Noah

[philip964]

Pre seeing movie:
Yeah yeah yeah. I see all these posts carping about how bad it is. Doesn't follow the bible enough. What do you expect when Hollywood goes to history, or the Bible. Grow up and realize that Hollywood is always going to be a little off from, reality, or the book.

Seeing Movie:


After Movie:
Why oh why didn’t I just listen to you guys and avoid the painful disaster that was this movie? What a crock! I’m pretty open minded on stuff like this. I’m certainly not a right wing Bible thumper. I can handle the fact that other people may read the same passage I do and draw a different conclusion.
But this offensive piece of manure goes way over the limit. This is not somebody, unfamiliar with the material, who simply got it wrong. This is somebody extremely familiar with the material, who intentionally attempted to subvert the message. This guy is obviously familiar with Apocryphal writing and Jewish lore. He drags in irrelevant legends and ignores common interpretations to present a blatantly wrong version of the Biblical story. He usurps the Biblical account to press his own liberal, environmental agenda.
I won’t go into it point by point at this time, but the cliffs notes version is that man sinned by raping the earth and eating meat. Man was put here by the creator not to have dominion over the world, but to be a caretaker. And at the end, he left the fate of humanity up to Noah.
I was surprised he didn’t work Lilith into it for a little feminism.
The effects were good and the acting was top notch. If this had simply been a sci-fi yarn about the end of the world, I’d recommend it. But I see it as an in your face, thumbing of the nose directed at a specific religion.
Again, I’m probably the most liberal member of this board, and the guy most likely to have given this travesty a pass. But even I can’t stomach this one.

Didn't the movie at the beginning say something like "this follows the Bible", I think even the ads said the same thing. So after watching it and remembering what I remembered from watching "the Bible" in 1966, and seeing the Abraham like scene where he wants to kill his twin baby granddaughters, I read the bible part about Noah. It is not very long maybe a page at the most and most of it is the linage and how long each lived. (950 years for Noah) , and immediately I find two glaring factual errors that were pivotal conflicts in the movie. I expected that since there is so little in the bible they would have to fill in stuff. I expected things about the evil world, so inventing an evil king, makes sense. The rock men building the ark is a little stretch, but to have Ham not have a wife, when the Bible clearly says he has a wife and then using this as the reason Ham tries to kill his father is absurd. Then Noah thinking that man is evil and that God wants us all dead, when the Bible clearly says that Noah is to populate the new world is just wrong. Essentially the movie says we are here today because Noah disobeyed God (the Creator they never say God) and finally didn't kill his granddaughters. This is only after an agonizing scene where Hermione Granger reluctantly give Noah the OK to stab them both in the hearts as she holds the both.

At least there was not an anti gun message.

[G26ster]

We average a movie theater visit every year or 18 months or so. I don't plan to give them any of my money for this one. Won't even watch it on Netflix.

I wouldn't mind getting out to see "The Great Budapest Hotel" if we get a chance. . . but likely it'll be at Redbox or Netflix online before I know how it goes.

You must be on a different Netflix than me. I recently signed up and have yet to find a recent box office movie on it less than a year or so old. Do they hide the good stuff?

[jmra]

I heard that it was a good story and the trailers look good. I can hardly wait to go see it.
Though I only briefly scanned the posters on this thread, it appears that exactly one poster has actually watched it.
I promise to give a thorough and objective opinion once I have seen it.

If someone tells me a dog messed on the lawn I don't have to go roll in it just to make sure it is dog mess.

[baldeagle]

Waiting breathlessly for Purplehood's review.....

No, I'm not going to watch it. Any movie that purports to tell the story of the Ark and not once mentions the lead proponent in the story (God) doesn't get five seconds of my time.

[Dragonfighter]

In the movie, only one son has a wife, other two sons are out of luck.

Bible has all three sons with wives and God tells them to be fruitful and populate the earth.

Ark ends up in Hawaii.

So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him. 19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out by their families from the ark.

(NASB, Em. Mine)

The KJV says "after their kind" instead of "families" but the Hebrew is the same, inclusive of "household" (read father, mother and children). It's reasonable to surmise that Noah's sons and their wives and the animals and their mates came out of the ark with young'ns.

I was hopeful when i saw the water bursting forth from under ground and the animals coming to the ark (most secular stories have Noah, gathering them) but now that I've heard what it's like I won't be watching it.

Interesting thing about Hawaii and the flood account. All cultures have some derivation of the account possibly from the Gospel being preached to the whole world (Co 1:23, Romans 1:8; cf. 16:19, et al) Their account said a man named "Nu'U", a great Kahuna obeying Akua, built a huge raft with a house on it and all the animals came to him to be saved from the flood. Interesting stuff, especially the name.

