***Update – April 6, 2014 – In the light of upcoming research that I’m doing on the movie Noah, I’ve edited this review and toned down the level of rhetoric.***
Up until yesterday, I had heard a whole lot of hype about the Noah movie and honestly, couldn’t care less. It’s a Hollywood production and, like The Passion of the Christ, I thought it would be an attempt by some theologically confused celebrities (for example) or a theologically liberal director/producer (for example) to atone for all the moral necrosis that they’ve unleashed upon the world at 24 frames per second (or now 48). There’s a huge difference between films made by Christians and films made by “Hollywood Christians” (the difference being a biblical worldview vs. an explicitly pagan worldview hiding behind re-defined biblical terminology), and I generally ignore all the “Christian/religious” media that emerges from Hollywood. To use a biblical term, films made by “Hollywood Christians” are generally moronic (for the sake of clarity, I use the phrase “Hollywood Christians” as a catchall for everyone who would self-identify as some form of “Christian”; all the people who thank God for their awards but live as if they’ve never even heard of him).
Isn’t that harsh and even arrogant language?
Am I saying that all the people who claim to be believers in Hollywood aren’t really Christians?
No. Not at all.
Am I saying that if you like the movie Noah that you’re a Bad Christian?
No. Not at all (though you probably have lack of discernment).
What I am saying is that the movies that Hollywood puts out under the guise of attracting the believing movie-goers are subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) attacks on Christians and Christianity as a whole. Movies are a large vessel for the distribution of ideas, and spiritual warfare is ideological warfare; it’s the combat of truth and error. Watching movies is spiritual warfare.
But before I go off on an entirely different blog post, I’ll simply say that I’ve generally thought that Hollywood puts out “Christian/religious” movies that are so bad, they beg to be avoided by discerning believers.
I wasn’t expecting that much from Noah, but I thought that it was probably going to be a feel good cuddle-fest where Noah is a kind and loving guy who gathers all the animals around him like Cinderella, builds a boat, and then sails on some rolling waves with his family with them all singing southern gospel songs in an Indonesian accent. Do you get that from this poster?
The poster told me that it was going to be a dark and emo-styled movie where a singer from a Mars Hill worship band builds a boat and barely escapes with his life while everyone else dies…or something like that. I expected it to be somewhat true to the Biblical account.
Outside of a few names, a few vague details (like the animals showing up) and the presence of a flood, it wasn’t even close to being true to the Biblical account.
No, scratch that. It’s not that it wasn’t close; it’s that the director completely turned the story on its head…to the point that this was one of the first movies I’ve seen in the last decade that actually made me angry because it was so obviously agenda-driven and absolutely evil. People have tried to excuse the director in saying that he’s “not a theologian”, but the movie is so bad that I wonder if he’s even bothered studying the story (he gets the story so wrong I honestly wonder what’s going on). More than that, I wonder if the director thinks that Christians are simple-minded fools who cannot spot basic errors or would find no offense at having their entire belief system being horrifically blasphemed.
Wait a minute.
Did I say that Noah is evil?
As in “openly serving to brainwash the masses about the God of the Bible”, regardless of the efforts of the National Religious Broadcasters and Paramount Picture to soften what they know will be seen as a violent attack on the story of Noah. They can say all they want about the movie being “inspired by the story of Noah”, but come on! If someone made a movie about Harvey Milk that portrayed him as openly denying the charges of being homosexual and actually campaigning against gay rights, would anyone buy the “inspired by the life of Harvey Milk” line?
I wonder if Phil Cooke, or Jerry Johnson, or Alissa Wilkinson, or any of the “respected leaders” promoted on Charisma (people who don’t really have any excuses) have even read the story of Noah with any degree of actual attention. (Also, the Charismatic movement seems to be home to all the folks I can find who support the movie. Just making a passing observation there…)
The movie is evil.
As in, Noah appears to worship Satan in the movie. That’s right.
Okay. I’m ranting now like some crazed madman. Evil? Really?
Well, I went and saw the movie last night. The 10:05 showing with a pen and paper. Empty theater so I used my phone as a light and took three pages of notes. Allow me to share what I jotted down.
Be warned, I’m going to re-tell the story of the move and spoil everything. I’m also going to make nine observations that should drive home why I think this movie qualifies as “evil”. My comments will be indented.
>>>Let’s rock this like Eddie Van Halen rocks a McMuffin.>>>
Observation One: The Opening.
So the movie opens up with a quote: “In the beginning there was nothing”.
– Uh, nope. I believe the story starts off with “In the beginning GOD…” So much for a theistic worldview, let alone Christian. Sure, God is mentioned as the creator, but before there was a creation there wasn’t nothing. There was the triune God. This glaring omission is rather indicative of the theme that runs throughout the movie; “God isn’t there”.
Observation Two: The History.
The “creation” is actually straight up naturalistic evolution of the Day-Age Theory variety. Apparently God spoke everything into existence and then took a hike…except for on the second “day” (which means somewhere over a few billion years) he made some sort of angelic creatures who, after sitting around for a few billion years, left heaven to help Adam & Eve. Strangely, Adam and Eve aren’t shown to evolve but rather pop out of nowhere, glowing like one of these four:
(No, not Dr. Crusher. Guess again.)
Adam and Eve were banished from the garden for eating a fruit which the movie describes as choosing “darkness” rather than light, and then the Watchers show up.
– For those who read this blog, I’m not a fan of any sort of evolutionary theory, but I don’t really care about that. It’s a Hollywood movie and I’d expect nothing less than full-fledged evolution. That’s not really where the fight is here. The whole “glowing Adam and Eve” thing is needless artistic license (were their last names “Cullen”?). Did Jesus glow after he was resurrected and in his glorified body? The real fight involves just how twisted the story of creation becomes. Adam and Eve didn’t really know what was going on, ate something (for no reason that the movie describes) and then get punished by God, the seemingly-emo teenager.
Observation Three: The Watchers.
Remember the angelic creatures made on the second day? When they left heaven to help Adam & Eve they were actually kicked out and fell to earth like fireballs. When they hit the earth, they were covered in magma that sort of hardened into a suit over their glowing selves…kinda like some form of rock-armor suit…or kinda like the Gorignak from Galaxy Quest combined with the Vorlon suit from Babylon 5; big rock creature on the outside but glowing, flying pilot on the inside…
Those angelic beings are called Watchers, and they’re stuck on earth forever, unable to return to Heaven because they screwed up in a way that the movie doesn’t clarify (something about wanting to help Adam and Eve after they rebelled). For some reason they have three legs and three arms (probably because some folks involved in the movie are foolish enough to think that gematria is deep and profound) and since they were stuck on earth, they taught the line of Cain all about technology. Using that knowledge, Cain’s descendants populated and covered the whole earth in a sort of pre-industrialization technological level. The descendents of Cain have apparently logged the whole earth (the earth is covered in burned stumps in the movie), know about some complex machinery and smelting iron, and even have rudimentary canons that fire Zohar (or Tzohar; they both sound the same), a sort of magic rock that ignites when crushed.
– The Zohar is a reference to a written document of Kaballah; Jewish mysticism. The little glowing rocks don’t play a big roll in the movie, but a large component of the content in the movie is taken from non-biblical literature of rather suspicious nature. No big surprise from Hollywood there; what with them being totally unable to discern what is a reliable source of information. Tzohar was, in Jewish mysticism, the name of the window on the ark that let in light. It is a metaphor for a window between worlds (i.e. a window into the spiritual world for Noah). I’m not sure which was the reference in the movie (no subtitles) but either way, it’s an interesting allusion that isn’t a good one (given the symbolism in the movie).
When the descendants of Cain gained sufficient power, they turned on the Watchers and attacked them, so the Watchers basically ran away and moved into Mordor. In the movie, they live in a barren wasteland surrounded by a barrier of human skulls. Eventually, they’re convinced to help Noah: they end up being the ones who build the ark (Noah helps, but a few dozen 50-foot-tall rock creatures do all the heavy lifting and construction) and then they defend Noah against the humans who attempt to board the ark by slaying thousands of humans. As the Watchers fall in battle, they explode and their glowing pilots explode out of the rock suits, killing dozens of people around them, and they return to heaven. When some of the Watchers figure out that dying in this battle results in acceptance back into Heaven, at least one of them commits suicide and heads straight there.
– Uh, yeah. WHAT? A few moments into this movie it turns into “Lord of the Floodrings”. Let’s clarify here a second. The “angelic beings” aren’t the Nephilim, as some people have thought. The Nephilim weren’t cast out of heaven, but were “were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (Gen. 6:4) who were on the planet at the same time as the “Sons of God” in Gen. 6:2. The beings in the movie also aren’t the “Sons of God” in Gen. 6:2 since whoever the “Sons of God” were, they “saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose“. The Watchers are demons, if they’re anything.
Noah’s allies in the movie are demons who cannot return to Heaven because they rebelled against God…except that they eventually do return to Heaven when they die in jihad. That’s right; they’re demons who are saved by their good works…erm, which are actually horridly evil. I don’t have a clue what in the world the people making this movie were thinking, but it seems like they were reading everything but the Bible when it came to finding ideas for the plot.
Observation Four: The Devil.
The movie doesn’t explain the Devil at all, but it does contain a cryptic image of a snake shedding it’s skin in the grass of the garden. In the first scene with Noah, he’s a boy and is about to be blessed by his father, Lamech. His father pulls out a snakeskin, wraps it around his arm, it starts to glow, and then some descendants of Cain show up, kill him, and take the snakeskin (which they call a “relic”). Later on, Ham steals the snakeskin from Tubal-Cain and it ends up back with Noah. We learn that it is the skin of the snake from the Garden of Eden, and it apparently is the tool by which Noah’s birthright to protect the earth is handed down through the generations of the line of Seth. I assume that it’s somehow related to where Methuselah gets all his magic powers (the movie doesn’t explain), seeing that the skin is handed down via the line of Seth and they’re the only ones with magic abilities in the movie.
– What in the WORLD? Noah’s helpers are demons and his right to protect the earth comes from The Devil? Satan is the indirect savior of the world (his henchmen build the ark) and source of any direct help to Noah at all in this movie (Methuselah uses the magic he got somewhere, likely from the snakeskin, to explain the vague visions that God gives to Noah…among other things). Let that sink in a moment.
I believe that would be called an “evil” idea.
Observation Five: The Crazed Warlock Methuselah.
In this movie, Methuselah is still alive at the coming of the flood and gladly accepts his own death, smiling and eating berries like a lunatic. He lives in a smoky cave where he receives his oracles (which seems to allude to some of the ancient oracles of Greece and Rome), and he has magic powers.
Remember the Watchers? Well, when mankind turned on them and attacked them, Methuselah defended them with his flaming sword. There’s a scene where the poor and defenseless Watchers are trying to escape a large army of men and Methuselah stands in a field. He pulls out his sword, plunges it into the ground and creates a flaming shock wave that ignites thousands of people as the Watchers get away.
Also, when Noah has a vision of a bunch of dead bodies in water and Methuselah’s mountain, Noah goes there to see his grandfather. Methuselah drugs him, Noah wigs out and has a second vision of a bunch of swimming animals under a large wooden platform (we see the ark, but only from underwater).
Methuselah heals Ila’s womb (Noah’s adopted daughter who is also Shem’s wife). Ila is barren after being stabbed in the gut as a child, but Methuselah touches her and totally heals her womb (he also can put people to sleep with his touch in the movie).
Finally, Methuselah gives Noah a seed that someone stole from Eden. Noah plants it and it spawns a river and grows an immense forest in seconds. Noah then proceeds to chop down all the trees and make an ark (which is a strange irony, given the message of the movie).
