By The Right Scoop


There’s been a lot of talk about the new movie ‘NOAH’ that features Russel Crowe as the patriarch himself. Here’s the trailer if you haven’t seen it:

The worry that people have is that Hollywood won’t be true to the actual narrative of the story. But since we haven’t seen it yet (it doesn’t come out until the end of March) we really don’t know if they are going to butcher it or not. What we do know is that the story spanned over 100 years in the Bible and that leaves Hollywood a lot of room to play.

My specific concern about Hollywood’s recreation of this movie is one borne out of my own experience. When I was in Sunday School as a wee little child, I remember being taught the Biblical account of Noah and the flood. I remember being taught that God was going to flood the world and he commanded Noah to build a massive ark. So Noah and his family built the ark and along the way they warned people that there was a great flood coming and they only way to be saved was to be on the ark. But the people mocked Noah and his family, not believing him one iota. So when the rains finally came and God flooded the earth, they all perished because they didn’t believe Noah.

Now if that’s the story they tell, I will be greatly disappointed. Why? Because that simply isn’t what happened. Allow me to walk you through it. It starts here in Genesis 6:3:

And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”

120 years is how long it will be before God floods the earth. Let’s pick up Genesis 6:5-8:

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

We see here that it was God’s intention to destroy everything and everyone because man had become so evil, so evil that it grieved His heart. But Noah was the only one who found favor with God.

It makes another reference to this a few verses later in Genesis 6:11-13:

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

God then proceeds to tell Noah how to build the ark. In the midst of that he says this to Noah in Genesis 6:17-18:

And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark — you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.

So far God makes no mention of anyone being saved from the flood except Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives. It continues in Genesis 7:1:

Then the Lord said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.

Still just Noah and his household. Notice in all of this God never tells Noah to go warn people that a great flood is coming. And the Bible never records Noah having done this. Here’s even more proof from the very mouth of Jesus in Matthew 24:37-39:

For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

So the world had no idea that the flood was even coming until it was already upon them. And this was obviously by design. God intended that all should die except Noah and his family.

So why was I taught in Sunday School that Noah tried to warn the people? I don’t know really. But I suspect it’s because people have such a hard time with God’s absolute justice, that by His own intention God destroyed every person on the face of the earth without even a warning, with no one to say here is your last chance to repent and be saved.

After all we live in a day and age where many people think that everyone will be welcomed into the gates of Heaven no matter how foolish they were on the earth. They believe that God can’t be so unloving that he would send people to eternal damnation just because they didn’t know Him. Surely, they think, He will have compassion on his own creation.

But this doesn’t represent the God of the Bible and I think people have a hard time with this. It’s also possible that since my Sunday School teachers were teaching this to children, that they changed the story to make God sound more loving. Again, these are just my suspicions.

Either way, I find many believe this false story and I just hope it doesn’t become part of the movie. I hope that Hollywood gets it right. We shall see.


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • c4pfan

    Fixed by scoop. Thanks for posting!

    I’ve read that in special screenings people don’t care for it.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      yep already fixed it.

    • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

      Now I’m hungry.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eWxCRReTV4&t=5m30s Booker

    I’ve already heard on the interwebs, that in some of the screenings, folks are disappointed that it’s filled with environmental dreck and that they make Noah to appear as a darker character. Go figure.

    Tinseltown fails again.

    • Phil_GA

      What evidence is there that Noah was a joyous person in the Bible? I certainly don’t see any, but maybe there’s a verse somewhere that says otherwise.

      Besides that, the idea that God changes the environment was likely not the most thrilling thing to experience at the time (observing the sky essentially falling down and epically immense geysers exploding from the ground was likely horrific in their display. Earth was falling apart — almost).

  • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

    I never remember being taught he warned people, just him and family.
    but…I can’t honestly say it wasn’t taught and I later found out otherwise, just saying I don’t remember being taught that.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      I even found this guy on the web teaching the same thing that I was taught. http://beyondflannelgraph.wordpress.com/the-ark/how-many-people-were-on-the-ark/

      I posted a comment…he wouldn’t let it go through. I guess he doesn’t like being told he’s wrong.

      • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

        why do I think he votes Dem now ?? :)
        honestly my memory of those times is so fuzzy and far removed I cannot say for sure, but I do know that at some point I learned he didn’t warn.

  • Phil_GA

    Personally, I think you need to chill out a bit.

    The movie is going to be what it is, and if the entire (or most) production company isn’t Christian, why would you honestly expect the movie to be literally in line with the Bible? To me, that’s a misplaced expectation.

    For instance, in the 2 1/2 minute trailer, it shows an entire group of people going against Noah, seemingly having to do with some sort of sub-plot. Yet, I don’t think this was explicitly in scripture. Does that make the movie bad? Not necessarily; as you’ve even pointed out, a 120-year time span where scripture doesn’t always explicitly elucidate events allows many plausible scenarios.

    On the flip side, did you notice the trailer visually representing the ground being watered? Not bad considering it had never rained to that point in history.

    Did you also notice the sheer grandeur of all the creatures coming to the ark? Beyond amazing.

    Then again, did you notice the objects (fiery things?) above the earth falling to the earth? I have no earthly idea what those were, but I’m willing to suspend judgment until the movie comes out (it’s on my calendar to see).

    In short, Russell Crowe is a great actor and how could *anyone* go wrong with Anthony Hopkins as Methuselah??

    I’m looking forward to viewing the movie.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      Chill out? What a strange response to me correcting the record on a false story that many people believe.

      • Phil_GA

        Incorrect. The entire basis of my critique of this posting was regarding why in the world anyone would expect presumably non-Christians to correctly align a Christian-based story on the Bible 100% of the time.

        After all, it’s hard for most fil adaptations to align with their source material, much less this one aligning with the Bible’s fidelity.

        This is a soapbox of mine, obviously. The movie might be totally worthless, or it could be really good, if not totally biblically correct.

