Skip to comments.'Noah' Movie Sparks Massive Spike in Global Reading of the Bible's Book of Genesis
Posted on 04/04/2014 10:42:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
"In the days after Noah hit theaters, people opening the Noah story in Genesis 6 increased about 300% in US & 245% globally on @YouVersion," reported YouVersion on Twitter on Tuesday.
"Visits to the
#Noah story in Genesis 6-9 at Bible Gateway saw a 223% increase over the previous weekend," tweeted Bible Gateway on Thursday.
In addition to YouVersion, an app of the Scriptures which hit 100 million downloads last summer, and the website, BibleGateway, Google trends also showed spike in substantial increase in search queries for the Old Testament text.
Commenting on the spike in Genesis traffic, Patton Dodd, the editor-in-chief of the religious site On Faith, wrote in a story Tuesday that "movies like 'Noah' are an invitation into stories like Noah."
"Whatever else the film does (incidentally, I found it to be a memorably filmed mixed bag of the sublime, the over-the-top, and the troubling — your basic Aronofsky experience), it makes you wonder what the story of Noah is about, why it holds so much power, and what it might have to say to us today," he continued. "It makes you go home and look up the story. That's true in part precisely because the film is so imaginative and weird — unlike some other recent Bible films, it doesn't pretend to be delivering the story in a straightforward way, so you're left wondering what the story actually says."
Dodd argued that "so long as people hear that the story of Noah is simply a story of a righteous man doing God's work, a story that ends with a sentimental rainbow — or an account of a meteorological event — believers are less likely to crack their Bibles and actually read the story."
The movie, which stars Russell Crowe, topped the box office in its debut over the weekend, grossing $43.7 million in the United States and Canada. The new film, which some Christians criticized for deviating from Genesis upon which it is based, exceeded the projection that it would garner $41 million.
Film analysts believe that "Noah" attracted a wider audience, and not just the religious, due to Hollywood touches given to the film by Aronofsky.
"It certainly feels like the 'biggest' film of 2014," Tim Briody, analyst for Box Office Prophets, told USA Today.
CLICK HERE FOR THE GOOGLE TRENDS CHART:
Yeah, people are looking at the Bible and going HOW COOL! I didn’t know there were rock monsters back then!!
RE: Yeah, people are looking at the Bible and going HOW COOL! I didnt know there were rock monsters back then!!
Well yeah, but they’re not going to find the rock monsters there....
If they’re suddenly looking at the Bible, the encouraging part is that, after going to the Genesis account, they’re going to have to read on in hopes of finding the Noah they saw in the movie.
I’m not saying that I am on board with their explanation, but here’s an answer from ANSWERS IN GENESIS
How Did Noah Fit All the Animals on the Ark?
To answer this question, we must first ask how many animals were actually on the ark. Critics have fantasized the presence of millions of animals overloading the ark. In actuality, the Bible makes it clear that the cargo was limited to landbreathing vertebrate animalscorresponding to modern birds, mammals, and reptiles, as well as their extinct counterparts.
Was every species on the ark? No! From chapters such as Leviticus 11, it is obvious that the created kind (min in Hebrew, in Genesis 1:1112, 21, 2425) was a much broader category than the modern term of classification, species. Current baraminological research suggests that the created kind most closely corresponded to the family level in current taxonomy. However, to be conservative in this study, the genus was set as equivalent to the original created kind. As for the clean animals that entered the ark in seven pairs, this added a modest number of additional animals, notably bovids (cow-like mammals) and cervids (deer-like mammals). Under these conservative assumptions, there were no more than 16,000 land animals and birds on the ark.
According to the Bible, the ark had three decks (floors). It is not difficult to show that there was plenty of room for 16,000 animals, assuming they required approximately the same floor space as animals in typical farm enclosures and laboratories today. The vast majority of the creatures (birds, reptiles, and mammals) are small. The largest animals were probably only a few hundred pounds of body weight.
It is still necessary to take account of the floor spaces required by large animals, such as elephants, giraffes, rhinos, and some dinosaurs. But even these, collectively, do not require a large area. God would likely have sent to Noah young (and therefore small, but not newborn) representatives of these kinds so that they would have a full reproductive potential for life after the Flood to repopulate the earth (Genesis 7:13). Even the largest dinosaurs were relatively small when only a few years old.
Without tiering of cages, only 47 percent of the ark floor would have been necessary. Whats more, many could have been housed in groups, which would have further reduced the required space.
What about the provisions for the animals? It can be shown that the food would have filled only 6 to 12 percent of the volume of the ark, and the potable water only an additional 9 percent of the same.