– In other words, Noah’s grandfather was the protector of demons, using a flaming sword that he apparently got from somewhere (which sounds familiar, right?). This story appears to have come from Jewish legends (read the bottom part about Methuselah here or check out this basic overview). Interesting how in Jewish legends, Methuselah killed demons but in this movie he killed men by the thousands. This movie neither respects the biblical text nor Jewish lore.
– Beyond that, there’s the unbelievable usage of magic in this movie. No mention of God, no prayer. Just straight up pagan magic where items have intrinsic power based on where they’re found or who they come from. Sheer, unvarnished pagan magic. God is nowhere to be seen in any of the supernatural events in the movie.
Again, I’d dare suggest that pagan magic is “evil”.
Observation Six: The Eco-Psycho message.
That’s right. Eco-Psycho…as in “ecological” plus “psychopath”. In this movie, mankind is a vermin on the earth that deserves the flood and gets no warning, no preaching, and outright condemnation. When Tubal-Cain and his hundreds of followers come to Noah, they express a loose belief in the coming flood and a desire to board the ark but Noah only says “there is no escape for you and your kind”. Methuselah agrees with Noah, commenting on how the Creator (the God of this movie has no personal name at all) is going to destroy the earth because mankind has corrupted the earth (there’s no mention of personal rebellion against God himself)…but the only “sins” we see are logging and eating meat. That’s it. The earth is overrun by carnivores who cut down trees, and they all deserve to be slaughtered mercilessly for their non-vegan and clearcutting ways…not that there’s any vegetables to eat. All the plants are gone and the entire earth is a barren wasteland…so the animals are all that there’s left to eat.
Well, the animals seem to be all that’s left, but Noah and his family get by by eating moss and other fuzzy things that grow on rocks.
The animals are innocent in the movie and get saved from the flood because they “still live like they did in Eden”, but mankind doesn’t live like they did in Eden (i.e. eat vegan) and therefore mankind doesn’t deserve to live. The movie makes it clear that mankind is unworthy of life, especially as Methuselah and the Watchers kill thousands of men with absolutely no remorse whatsoever in the movie. The value of life in Noah is made very clear: plants are precious but people are parasites.
In fact, it’s because Noah fails to do what God “tells him” (not that God makes anything clear in the movie at all, but more on that later) that mankind survives at all. Ham and Japheth don’t have wives, Shem only has Ila (who’s barren), and Noah actually thinks that he’s building the ark to save the animals and then die. He’s open about his expectation that Japheth, being the youngest (which he actually wasn’t – Gen. 9:24), will die alone and the extermination of mankind is justice for all their logging and carnivorous ways.
The movie makes it clear that mankind is a mistake and God’s trying to correct the mistake of mankind…but he fails by entrusting the job to poor old Noah. He’s just unable to follow through with the wholesale slaughter that’s required of him…not that Noah is a softie.
Noah sees slaves getting sold for some meat, but that doesn’t bother him. He sees death everywhere, but that doesn’t bother him. Noah has a chance to save Ham’s girlfriend who is caught in some sort of bear trap, but he gladly leaves her to be trampled and that doesn’t bother him. In fact, nothing bothers Noah…well, almost nothing. He sees a guy eating some raw meat and he’s disgusted by that.
– That’s right. The flood, from what the movie makes clear, seems to be aimed at mankind en toto, including Noah. He’s only needed to save the animals and they’re the only creatures who deserve to live. Beyond that, whoever wrote the script was not paying close attention to the text of Genesis. I mean, if we’re talking about the Genesis story at all, we cannot miss that Genesis 9:3-5 comes right after the flood. In that passage God says “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.” That tells us that (a) Noah was given animals as food after the flood and (b) people did not eat animals before the flood. If eating meat was the sin for which the earth was judged, it’s really stupid that immediately after the flood God lifted that ban.
Oh, and logging was the other sin for which the flood came…good thing in the movie God provided a whole new forest for Noah to cut down and use to make the ark. No wait. Methuselah or Satan provided the forest. Never mind. Any efforts to make any sense of this movie beyond explaining it away as the self-contradictory speculations of an amateur Bible scholar fall on their face.
Observation Seven: Noah is a Homicidal Maniac.
In the creation story that is told, Adam and Eve have kids, Cain kills Able, and all men are (for some reason) “descendants of Cain” except for Noah, who’s a descendant of Seth. Noah is married to Naamah (who’s possibly the sister of Tubal-Cain) for some strange reason; the line of Seth apparently has fought the line of Cain throughout history and hates them. Noah hates everyone on planet earth, except his family. He tolerates them, but doesn’t really have a problem with them all dying after the flood.
Not only does he tolerate their deaths, but he openly delights in slaughtering people. He kills three people (one needlessly and in cold blood), when they shoot an animal with an arrow. He kills around two dozen people trying to get into the ark. He’s not about to let anyone repent of their sins or escape divine judgment.
(This picture is used in the advertising, but it’s Noah guarding the entrance to the ark and not letting anyone in…)
What’s worse is that when Methuselah heals Ila’s womb (which Noah furiously claims to be “undermining the Creator”) she gets pregnant. When Noah finds out, he is enraged and promises that if the child is a boy, it will die as the last man on earth but if the child is a girl, he will murder her the minute she emerges from the womb…so for the rest of the boat trip, Naamah and Ila and Shem plan to somehow escape Noah, the homicidal maniac. Naamah even gives Noah a lecture on the ethical horror of murdering his own infant granddaughters, but Noah doesn’t listen to her for a second (crazy eyes and all). They search for dry land by sending out a raven (to escape Noah’s desire to murder Ila’s baby). They also build a raft and stock it with supplies but Noah finds out and burns it, leaving everyone in terror. Then, when Ila has twin daughters, Noah chases her (carrying her two newborns) onto the roof of the ark while carrying a large knife. He almost stabs the first newborn but cannot because Noah says that he has nothing but love in his heart for them. Call me crazy, what exactly do you call a guy who chases you and threatens your newborn’s life with a large knife, and then makes any reference to “love”?
Then, once the ark crashes into a mountainside (a dove flies by with an olive branch in its mouth, but it’s somehow not a dove from the ark), Noah’s family lands and starts a new society while Noah lives in a cave on the beach and gets sloshed on home-made hooch as self-induced punishment for not killing his granddaughters and finishing off humanity. Finally Ila talks some sense into him (maybe it’s okay to act lovingly to people without expressing it with knives?) and Noah returns to his family, though Ham wanders off into the hillsides because he doesn’t feel welcome at home anymore (since he doesn’t have a wife).
– The character of Noah in this movie is so far removed from his biblical counterpart that he’s absolutely unrecognizable. He’s a maniac who is an idolater, a warlock, a murdering psycho, and in reality has absolutely no idea what’s happening with the flood, other than the “Creator” is behind it. God gives him two visions and and he fills the rest in with his rather overactive and psychotic imagination. Noah doesn’t preach righteousness and repentance for 100+ years (2 Peter 2:5), and the Noah in this movie is a violent butcher of a man, completely the opposite of how Genesis 6:8-13 portrays him. He has no real knowledge of God outside of some vague idea that “the Creator” is behind everything, and he is essentially flailing for knowing what he’s supposed to do because God doesn’t give him much to go on outside of a nightmare.
Good thing he has a bunch of demons and a warlock to help him work out the details.
What’s the worst is that Noah chases his granddaughters around the ark with a combat knife and then stops because he “loves” them, but then drunkenly laments his “love-fueled” inability to do the unthinkable for an indeterminate matter of weeks after the ark ends up on dry land.
Observation Eight : Tubal-Cain is the voice of reason.
In the movie, Tubal-Cain is the king of mankind, at least in the region of Noah. He’s a brutal and violent man who calls out to God when it starts to rain, but God doesn’t answer (more on this later). Tubal-Cain is what you’d expect (cruel, brutal, selfish, etc.) except for one thing. He sneaks onto the ark and hides out, and Ham finds him and gets a lecture on how Noah is wrong to think that mankind exists to serve the animals. Tubal-Cain defends his industrialization and proudly tells Ham that the animals exist to serve man and he doesn’t regret subduing the earth. Tubal-Cain decries Noah’s heartlessness to those outside the ark and tries to get Ham to help him betray Noah, but Ham ends up killing Tubal-Cain as he fights Noah.
– Subdue the earth? Where have we heard that talk? Oh yeah. That’s the words of God from Genesis 1:28. So the “good guy” works with demons, is a mass murdered, and is utterly confused as to why…but the “bad guy” is quoting scripture.
Do you call that evil?
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” – Isaiah 5:20.
Observation Nine: The “God” of Noah doesn’t exist.
Throughout the whole movie the God that is portrayed is more like Allah than Yahweh. The God that made Adam and Eve is unpredictable and malicious. He didn’t tell them not to eat the fruit but rather made the tree as two trees that cross each other to form an “x” (that’s obvious, right?). Adam and Eve didn’t know what God desired of them, and the movie portrays God as being highly chaotic in casting them out of a garden for eating a fruit (though the movie makes it abundantly clear that Adam & Eve, as well as all righteous people, were/are vegetarians).
Then there’s the silence. God doesn’t speak to anyone in the movie. Noah has a nightmare where he sees Adam and Eve, the snake, and then he’s underwater and surrounded by dead bodies. When he goes to visit Methuselah (at Hogwarts), Methuselah gives him a drugged drink that causes a second vision, but even if it’s from God the only difference is that Noah sees a bunch of animals swimming towards what looks like a wooden platform (they see the ark from under the water). Tubal-Cain calls out for divine revelation, but to no avail. Noah does as well, but to no avail. Apparently God doesn’t answer the unrighteous or the righteous (though Noah comes to realize that nobody is righteous…yay! The whole movie is redeemed because everyone is a sinner…and the only solution is genocide?). Noah begs God to help him understand whether or not he should kill his granddaughters, but there’s no answer. Noah is absolutely tormented by confusion in the movie, and it’s absolutely disgusting since scripture speaks of him as a prophet who got actual verbal revelation from God repeatedly (which is the definition of a prophet, right?)
Finally, the God of the movie isn’t involved in his creation either. The direct supernatural events aren’t caused by God, but magic. God maybe causes the quadruple rainbow shockwave at the end of the movie (it’s insinuated), but there’s no covenant with Noah and absolutely no explanation of what anything means since God doesn’t have a voice. He’s a total mute. He just made things, sat back, confuses everyone and then all of a sudden kills people for doing what he (at least in the Bible) commanded them to do.
In other words, the God of Noah looks a lot more like someone from comic books than the Bible.
(So Odin started out as Methuselah? Did he go colonize Asgard after the flood?)
– The God of this movie is Richard Dawkins’ Blind Watchmaker, a deistic God who basically starts the universe and then hides himself like mad. Not even the “fallen angels” have a clue what he’s doing, or how to appease him, or anything (and one would think that they’d have at least more insight than Noah…?!?).
As for the silence, one wonders exactly where the dimensions of the ark came from, seeing that nobody had likely ever heard of an ark in Noah’s day. One also wonders why Noah got in the ark anyway, seeing that he put all the animals to sleep with magic smoke. He wasn’t needed. The ark could have crashed, the crash could have awoken all the animals, and then everything could have started over without those pesky humans.
Now I could go on about more details that the movie got totally wrong, but that list is long.
Noah isn’t a Christian movie.
Noah isn’t even about the biblical story of Noah.
Noah is a movie that steals some names, the concept of a flood, and then inserts everything else from non-canonical literature and various carnal imaginations, and undermines the entire story by flipping it on its head in the most extreme ways. It’s a story where the hero is the most wicked man in the story and the demons are more of a help than God.
If this is “Christian cinema”, Christians need to be really vocal about letting Hollywood know that we won’t stand for this kind of garbage being passed off as some sort of “Christian” movie, or even a tolerable representation of Biblical events. Hollywood needs to realize that if Christians’ cherished beliefs are urinated on, Christians will not support it (although far too many are more than happy to celebrate that some form of comic book deity is getting any mention at all…).