        Then again, I thought that the movie Dogma was actually really good (in spite of the over-the-top foul language), and it amazed me how prior to that movie’s release, certain denominations were completely up in arms about it … even though the movie was not anti-Catholic nor (strictly-speaking) anti-Christian (no, I believe God is a he, but what an idea of Alanis Morrissett (sp?) as Jesus/God :) )

        • mike3e4r7

          .”… why in the world anyone would expect presumably non-Christians to correctly align a Christian-based story on the Bible 100% of the time ..”.

          First of all, nobody here is expecting anythinig. People are expressing their desire that the movie be accurate regarding the important features of the Noah story, (not 100% accurate). Image that! There are people who actually want to see a movie accurately depict the subject matter it purports to depict. Go figure!

          • Phil_GA

            Funny — the comments all over this article imply certain expectations about the movie, some going to the point of even saying they won’t go, based on someone else’s view of the movie, before they themselves have actually seen it.

            That’s called having expectations set and subsequently intending negative actions on those expectations.

            The very fact that you’ve spoken for others and suggested that expecting the movie to align with the Bible is really not an expectation is, frankly, irrational.

            Unfortunately for both the right- and left-wings of America (much less the rest of humanity), there is far too little rational thought when it comes to discussing what is apparently a controversial topic.

            Who’d a thought my little opinion would spark so many strong opinions?

            Oh well. Life’s tough. I will push forward anyway, because it’s not ultimately about me or you anyway.

            • mike3e4r7

              Okay. First you criticize people for expecting the movie to be accurate. When I point out that you’re wrong, you tell me that you were refering to people’s expectation that it would be inaccurate. Funny..

              “Who’d a thought my little opinion would spark so many strong opinions?” You no doubt, or at least I’m sure you were hoping

              Lastly, your repeated insistance that expressing a desire for the movie to be accurate is equivalent to expecting the movie to be accurate, is, frankly, irrational. Most people here are familiar enough with the prevalent mindset in Hollywood, that they don’t expect a Hollywood movie to be accurate regarding the Bible.

        • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

          Following up a bizarre, and absolutely unwarranted directive (“Chill Out”) with “Incorrect” makes it unlikely anyone will read what you wrote after.

          You make an assumption that is preposterous, and then plow ahead on it like no one could possibly notice.

          • Phil_GA

            Two things:

            First of all, my “chill out” directive has absolutely no power over you unless you choose to take it up in action. Otherwise, my opinion is no more/less valid than anyone else in the court of public opinion.

            Secondly, whether or not my opinion is preposterous is, as just mentioned, in the eye of the beholder.

            I guess it was certainly enough for you to comment again!

            • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

              I do try to keep up my end of the conversation here. It’s one of my jobs.

              (As I like to say, being a Mod means I get to watch all the videos for free!)

            • Nukeman60

              …”whether or not my opinion is preposterous is, as just mentioned, in the eye of the beholder”…

              Who else’s eye would it be in, pray tell? This is a blog, where people read what you say and comment about it. From your postings, it’s obvious you think your opinion is too good to disagree with, but I seriously doubt if anyone here particularly cares.

              If you don’t like the responses, I suggest you, yourself not read the followups. I find self-absorbed commentors like yourself humorous, at best.

              • Phil_GA

                What an absolutely fascinating (and disheartening) study in human behavior!

                Based on the above response, it is similarly obvious to the casual observer that if a commenter such as myself demonstrates the ability to keenly grasp the English language and reasonably weilds it as a debate technique, they are considered having an opinion that is “too good to disagree with” as well as being “self-absorbed.”

                Let’s take this observation and go back to the subject at hand (which is really going to offend the casual observer).

                Maybe, therefore, my contrarian opinion actually is right in that we shouldn’t expect movies to ascend any higher than their directors will personally permit, and maybe if churches and individuals in those churches would quit playing the victim, connect with God, and begin churning talent to best Hollywood (which, as an aside, is happening in areas most people don’t realize), there wouldn’t be a need to castigate those of us who do know what we’re talking about as being self-absorbed and so worried about an opinion being wrong due to the construction of the English language!

                Wow. Using proper English and properly stating an opinion used to be valued in culture.

                Understanding

                • Phil_GA

                  Continuing….

                  Understanding what the real issue is will get one to solving the issue. And since I see more individuals running away from issues such as this, that will only make the situation worse.

                  But again, one person’s opinion.

                  I’m just glad to know that there are those – especially in the church community – who are taking the culture fight head on instead of worrying about whether one movie is going to perfectly align with the Bible (again, the original point here).

                • Nukeman60

                  Yep. Like I said, too self-absorbed.

            • Amjean

              Please stop! It is getting a bit boring. Go see the movie and perhaps you will entertain us once again with your findings.

  • toongoon

    Another thing is that Noah made no accommodations for more people on the ark either as far as the Bible is concerned.
    My wife and I were both told that Noah tried to get others to enter the ark to no avail. This is a big misconception that is taught by a lot of churches in my opinion.

    Ken Ham has a review on the Noah movie. Hollywood destroys the Noah story in much worse ways than our Sunday schools did.

    http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/11/19/dont-be-taken-in-by-the-noah-movies-promotion/

  • http://PolitiBrew.com Rshill7

    From what I have been able to glean in advance is this. Aronofsky butchers the story of Noah and the flood. Here is a portion of the script I’ve seen. WND had it on their site.

    http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/02/140217noahscript3.jpg

    1. In the movie, animals and man have evolved.

    2. In the movie, God destroys mankind for not taking care of the Earth, not because they continually sin against him.

    3. Most every character in the movie is portrayed as more loving than God.

    4. A big chunk of the movie is about Noah in inner turmoil about killing his new grandaughter(s) because they are not male. When he can’t bring himself to do it, he apologizes to God who has ordered him to do it, I guess.