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST...
An issue often used in an attempt to beat biblical creationists over the head is the worldwide distribution of animals. Such a distribution, say critics, proves that there could never have been a global Flood or an Ark. If the Ark landed somewhere in the Middle East, then all the animals would have disembarked at that point, including animals that we do not find in the Middle East today, or in the fossil record in that area. How did kangaroos get to Australia, or kiwis to New Zealand? How did polar bears get to North America and penguins to Antarctica?
Skeptics often claim, The Bible is not a science textbook. This, of course, is truebecause science textbooks change every year, whereas the Bible is the unchanging Word of Godthe God who cannot lie. Nevertheless, the Bible can be relied upon when it touches on every scientific issue, including ecology. It is the Bible that gives us the big picture. Within this big picture, we can build scientific models that help us explain how past events may have come about. Such models should be held to lightly, but the Scripture to which they refer is inerrant. That is to say future research may cast doubt on an actual model, without casting doubt on Scripture.
With this in mind, the question needs to be asked, Is there a Bible-based model that we can use to help explain how animals might have migrated from where the Ark landed to where they live today? The answer is yes.
A biblical model of animal migration obviously must start with the Bible. From Genesis we can glean the following pertinent facts:
The biblical principles that we can establish then are that, after the Flood, God desired the ecological reconstruction of the world, including its vulnerable animal kinds, and the animals must have spread out from a mountainous region known as Ararat.
The construction of any biblical model of recolonization must include these principles. The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the eyeglasses of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture.
The model uses the multiplication of dogs as an example of how animals could have quickly repopulated the earth. Two dogs came off Noahs Ark and began breeding more dogs. Within a relatively short time period, there would be an incredible number of dogs of all sorts of different shapes and sizes.
These dogs then began to spread out from the Ararat region to all parts of the globe.
As these dogs spread around the world, variations within the dog kind led to many of the varieties we find today. But it is important to note that they are still dogs. This multiplication of variations within a kind is the same with the many other kinds of animals.
One final comment must be made in this section. As I have used the word recolonization several times, I must emphasize that I am not referring to the so-called Recolonization Theory. This theory will be discussed later.
One accusation thrown at biblical creationists is that kangaroos could not have hopped to Australia, because there are no fossils of kangaroos on the way. But the expectation of such fossils is a presuppositional error. Such an expectation is predicated on the assumption that fossils form gradually and inevitably from animal populations. In fact, fossilization is by no means inevitable. It usually requires sudden, rapid burial. Otherwise the bones would decompose before permineralization. One ought likewise to ask why it is that, despite the fact that millions of bison used to roam the prairies of North America, hardly any bison fossils are found there. Similarly, lion fossils are not found in Israel even though we know that lions once lived there.
Comparisons can be made with more modern recolonizations. For example, the Encyclopædia Britannica has the following to say about Surtsey Island and Krakatoa and the multiplication of species.
Six months after the eruption of a volcano on the island of Surtsey off the coast of Iceland in 1963, the island had been colonized by a few bacteria, molds, insects, and birds. Within about a year of the eruption of a volcano on the island of Krakatoa in the tropical Pacific in 1883, a few grass species, insects, and vertebrates had taken hold. On both Surtsey and Krakatoa, only a few decades had elapsed before hundreds of species reached the islands. Not all species are able to take hold and become permanently established, but eventually the island communities stabilize into a dynamic equilibrium.1
There is little secret, therefore, how nonflying animals may have travelled to the outer parts of the world after the Flood. Many of them could have floated on vast floating logs, left-overs from the massive pre-Flood forests that were ripped up during the Flood and likely remained afloat for many decades on the worlds oceans, transported by world currents. Others could later have been taken by people. Savolainen et al., have suggested, for example, that all Australian dingoes are descended from a single female domesticated dog from Southeast Asia.2 A third explanation of possible later migration is that animals could have crossed land bridges. This is, after all, how it is supposed by evolutionists that many animals and people migrated from Asia to the Americasover a land bridge at the Bering Straits. For such land bridges to have existed, we may need to assume that sea levels were lower in the post-Flood periodan assumption based on a biblical model of the Ice Age.
As Michael Oard, a retired meteorologist and Ice Age researcher, has suggested in chapter 16, an Ice Age may have followed closely after the Flood. In his detailed analysis, Oard proposed a mechanism of how the rare conditions required to form an Ice Age may have been triggered by the Flood, and shows how this explains the field evidence for an Ice Age.3
Severe climatic changes could have been the catalyst that encouraged certain species to migrate in certain directions. These severe changes could also have accounted for some of the many extinctions that occurred. Additionally, Oards studies provide a model for how land bridges could have developed.
