every kind of air-breathing, land-dwelling animal were saved along with Noah’s family from a global flood.
The confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel produced the language groups that are found around the world today.
http://www.icr.org/article/genesis-real-reliable-historical/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.