    From what I’ve read, Aronofsky is making an environmentalist wacko statement, while mixing the Sumerian version in with it, in addition to his own political statements.

    So, in my opinion, the movie “Son Of God” Yes. The Movie “Noah” No.

    • Phil_GA

      It would be nice to see an actual link from WND to the content you cited which (since I’m apparently a contrarian commenter on this site) could similarly be construed differently.

      As one of a few amateur camera directors at a church large enough to have had an independent film production company originate from it, I can certainly say that describing camera shots as one flows from one scene to another is one aspect of overall production. The resultant shots that emerge can sometimes tell a completely different story, depending on a variety of factors (e.g.: dialog, lighting, transitions, music, etc.).

      In other words, the verbiage that WND claims to be in possession is likely not even spoken in the movie. It appears that only Noah’s dialog even makes it to the soundtrack.

      Therefore, if that’s the case, I’d say the scenery shots sound excellent, even if the assistant director, director or producers intend something totally different.

      Heh. We won’t know until the final product is released :)

      • http://PolitiBrew.com Rshill7

        They have already screened it to Christian groups friend. They strenuously objected to it. They’d have to do much editing to change that.

        If you’d like to support it, go ahead. I and most Christians I know, are into freedom. Freedom to be right, and freedom to be wrong. Freedom to be wise, and freedom to be foolish. You be whatever it is you’d like to be. I’ll do the same.

        Their (WND) write up is in the diversions section I believe. I’ve read many others as well. You could too. Do a little searching.

        • Phil_GA

          I researched via both WND (an organization that tends to go a little overboard with their reporting at the very least (every org has their biases)) as well as on Google nod could not find any such link.

          It’s always helpful that posters go ahead and include a directly-referenced link for those of us who critically question the main source; this helps cut down on too many wrong assumptions.

          • http://PolitiBrew.com Rshill7

            http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/famous-voice-joins-creation-vs-evolution-debate/

            I’m trying to find the other exhaustive critique I read. Will post it if I find it again.

            Edit: Here’s another:

            http://godawa.com/movieblog/darren-aronofskys-noah-environmentalist-wacko/

            P.S. How does one go overboard with “reporting” ? If you have some lies they’ve told, list them.

            • Phil_GA

              Thanks for the quick reply.

              Unfortunately for WND, per the link just posted, their own new note at the very top of the article states that “substantial changes” occurred in the scripting for the movie, and WND even admits that their original posting was based on the earlier — and now out-of-date copy — scripting.

              This is why I tend to be suspicious of WND’s reporting. Having observed them for several years, they haven’t always fact-checked themselves.

              The overall point has now been made. At this time, unless evidence surfaces to the contrary, we also cannot know why the scripting changed, a key component to this discussion.

              • http://PolitiBrew.com Rshill7

                They corrected did they not? That’s good reporting from my point of view. And if they (the producers) changed it, why? Money? Audience dissatisfaction?

                And why no response regarding the other link?

                Did Aronofsky perchance film an entirely different movie at the same time which we might, after substituting it instead, view?

                • Phil_GA

                  LOL — I don’t think they shot two entirely different movies at the same time, essentially going to post-production with both. That would be extremely cost-prohibitive (while tech does make things cheaper to do, actors and production crew still get paid by the project and/or hour).

                  The other possibility (using Occam’s Razor (sp?)) is that a source gave the partial script to WND, WND went with it, and studio communications followed thereafter.

                • http://PolitiBrew.com Rshill7

                  I agree, your posts are the simplest betwixt us two :-)

                  I hereby pronounce said razor, not only a Law, but one which will deliver you the closest shave available.

                • Phil_GA

                  Thx. It’s all a guess until someone in the know says otherwise.

                • http://PolitiBrew.com Rshill7

                  And that someone, I’ll wager a dime to a doughnut, ain’t Aronofsky :-)

                • Phil_GA

                  Secondly, after scanning through the second link, the blogger him/herself performs enough editorializing of what they think the director had in mind to really tell the difference between the blogger and the director.

                  Honestly, based on the actual quotes used in the article, and if the recounted scenes are true, I can’t really disagree too much with many of the alleged premises of the movie.

                  Remember, the point of our discussion here is the expectation of how true the movie will align with the Bible.

                  And based on the blog posting just referenced (actually significantly more informative in my view than WND’s account), the movie is sounding even more interesting.

                • http://PolitiBrew.com Rshill7

                  Then again, please go and see it. I don’t think it will bear much resemblance to the true story.

                  You do think the story is true, right? You know, the one in The Bible?

                • Phil_GA

                  Let me put it to you this way.

                  From my perspective, any body or organization that does not understand the following fundamentals about creation likely doesn’t understand the Bible, per se:

                  1. A young earth (can’t have billions of years during creation when sun didn’t exist til day 4 (I think) and death didn’t exist until the Fall);

                  2. No rain existed prior to the flood (water canopy around the earth);

                  3. Dinos living alongside humans;

                  4. God only saved Noah and his family, due to everyone else (except creatures/creation) being continually sinful;

                  5. People lived for hundreds of years, due to the completely different environment that pre-existed the Flood;

                  6. Giants (Anakim — 7 fingers/toes, incredibly tall creatures) were on earth, a product of human/angelic (demonic?) commingling.

                  I’m pretty radical in my beliefs, obviously; the answer is yes :)

                • http://PolitiBrew.com Rshill7

                  Then perhaps the movie might satisfy some other non-biblical thingamajig you might desire to see.

                • Phil_GA

                  Most movies do.

                  I love watching how others interpret things — like the Flood, knowing they probably won’t get it right.

                  In my view, as long as they don’t go overboard with telling a completely different story, it should be reasonable.

                • http://PolitiBrew.com Rshill7

                  It’ll be a completely different story, other than the boat, the animals, and the flood.

            • Phil_GA

              Be careful with your wording. I never said they “lied” about anything. I am simply saying that WND has an honest, right-wing extremist viewpoint (as opposed to, say, MSNBC’s true-to-form left-wing extremism.