[txglock21]

I heard that it was a good story and the trailers look good. I can hardly wait to go see it.
Though I only briefly scanned the posters on this thread, it appears that exactly one poster has actually watched it.
I promise to give a thorough and objective opinion once I have seen it.

If someone tells me a dog messed on the lawn I don't have to go roll in it just to make sure it is dog mess.

[Purplehood]

I heard that it was a good story and the trailers look good. I can hardly wait to go see it.
Though I only briefly scanned the posters on this thread, it appears that exactly one poster has actually watched it.
I promise to give a thorough and objective opinion once I have seen it.

If someone tells me a dog messed on the lawn I don't have to go roll in it just to make sure it is dog mess.

Your assuming that the dog actually messed on the lawn. I am going to go see if it did or not.
To another poster: The Grand Budapest Hotel was a delightful surprise. Extremely entertaining.

[philip964]

In the movie, only one son has a wife, other two sons are out of luck.

Bible has all three sons with wives and God tells them to be fruitful and populate the earth.

Ark ends up in Hawaii.

So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him. 19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out by their families from the ark.

(NASB, Em. Mine)

The KJV says "after their kind" instead of "families" but the Hebrew is the same, inclusive of "household" (read father, mother and children). It's reasonable to surmise that Noah's sons and their wives and the animals and their mates came out of the ark with young'ns.

I was hopeful when i saw the water bursting forth from under ground and the animals coming to the ark (most secular stories have Noah, gathering them) but now that I've heard what it's like I won't be watching it.

Interesting thing about Hawaii and the flood account. All cultures have some derivation of the account possibly from the Gospel being preached to the whole world (Co 1:23, Romans 1:8; cf. 16:19, et al) Their account said a man named "Nu'U", a great Kahuna obeying Akua, built a huge raft with a house on it and all the animals came to him to be saved from the flood. Interesting stuff, especially the name.

I made a mistake above. The two sons are not out of luck. Spoiler : Since the one son had twin daughters and Noah did not kill them, then the impression is left in your mind that the nieces are for the two other sons.

I can't wait to hear Purplehood's review. BTW I did like seeing the animals come to the ark as I mentioned.

There were lots of young children in the audience. I'm sure the parents misunderstood what the movie was about as well.

I have seen a theory that there was an ice dam after the last ice age and that many people lived below sea level somewhere near the Black Sea. When the ice dam finally broke it flooded the "world" of the people who lived there. If you have ever been to Washington state you may have seen the Columbia River carved out of the land, supposedly it was caused by a ice dam breaking as the ice age came to an end. This may have been where Noah came from. Many cultures have a Noah story.

[jmra]

I heard that it was a good story and the trailers look good. I can hardly wait to go see it.
Though I only briefly scanned the posters on this thread, it appears that exactly one poster has actually watched it.
I promise to give a thorough and objective opinion once I have seen it.

If someone tells me a dog messed on the lawn I don't have to go roll in it just to make sure it is dog mess.

Your assuming that the dog actually messed on the lawn. I am going to go see if it did or not.
To another poster: The Grand Budapest Hotel was a delightful surprise. Extremely entertaining.

Actually I have read a number of reviews. No one is disputing the content of the film. A dog has indeed messed on the lawn.

[FML]

I made a mistake above. The two sons are not out of luck. Spoiler : Since the one son had twin daughters and Noah did not kill them, then the impression is left in your mind that the nieces are for the two other sons.

Better than being fruitful with their father or grandfather I guess. In the original story, the least amount of consanguinity would be first cousins anyway.

[philip964]

I made a mistake above. The two sons are not out of luck. Spoiler : Since the one son had twin daughters and Noah did not kill them, then the impression is left in your mind that the nieces are for the two other sons.

Better than being fruitful with their father or grandfather I guess. In the original story, the least amount of consanguinity would be first cousins anyway.

And some say the internet is a waste of time.

[Dragonfighter]

I have seen a theory that there was an ice dam after the last ice age and that many people lived below sea level somewhere near the Black Sea. When the ice dam finally broke it flooded the "world" of the people who lived there. If you have ever been to Washington state you may have seen the Columbia River carved out of the land, supposedly it was caused by a ice dam breaking as the ice age came to an end. This may have been where Noah came from. Many cultures have a Noah story.

We could seriously derail this thread discussing this but I'll add this and let those who want to pick it up do so. Paleontology: We have throughout the fossil record, polystrate fossils, that is fossils that pass through supposed millennia of sedimentary layers. We have entire forests buried under frozen tundra in the north and we have marine fossils in the Alps and the Andes. We have tropical fossils in Antarctica. Every fossil shows signs of being crushed, bone fields scattered, under the pressure of heavy layers of mud cum rock. All lends credence to a global hydraulic catastrophe.