Oard has pointed out that certain observed features from the Ice Age cause problems for the evolutionist, not the creationist. Thus, a creationist explanation of the Ice Age better explains the facts. An example of such an issue is that of disharmonious associations of fossilsfossils of creatures normally associated with different conditions (such as creatures with a preference for hot and cold climates) being found in close proximity.
One of the more puzzling problems for uniformitarian theories of the ice age is disharmonious associations of fossils, in which species from different climatic regimes are juxtaposed. For example, a hippopotamus fossil found together with a reindeer fossil.4
Oard suggests that even with present topography, a number of significant land bridges would have existed to facilitate migrations if the sea level were only 180 ft (55 m) below current levels. However, there is even evidence that the land in some places where land bridges would be necessary could have been higher still. Thus, land bridges facilitated by the Ice Age constitute a serious model to explain how some migrations could have been possible.
Some still remain skeptical about the idea of land bridges all the way to Australia. Nevertheless, by a combination of methods that we see today, including land bridges, there are rational explanations as to how animals may have reached the far corners of the world. Of course, we were not there at the time to witness how this migration may have happened, but those adhering to a biblical worldview can be certain that animals obviously did get to far places, and that there are rational ways in which it could have happened.
We should therefore have no problem accepting the Bible as true. Creationist scientific models of animal migration are equally as valid as evolutionary models, if not more so. The reason such models are rejected is that they do not fit in with the orthodox, secular evolutionary worldview.
It is not a problem for us to rationalize why certain animals do not appear in certain parts of the world. Why, for example, does Australia have such an unusual fauna, including so many marsupials? Marsupials are, of course, known elsewhere in the world. For example, opossums are found in North and South America, and fossilized marsupials have been found elsewhere. But in many places, climatic changes and other factors could lead to their extinction.
The lack of great marsupials in other continents need be no more of a problem than the lack of dinosaurs. As with many species today, they just died outa reminder of a sin-cursed world. One proposed theory is that marsupialsbecause they bore their young in poucheswere able to travel farther and faster than mammals that had to stop to care for their young. They were able to establish themselves in far-flung Australia before competitors reached the continent.
Similar statements could be made about the many unusual bird species in New Zealand, on islands from which mammals were absent until the arrival of European settlers.
The most logical interpretation of the biblical record of the Flood and its aftermath would seem to suggest that the animals disembarked and then recolonized the planet. Comparisons with modern migrations and incidents such as Surtsey have suggested that this recolonization need not have taken long. A plain reading of Scripture suggests that the Ark landed in the mountains of Ararat, most likely in the region of modern Turkey and Central Asia. It is also our contention that the significant quantity of death represented by the fossil record is best understood by reference to the Genesis Flood (i.e., the majority of fossils formed as a result of the Flood).
More recently, a theory has developed among certain creationists in the UK and Europe which suggests that the fossil record is actually a record not of catastrophe but of processes occurring during recolonization. This theory is called the Recolonization Theory.5
Proponents of this theory suggest that the Flood completely obliterated the earths previous crust so that none of the present fossils were caused by it. To accommodate fossilization processes, Recolonization Theory suggests that the age of the earth be stretched by a few thousand years. Some advocates of this view suggest an age of about 8,000 years for the earth, while others suggest figures as high as 20,000 years.
The principal error of this view is that it starts from supposed scientific anomalies, such as the fossil record, rather than from Scripture. This has led to the proposals among some Recolonizers, but not all, that there must be gaps in the genealogies recorded in Genesis 5 and 11, even though there is no need for such gaps. Indeed the suggestion of gaps in these genealogies causes further doctrinal problems.8
Even the views of those Recolonizers who do not expand the genealogies contain possible seeds of compromise. Because the Recolonizers accept the geologic column, and because the Middle East has a great deal of what is called Cretaceous rock, it follows that the Middle East would need to be submerged after the Flood, at the very time of the Tower of Babel events in Genesis 11. This has led some of the Recolonizers to speculate that the Ark actually landed in Africa, and therefore, that continent was the host to the events of Genesis 11 and 12. This would seem to be a very weak position exegetically and historically. Such exegetical weaknesses led Professor Andy McIntosh and his colleagues to comment, Their science is driving their interpretation of Scripture, and not the other way round.9
We must not be downhearted by critics and their frequent accusations against the Bible. We must not be surprised that so many people will believe all sorts of strange things, whatever the logic.