              I observed this while watching (and commenting) on their coverage of Obama’s presidential eligibility. Oftentimes they’d sensationalize a headline to get viewers but the meat of the story was less than smoking.

              Infowars is another such site that tends to sensationalize (in spite of their good intentions of holding folks accountable). As in stories of FEMA camps that one would think are around every corner just waiting to encamp every gun owner in America.

              Getting back on topic, the very fact that WND must now essentially retract their Noah story (if they’re going to be honest with their viewers) provides more evidence as to their biases.

  • http://www.royaldukedesign.weebly.com/ SilentTexan

    But we already know what the “message” will be, Glenn discussed it on his radio show. They’re taking the story and making it about over-population, evil humans destroying the environment yada, yada, yada. There is always an agenda in Hollywood. What else is new? You can count me out from watching this drivel.

    • BlueGood

      Holly weird is promoting “U.N. Agenda 21″…. the ‘Elite Socialist Fitsall Fix for Planet Earth!…”oh sorry, you not in the club will have to sacrifice yourselves”….

    • Phil_GA

      Well, humans did corrupt (not destroy) the environment.

      Christianity simply calls it sin. Therefore, Hollywood’s not far off the mark, assuming the pre-screens are accurate.

      • planetes

        Corrupting the environment is sin.

        But, corrupting the environment has nothing to do with the Bible’s accounting of the reasons for God bringing about a cataclysmic flood. Hollywood gives several false premises (man corrupting the environment, over-population) to reach a true conclusion (God judges the world with a flood). Therefore, Hollywood’s way off the mark as far as this movie goes, assuming that it’s retained in the final cut.

        Of course this is all by design. People need to see that what Hollywood DOES do in the movie is to create their own god. THEIR god would indeed judge this world for trashing the environment and being over-populated.

        If Obama had lived in those times, their god would have judged the world for being so “racist.” Their god also would have judged the world if combustion engines existed back then, if people opposed gay “marriage” and if oil from sperm whales was harvested for soap and margarine. THEIR god would never judge the world for idleness, adultery, witchcraft, or constantly evil thoughts.

        • Phil_GA

          I don’t think that anyone has to look any further to see that Hollywood is what it is; that has become pretty obvious by most casual observers over the past 50+ years.

          What’s fascinating to me is the fact that this discussion is actually occurring on account of Hollywood spending “more time than usual” (however that’s defined) on Bible-based movies.

          So, it’s as if we’re all getting what we want, but then expecting either perfection or nothing from a product that hasn’t been released yet (and, possibly, could be good or bad).

          As for Obama,

          • Phil_GA

            ….his intentions are certainly no different than some other leaders throughout both world and American history — it’s always been an issue of who’s doing the controlling and, more importantly, who’s allowing it to happen.

  • planetes

    Environmentalism.

    Over-population.

    Aronofsky’s anti-biblical views.

    Six-armed angels.

    Battles with Tubal-Cain.

    Noah’s drunken episode taken entirely out of context.

    “Creative expression.”

    What’s not to love about it? Sigh…

    Hollywood has no problem using the church as a consumer group. They just can’t bring themselves to make a film that honors the Bible. Money is the motivator behind the productions of films like this one.

    Would it kill Hollywood to make a movie that really stayed true to the biblical account of anything? Probably. And the irony is that a big budget movie based on the Bible, if it stayed true to the Bible (that is, not deviating from what is revealed and using filler where needed as long as it was consistent with the Scriptures), the movie would be a monster money maker.

    Otherwise, many Christians will sit this one out, like we do a bad presidential election that features a democrat and a democrat-lite.

    • Phil_GA

      …and when they sit the election out, they get exactly what they deserve.

      2008 – 2016. Could very well have been the Christian’s fault.

      Whoa! I’m off topic and at risk of getting banned! Ha!

      :)

      • planetes

        Same old delusional rehash. 2008-2016 (reign of the Worst. President. Ever.) is the fault of people who voted for the worst president ever, including Christians who voted for the worst president ever, not the fault of anybody who voted for somebody else, or the vote for a Godzilla write-in, or did not vote at all due to conscience.

        But, you are not that far off topic. You only played off the illustration I was trying to make. Just give us a movie (or candidate) I can get behind and I will gladly support it (or him or her). Your comment is analogous to blaming Christians when “Noah” fails to make enough money to justify its cost because many Christians will sit it out due to the movie straying so far from the biblical narrative.

        I’m sure that bloggers and commenters everywhere are at the ready, sitting by the keyboard to heap scorn on these “crazy, unreasonable purists” who stubbornly refuse to “vote” for a movie that might not tick off all their boxes.

        • Phil_GA

          Noah the movie will rise or fall on its own. Whether or not Christians help that will only be known if a ticket-holder self-professes (and I don’t see an honest-enough survey being able to make that happen).

          But the continued illustration you present appears spot-on: those who appreciate a good, overall movie might be pleased with it, even if perfect biblical alignment doesn’t occur. The others, well, they won’t be happy either way.

    • badbadlibs

      You had me right up to the “sit out a bad election”. I will never sit out an election, but I will always sit out any Hollywood version of Scripture, every single time. :-)

  • WordsFailMe

    Nicely expressed. Interesting that both this and the original stories had Jewish directors.

  • las1

    I saw a clip of the film somewhere where one of Noah’s son’s asks Noah why God chose him to build the ark. Noah replied, “because I was the man for the job”. Like planetes below… I am absolutely sure I will sit this one out.

    Instead I’ll go see Heaven is For Real. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mydh4MEo2B0
    I just hope this film depicts Colton Burpo telling his dad that Jesus has markers on his hands, if they dare to mention Jesus at all. The trailer sure doesn’t. So we’ll see.