I’d strongly recommend not seeing the movie, simply because dollars are the only form of communication Hollywood understands.
If this is “Christian cinema”, Hollywood can stick to doing what it does best; making trashy action movies, teenage vampire romances or sappy romantic comedies written by elementary school kids. At least then we’ll know what we’re getting.
Until Next Time,
Lyndon “watch Noah at your own peril” Unger
187 thoughts on “A No Holds Barred Review of Noah : The Movie (2014)”
What an abhorrent apostate rag. (OOPS! that was uncharitable) I plan to oppose this movie vigorously and will probably go see it tomorrow just to be able to say I did.
Great job Lyndon
Well, I kinda tried to give away all the details so that you wouldn’t have to satisfy your curiosity and give your soul a bath.
I can’t stop you, but you don’t need to see it for credibility sake (or something similar). The only reason I went and saw it was because I saw so much praise by “Christian” sites and I was highly suspicious, knowing the general level of discernment that is out there. Even PluggedInOnline (my normally trusted source for evaluating movies) was downplaying how bad it was, so I was really suspicious.
I understand and I’m not discounting this article at all. But you know the drill. The first thing outta anybody’s mouth is “We’ll did ya even see it?”
You know me.I haven’t been to see a movie in like 10 years. This one looks actually passable maybe as far as tawdry content and blasphemous language.
I figure it’s worth it to just take that weapon away right from the start.
Yeah. The only reason I saw it was because the PluggedIn review said there was no skin, and I can verify that there was absolutely no skin and no swearing.
My son brought me his computer and said read this mom! I must say as a true discerning Christian I stand with you 100% on your observations about everything, Yes, especially the movie, though I must say I applaud you for taking the time to view the whole moving. When I tried to watch Noah, only getting to the beginning of the movie, I immediately stopped the movie. My son and I looked at each other and I said to him “I miss the old original bible movies such as the ‘red robe’, ‘the greatest story ever told’,. The movie started off so wrong ‘biblical’ I already knew the whole movie would do nothing more but make me upset that the word of god! the true and living word of God is getting treated like just a book one you can buy from a library or book store and treat with disrespect once the whole book is read by throwing it away or some where to collect dust, so on. If someone is going to make a movie supposedly based on the bible, then why not do what they did in the old days ‘ show God honor by honoring his word and fast, pray and seek God ‘ the only true author of the bible’ about how to direct-bring to life on camera his word. Remember, God, says in his word’he who add to his word it shall be added unto him and he who take away from his word it shall be taken away from him, that should be food for thought alone!…
“Thanks for the warning about this film. Now please excuse me while I go and support it with my money.”
Couldn’t reply to your “We’ll did ya even see it?” reasoning. I’d only add, you don’t have to see a murder to know it’s not a good idea to commit one.
If this movie does not make you angry that hollywood types can take a story from the Bible, and fill it with more worldly agendas than you can count….then you are not at all in touch with a Loving God.
Please don’t tell me that people will see this movie and that will spark interest in reading the Bible. Please. This movie paints God (our Creator) to be non-existant, non-hearing, and a non-issue.
The only GOOD thing to come out of this movie is an awareness that hollywood is NOT interested in furthering the Gospel, and that the hollywood system is controlled and run by demonic forces and not to be trusted to put out anything close to the Truth.
Everything said in this review is right on. The movie is absurd, the writing of the movie is absurd, and the fact that the writer was working on this since childhood shows an EPIC FAIL on his part!
Q: Some groups have already criticized Aronofsky for taking liberties with the biblical text. What’s your response to them?
Watson: If we had gone with exactly the original story, Noah doesn’t say anything until he steps off the ark. You would have been watching a silent film. None of the women are really spoken about in the biblical story. There wouldn’t have been any women in it. He had to adapt it for the screen.
“Any efforts to make any sense out of this movie beyond explaining it away as the drunken ramblings of an deranged ecological psychopath fall on their face.”
Pretty much sums it up, it would seem (!)
Thanks for watching for us who won’t, for the excellent review/summary/info and for the laffs along the way. Well done!
You’re welcome Suzanne! Thanks for the kind words!
What is the difference between the story of Noah being depicted as “fictional” from Holloywood, and your using references to Van Halen, Star Trek, Thor, and Lord of The Rings?
I’m ok with your disapproval. I do not feel the same way as you do (now you are probably discrediting me as a Christian). But how can you make a case for these awful people of “Hollywood” adding pagan elements to a Jewish story when you have these references throughout your blog?
I’m sure it would be called creative license, humor, or something similar.
Please, for the sake of Christianity worldwide, stop acting like this people. Let Hollywood be Hollywood, and read about how Paul felt about eating meat sacrificed to idols.
This blog sounds like a(n) ” ” (insert either Buddhist, Islamic, or ?Christian?) extremist wrote it.
Try to find out how many times the story of Noah has been read via YouVersion since the release of this movie.
Insert a token scripture about how God uses things for the good- especially all you Neo-Calvinists.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I don’t understand how Aronofsky saying that the Noah story is actually a pagan myth is somehow parallel to me making references to pop culture in a tongue-in-cheek fashion.
I don’t think you understand what’s going on here at all.
Referencing “pagan” elements in pop culture isn’t the same as replacing scripture with paganism.
Paul references the Greek poet Epimenedes in Titus 1:13, but that doesn’t mean he gives some sort of actual endorsement to what Epimenedes teaches (outside of one specific fact).
Putting up a picture of Eddie Van Halen eating a McMuffin is, in absolutely no way whatsoever, suggesting that one should replace biblical truth with the opinions of Eddie Van Halen.
I also don’t have a clue why I would discredit you as a Christian.
As for the meat sacrificed to idols, that simply doesn’t apply. This isn’t a question of disputable matters; this is a movie review. I went and saw the movie alone, and I don’t suggest that someone who likes it is weak in the faith and needing to repent. I do suggest that they’re most likely undiscerning for the reasons I gave (or possibly just not-alert to the possible problems of the film), but that doesn’t make them a second class Christian.
I believe that the Bible is the actual historical account of the story of Noah and all other versions of the account in all other religious traditions are inaccurate and even deceptive re-castings of the story to remove certain elements (i.e. God judging sin).
I’m guessing that makes me an extremist.
So how many times has the Noah story been read on YouVersion since the movie came out? Why exactly is that significant? Is that somehow related to evangelism or something?
Oh yeah. God COULD use the movie for something good, therefore we should simply accept it and hope for the best.
People have gotten saved reading a Mormon quad buddy. That doesn’t mean I hand out quads and hope for the best.
Insert scripture about how men all suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
The world is talking about this movie and they are going to the Bible. They quickly read that God did tell Noah that he was saving Him and his Family. (wives included)
To put your head in the sand and miss this opportunity to share the Creator is a shame. The movie is entertaining and I believe does give the creator of the universe glory!
I had no intention of seeing this anyway, but WOW, if you inserted another name other than Noah, I would have thought you were describing a sci-fi post-apocalyptic type movie. There is nothing recognizable about it…
I know Abby. I was honestly wondering if there would be a glittering zombie horde somewhere, or if it was going to close off with Noah learning that the Watchers were actually aliens.
Sounds like that’s what their thought process was. What I don’t understand is the reviews from other Christian sources singing its praises-they almost had me wondering if I had misjudged the movie with cynical skepticism.
That’s why I went and saw it Abby. Everyone but Ken Ham seemed to think it was great, or at least not that bad.
My head hurts just reading this. Not just from the convoluted “story”, but from anger that the directors (self-proclaimed atheists) are tacking on garbage to the name of Holy Writ. And Christians are paying to let them do this.
Yup. We buy them the knife to slit our throats.
Basically this movie as an atheist throat punch at Christians. They packed a movie with top notch actors to kick Christians in the crotch. Or a more sinister explanation this is their idea of art, just like putting a crucifix in a jar of urine.
I’d disagree with you, but that’s essentially it. The director has dropped “F-bombs” in responding to the fact that Christians don’t like the movie. I doubt he really cares for us at all. Welcome to the 21st century.
Reblogged this on The Narrowing Path.
Reblogged this on talkingtoanonymous and commented:
Another movie not to go see.
Wow. Pity. I like Crowe, Connelly, Watson, as actors.
Agreed Dan. Their talent is unquestionable. I’m guessing that this movie will only be a celebrated feather in their hat as I’m one of a handful that really disliked the movie.
Great article! I read an interview somewhere that the director said that this was the least Biblical movie ever. He said that the only Biblical thing about the movie was the names of some of the characters and that was it. Sounds like he was right about that from the review you just gave.
Can you link that interview?
Maybe if they’d just produce an altered version titled “Varfleman,” renaming the main character and dubbing that name into the dialogue.
Then we’d be able to enjoy the story, and see it as just about as “related” to the Biblical original as Neo in the Matrix is to Christ.
Thanks for the linkage Tirib!
This might be the article you are looking for:
Righteous indignation is refreshing to read when capped with self-control. I covet your ability to write with lucidity while in a spiritual state of lividness having just witnessed the hatred and worldly influence that powerful and senseless principalities wield against our God, LORD, and Savior. Your posts are genuine manifestations of the fruit of the spirit Lyndon. Thank you for enduring such blasphemy on behalf of many saints who, after reading this, should not have to endure the shame anguish you suffered while viewing this wicked work of man.
Thanks for the kind words Brad! I’m just a nobody blogger who’s trying to toss out something helpful for everyone.
So… All you Pharisees had your rants… Honestly!!… Great movie!! … couldn’t give a rip if it was not down the line… For my non Christian friends what a great way to start conversation about the bible… Be thankful something from the bible even got a mention!!
Okie dokie. Us pups should be happy that the master gives us scraps from the table…and I’m a Pharisee.
Thanks for the care card.
Of course I was responding below to Mark not you Lyndon. I just wanted to specify that.
Wow…this is one of the most ridiculous comments I’ve read. That’s like responding to the Lord’s name being taken in vain in a movie by saying “just be thankful they mentioned God at all”.
Here’s a review you might like, Mark.
You should NEVER be thankful for an open attack upon your God or the twisting of His truth!
I have not seen this movie, not do I plan to. I have been reading more and more comments from Christians that have seen it and say it is just as horrific as what you have depicted here.
I find myself thinking that God is not mocked. And He is not going to hold the folks that have created this mockery guiltless for doing so. And I don’t think it is at all likely that He is going to hold fellow Christians that knowingly promote this mockery of His written word guiltless either.
Thanks for the review, Lyndon. I was actually thinking of going to see the movie today even though I realized that it was not true to the Biblical story of Noah. Now you have caused me to reconsider. I went to the PluggedInOnline review and thought that the points they pointed out were not all that different from yours.Just a couple of quotes from their review:
“Director Darren Aronofsky offers a spectacular and often moving story, but it’s obviously not the story of Noah.”
“Harry Potter fans expect Harry Potter movies to stay mostly true to the book. History buffs are known to require historical dramas to follow actual history. I think it’s reasonable, then, for Christians to ask that the stories most precious to them be treated with faithfulness—and that movies based on them would, y’know, stay at least in the ballpark. But Mr. Aronofsky has chosen a different tack, and so the ancient truth about Noah becomes more of a pretext for Middle-earth rock monsters and a tormented, half-mad Noah ready to kill his own kin.”
I wouldn’t call that “towing the party line of celebration”.
Sure. I was overstated on the PluggedIn review. Thanks for the corrective. I’ll give that an edit tomorrow. I spent the day with my son in the emergency ward and I’m heading to bed now…
Well Lyndon, I just got back. My heart rate is just now returning to normal and let’s just say for now that, yes, I was warned and you did NOT in even the minutest way overstate your case 😦
This film is a mocking, blasphemous, butchering, occultic, science fiction affront to the God of Genesis. On every conceivable level. I honestly question the regenerate state of anybody who send God’s people to see this as a good thing. It really is THAT manifestly and unassailably bad. bad.