Starting from our presupposition that the Bibles account is true, we have seen that scientific models can be developed to explain the post-Flood migration of animals. These models correspond to observed data and are consistent with the Bibles account. It is notable that opponents of biblical creationism use similar models in their evolutionary explanations of animal migrations. While a model may eventually be superseded, it is important to note that such biblically consistent models exist. In any event, we have confidence in the scriptural account, finding it to be accurate and authoritative.10 The fact of animal migration around the world is illustrative of the goodness and graciousness of God, who provided above and beyond our needs.
How does the potable water take up only 20% of the physical space of the animals when most creatures will take in over 100% of their body weight in just a few weeks?
Mt. Everest did not exist at that point in time. A christian geologist wrote a book called "In the Beginning" and theorized that the flood event was due to cooling of the mantle, which subsequently cracked, releasing the 'fountains of the deep' and rapid condensation of the saturated atmosphere. The broken crust then shifted and slid into other plates and caused the mountain ranges we now have. Something to ponder.
How long did it take them to get all the animals and birds in the ark?
Approximately 75 years, but that is an estimate based upon the dates given in Genesis.
When the God who created the universe enacts His miraculous powers, dontcha figure He could tap that energy to make the animals sleep for a bit?
They were green and caught rain water...:)
Then what’s the point of Noah or the Ark?
How Were the Animals Cared For?
We must distinguish between the long-term care required for animals kept in zoos and the temporary, emergency care required on the Ark. The animals comfort and healthy appearance were not essential for emergency survival during one stressful year, where survival was the primary goal.
Studies of nonmechanized animal care indicate that eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures. The key is to avoid unnecessary walking around. As the old adage says, Dont work harder, work smarter.
Therefore, Noah probably stored the food and water near each animal. Even better, drinking water could have been piped into troughs, just as the Chinese have used bamboo pipes for this purpose for thousands of years. The use of some sort of self-feeders, as is commonly done for birds, would have been relatively easy and probably essential.
Animals that required special care or diets were uncommon and should not have needed an inordinate amount of time from the handlers. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets. Of course, this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood.
It is reasonable to believe that one relatively small window would have adequately ventilated the Ark. Of course if there were a window along the top center section, which the Bible allows, all occupants would be even more comfortable. It is also interesting to note that the convective movement of air, driven by temperature differences between the warm-blooded animals and the cold interior surfaces, would have been significant enough to drive the flow of air. Plus, wind blowing into the window would have enhanced the ventilation further. However, if supplementary ventilation was necessary, it could have been provided by wave motion, fire thermal, or even a small number of animals harnessed to slow-moving rotary fans.
Thanks but it doesn’t address my question.
Continuation of the line of Adam, without interfering with free will. God found a righteous man and provided for he and his family. The remainder were found wanting and thus condemned themselves to death.
Noah COULD have floated his boat, say scientists: Ark really could have coped with two of every animal
* University of Leicester students looked into the physics of Noah’s ark
* Calculated would have been strong enough to carry two of each species
* Ark could have held equivalent of 2.15 million sheep without sinking
* ‘Were not proving that its true, but the concept would definitely work,’ they added
He doesn’t need an ark full of animals to achieve that.
If that’s the same study I’m thinking of, they dont factor in food or water. Fresh water alone would be many factors the size of the animal mass.
He doesn't need very much of anything, yet He chooses to do things such as salvation through boats. As I mentioned previously, Dr. Brown's book discusses the catastrophy of a cooling planet and how water was the lubricant that allowed the continents to break up and reform. Earthquakes would have been pegged at 10.0 on the Richter and I doubt very much of anything would have survived. A boat floating on a newly formed sea gave them the insulation from such an event.
Right, and He didn't NEED a rib from Adam to make Eve either, but He did it that way because it communicated many truths to us. In the case of Adam's rib, God showed us a beautiful picture of how a husband and wife would be bone of each other's bones, how Eve came from close to Adam's heart, his companion, and the bone marrow from Adam's rib blended his blood with hers, his life giving force with hers, all of this showing us just how beautiful and important husbands and wives would be to each other in God's plan.
So it was, when God found it necessary to wipe the evil from the earth and start over, he did it in such a way that would paint a picture (communicate the idea) for us of God's promise to save those who chose with free will to belong to God. The ark, was a picture of Jesus. Jesus is our ark. If we believe, if we accept the gift and "get aboard" so-to-speak, Jesus will save us from the inevitability of God's righteous judgement of our sin.
