Posted on 02/13/2014 6:00:58 AM PST by 4Runner
The trouble began when Paramount, nervous about how audiences would respond to Aronofsky's fantastical world and his deeply conflicted Noah, insisted on conducting test screenings over the director's vehement objections while the film was a work in progress.
Friction grew when a segment of the recruited Christian viewers, among whom the studio had hoped to find Noah's most enthusiastic fans, questioned the film's adherence to the Bible story and reacted negatively to the intensity and darkness of the lead character. Aronofsky's Noah gets drunk, for example, and considers taking drastic measures to eradicate mankind from the planet. Hoping to woo the faith-based crowd, Paramount made and tested as many as half-a-dozen of its own cuts of the movie.[Break]
Both director and studio say that's now all behind them. "There was a rough patch," Aronofsky allows, but at this point, Paramount is fully supporting his version. Vice chair Rob Moore says the studio is launching an advertising campaign designed to communicate that this film -- an exploration of Noah's emotional journey -- flows in large part from Aronofsky's imagination.
(Excerpt) Read more at hollywoodreporter.com ...
Seems to be the case. They could have at least made an attempt at appropriate costuming.
We know that some angels do have wings Is 6:2.
As a Bible believer, you should know that Noah, his wife and his sons’ wives possessed all the non-mutated genes found in all of humanity today. Noah carried within him the genes that make a person look middle eastern, celtic, african, and asiatic. I try to imagine what he would look like to our eyes, and believe my imagination to fall short.
It may be that what makes some of us look celtic (I are one) was dominant in Noah. It may be otherwise. We shall see hereafter :)
You make a very good (and extremely interesting) point.
I just thought it was strange to see people who live in the very warm Middle East wrapped head to toe in what looked like leather.
Seraphim and Cheribum are not angels.
Have a source for that?
Knowing how sensitive Hollywood is to us, we would recipricate... Our stereotype of liberals is their most important issue is abortion. So we would make a movie about a bunch of people having abortions and how happy that made everyone around them. I'm sure they'd all love to go see that movie....
Knowing how sensitive Hollywood is to us, we would reciprocate...
Our stereotype of liberals is their most important issue is abortion. So we would make a movie about a bunch of people having abortions and how happy that made everyone around them. I'm sure they'd all love to go see that movie....
Can’t source a negative. Angels are never, in the scriptures, said to have wings. Seraphim and Cherubim are never called angels. Satan was called a “covering cherub”.
I stand corrected, thanks.
I was surprised the first time heard that. Studied it extensively for a few hours, and determined the scriptual teaching on the matter.
It surprised me as well, they get tossed in with ‘angelic beings’. Actually its pretty cool.
I know! There is so much we don’t know, but what we can gleen id revelatory.
The central message of Genesis, and the entire Bible, is ethical, not genetic. What this "satanic DNA" theory has at its heart is the message that Godly ethics is transmitted (or corrupted) via genetics, hence the need to "cleanse" the Earth of "tainted bloodlines. I myself believe that God works with people from all genetic bloodlines, i.e. God works with people with whom He has engaged in an ethical, covenant relationship.
Then one is left with the riddle of the capricious nature of YHWH in the conquering of Canaan - If the 'Nephilim' premise is entertained, one can better understand why every one of the cities that YHWH marked for utter annihilation were treated as such - Everything destroyed - The old, the children, even the crops and animals... If one researches the matter, one will find that they all were essentially Sons of Anak, participants in angelic hybridism, annotated primarily by the presence of giants.
But re the Tower of Babel being a fourth dimensional portal through which satanic creatures had access to Earth? That's advancing the idea that men in the physical realm can manipulate and control the spiritual realm. Oooooh boy.
*shrugs*... Inject demonic influence and one has 'powers and principalities' trying to assault heaven by using gullible Man as dupes. Not saying I am into the '4th dimensional portal' thing exactly, but the broad brush of it fits...
Spoken by someone who worked for 13 years at a church publishing house.You might start here for an example. There are all kinds of versions and translations. Some are much less scholarly and ill-conceived, others are very well conceived and executed. Your comment showed that though you may have been around a church and a publishing house, you never bothered to research how versions are produced. Below is an excerpt about the NIV version:
Spoken by someone who has seen church committees in action.
Spoken by someone who watched church doctrine change with change in church leadership.
So I guess you are right, I have no idea how versions are produced.
...For 10 years, Long and a growing group of like-minded supporters drove this idea. The passion of one man became the passion of a church, and ultimately the passion of a whole group of denominations. And finally, in 1965, after several years of preparatory study, a trans-denominational and international group of scholars met in Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed to begin work on the project – determining to not simply adapt an existing English version of the Bible but to start from scratch with the best available manuscripts in the original languages. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church leaders who met in Chicago in 1966.
A self-governing body of fifteen biblical scholars, the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) was formed and charged with responsibility for the version, and in 1968 the New York Bible Society (which subsequently became the International Bible Society and then Biblica) generously undertook the financial sponsorship of the project. The translation of each book was assigned to translation teams, each made up of two lead translators, two translation consultants, and a stylistic consultant where necessary. The initial translations produced by these teams were carefully scrutinized and revised by intermediate editorial committees of five biblical scholars to check them against the source texts and assess them for comprehensibility. Each edited text was then submitted to a general committee of eight to twelve members before being distributed to selected outside critics and to all members of the CBT in preparation for a final review. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease of reading with pastors, students, scholars, and lay people across the full breadth of the intended audience. Perhaps no other translation has undergone a more thorough process of review and revision. From the very start, the NIV sought to bring modern Bible readers as close as possible to the experience of the very first Bible readers: providing the best possible blend of transparency to the original documents and comprehension of the original meaning in every verse. With this clarity of focus, however, came the realization that the work of translating the NIV would never be truly complete. As new discoveries were made about the biblical world and its languages, and as the norms of English usage developed and changed over time, the NIV would also need to change to hold true to its original vision.
And so in the original NIV charter, provision was made not just to issue periodic updates to the text but also to create a mechanism for constant monitoring of changes in biblical scholarship and English usage. The CBT was charged to meet every year to review, maintain, and strengthen the NIV’s ability to accurately and faithfully render God’s unchanging Word in modern English.
According to your posting history, that church/publisher was the United Methodist Church. What Bible translations did the UMC publish while you were employed there, and how was the doctrinal content altered by the UMC in those translations?
The best thing they could do is hire Ken Ham as a consultant.
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.