Yup. I agree.
Honestly this review is wrong on many counts. One, eating meat was not the biggest sin. Noah only kills in self defense and everyone he kills, God is going to kill anyway. Also, Noah refuses to let unrepentant people on the Ark. The unrepentant storm the Ark trying to be saved. No one wants to be saved and give up their eating meat, killing, and slavery. They did not worship Satan, the movie is very clear that all the miracles come from the creator. Also, “slaughters the innocent”? I thought the point of the flood story was that no one innocent and they all deserved to die. The Bible never says Noah was a prophet and never says how he received the revelation. God did not command them to strip mine, kill the forests, and kill people.
Thanks for your thoughts. I don’t believe you and I watched the same movie with the same pair of theological spectacles.
“Theological Spectacles” You have got to be kidding me! Please don’t give yourself that much credit. The truth is that the Bible is not clear on a lot of the details of the story of Noah. I know that God can use ANYthing to complete His will, I cannot say with 100% surety that God didn’t use ‘rock-monsters’ to help build the ark, because I wasn’t there, and the Bible doesn’t state that Noah made the ark with his bare hands. However outlandish it may seem, we don’t know the precise details, we can only speculate…just as the movie-makers did.
The biggest discomfort I got from your article was in your belittling statement: “Am I saying that if you like the movie Noah that you’re a Bad Christian?
No. Not at all (though you probably have lack of discernment).”
Wow…I don’t know who you are, but where do you get off thinking you have the “theological spectacles of discernment” and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool (lacking discernment)? To be honest, you lose all credibility in my eyes when you refuse to see another perspective. If you are so grounded in what you believe, you have nothing to fear seeing another view, and explaining what is wrong with it.
I enjoy reading the comments because it solidifies what I was already starting to think.
Thanks for the angry rant Matt.
Let’s see. Where to start?
– “Theological spectacles” would be shorthand for worldview. I can say with certainty that Noah didn’t use rock monsters who were fallen angels, since fallen angels are demons. The fact that the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention that something supernatural or abnormal doesn’t mean that the supernatural and abnormal are normative options. I also know from the scripture that the ark took decades to build (reconstructing the timeline from Gen. 5-7) and God waited patiently for Noah to finish it (1 Pet. 3:20), both of which insinuate that Noah didn’t have a ton of help. I do speculate, but I speculate within the confines of scripture and the worldview of God presented therein.
– And a lack of discernment isn’t the same as being a fool. You don’t know who I am and I don’t know who you are, but I agree: I have nothing to fear from seeing another view. I saw it, and I evaluated it against scripture and found it abysmally wanting. You’re free to disagree with me!
– You’re new here so I’ll make things simple. I never have problems being challenged or even with people suggesting I’m wrong. Give me an argument or a reason why I’m wrong and we can discuss things. I’m a Christian and I base my understanding of the world on reality. Reality is revealed to me in the scriptures by the God who made and sustains reality. Let’s go to the Bible and sort out whatever complaints or condemnation you have for me.
Thank you for your review. I was not planning on going to see this after hearing warnings from Ray Comfort & Ken Ham (it was Ken’s link that got me here), but your review will definitely help in explaining the reasons it is not good to the friends of my adult children who are trying to talk them into seeing it with them.
My only concern is that I am not sure I want my son or daughter to read the offensive way that you express your thoughts. I would expect this type of writing from a motorcycle “Pastor” of a charismatic church not from a Mennonite Pastor.
Offensive way I express my thoughts?
Oh man…I knew I shouldn’t have tossed in that picture of Eddie Van Halen!
Seriously though, was there something specific that was in need of changing?
Dontcha just hate it when some person accuses you of being mean, or ungodly, or hating ducklings, and when you ask for specifics, cuz you genuinely want to know, he or she just disappears into the cosmic void never to return. Irritating to no end.
Yep, the Eddie pic blew it for you. 🙂 Awesome review. Only thing that could make people mad about this review is that they see something in themselves they don’t like or have no sense of humor. I find this review well thought out and stated. Keep up the good work.
So, where exactly have you heard this movie called a “Christian movie” by anyone who actually represents the film? Seems to me that nobody representing the film is claiming that it is a explicitly Christian film, so if you’re putting the film in a category that the filmmakers themselves don’t put it and then judging based on your misconceptions, you’re little more than a ranting, judgmental fool.
A movie based upon a biblical story and marketed to Christians isn’t a “Christian film” by the standards of Hollywood?
What category do the filmmakers claim for the movie? Is it a War movie? A science fiction action movie?
Link me something and I’ll make the necessary changes.
Also, it’s a movie about Noah and the flood, made in North America. It’s a pretty safe bet that nobody was assuming that it was a recreation of the Enuma Elish.
I was wondering the same thing. Is it marketed as a Christian film? I didn’t see that on the poster, but didn’t really look very closely. Would rather see God’s not Dead…heard it was really good!!
I heard it billed last night as an “epic biblical” film. Sounds like that’s claiming at least some accuracy. I suppose that if the producers don’t view the biblical account as historical, they might claim to be simply giving their take on a myth that has had many embellishments added to it over time. Sadly, I suspect many Christians view the flood account as just that.
That’s the thing, the burden of proof is on you, not me. A movie based on a biblical story doesn’t automatically mean that those making it are Christians. The film companies may be marketing TO Christians in order to tap the well that is the sheepish culture of American Christianity but I have not seen a single representative of the film claim this to be a movie made through a Christian worldview. To my knowledge, the filmmakers claim this to be an Epic film, along the lines of Troy, 300, or a disaster film such as The Day After Tomorrow.
You’re allowed to have your opinion and reaction against the film, but it is completely unfair to criticize (and so insultingly and vehemently too) a film because it doesn’t fit through the keyhole that you’re trying to make it fit through. Not only that, but by posting such a malicious attack of an argument, you’ll likely drive away people from a film that may have some worthwhile value to be found. It very well may be completely out of line with the biblical narrative, but you’re throwing the baby and the whole family out with the bath water.
What burden of proof?
I have a burden of proof to show that a movie about a biblical story with biblical characters is a movie based on a biblical story involving biblical characters? I’d dare suggest that if you saw a movie called “Galaxy WarQuest” with a bunch of spacecraft on the poster, you’d safely assume that it was being marketed as a sci-fi.
I never once suggested that the people making the movie were Christians. I differentiated between the two categories in the article. There is no movie coming out of Hollywood that is made through a Christian worldview. The Passion of the Christ wasn’t made through a Christian worldview.
Lines about an “epic film” are doublespeak. Who, in North America, is going to go see a movie about Noah, an ark and a flood, and expect it to involve something OTHER than the biblical story of Noah?
Thanks for allowing my my opinion which…wait a minute. Am I allowed to have an opinion or not? If I’m allowed to have an opinion why is my opinion unfair? Unfair when judged against what standard? You?
Ah. I get it. I’m allowed to have an opinion as long as it is subservient to your opinion. That’s clever!
I AM trying to drive Christians away from a film that “may have some worthwhile value to be found”…or it may not. Given the content and the deceit in the movie, I’m erring on the side of “may not” and I’m throwing out the baby with the flood.
There is a clear difference between “biblical” and “Christian.” I could be a hardcore atheist and yet make a film that’s completely “biblical” and accurately portrays the biblical account. That in no way means that I would be coming from a Christian worldview. By your standard, works such as East of Eden would be considered Christian simply because it is a retelling of Cain & Abel. If you weren’t aware, there are quite a lot of people who believe the Bible has value not as the word of God but simply as literature. It seems Darren Aronofsky would fall close to this camp of thinking.
You’re allowed to have your opinion because we live in a free country and even more so because the internet exists partly to provide platforms for people to tear things down without offering solutions. Your opinion is unfair because you are casting your own preconceptions and beliefs onto a work (And thus the people behind it) that does not claim to hold to your same beliefs, and then you’re judging and condemning it because it doesn’t do what you expect it to do. Ultimately, you’re nothing more than a pragmatist.
I do believe that somewhere inside of you, you do mean well in this. But the way you’re going about “Warning” people comes off much more as a tirade of arrogance and foolishness. Clearly you won’t think so, because you’re obviously right in everything you say and those of us who disagree are wrong. However, please remember that there is a difference between critical thinking and critical conceit.
So you lambaste me for tearing down and not offering a constructive solution.
I’m looking at your post for the constructive solution…looking…looking…
I live on planet earth too and have endured the liberal academy. I’m more acquainted with the people who appreciate the bible as mere human literature. In Christian circles, those people always try to sneak into our midst and ask clever questions but never stick around when the thinking gets serious.
I’m suggesting that the people who made a movie about Noah for an American audience would know full well what the public would be expecting. The people who made the movie can try to paste their own concepts about Noah and the flood onto the biblical story, but those concepts are objectively wrong since they explicitly contradict the historical reality about the story. Nowhere in the marketing did I ever see any clear declaration that the movie is a historical fiction based loosely on the biblical account.
The film m stakers are calling it a biblical film. The ‘least biblical’ biblical film. It’s linked above. In calling a biblical film they are inherently calling the story Christian. The Bible is THE defining book of Christianity. They didn’t call it a Quranicly based film though they share the same story, nor was it referenced to the Torah. It was referenced to the Bible, hence it is Christian based.
Are ya sure you didn’t leave anything out?
Kidding aside, this was MUCH better than the movie.
Thanks for the kind words David!
I’m in a hurry, but apparently this the original source. http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a556778/noah-studio-re-cut-was-86-minutes-long-ended-on-christian-rock-song.html
Wow this film was a lot more worst than I thought…totally blasphemous. The man in the film name Noah is a total Leftist nut…pro-environment, anti-human, even anti-babies with a murderous rage for them.
Totally Slim. The director seems pretty proud of it too, from what I’ve seen.
After reading this and other reviews, both good and bad, it absolutly amazes me how fans of books and comics are ready to defend their favorite one and decry a movie that doesn’t follow “canon” and many Christians will see movies like this and rave about them. I think most non-believers who see this movie won’t bother to read the Biblical account at all and for many others it just reinforces the idea of “crazy Christians” and their fairytales.
I would be surprised if you were right, Frustrated.
I’m sure mockers won’t bother to check out the original source material.
Well, it got your attention. Did you enjoy venting your outrage and bluster?
Did you enjoy reading my review?
I couldn’t even read past the second paragraph where you accuse believing Christians who dare entertain liking the movie as having a lack of discernment.
A movie is a movie: an art form, an expression, a business.
It’s art. It’s being human. It’s interpretation. Aristotle says “it is a sign of intelligence to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”
Perhaps the onus lies on you to entertain an art form without bashing it and showing the world, for the countless time, how bigoted, close-minded, and arrogant so many “Christians” are.
As Gandhi says: “I like their Christ. I don’t like their Christians.
-From a Christ follower and artist
Am I bashing the art form of film? Maybe you should have read below the second paragraph before commenting on how I’m close-minded…though I appreciate the irony of calling me closed-minded and openly admitting that you refused to read what I wrote.
I’m addressing the propositional statements that are presented in the movie and weighing them objectively against the standard of the scripture (the place where they were apparently taken from, what with this being a movie of the story of Noah and all).
As Paul says “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5)
Paul also says ” Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.(Eph. 5:6)
I’d recommend taking your theology from Christ and his apostles rather than a Hindu. That might prove embarrassing to you one day, and probably a whole lot sooner than you think.
Kristin, lots of things are touted as art, but this movie was offered as representing the spirit of the biblical account. Instead, it mocks the biblical account, God’s Word. God doesn’t like that. Why would Believers like that? Why would you defend it? By the way, God is very closed minded…it’s his way, or judgment. Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the father but by me.”