So long as they think it’s mythology it’ll do ‘em no good.
Darren Aronofskys cinematic re-telling of the story of Noah has certainly stirred people up. While quite a few reviewers, both religious and non-religious, have given the film high marks, many Christians, both Evangelical and Catholic, have registered a far less than enthusiastic reaction. One prominent Catholic blogger and movie reviewer opined that Noah is embarrassingly awful and the stupidest film in years. Most of the religious critics have complained that the film plays fast and loose with the Genesis account, adding all sorts of distracting and fantastic elements to the well-known story. In the midst of all of thisand no doubt in part because of itNoah took in $44 million on its opening weekend.
Noah is best interpreted, I think, as a modern cinematic midrash on the Biblical tale. The midrashimextremely popular in ancient Israelwere imaginative elaborations of the often spare Scriptural narratives. They typically explored the psychological motivations of the major players in the stories and added creative plot lines, new characters, etc. In the midrashic manner, Aronofskys film presents any number of extra-Biblical elements, including a conversation between Noah and his grandfather Methuselah, an army of angry men eager to force their way onto the ark, a kind of incense that lulls the animals to sleep on the ship, and most famously (or infamously), a race of fallen angels who have become incarnate as stone monsters. These latter characters are not really as fantastic or arbitrary as they might seem at first blush. Genesis tells us that the Noah story unfolds during the time of the Nephilim, a term that literally means the fallen and that is usually rendered as giants. Moreover, in the extra-Biblical book of Enoch, the Nephilim are called the watchers, a usage reflected in the great hymn Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones. In Aronofskys Noah, the stone giants are referred to by the same name.
What is most important is that this contemporary midrash successfully articulates the characteristically Biblical logic of the story of Noah. First, it speaks unambiguously of God: every major character refers to the Creator. Secondly, this Creator God is not presented as a distant force, nor is he blandly identified with Nature. Rather, he is personal, active, provident, and intimately involved in the affairs of the world that he has made. Thirdly, human beings are portrayed as fallen with their sin producing much of the suffering in the world. Some of the religious critics of Noah have sniffed out a secularist and environmentalist ideology behind this supposed demonization of humanity, but Genesis itself remains pretty down on the way human beings operateread the stories of Cain and Abel and the Tower of Babel for the details. And Noahs portrayal of the rape of nature caused by industrialization is nowhere near as vivid as Tolkiens portrayal of the same theme in The Lord of the Rings. Fourthly, the hero of the film consistently eschews his own comfort and personal inclination and seeks to know and follow the will of God. At the emotional climax of the movie (spoiler alert), Noah moves to kill his own granddaughters, convinced that it is Gods will that the human race be obliterated, but he relents when it becomes clear to him that God in fact wills for humanity to be renewed. What is significant is that Noah remains utterly focused throughout, not on his own freedom, but on the desire and purpose of God. God, creation, providence, sin, obedience, salvation: not bad for a major Hollywood movie!
There is a minor scene in the film which depicts some members of Noahs family administering the sleep-inducing smoke to the animals. They look, for all the world, like priests swinging thuribles of incense around a cathedral. Im quite sure that this was far from the mind of the filmmakers, but it suggested to me the strong patristic theme that Noahs Ark is symbolic of the Church. During a time of moral and spiritual chaos, when the primal watery chaos out of which God created the world returned with a vengeance, the Creator sent a rescue operation, a great boat on which a microcosm of Gods good order would be preserved. For the Church Fathers, this is precisely the purpose and meaning of the Church: to be a safe haven where, in the midst of a sinful world, Gods word is proclaimed, where God is properly worshipped, and where a rightly ordered humanity lives in justice and non-violence. Just as Noahs Ark carried the seeds of a new creation, so the Church is meant to let out the life that it preserves for the renewal of the world.
If Aronofskys Noah can, even subliminally, suggest this truth, it is well worth the watching.
It’s pulled in $44 million in the US, $95 million overseas, and cost $125 million to make, so, alas, the studio made $14 million so far, an 11 percent return. Thanks SeekAndFind.
“Earthquakes would have been pegged at 10.0 on the Richter and I doubt very much of anything would have survived.”
So how did marine life reconstitute itself afterwards?
This was Hollywood’s version of Noah. Need I say more?
What’s also interesting is the fact that there are real underground bodies of water, that are known to exist on Earth today, such as the guariana aquifer under Brazil. To know how much fresh water that is, it’s estimated to have enough fresh water to supply 7 billion people with drinking water for 200 years.
Think of what would happen if such a comparably large aquifer broke open.