    • mike3e4r7

      Reminds me of the childrens movie a few years ago ‘Because of Winn Dixie’. The father in that film was a preacher, yet the movie never once uttered the words God or Jesus, They even had a scene or two of him giving a sermon, yet God was never mentioned. Sheesh!

      • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

        Mentioning God while white is racist!

        • las1

          Mentioning Jesus while white is … well… right wing extremism. Oh yeah… and racist too.

      • las1

        There’s a scene in the book where little Burpo is highly concerned about people’s salvation… if they know Jesus. This caused a lot of concern from his Dad because of the offence it might cause to strangers. Jesus figures prominently in the book. No equivocation at all.

    • PuritanD71

      Maybe something closer to Scripture than to the imagination of a four year old retold by the child when he was what closer to 7 or 10? And then, had to be interpreted by the father.

      Is it any wonder what the response was of Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:4 when he was lifted into the 3rd heaven? There may be a lesson there for us all….

      • dhebler

        Don’t dismiss the little boy’s statement about his grandfather being a young man or his story to quickly. At the end, at Christ’s return we all change back into our spiritual bodies again; 1Cor 15:51-53……

        I think this trailer has more truth in it, than Hollywood’s version of Moses. If you want the truth about Moses,
        then read Gen 6-9…..

        • PuritanD71

          Yet, we have no idea what those bodies are do we? All that we do know is that Jesus looked just as he did probably before his crucifixion except for the holes in the wrists and side and possible feet.

          Again, why would we have any revelation outside of what God desired to give us via His Word? Is not His Word sufficient in all things? Unless we want to say the kid was given divine revelation, I think that it is best to stick with the Scriptures that have proven to be of God.

          • las1

            It’s not that I wish to be sarcastic or diminish your obvious love of scripture there PuritanD71… but is it really necessary to put the experiences of others through the meat grinder of hyper religious vigilance.

            The Burpo story is simply that… a story of one family’s experience. Hence your misplaced warning to stick with scripture is simply that… misplaced. This story is not a theological credo to define our faith. It just isn’t.

            • PuritanD71

              las1,

              I do appreciate your feedback. I am curious then as to what are we to use to validate our experiences as to whether they bear the validity of truth or of error?

              I disagree that the story is not a theological credo. Does he not discuss what heave is supposedly like? Is that not a revelation of God’s residence? Is it not where we desire to be when we no longer are here? The whole notion of writing the book was in order that others will “know” what is in heaven, if that is not a theological credo, I am unsure what one is. He speaks of what our spiritual bodies will be like, what we will be doing, what Jesus looks like, etc. It would seem that he touches on a lot of theological issues wouldn’t it?

              • las1

                Sorry PuritanD71… I hope this is not too long… I can tend to get carried away a bit. Have patience.

                what are we to use to validate our experiences as to whether they bear the validity of truth or of error?

                Scripture of course. And there is nothing in the Burpo account that I could say conclusively goes against scripture. So it raises no alarm bells for me.

                It’s all very subjective isn’t it. I mean if you were to go to heaven or hell and return, and the experience was so overwhelmingly existential and there was nothing in the experience that you could categorically disprove from scripture… then it is up to you to accept it or reject it and to tell others or not unless expressly forbidden like Paul… (he said unlawful).

                But Paul’s admonition in scripture about his subjective experience was against pride and boasting because of the experience…not that he couldn’t say he definitely experienced it … which he did and which he told us about in scripture minus the details.

                We’ll just have to disagree on your understanding of credo. Affirming heaven and streets of gold is hardly a guide that bears on salvation other than a desire to go there. That’s not a credo. A credo is a confessional belief and action that confirms one faith unto salvation. Yes of course the account touches on doctrinal issues, but I repeat… Burpo’s story is a first hand account. There are literally thousands of accounts of people’s subjective spiritual experiences… and Paul’s Damascus experience is just one.

                But there are other experiences not recorded in scripture, but referred to by scripture: Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. John 21:25. And little Burpo’s experience is what Jesus did for him. Now if he said Jesus had black horns and a red cape and a long spiked tail… then your objection would be spot on.

                Puritan D71… if you were to relate to me your own personal salvation experience, would you then expect me to contradict it by advising you to “stick with the scriptures” and to discount your grace saving experience. I think not. It would be absurd for me to say such a thing unless it was out of the realm of Christian norms. So I repeat… I think your objection is misplaced.

                Burpo’s experience has no bearing whatsoever on my understanding of scripture. But it sure is nice to see that what the God of scripture did for Paul is the same God who can do the same thing for others today.

                This was in our lesson today in Church… it made me think about this issue:“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do. Luke 10:21

                P.S. I’ve heard some really awful things said elsewhere about little Burpo’s parents and the book and the movie. I’m unsure how some people think they have a handle on the motives of Burpo’s parents, but their criticism of the parents in no way invalidates the story of the son.

                Sorry for being so blasted long winded there Puritan. Thanks for listening.

                • PuritanD71

                  Las1,

                  There is definitely no need to apologize for being long winded. I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I thank you for it. I hope in return you do not mind my response.

                  There are several issues that you raised that are thought provoking and will take time for me to work through. One concern is comparing an “out-of-body” experience with that of the salvation of an individual. They are not the same. We know that salvation is individual and that each person is redeemed by our Lord by means that the Lord desires.

                  The other is claiming to have received special revelation from God regarding a specific location, Heaven. This is why the book needs to be judge by Scripture, and why it is making a theological argument. Only Scripture claims to be specific revelation and states that it is all we need not only for salvation but also discipleship and everything else that it speaks on, like Heaven.

                  The argument from silence sadly works both ways. Yet, with the claim of special revelation, it must align with Scripture. As you observed, nothing that was stated in the book would change a person’s mind per se regarding Christianity. However, it has and may continue to change a person’s focus away from the Special Revelation. Why did God commanded such silence on details of Heaven from those who wrote Scripture? Yes, there are similarities like the paths of gold but there are significant differences as well.