A more close minded, unapologetic, uncompromising statement you will not find. He is God. He is Holy, and we had better listen and obey the truth rather than compromise it.
It is true that the story of Noah does not have to be a “Christian” movie as the story of Noah is in the Old Testament or Tanakh, the hebrew scriptures.
As you mentioned above it seems the writers borrowed or took a bit from extra biblical sources like the Zohar, Talmud and book of Enoch. Knowing that, would it not be safer to say this movie is more from a Jewish perspective then a Christian one?
I enjoyed the movie but I also was expecting a lot of non biblical “filler” just due to the brevity of the story in only a few chapters in Genesis, although in saying that, I was upset that the writers fabricated the sequence of Noah trying to kill the daughters born to Shem on the ark, especially when this or anything like it, is not in any extra biblical material that I have read or heard. (if it is and someone on this blog knows of an old source of I would appreciate it.)
Nothing in Genesis mentions Noah killing to defend himself or making a “righteouss kill” although similar things are done throughout the Old Testament by bonafide men of God (think of Abraham Genesis 14:4 or Moses and the Levites Exo 32:37), so the Noah doing the self defence or “righteous killing” is not too far fetched from a biblical perspective.
Thanks for your thoughts, Greg.
I agree that it’s not a “Christian movie” in the New Testament sense. I use the term in it’s far broader usage, as it’s used in North American Christendom. Basically anything that’s based on the Bible for plot/story falls under the label “Christian movie”. I don’t agree with that, but when in Rome…
Even if the movie is told from a Jewish perspective, the movie even flips the Jewish sources on their heads as well.
There is no extra-biblical source that I’m aware of that gives similar details to any of the “in ark” stuff, including the infants, the stowing away of Tubal-Cain, etc.
I’d suggest you read Genesis 6 again when it comes to the character of Noah. The main sin on the earth of that era was violence, and Noah was set apart as a man who was anything but.
Also, Ezekiel 14:14 & 20, Hebrews 11:7 and 2 Peter 2:5 in reference to the character of Noah. Others in the OT might have been violent men, but I find that really difficult to believe when it comes to Noah.
Sigh… Do people still live in their dilusional worlds that believe completely a god created us and the universe. Well personally I dont care because I find its quite simple to manipulate religious people and dont mind they have weaker minds due to their early childhood brainwashing, but please go on believing and you will be controlled like usual.
Please share your wisdom, oh he who manipulates us all so expertly.
Wait. Do you want me to abandon my delusion or keep believing it so that you can enjoy easy pickin’s and manipulate me?
I NEED TO KNOW WHAT TO DO!
@Royale – It’s fascinating and amusing to me how those who don’t believe (like you, for example) are so arrogant and condescending at those who do, as if you were there, and you know- because you at soooo much more enlightened. How it’s not good enough to live, and let live. If this story means a lot to us, respect that, even if you can’t wrap your ever-so-large brain around it.
I won’t get into faith, or scientific facts that have been around for decades that support the concept of a worldwide flood, because your issue is one of not being able to be intellectually honest, or equally imparing, objective.
You cannot face being accountable to a higher power, a creator, who demands accountability for your life. You are not alone. I, too, struggle with the same issue – so this is not a condemnation, only an observation. I just a little more cautious and desire to resolve the rebellion in my heart, with God’s help.
May we both find peace.
If we are all evolved from ancient star dust that just happened to come together in just the right way to produce life and our biology and chemistry is a product of that evolutionary process, how exactly is a person “brain washed?” I’m just living out my evolutionary destiny, am I not?
Pingback: Thoughts on “Noah” | pastornate
Sooooo. What do you really think about this movie.
Glenn Beck (who is in Washington at his dads side as he is dying) called the movie The Babylonian chainsaw massacre.
But right. And even the producers, when they found out Beck was in Holly-weird last week, invited him to watch the movie because he kept commenting on the movie with others reviews.
The producers wished they’d not said a word to him.
The sad thing is the writer of this film claims he spent 10 years on research:(
Pingback: Cheesy Atheist Preaching | For God and Free Trade
My question is if we, as Christians, should feel this passionately against all films? A film’s primary goal is to tell a story and to tell a story well. I don’t think it’s a surprise that they’ve taken liberties with an account of the ark, since it is four chapters long in the Bible. Is it possible that some actual good could come from this movie (however inaccurate it may be)? I wonder how many non-believers will get curious about the ark story and will crack open their Bibles. I wonder how many non-believers will have a “what if” seed planted in their hearts when they think they’re just going to see a movie with the star of The Gladiator. It would be nice if Hollywood would make high-quality films that are truthful to the Word, but let’s be honest, when they try to do that, the film sucks. Even a movie like Fireproof, while moving and powerful, is a pretty poorly-crafted story. What if it is more effective to cleverly put the Bible’s principals into stories? For instance, Star Wars and Harry Potter and even Frozen (hot-button topic) have themes of a sacrificial hero, of prevailing hope, and evil that is vanquished by good. I wouldn’t call them Christian films, but I would hope that their Christian themes would speak to audiences–that somehow they’re thinking about the power of love and wondering where it comes from. I’m not saying we should settle for an inaccurate biblical story, but I’m saying that a movie’s primary goal is to tell a good story and make money. If that means that a single un-saved soul gets into the theatre this weekend and for a moment God speaks to his/her heart, that’s something to be celebrated.
AMEN! Very good Hilly. I say – where is the Love of God for any one trying to do this. We as Christians should be PRAYING for those who do go, that as you have said, have a thought about the Biblical account, and actually open their Bibles for the first time in years. We nee to ray for the directors and the writers to get saved and produce good movies. Any way Thanks Hilly!
Is it possible that some good could come from this movie? Certainly.
Is it possible that some good could come from a mass murder? Well, yeah. Doesn’t mean I’m recommending going on a killing spree.
I appreciate the “trying to be positive” Hilly, honestly I do. I’m also quite frustrated at all the need for those attitudes when we live in a democracy and a market driven economy. I would strongly disagree with you that high quality films that are truthful to the word are sucky. I don’t believe that we’ve ever seen one…Fireproof was made on what? $500,000? You cannot possibly make a decent movie on half a million bucks. I’d love to see a serious movie made with a $100,000,000 budget. I’m guessing that the studio would quadruple their money at the box office, but it’s NEVER going to happen. Hollywood isn’t exactly friendly to Christians or Christianity.
Putting biblical principles into stories is actually not as great a thing as you might think…the principles of the scripture don’t make any sense outside the worldview of the scripture. Outside of a Christian worldview, there’s no real reason for a hero to be a sacrificial guy at all. There’s no reason why good triumphs over evil. There’s no hope. All I see when I see biblical principles in a movie is a big, irrational, moral mess that cannot make sense of itself.
I understand that a film with biblical principles isn’t the same as the Bible. That’s why I don’t go to a movie theatre thinking that I’m going to Church. I’m confused at the notion that people are going to see Noah with that intention.
May I also say that there are other films out now (or coming out) that are Christ-centered, e.g. Son of God, God’s Not Dead, and Heaven is For Real. Those films have been marketed as Christian films. Noah was not. Noah was marketed (and is) an epic film, one with biblical origins. I can absolutely see how this might appear to warp the Bible story. It does. But guess what? Many movies uses the Bible as a starting off point. I know that it’s not the same as the Bible. I know that it’s like looking at the Word through a foggy glass, but I do think that this makes those stories more accessible to non-believers. Hollywood puts flash in the story, but what connects with audiences are the kernels of truth under the layers. I believe that is a very strong ministry, an opportunity for God to speak to hearts. Sure, it’s not in any way a sermon. But it gets to the people who aren’t interested in going to sermons.
I completely agree that Hollywood isn’t exactly friendly to Christians, but that doesn’t mean that God won’t use it for good. (Gen 50:20) I will say the one un-sucky Bible film was The Passion of The Christ. I mean, talk about an amazing film!
Again, I’m confused at the biblical principles outside of the context of the Bible. Does this mean you are against fiction as a whole? Do you watch movies? Would you prefer for movies to be without morals entirely?
Also, your mass murder comment is so far off base. I hope you’re at least slightly regretting it. We can have a civilized conversation without saying things like that. (I hope.) And also, I support a market-driven economy. I was unaware that having a positive attitude said something about my political affiliations.
I thoroughly enjoyed and benefited from your excellent review. Thank you. I also agree with your comment about a studio quadrupling their money. I mean, even the atheist directors recognize that the Bible is great literature. I would say it’s the greatest literature ever produced (not to mention that every word is God’s). Why *wouldn’t* sticking to the biblical “script” result in a box office hit (serious offense to unbelievers notwithstanding)?
It’s a movie. I’m a Christian and I saw it opening night. I don’t normally see blockbuster movies, but I’m a big fan of the director’s previous work. I enjoyed the film. The imagery was breathtaking and I really enjoyed the plot as well.
I believe you missed the undertones, or perhaps undertones aren’t your forte, and focused solely on bashing any and every part of it you could. You obviously had your mind made up about it before entering the theater seeing you brought a pen and paper. I had zero expectations. I got what I wanted from it, and Daron Aranofsky didn’t fail me.
My biggest observation of “evil” Noah is this: Noah was confused about the actual purpose of this mission. No clear instructions were given and from his “logical” view, mankind would cease to be after the flood. As a man, he missed God’s bigger plan by failing to wait on that bigger picture. He connected the dots on his own, and he got it wrong. I believe the point of the film was to show how man can misinterpret God’s will and as a result, even ensues. This is how wars are started. Had Noah not decided (on his own) that humans are to be extinct, there would have been no conflict. No evil to display. If you put your faith in God and God alone, it works out. It’s the blind faith that gets in the way much of the time.
Which of his previous movies did you find particularly edifying? Outta curiosity.
I’ve enjoyed all of his movies, but The Fountain sticks out as a favorite among them. He also did Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler and Black Swan.
Alicia, if I said I get undertones and story and subtlety, I’m guessing you wouldn’t believe me anyway. I did go anticipating a movie that was untrue to the biblical account.
Noah was confused about his instructions. That’s true, but the Bible makes it clear that God gave him a bunch of instructions…so the movie lies about the story on that one point.
In the biblical account, Noah actually didn’t miss God’s bigger plan because God connected the dots for him by telling him what was going on.
Wars aren’t started because people misinterpret God’s will. James 4:1-4 suggests rather clearly that conflict comes from the sinful desires in the sinful hearts of people. God’s not to blame. He’s made himself known in the scripture and has given every person the necessary tools to actually test and approve his will (Romans 12:2 commands us to do that very thing).
Putting your faith in God is synonymous with reading the Bible and doing what it says, trusting that God will keep his promises and honor his own word.
Again, I’m giving my opinion of the movie, not the bible. I believe the director was making a point. I believe the point was made.
God > man
All man = evil
Earth was not cleansed and never will be with us on it
I don’t understand why you insist on the story being 100% word for word. If it were, it would have been a five minute short film we’ve all seen 1,000 times.
[sarc]You really need to have tea with Gregory Thornbury so that he can help you get over your “grumpy camper” attitude.[/sarc]
Wow, The world is seeing this movie. They are running to a Bible to check out the story.
All Christians have a chance to talk to people about the Creator. Wake up and take advantage!
What they think is going to do damage – God will use for good. I became a Christian because of the movie The Exorcist.
This movie shows the wickedness of men.
Also the watchers who were thrown out of heaven sure wanted to get back to heaven.
I think people will truly want to go to heaven!
Don’t look like a bunch of Christian Bigots. Yesterday no one was talking about the Creator.
Christian moms taking their daughter to the 12:00 am showings of Twilight. Where’s our indignation there?
Don’t be a hypocrite!
Again take advantage of this!
They are running to the Bible to check out the story?