The Biblical flood record says that the waters "prevailed" (overflowed) the tallest mountains to a depth of fifteen cubits. (Ge 7:19-20) Incidentally that would be about the draught of the ark based on its dimensions. So a local or regional flood would not hold water (sorry, couldn't help myself). And catastrophists have postulated very plausible models that suggest a flood such as Genesis records would initiate the ice age. Given the description of the environment before the flood, the environmental devastation of an ice age would not be consistent with the record in Genesis 2:5,6.

Take it for what it's worth. And I agree with what some have said, a dog most certainly messed on the lawn with this one. I'll pass, my blood pressure probably can't handle it.

[philip964]

One other item that was not in the movie, that really would have been awesome if it was included, as it really would have shook some people up, was the lack of dinosaur eggs on the ark.

In the movie to keep the animals from killing each other or requiring attention, Noah and his family had some magic smoke that once inhaled put the animals to sleep for a really long time. Once asleep the animals no longer required water or food or care of any kind. This allowed Noah and his family lots of free time to do other things like, weave fancy rustic looking clothes and Spoiler: try and kill his grandchildren. Of course Noah and his family could breath this same smoke and nothing happened to them.

Since the Bible says food would be put up to feed the animals and does not discuss any magic smoke the Bible presumes the animals are awake. Thus the problem with dinosaurs. How would dinosaurs be in the ark without killing everyone. Some Bible scholars have thus theorized that Noah had dinosaur eggs on the ark.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Noah had dinosaur eggs? er what?

[Dragonfighter]

One other item that was not in the movie, that really would have been awesome if it was included, as it really would have shook some people up, was the lack of dinosaur eggs on the ark.

In the movie to keep the animals from killing each other or requiring attention, Noah and his family had some magic smoke that once inhaled put the animals to sleep for a really long time. Once asleep the animals no longer required water or food or care of any kind. This allowed Noah and his family lots of free time to do other things like, weave fancy rustic looking clothes and Spoiler: try and kill his grandchildren. Of course Noah and his family could breath this same smoke and nothing happened to them.

Since the Bible says food would be put up to feed the animals and does not discuss any magic smoke the Bible presumes the animals are awake. Thus the problem with dinosaurs. How would dinosaurs be in the ark without killing everyone. Some Bible scholars have thus theorized that Noah had dinosaur eggs on the ark.

Eggs no, juveniles maybe. Both are presuming something not recorded and they had to be able to come off of the ark and start replenishing the earth. The ark was massive and could have held the very few large dinosaurs as well as the many (mostly) smaller ones. As to their getting along, the fear pf man was not in the animals until God gave them over as food as they were debARKing (I crack myself up) in Genesis 9. The implication being that man had a radically different relationship with the animals, in what was an idyllic environment before the flood. Perhaps the animals also had a radically different relationships with one another, Scriptural tidbits suggest such. But they did have stalls and rooms for each. Also when considering the Genesis record, a lot of people tend to try and explain everything without God. He told them how to build the ark, he brought the animals to Noah, he closed up the ark and "remembered" them throughout the catastrophe. If there was contention in the animal kingdom, keeping them separated and/or God calming their spirits is as likely a scenario as anything.

Cedar Park Dad-
The Genesis Account gives a (literally) daily account of God creating the Earth, water, beasts and man. Moses when writing the law on the sabbath says "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (KJV, em. mine). If you accept the Bible as God's word and accept the Genesis account and Moses as a prophet of God, then dinosaurs and man had to coexist. If not, the whole discussion is moot. Then in Job 40:15 ff and Job 41, the Bible describes massive creatures that an honest reading of the descriptions leaves no reasonable alternative but that they were dinosaurs.

Then there's paleontology, petroglyphs of dinosaurs, cave paintings, Babylonian clay pottery of dinosaurs, carvings of dinosaurs on ancient temples in VietNam and Incan Burial Stones. All these proving early civilizations had a pretty good idea what dinosaurs looked like as opposed to modern man not finding the first fossil until the 19th century. We didn't have ANY clue as to what they looked like until more fossils were found and pieced together, often with many errors (Brontosaurus). Here in the 21st century we feel we have a pretty good idea what they looked like and with discovery of fossilized skins we realize they weren't the dull grey-green creatures once published in our school books. They had rossettes and all sorts of patterns on there skin and oh, guess what, these details were included in some of the ancient art.

How I got from atheist to believer is a long and involved story; one ill suited for this venue. But suffice it to say as I challenged the Bible I was eventually overwhelmed with evidence that convinced me otherwise.