                  If it was not good enough to be revealed in Scripture, we should be deeply concerned about the claims from those who speak of such special revelation outside of Scripture. I am not as worried about the “motives” of the family as I am towards the demand we accept what was written as truth. You quoted Luke 10:21 in regard to this event, but we should look at the context of the passage and see if that is what it is specifically referencing.

                  It would seem that this is in the midst of Jesus rejoicing that the eyes of the disciples. They were sent out as witnesses and were amazed that the evil spirits were under their authority. The wise and understanding are not the disciples that were sent out but they are called little children because of their belief and reactions, please note that immediately following that verse, Jesus states what was revealed, not Heaven but that He revealed the Father to His disciples and then tells the disciples how blessed they are. For verse 21 to make any sense, the little children must be those who are blessed which in the immediate context cannot be anyone but the disciples.

                  The only other aspect is that Paul’s experience is in no way parallel with the boy’s story. Did the boy receive a ‘thorn in the flesh’? Did he just go up once or multiple times? Why did Paul even shared a glimpse of what has happen to him? What seems to be the reason the family is sharing? The reason to raise these questions is in hope to demonstrate that there seems to be a significant difference between the revelation to Paul and what transpired with the boy.

                  My only caution is that the boy’s parents are claiming that he has received special revelation which by definition is equal to Scripture and must meet the same qualifications and characteristics of God’s Word. On that, I think it fails to this challenge. If it isn’t special revelation, than it was not given by God.

                  Thanks again for sharing and allowing me the opportunity to dialogue with you on this important endeavor. I greatly appreciate it.

                • las1

                  “One concern is comparing an “out-of-body” experience with that of the salvation of an individual.”

                  I’m not sure where you came up with that assertion… it certainly wasn’t mine.

                  Anyway Puritan.. I could go on, but I’ll leave it at that.

                  Regards… Las1

                • PuritanD71

                  I wasn’t making an assertion from you but that everyone including the boy was not in his physical body when they “went to Heaven”. Even if that was not the case then, the point was that one cannot compare salvation with these types of experiences for it is comparing an apple to an orange. That was all I was trying to say.

                  PuritanD

          • dhebler

            It happened to me just like the little boy 7 years ago. And what is said in this trailer is true about being a young man in our spiritual bodies is true. Whether the story remains to this truth, who knows until you watch it…

            PS: It was recorded at John Muir hospital of my death; and my recovery. It was called a miracle by the doctors and nurses. It was God’s grace that I’m alive in the flesh body today. This is a message to a doubter. Don’t doubt God’s power….

            Our spiritual bodies is recorded in 2 Cor 15…we’ll all gather back to Christ again. You need to read a little deeper into the word, then you’ll understand. I wouldn’t count on Hollywood for anything about accuracy in the word! They’re acting out the part, and the anti-christ is a great actor acting like Christ. Get the connection?

            • PuritanD71

              I would be the last person to argue for or against a person’s experience. I do not understand your last paragraph of needing to “read a little deeper into the word…”

              It does make one curious as to why you were a doubter and that you would credit God with such a means to prove Himself. What was it that you doubted and how are you sure that it was Yahweh? God has revealed Himself in His Word, there is nothing else He has to do. Jesus stated to Thomas that those who believe and did not see are more blessed. Again, what exactly were you doubting and how did you know that it was God?

              • dhebler

                Only God can create life? From the beginning of man, God created man in His own image, Gen 1:27. And again God breathed into Adams nostrils and gave him life, Gen 2:7. Then after Jesus died on the cross, God opened many graves, and those saints went into the city and appeared to many, Mat 27:52-53. The one who owns your soul is the life giver
                Ez 18:4….

                Thomas was a doubter and Christ showed him the truth about living in His Spiritual body:

                John 20:27

                “Then He said to Thomas, ‘Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

                Don’t be a doubting Thomas about God’s powers. God is the giver of life. Don’t dismiss what the little boy said in the movie trailer, its important to understanding body and soul.

                We are all written in the book of life. And we all are judged from that book. The death of the flesh is one thing, but the death of the soul is forever. The death of the soul is called the second death
                Rev 20:12-15….

                This is a mystery to most, because they haven’t looked deeper into the word of God. If God wants you to understand this mystery, then He will open your eyes to this truth.

                PS: all souls go back to our maker
                Eccl 12:6-7…..the good and the bad!

                • PuritanD71

                  Your comment is at best confusing. I am not sure you are sure what you are speaking about. Nonetheless, I do hope you will answer my questions, because I am curious.

                  Just a couple of points: 1) Not all people are written in the Book of Life 2) There is no mystery regarding the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” of all who are not in the Book of Life 3) I am not doubting God’s power, just not sure what you are talking about.

                  Looking forward to your answers to my questions from above.

                • dhebler

                  Their is no other books recorded by God with your name in it but this one:

                  “The Book of Life.”

                  All your good works are recorded in the Book of life. These are your good works that you did in the flesh body. They are recorded by God before He judges you at the end—

                  When judgement day does come, He will open: “The Book of Life”. If you have no good works, then your soul is in jeopardy of being thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15), and this is called;
                  the “second death”!

                  If you don’t understand the Book of Life, then put it away until another day. Only God can open eyes and ears to understanding His word about our end……..

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    A quick comment on human nature:

    Even when you “try and warn the people,” they don’t listen. So Noah could have had a big website and an ad agency promoting his books, videos, and warnings (work with me here), and I doubt the outcome would have been any different, given the state of the world in his day.

    • http://www.crossworksme.com/ GiantM

      Yes indeed!

  • JudyPaulette

    Rumor has it that the movie was to be filled with the message of global warming and too many people on the earth. I heard recently that they cut back a tad on both because Christians said they would not go and see it which would cut profits. I don’t trust that global warming won’t be in it so I am passing. I will stick with The Son of God.