I’d love to have a movie to springboard off where I didn’t have to say “well, now let’s overturn EVERYTHING you just saw…”
Call me crazy, but that seems like more of a hindrance than a help.
You need to get a little more theology from the Bible and a little less from movies; people have called Christians “bigots” since the beginning and they don’t need a reason.
it’s one thing for the world to call us Bigots and another thing to be one.
how you doing at spreading the gospel?
I hope you are a person that is at least seen the movie since you’re giving such opinions.
I hope you are not a person that would comment on a movie you haven’t seen?and I hope your not so pious to say that you’re not going to give that movie any of your money.did you go see Harry Potter?
I hope you’d be a guy who would read an article that you’re commenting on.
I said quite clearly in the article that I saw the movie.
I also saw Harry Potter.
How am I doing at spreading the gospel? Well, I give it to people that come across my path. For example, you should read this.
I am a non christian or “mocker” as you call it. I did actually go straight home and check the bible to compare with the movie. I just wanted to note that if I read correctly, Noah did get drunk on his “home-made hooch”. According to your observation number seven this was one of the ways the movie portrayed Noah as “a homicidal maniac”. Can you elaborate on this for me?
Sure. In the movie, Noah got drunk because he was upset at his inability to fulfill the job of killing his granddaughters.
In the Bible, the motivation for the drinking isn’t one of failure to murder family members, but there’s an insinuation of the text of Genesis 9:20-27 that Noah was surprised/caught off guard by getting drunk, or otherwise did so unintentionally.
Thanks for the review and the heads up on content. The reference and link to some of my favorite worship bands was great too 🙂 I like a man with a beard…although not so much a homicidal maniac.
Reblogged this on Stephen Monro's blog and commented:
You thought my Noah blog was nice, well I’ve got some news. This version tackles everything I didn’t go near. Well done!
Probably the greatest theological review of a movie I have ever read.” So Odin started out as Methuselah? Did he go colonize Asgard after the flood?” – pretty certain the resultant lack of breath from laughing so much nearly killed me!
Let’s give credit where it’s due: For the first time in quite a long time and in popular media, someone, at least, got the meaning of the work “ark” right and made a box-like vessel. Can we not start a positive thread along that line and move out of the currents, eddies and turbulence the movie is creating? The whole purpose of communicating with believers and non-believers is to come to a common understanding of what the original story of Noah meant to convey. Having allegedly miserably failed to do so, what remaining specific aspects of our faith and hope in God does the movie reinforce or enhance? Do we appreciate the fact that the movie got it right that Methuselah was still alive during the Ark’s construction (for his name means “when disaster comes, he will die”)? That he could have ridden the Ark (after closing the door) and died of old age when the Flood came? Perhaps, we can talk about whether it was right to call upon the Book of Enoch as a valid source of history and even belief? And other positive things?
Btw, I haven’t seen the movie; but it seems it could be used as a viable source for how not to interpret the Bible — as your article aims to achieve. But in doing so, you may have unwittingly and ironically prevented people from doing that by discouraging them to watch. Critique a movie if you will; but what a person does with his or her money or time is not something within your rightful concern. As if you say: “Do not drink this wine because I believe it is full of poison. I drank it myself and as you can see, I’m vomiting all over your faces!” Why not: “I saw it and this is my take. Watch it and compare with what the scriptures reveal. In the end, entertainment will not save you; only belief will. Or, simply: “Wait for it on HBO.”)
Reblogged this on Chestnut Lips.
Reblogged this on New Testament Christianity In The Shenandoah Valley and commented:
“Noah” is a work of fiction that incorporates a few Biblical names and an extremely twisted concept of a Biblical event. It should be avoided like one would avoid petting a rattlesnake.
The pragmatism is thick in this comment stream. It would seem we have a bunch of Evanjellyfish commenting here who can’t find their backbone to save others lives. Thank you for this review, I appreciate point by point and the directness and clarity in it. God bless.
Pingback: Noah — How Understanding Aronofsky’s Approach Can Help Us Approach the Film | THE TRINITARIAN // reformed thoughts on culture
Alicia says: I’ve enjoyed all of his movies, but The Fountain sticks out as a favorite among them. He also did Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler and Black Swan.
I am aware of the ungodly, debauched and blasphemous sinful movies this man has made. It just makes sense that someone who could look favorably on an attack upon the living God like this film is, would be at home with his other work as well. Thank you.
I know all about discernment…went and saw the movie….gripping, dispute all the critics…guess I’m going to hell now
Erm, okay. Well, you don’t go to hell for watching movies. I’m guessing you don’t want any serious engagement…
Have a look at this interesting analysis about the Gnostic and kabbalah roots of this and other Aronofsky films http://bit.ly/1hVLZZV
The glowing Adam and Eve thing wasn’t artistic license. It was from Kabbalah/Gnosticism.
Check this one out. He makes some EXCELLENT points –
Going to read the rest now. Haven’t even gotten very far in and loving it!
I hope you can bear with me Lyndon.
Mennoknight says to Matt Leonard ABOVE: “Let’s go to the Bible and sort out whatever complaints or condemnation you have for me.”
HAHA!! Don’t be shocked if you never EVER get this from ANY of these people. Call it a generalization and a broad brush if you must, but I have gathered a rather substantial sampling of these artsy shfartsy lovers of the world and the things therein over the last 9 months or so and I KNOW what I am talkin about. The emergent types have two things in common you can count on just about every time.
Number one? “ART” is their God. That is neither a sarcastic nor an exaggerated statement. It is today’s GOLDEN CALF (I made that one myself 🙂 ) I have wrangled now with many dozens of these types. They have to a man been willing to believe just about anything that will allow them to marry the holy spotless Lamb of God with that necrofying filth factory in Hollywood. Like all addicts, anyone who tries to point out their bondage is the one with the problem. The very idea of living without their “art” is utterly unthinkable to them. Which brings me to point number two.
Some will claim a higher view of scripture than others, but it becomes readily apparent that they do not want to linger long therein. The bible is not what carries final authority with them. For evidence please see HERE. We have CT’s honcho critic giving a loooong diatribe on why movies full of filth, blood and blasphemy are SOOO important. Look it over. A paltry smattering of mangled and forced scripture (you have to see how she uses what little scripture she does to believe it) and the other 99.5% is the intellectually incestuous wisdom of men.
If you make a challenge like you did with Matt, they almost always disappear. Ya know why? Because most of them haven’t opened their bibles outside of church in God only knows how long. Even if they do, they spend vastly more time and energy pickling themselves in the corruption of the world than they do on their knees, bible in hand, seeking the face and will of God for their lives. Out of the abundance of their heart the mouth speaks. They will go on passionately for pages about how artistically wonderful the latest bloody, blasphemous and debauched work of media entertainment is, but their lips fall virtually silent and their tone falls flat if you attempt to DRAG them into the holy scriptures for a demonstration of their libertine worldview there.
In the rare event you get one to make the attempt, (I can actually count them on less than one hand) it is immediately obvious that a 3rd grade Sunday school student at the average actually bible believing church would spank their little pink bottoms in a dispute about anything biblical. It is not their passion or what defines them and therefore is not where they spend their time or energy. You can talk to somebody for 5 minutes and know whether they live in the word and prayer or not because like, “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks,”
A film like Noah wherein a God hating atheistic pervert has mangled His word and spit in the face of His church bride is a guaranteed celebration for them. The one unpardonable sin is when actually serious bible believing Christians commit all that they are and all that they have to create a God honoring film that is not “artistic” enough for them. Their god has been blasphemed and OHHHH watch them spring to it’s defense in a spectacular display of uncoordinated coordinated fury. The army of artistic apologists are mobilized with no earthly organization needed. They are fueled by the ever ascending might of the spirit of the age. It IS idolatry in the truest and purist biblical sense of the word. I tell you dear brother I have HAD IT with watching the raw sewage of the media entertainment industry being smeared all over the face of my beautiful Jesus in the name of some superficial Satanic quest for “art” and “cultural engagement” that was absolutely unheard of before the 1970’s and really only the last 20 years or so has it gotten this bad. There’s another specie of media entertainment worshiper that really and truly are the ones that tear my heart out. Otherwise theologically sound and biblicaly literate Southern baptists and conservative, confessional Presbyterians. (a different piece would be required for them)
I do take heart though. God does always have His 7000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal. They show up too and I rejoice when they do. He is indeed faithful to all generations.
(to be clear none of this should be taken as meaning that I believe it’s sinful to ever see a secular movie btw)
Amen and amen and amen!!!
Great Review! Saving my money to go see something a little more accurate like:
Pingback: You Really Should Blow Some Money on Today’s Noah | John 3:30 – He must increase, but I must decrease.
Pingback: Be discerning before you view something
I started off reading this, but it was just too long. It went on and on. And the pictures….why???? So distracting.
I’m not everyone’s cup of tea. Some people like an in depth review of content while others want short and punchy. Some people like visual humor while others don’t care for it.
Thanks for at least popping by and commenting Chrystal.
Well I’d been looking for a textbook example of outrage porn http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/173807-outrage-porn-and-the-christian-reader.html?p=1. Looks like I found it.
Glad to be of service. Care to point out where I crossed the line or need to make changes?
Are you still there?
Ah. An outrage porn comment about outrage porn. Classic.
Pingback: Presuppositional Apologetics’ Links Round up: End of March 2014 | The Domain for Truth
the only problem i have is that everyone’s white(not being racist or something but it just looks illogical
Pingback: we were looking forward to “Noah” this weekend …
You might like this review.
Thanks. I’ll be responding to Mattson in a few days.
Pingback: My response to the Noah movie :::eyeroll::: | Karla Akins
Pingback: The only thing worse than the movie is the reviews | the Cripplegate
Great insight. Alot of people don’t know about the Book of Enoch. If they did it would fill in the blanks and show just how evil this movie was. Semyzaa is a real watcher mentioned in the book of Enoch. And the story is mentioned in Genesis. These Watchers came to earth and had sex with the daughters of men. They produced what the bible call Mighty men of renown. Up until the days of the flood these off spring cause bloodshed violence and brought wickedness to the earth. The Watchers taught socery astrology cosmetics weaponry and all sorts of evil. Earth got so bad YHWH had to send a flood to kill them. YHWH told Noah to build the Ark. Noah did as instructed. The flood killed the children of the Watchers and the Watchers were bound and chained and sent to the Abyss. The children however since they were half man half angel survived in spirit form. Which is where the concept of demons and evil spirits came from. The evil spirits are the reason for all the blasphemous religions as well as evil movies such as this. This movie is evil basically because it shows YHWH as mean and ungracious and the very people who caused the flood as helpers. Doesn’t mention any of their evils and blames everything on God. This movie is straight from The Abyss.
Thanks for bothering to sit through such a trashy movie and give us a review so that we don’t have to waste our time seeing it.
First time on your site (linked from challies.com). Helpful review. Funny how people come to this review by choice then lambaste your thoughts.
Thanks Ben. It’s a knee-slapper to me too!
My new friend JILL DOMSCHOT, who is a rather exceedingly capable scholar of the history of literature pointed me to the, to her, clearly gnostic and kabbalistic elements in this film as observed from her reading of your review here Lyndon which I linked her to. She reported this to me the day BEFORE Mattson published his article. While her and I do have some differences, I’m rather humbled and impressed. It is also solid corroboration for Mattson’s thesis. This lady KNOW’S what she is talkin about. She also loves the same God we do and has no interest in watching a hater of this God stick his finger in the eye of Christ’s church. Again, Aranofskey is not the issue. He’s doing what sinners are supposed to do. Its’ the biblically brain dead church that is the problem here. WE keep trying to take from this movie something the director himself never intended LOL! Talk about idolatry. Lord Jesus retrieve your church from the pig’s trough of the world I pray.
…Funny how people come to this review by choice then lambaste your thoughts.
To be fair I go to lots of people’s websites by choice and then lambaste their thoughts 😀
Spot on, Lyndon. Thanks for serving the world by writing this.
Thanks so much Eric!
Great review. Glad you mentioned the Kaballah. You are not the only one besides Ken Ham who warns against this movie, so don’t feel alone just as Elijah was not the only one left who had not bowed the knee to Baal. I don’t know if you have read this article, but it is good http://www.dennyburk.com/the-midrashiest-midrash-that-ever-was-midrashed-a-spoiler-free-noah-review/
Thanks for your thorough review! I never planned on seeing it, but it is good to know more details as to why it is so bad.
Pingback: A No Holds Barred Review of Noah : The Movie 2014 | Watch Your Life and Doctrine Closely… | The Grey Shadow
Great review. I’m linking to it from my blog.
MennoKnight says: “People have gotten saved reading a Mormon quad buddy. That doesn’t mean I hand out quads and hope for the best.”
I can’t believe you just said this. I know of a girl who got saved reading the Book of Mormon because in it, it says to repent of your sin and believe on the blood of the Lord Jesus for forgiveness and God will save you.
She did and so did He. She would up breaking of her engagement to a her LDS fiancee and leaving that church, losing her whole family in the process. Should we start handing out Moron scriptures now?
People have gotten saved in the splattering blood of war. Should we start one then?
People have gotten saved in the grief of being betrayed by an adulterous affair. How do we apply this modernist principle here? Do we wink at infidelity because the remaining partner might get saved?
People have gotten saved in an incalculable number of circumstances. The church’s job is to faithfully preach Christ and Him crucified. To the Jews a stumbling block and to Greeks foolishness, but the power of God to them who are being saved.
This is why Arminian soterieology is such a disaster. If you believe that men are saved because of being presented with a sufficiently persuasive package of propositions, you’ll concoct all kinds of new and innovative ways to help Jesus save His people from their sins.
Great Review! Not planning on watching this movie at all. If we makie a movie about Nelson Mandela and twist his life into something opposite of who he was, it would be considered outrageous. I think this movie is outrageously a joke.
Pingback: Noah: A dissection. | Faith and Frustration
Pingback: Observations Why We Shouldn’t Watch “Noah” 2014 Film | The Clay's Thoughts
Great! Thank you. It’s been a few days since I read it, but passed it on to several, including a catholic friend whose priest saw it and loved the ending where they were doing the incense thing. He said it reminded him of what they do in church it made him think of the Catholic Church as the ark. Anyway, she read yours and could see what a difference! Funny because her incredibly smart teen daughter has chosen to not be catholic, even tho she is the youngest of eight. She goes to an evangelical church.
For me…what put me over was finding out there were not eight people on the ark! What! Come on, at least get that right! I can’t believe I haven’t read that little lapse of information in other reviews. Thanks again
This explains it:
Not quite, but there are some definitely good thoughts there. I have a post upcoming that will tackle that stuff and more.
Religion and Science in a turf war on this blog? Who would think such a thing even possible? Is an Atheist a purer Atheist if he or she believes in Evolution? Is a Bible believer is a better Christian if he or she believes in Creationism? How about would Marcus Aurelius enjoy reading Mad Magazine? Would Thorstien Veblen want to be thought of as the last of the big spenders? I wanted to make some comments regarding Noah and your (many) points about the movie, But just where should I start?
If one understands much about the distribution of flora and fauna on this planet, then the mysteries surrounding the Biblical account of the flood, or Hollywood’s latest revision of Noah, or The Epic of Gilgamesh matter little. All end up ignoring the same question about how the fauna left the Ark ended up with such a distinct global distribution pattern. Think about it this way, where are the Australian Tigers (genus panthera not Thylacinus)? If you answer “In Australia of course” then you might as well believe in anything you want. Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus etc. because all those would all be as real as any Australian Tiger.
On the other hand, if you understand that (other than Humankind and the Dingo Dog) there are no native placental mammals on the continent of Australia (other than introduced ones), you can begin to understand the question. Wouldn’t a more salient observation be, just how in the world did all these different animals end up where they are now after the flood? Just what does that speak to in the context of a global flood?
Once off of the Ark, did the polar bear and the penguin bid a fond farewell to each other saying, “I’ll see you in a Coca Cola commercial some day”, as each headed towards the opposite poles of the Earth? Other than in zoos, no polar bear has ever seen a penguin, and vise versa, in their respective natural settings. Are there any problems for the Biblical account of Noah for modern taxonomists? The notion of animals coming into the Ark two by two? Not correct for at least two reason. In the Biblical account clean animals and birds were brought in by 7 pairs. Now, not only a chicken and egg problems exists with the command about getting clean animals coming before the information about which ones were clean did, but even today there is no absolutely complete listing of clean animals that a taxonomist could provide to a practicing Rabbi (especially since there is no complete list of extant species). What, Noah had the list and lost it? Second, two by two? Really? Biology 101? No one has heard of parthenogenesis? There are many sorts of animals that have no male counterpart and reproduce only asexually. Where was the male whiptail lizard on the Noah’s Ark? Oh well, he fell off the boat and that’s why whiptail lizards have no male mates, right? What about the other 70 species known to reproduce asexually? Those went over the side too? Come on! We’re back to the tooth fairy again? There are other animals that are either functioning hermaphrodites, like most snails, or change sexes female to male or male to female, like wrasse fish do.
“If you recognize that unbelief is a state and not the fruit of a rational process.” Unbelief about what exactly?
If one substitutes the phrase “God did it” after each and every non sequitar in the account, then that is certainly one way to address the problem. Saying that approach is rational is another matter.
Am I to conclude that in your perspective I am simply not rational if I (or anyone really) happen(s) to see the Biblical account of a global (versus local) flood as purely allegorical and in absolutely no way an even remotely possible, or even a plausible, literal event? Or yes, there is that global flood layer present in geologic deposition (that no one has found) that include the bones beds formed by carcasses of literally millions of drown heard animals like bison, wildebeest, antelope etc. Pay no attention to what organizations like the International Glaciological Society describe in their calculations about the rate ice melts (versus the duration of the Biblical flood). Nevertheless, would it be an easy thing to sell any of the versions of the many flood accounts to native peoples extant several thousand years ago in the Arctic or Antarctic versus people of the living in more arid regions? Let me see, a flood came along and the whales, seals, walrus, sea lions, porpoise, dugongs, sea otters and the like all drown. Or yes, an Ark was built because the numerous ice sheets, that are not only vast but in some place over a mile deep, don’t float. Would any story about a global flood wiping out all animal life be even a possible sell to the native peoples living near the poles several millennia ago? Put me in the doubtful column.
Okay. You basically use a shotgun approach (which is a standard tactic of people who don’t want meaningful dialogue), so I’ll give you shotgun answers.
– Religion and Science in a turf war on this blog? no
– Who would think such a thing even possible? many
– Is an Atheist a purer Atheist if he or she believes in Evolution? More consistent, yes.
– Is a Bible believer is a better Christian if he or she believes in Creationism? More consistent, yes.
– How about would Marcus Aurelius enjoy reading Mad Magazine? dunno
– Would Thorstien Veblen want to be thought of as the last of the big spenders? dunno
– I wanted to make some comments regarding Noah and your (many) points about the movie, But just where should I start? dunno
– where are the Australian Tigers (genus panthera not Thylacinus)? there are no Australian tigers
– Wouldn’t a more salient observation be, just how in the world did all these different animals end up where they are now after the flood? dunno
– Just what does that speak to in the context of a global flood? dunno
– Once off of the Ark, did the polar bear and the penguin bid a fond farewell to each other saying, “I’ll see you in a Coca Cola commercial some day”, as each headed towards the opposite poles of the Earth? Noah discovered wine, not Coca Cola…
– Are there any problems for the Biblical account of Noah for modern taxonomists? yes
– The notion of animals coming into the Ark two by two? yes
– What, Noah had the list and lost it? no
– Second, two by two? yes
– Really? yes
– Biology 101? yes
– No one has heard of parthenogenesis? no
– Where was the male whiptail lizard on the Noah’s Ark? dunno
– Oh well, he fell off the boat and that’s why whiptail lizards have no male mates, right? no
– What about the other 70 species known to reproduce asexually? *sigh* Why did Noah use modern taxonomic categories?
– Those went over the side too? no
– We’re back to the tooth fairy again? no
– “If you recognize that unbelief is a state and not the fruit of a rational process.” Unbelief about what exactly? read the statement again. It’s unbelief as a noetic condition, not any one specific point or list of points of factual information…
– Am I to conclude that in your perspective I am simply not rational if I (or anyone really) happen(s) to see the Biblical account of a global (versus local) flood as purely allegorical and in absolutely no way an even remotely possible, or even a plausible, literal event? If you understood the previous statement, you would be able to answer this question. Any sinner is noetically powerless, in the fallen state of sin, to see reality as it is.
– Nevertheless, would it be an easy thing to sell any of the versions of the many flood accounts to native peoples extant several thousand years ago in the Arctic or Antarctic versus people of the living in more arid regions? The many flood accounts? Your question answers itself.
– Would any story about a global flood wiping out all animal life be even a possible sell to the native peoples living near the poles several millennia ago? yes, especially if they were living shortly after it occurred.
That was easy. Now if you want to ask a focused question instead of doing a drive by with 27 unrelated questions, we can tackle something seriously. I’ll leave that up to you.
“Okay. You basically use a shotgun approach.” Sorry, Lyndon I didn’t mean to seem scattershot, certainly not weaponized, or express a desire for a lack of dialog.
Writing poorly is a gift of sorts, not a gift to seek necessarily, but a gift I seem to have nevertheless.
I want to know more about what you think. It is not important for me to express what I think about any of this really. I already understand what I think.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 “but test everything; hold fast what is good”
I will try and refine my question. If one lacks the ability to fully accept the Biblical account of Noah as literal and accurate does that infer or imply in your opinion a lack of faith? since that understanding of the Biblical account of Noah would be delivered to anyone whose faith was complete?
I have no formal academic credentials, I have no desire to obtain any. However, at least one of us here has completed a graduate level course in Evolution at a major public university, along with all of the prerequisite courses. I suspect both of us attended a private Bible believing college or university that taught the Bible primarily; perhaps even one that proclaims “earn one of the most respected Bible and Theology degrees in the country”
I discovered something nearly identical in both types educational institutions. The irony is I found the same argument used in both the public secular intuition as I did at the private Bible believing intuition. That is, one said that I couldn’t understand Evolution because I didn’t believe in it, and the other said I couldn’t understand the account of the Biblical flood for the same reason. The disagreements in the secular environment weren’t mild ones. In a chance encounter in a big box store I was still remembered some three decades later by professor I took in just for a freshman biology course. While still attending the secular university I can recall that another professor had a major heart attack surrounding another similar discussion. He almost didn’t make it. My goal here is not to sow the seeds of discontent. That said, the questions I mentioned in the first post were not meant to be argumentative but to contrast what is written in the Biblical account with what is observed in nature. There are no male whiptail lizards extant. In the Ark there could not have been both a male and a female whiptail lizard, since no males exist, unless there is some additional supernatural event or another explanation of this condition that I am not aware of at this time. This is not a one off event, there are about 70 in total that are the same essentially. The term parthenogenesis I referred to a method of reproduction where no male sperm is required to begin life. See “Natural Parthenogenesis in Turkey Eggs” as an example. There are processes in nature, where there are males and females that normally reproduce sexually, that involve no sperm, but result in viable offspring. What I am saying is that I am left more in awe of the life I found all around me if I am allowed to think and form questions about life in all of its exquisite intricate details, and I’d rather not think of the origins of life a some sort of poof, and its all here event. I don’t have any real understanding to offer to you, only an appreciation of the true mystery of it all. How sovereign is your God? Is he sovereign enough to create an infinite universe, or even multiverse, that no finite human mind could begin to understand? My mind certainly can’t begin to understand how to make even the smallest subatomic particle, let alone life on Earth, or create the entire universe. My effort is to always understand more about any and all of it.