    For anyone that is interested in hearing a sermon, which includes Noah preaching for 120 years to the people about God’s wrath coming this is a link for the entire book of Genesis from Mars Hill Church.
    Noah is parts 6, 7 and 8.
    http://marshill.com/media/genesis/sermons
    Each sermon is over an hour. I am currently on part 20 of 46.

  • JudyPaulette

    2 Peter 2:5

    King James
    Bible
    And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth
    person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world
    of the ungodly;

    New International
    Version
    if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the
    flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness,
    and seven others;

  • Dan

    Many Jewish sources state that God specifically had Noah build the ark over a period of 120 years so that mankind would see and repent. 120 years is a long time (and he did not work for the ark union which probably would have needed 500 years) and surely God could have saved Noah and his family in any number of ways. Yet this one was chosen, over a lengthy period of time, in order to encourage mankind to ask Noah about his strange activities and for him to warn them of the coming deluge and to repent.

    • http://www.crossworksme.com/ GiantM

      With all due respect Dan….I doubt it.

      Noah was a mockery to a sinful world. They probably never had a ounce of humility to bring themselves too repentance. He was probably the subject of a good joke for 120 years, and God knew that would be the case with this generation.

      If you study the building of the ark, you’ll have a better perspective of why 120 years was spot on for a completion date. I side with RS’s explanation which imo is 100% accurate.

      • Dan

        Hi. You doubt the sources or you doubt the effect? I can guarantee you that’s what the sources say – though you surely need not agree with them. I agree with your assessment; he was a mockery, they did not repent and hence the punishment. If you disagree with the sources, that is surely your prerogative and right, but they do exist. It is not far fetched to say since, after all, God wants sinners to repent and He would give them an opportunity (e.g. Ezekiel 18:23).

        • http://www.crossworksme.com/ GiantM

          No actually I doubt the intent to prolong the building of the Ark was designed to help people repent. As for the sources, RS makes it clear that GOD’s intention was to wipe out mankind, but he found one man righteous enough to save, everyone else was destined to parish.

          • Dan

            As I said, that’s your call.

  • Taurnil Oronar

    Your accounting is correct about no warning given by God. But as for the reasons for the flood, I think Hollywood will barely make a nod why. If they do it will be in such a way as to not offend the f a g s, lesbos, etc, etc.

  • Observer

    Even though the story will be greatly corrupted, I anticipate it will still be compelling. That is why so many want to turn the flood into mythology. It scares them badly.

  • tinlizzieowner

    Oh please. If ‘Hollywood’ has anything to do with this, it will be a movie about ‘Global Warming’, Jane Fonda will play Noah’s wife and Justin Beiber and Miley Cyrus will be cast to play his children. :-/

    • SurfinUSA

      Like most movies, it will blow “hot air” or, Global Warming out of Hollywood. It is not a reach to believe that Al Gore invented Global Warming. His bloviating creates tremenous heat.

      • tinlizzieowner

        I wonder if they will use ‘Hanoi John’ Kerry’s yacht for the Arc? 😉 😉

        • SurfinUSA

          Massachusetts tax free yacht, that is.

  • timsrighty

    Considering Darren Aronofsky is an odd choice to direct this film, and the fact that Hollywood is way out of practice when it comes to producing Biblical films, I’m really not that optimistic.

  • blackbird

    Thanks very much for this post Scoop. Very interesting.

  • blackbird

    I too was also told that same story in Sunday school.

  • blackbird

    If people saw Noah building the ark would they not have inquired why and would Noah have told them.

    • SurfinUSA

      It reminds me of “Evan Almighty” with Steve Carrell and Morgan Freeman. That was a well made, light-hearted look at an ark under construction in suburbia.

      The Bible is silent on “the neighbors” asking questions as Scoop pointed out. But, it does make you wonder. My guess is that Noah and his family lived in a remote area that did not have many travelers going by.

      • blackbird

        I liked Evan Almighty.

        “the story spanned over 100 years in the Bible” and as Scoop alluded, leaves a lot of speculation.

        You could be right “Noah and his family lived in a remote area” and as Scoop just noted the ark took a lot of timber and most probably it came from Noah’s land.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      maybe people didn’t see it. Perhaps he owned so much land that only his family new about it. I man that’s a lot of wood and I’m guessing it came from his own land.

      • blackbird

        I hadn’t thought about where the timber came from. You could be right “maybe people didn’t see it”

  • wraith67

    No Scoop, it’s not going to be right. People have already looked at the scripts. It’s an environment-Nazi wet dream.

    • badbadlibs

      I’ve heard that too. It’s disgusting what the left will do to get their agenda across. I can’t stand to watch the local news in the deep blue state I live in. Today a 20 something was crying on the news how her generation just won’t have any earth left to enjoy if Seattle allows coal trains or oil trains to actually run on the tracks thru their fair city!
      BARF!

      • Pamela Myers

        She need not worry. According to the Scriptures, God is going to create a new heaven and a new earth.

  • badbadlibs

    Excellent piece, Scoop. I hadn’t realized either that no one was warned prior to the rains. I whole heartedly agree with the following: “Surely, they think, He will have compassion on his own creation.
    But this doesn’t represent the God of the Bible and I think people have a hard time with this.”
    Oh people do have a hard time with it. They confuse human thought with the thoughts of the eternal God of the universe. No two ways of thinking could possibly be farther apart, after all He says our thoughts are NOT His thoughts nor our ways His ways. God is holy and just and sovereign and there isn’t a thing anyone can do to change those facts, they are immutable.
    He has opened a window of time to experience His Grace thru His own sacrifice on the Cross of Calvary. He has left His Word and the Acts of the Apostles to heed. It’s up to us to now obey or go on finding our own ways and interjecting our own thoughts for His.
    As far as Hollywood getting enough of the Biblical account correct enough for human consumption….I doubt it, highly.