It’s overlong and a times sluggish. The fights and battles, designed to give an epic fantasy feel to the movie, are grave miscalculations. And the overabundance of CGI often makes Noah look like a video game.
Pingback: Noah – Kommentare, Meinungen & Kritiken | Pastor Gunnar
Thanks Lyndon – helpful
Great job Lyndon! I look forward to your review of Gods Not Dead…
Er, what? I don’t have any plans to review that movie…is there something I should know about?
From the reviews I have read of the “Son of God” movie, there are some very real problems with it also.
Another one that has either just been released or is due out is the movie based on the book, “Heaven IS for Real.” I did not read that book, but I understand that it had some very questionable elements in it. And of course, it is being marketed as a little boy’s near death experience in which he actually visited heaven.
Stupid typos. 😦 “IS” should not have been in all caps.
Pingback: Running With the Devil: An Exploration Behind the Noah Movie | Watch Your Life and Doctrine Closely…
Thank you so much for the review…now I definitely don’t have to waste my time seeing it to decide if it was as bad as they say. It sure is disappointing how Hollywood betrays our Christianity, and butchers it. For once I would love to see a non Christian director get together with a Christian the next time they decide to do something like this. But really…If they actually did the real story of Noah, do you think non Christian actors would portray the parts? Would the non Christians go and see it? It is all something they think about. But this time with Noah, I know it was done purposely to make a mockery out of the Bible and if no one can see that….
Hum… To be honest, I wasn’t expecting it to show a glimpse of christianity or judaism at all (not to forget that the book of Genesis has nothing to do with that). I saw the movie and it did indeed turn out to be filled with paganism and occultism. Neither praising it nor describing it as “evil” seems alright… it is just based on the story of Noah’s Ark and highly “magnified” into something worth viewing.
Let’s just stop hoping or complaining, if we want truth we have the Bible.
The facts is that the storyboard clearly added a lot of extra sources in order to make it unique. It wasn’t intended to “follow” biblical scriptures but to “borrow” it as a background for a fantastic interpretation which (despite all we can say) has a certain beauty though.
Faith apart, we can admit that Noah’s dilemma is quite fascinating. In fact, it highlights an “Omne bonum a Deo. Omne malum ab Homine.” and so on. Given the absence of God’s message, the craziness within the action and unholy magic, we can totally assume from the beginning that it is not a faithful rendition… but judging or praising it through a religious statement sounds to me so wrong and self-righteous (sorry if it seems bitter).
That’s all I got to say, everyone has a mind and is capable to put his own experiences apart. As a christian, I can only understand that this movie has nothing to do with picturing or twisting the Word of God. Still, I found it smart and entertaining in its way and through all the symbolism taken up.
“It wasn’t intended to “follow” biblical scriptures but to “borrow” it as a background…Given the absence of God’s message, the craziness within the action and unholy magic, we can totally assume from the beginning that it is not a faithful rendition…”
That’s not what the writer and director said. I’d recommend my follow up post where they speak for themselves.
That is how it turned out to be, if they claim otherwise then… there are some problems to cope with.
Whatever, entertaining but not to be taken seriously.
Hello Mennoknight (love the name) and thank you for the great review. I’ve adapted your article (just
changed font and format layout) on my site if that is ok.
Someone accused you of being evangelical or whatever. Well I am that, as well as Pentecostal – we all don’t swing from chandeliers.
I am indeed saddened by the ignorance shown by some here. I have also been told this movie “shows God’s grace”.
Ignorance of the Word today is scary.
I suggested to someone (and I think someone posted it above) what if we renamed it to something else, say like “Barney meets the stone creatures” – would it still generate “God’s grace”? Of course not.
As well, like someone stated, we expect movies made from books to be at least close, the only thing close in here was the guy’s name and a whole lot of water.
My litmus test is if the world and ‘Christians’ agree on how good a thing is, then I get away from it as far as I can.
Keep on keeping on, don’t let the foxes/small dogs yapping in here deter you from pronouncing the truth.
Pronouncing the Truth in the Spirit of the Bible is to call upon repentance to humankind all around the world. While we complain about historical issues and arguing through endless controversy, there are souls our Lord told us to pray for salvation. People don’t need somebody to bother them about believing firmly in scriptures out of context with their lives…
A movie like that, at least pictures the main things we need to learn which are Empathy, Righteousness, Mercy and Hope. Christians in the image of Christ are supposed to love unconditionally without being judgmental, that’s the attribute of God not ours. Truth is what it is, as God is eternal as it is so and no man made of flesh and time can undermine, it for Heaven’s sake.
Yes, there is indeed ignorance but Christ told us to open our hearts and not only our minds (which is quite against the tendencies nowadays). We are not teachers but believers, entrusted with a task even greater than of Noah’s… pronouncing this truth as you said, which is Christ himself and his infinite love.
I hope all the Christians could once and for all exchange this deceitful image of self-righteousness with a treasure awaiting them in Heavens. May the Lord be with you !
Excellent article!! Thank you for writing this. I seen the movie a few days ago and actually liked it but after reading this article it helped put things into perspective. It really is sad what Hollywood is and what it does. It uses it’s powers for bad instead of good. Ignore all of the stupid comments and don’t let them get to you. Peace and God Bless!! 🙂
“The Top 20 Reasons Why Aronofsky’s ‘Noah’ Movie is Satanic”
by Pastor Billy-Joe Bobby-Bob Matty-Sonny Huckaham
Ah…a Mormon who doesn’t understand Christian culture making fun of it…
Pingback: Review of Noah the Movie | Elisha's Band of Outcast Eagles
I waited until this came on to rent on dvd and am so glad I did. This movie was not worth the $1 we spent on renting it from Redbox. Your review was absolutely spot on (and gave me a few chuckles as well). I was expecting there to be some deviations from the actual story but this was just…complete garbage.
I got it from Redbox. i agree, this movie is total garbage.i paid a high price, $6.00 in past dues
I have to agree with the review, this was a rental and that wasn’t worth it. It should be labeled as an atheist movie, not a Christian movie. I’m glad I’m not the only one that thinks the director completely twisted up the reference story of Noah.
Great Great review! I could not finish watching this movie, is terribly boring due to the highly unbibiblical content. i could not take how Noah is portrayed as an insane, maniac baby killer. that was my complete turn off, at the same time filled with Kabbalahn, magic etc. references, very harry potter like, i can`t watch something that dishonors Gods this way, thanks for giving us more insight.
After watching Noah tonught for the first time and then reading your review im left with saying this.
You calling this moronic is tge kettle calling the pot black.
I am a Christian, and no not a “Sunday only” version but a “live my life according to His message” kind.
Are there faults in this movie. Yes. The director took a small story from the Torah and lengthened it. Added a few twists for plot devlopment and ran with it.
Does that make it evil? No youre an idiot.
How many people do you think watched this movie and it compelled them to open there bible and read the story for themselves. If i was a gambling man od wven bet you did as well before writing your review.
Is that evil? Having millions open the pages of the word and read it evil?
To blindly take the old testament literally is is just being naive. Your a child in the ways of God and need to study more.
Men wrote the bible. Not God. Though yes it was divinely inspired. And the movie even touches on this. When noah interrupts his dreams as God speaking.we as Men have to interrupt what God is telling us in our lives and He will tell us in a way for us to understand. Even christ spome in parables. So to believe that the Word is literal is just being foolish.
Furthermore ,any reader with any kind of common sense can tell that you watched this film with the intent to tear it apart.
You dont see the whole picture as im sure you dont in life as well. This movie was steeped in Jewish (not Christian) messages. Read the Zohar.
Any person who writes off evolution is an ignorant fool. Evolution is one of Gods greatest ideas. Not only is it so basically simple a concept that even a child could understand it. Is shows the power and foresight of God. Science is not the enemy of God but a gift from our Father to help His children understand His will.
Man from dust? Obviously we arent from dust an inorganic material. But its a poetic way if saying we rose from humble beginings and were chosen to be greater. But early man couldnt understand tge complexity of evolutionary ideas so He simplifies it for us and says dust.
Early man couldnt hope to.understand or grasp the vast amounts if time needed to create all that we know as exsistance so He told us 6 days. So we could understand that God gave us everything.
The message in the movie Noah wasnt evil.
It showed that even though God doesnt talk to us directly He is still there watching over us.
In the film He rewards Noah for his love and mercy. Thats not evil.
You sir are far more evi than this film. With your false views of God. And your arrogance in thinking YOU can judge what is evil or righteous. You forget your place sir. Only God may judge. Only God.
Ill pray for you tomorrow in front of my congregation. God will forgive you,but i still think your an idiot.
I’m just not gonna be able to resist jumping in here for a minute.
Here we have a guy who runs around calling people idiots, which the bible forbids, but telling them not to “judge”, which the Bible COMMANDS
No surprise though. He’s an evolutionist. Which explains everything. Anybody who can find Satan’s lies in the bible will certainly like this abhorrent blasphemous movie.
He has no problem declaring YOU as evil RIGHT before talking about how only God can do that HAHA!!! (pure entertainment, who needs movies, when we have these dialectic liberals 🙂 )
Have no fear though Lyndon. He’s gonna pray for you. IN FRONT OF HIS CONGREGATION TO BOOT!!!!! (I can’t take it 😀 )
It does not appear however that even his prayers will gain you escape from your self inflicted idiocy. Mr. ” You forget your place sir. Only God may judge.” has pronounced his judgement.
Your so funny. You say liberal as if its a dirty word. When it was Liberals who gave us all our freedoms in America. Freeing of slaves, womens right to vote, civil rights, social security, the VA, and health care. Just to bame a few. Conservatives votes against ALL of these. Also evolution is true dont be a child and bindly follow a story book. Grow up.
Satan’s lies in the bible? So you mean to say that God in all His power cant protect His own book? Or do you think that Satan doesnt have to listen to God and is free to do as only he wishes? Which anyone who believes in the Lord can tell you, nothing is out of Gods power. So if satan does something you better believe it had Gods approval.
Being as the word satam came from old hebrew and translates to adversary. Please learn more about your own faith and where it comes from. Satan is just a tool from God to test mans worthiness for heaven. He left this world when Chirst died fkr our sins and His grace washed over us. All evil in the world isnt of some super beings doing. It just us. And mostly these days conservatives, be it a repiblican conservative, to Isis members. Yes, Isis is a conservative muslim sect. Please dont be be so childish in your blindness to truth.
I was talking about theological liberals Patriot. Not the nanny state, God hating, America hating shredders of the Constitution in DC. They are another much less important story.
It should be instructive to Matthew that he has you as ally on evolution, but my experience is that it probably won’t be.
I enjoyed the movie. It’s just a movie and it’s “accuracy” to it’s source material (which, no offense, is just another made up story) is irrelevant as long as it tells a good story and is entertaining to watch. That’s what Hollywood movies are for, entertainment.
The Avenges doesn’t hold true to the comic books on many levels but was still widely entertaining.
I have only one real question for the religious groups, how did Noah get the Brontosauruses onto the ark?
That’s easy. He probably wasn’t stupid and took infants (or eggs, where relevant) on the ark.
Baby animals are a lit smaller and easier to care for. I don’t know why people constantly assume Noah took adult animals on the ark.
Brontosaurus on the ark? you’re both idiots! Now I know, just stop reading your idiocy. Good day to you idiots. farewell
That’s probably best.
“If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.” – Proverbs 29:9
Pingback: 2014 Blog Year in Review | Watch Your Life and Doctrine Closely…