  • badbadlibs

    This will never, I’m sure, occur to anyone in Hollywood who does not already know the Living God:

    1 Peter 3:20-21

    20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
    21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

  • 3d81

    Well it wont be a Cecil B. DeMille epic, but its taken Hollywood 50 years to recognise that Christianity/Judaism and the bible has some cool stories in it worth making movies about…and they make you some good money.

  • PuritanD71

    As someone else commented, Peter speaks of Noah as a preacher (herald) of righteousness. What exactly was Noah doing that Peter would call him such?

    He was proclaiming judgment. It would be ridiculous to think that Noah’s building such a big box would not provoke some questions from either friends or even extended family. What I think is harder for people to realize that God divinely rescues Noah and his family. If pressed, what did Noah’s family do to deserve such honor?

    God’s decision for judgement then is the same as Christ spoke of in Luke 17. God’s righteous judgment will come and only the elect will be saved from it.

    Watching the preview at the theater, the biggest thing is that the destruction of the earth was blamed on man’s actions “against the earth” not about man’s horrible actions against the mighty God that created man in His image. Even the opening scene of “The Son of God” sadly misrepresents Jesus’ call on the disciples from “I will make you fishers of men” to “Join me in changing the world”. This may seem to be slight, but it does carry a significant shift on the question of why Jesus came in the first place.

    Even then, how impactful have such movies had upon Christianity? When the movie, “The Passion” came out many Christian leaders were saying the next Great Awakening was going to be upon us. And, still kinda waiting aren’t we?

    • dhebler

      God already told us about the future Mat 24–Mk 13 & Lk 21…..

      The future is happening now; and God has warned us about these times in Amos 8:11…

      So, as the days of Noah, so will it be at the end before Christ’s return Lk 17:26–also, in the days of Lot God destroyed Sodom with fire Lk 17:28. They will be giving and taking in marriage and doing things that go against God’s commands….These examples are for us to observe how it will be at the end before the great apostasy and Christ’s return…..Noah’s flood is a example for us today to observe.

      Ecclesiastes 1:10-11

      (10)–Is there anything of which it may be said,
      “See, this is new”?
      It has already been in ancient times before us.
      (11)–There is no remembrance of former things,
      Nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come
      By those who will come after.

      Their is nothing new under the sun!

    • Pamela Myers

      No one should develop their Christian doctrine from Hollywood. They can be expected only to twist bits of truth gleaned from the Scriptures into a modern-day, God-debasing, Jesus maligning piece of trite not fit for serious religious thought. Christians should especially be discerning if and when they spend God’s money on films that take such liberties with His word.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      Noah was 500 years old when he began building the ark. In those 500 years he found favor with God as a man of righteousness. I think Peter was simply acknowledging that.

      • PuritanD71

        If Peter was simply stating that Noah was righteous, why not simply state that then saying Noah preached righteousness? I am not sure it ties that well together there, RS.

        I do not think it is too far of a reach that he preached righteousness not that God hoped for salvation. His preaching of righteousness could easily be of judgment upon evil since evil hates the light and would reject it.

        • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

          I think he was a preacher/herald of righteousness. What I’m saying is that in itself doesn’t negate what I wrote above.

          • PuritanD71

            Thanks for the clarification RS. I do tend to agree that Noah and his family were the only ones who were going on the Ark.

            Would you say that it may be a both/and situation? We do know how evil we all can be. Could it be plausible that Noah did preach to those who were around him in such a way not that they would be “saved” but proving their condemnation?

            Thanks again for the clarification.

  • SurfinUSA

    Very thorough in your essay Right Scoop. I didn’t hear the version you heard in Sunday School. The Baptists told us from a young age that no warning was given.

    I think you could have capped the essay by recalling the first rainbow to symbolize God’s promise to never flood the earth again. When we hear the trumpets sound the Second Coming, our umbrellas won’t be needed.

    • Poptoy1949

      It was. It is.

  • Dr. Strangelove

    Don’t feel bad, Scoop. I got the same story and more in 5 years of Catholic school. In fact, I remember being stunned to find out in my public school history class that the Pilgrims weren’t all Catholics.

    • Poptoy1949

      Oh Gosh, I sure like your Humor. You made me laugh loudly.

      • Dr. Strangelove

        That wasn’t intended as humor, but now that you point it out, there is more than a bit of irony there. After further review of history after I left “school”, I discovered that the Catholic colonists were disliked enough to be forced into their own colony, known as Mary Land.

        • Poptoy1949

          AH HA ! You do know your History ! Started by I think John Carroll. We have 2 Counties (Parishes) down here named after him. East Carroll and West Carroll. I know that Carroll is correct but I ain’t sure if it was John. Getting too old…

          • Dr. Strangelove

            I know what you mean, my doctor told me memory was the second to go. I asked him what the first one was but he couldn’t remember.

            • Poptoy1949

              I was just thinking what was first and then I read the second sentence and of course I had to had to stop and laugh.

              • Dr. Strangelove

                I had to rephrase the joke as I first heard it because 90% of men won’t ask “What’s the first?” and therefore deprive me of the punch line. Can’t imagine why…

    • Pamela Myers

      We must learn about God from the Scriptures as God Himself teaches us and reveals Himself to us, through Christ. Everything that any preacher or priest tells us about God must be checked by Scripture to see if it’s accurate. Romans 3:4 “Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written.”

      God gave us His word for a reason. When we stand before Him to give an account of what we believed about Him, about Jesus, and about our salvation, it will not be an adequate defense to say, “But that’s what my priest told me.” God will say, “But I told you otherwise, why did you not read my word for yourself? I gave you the truth but you did not receive it.”

  • colliemum

    I doubt Hollywood will get things right …

    Great essay, RightScoop, putting the finger on teachings which might have been nice for children, but which paint the false image of God that so many atheists now use as their reason for not believing. Do they not keep asking how such nice God could be so cruel? Do they not use quotes from the OT to say He is in fact cruel and bad – right down to claiming He Himself ‘sacrificed’ His Son, so how can we believe in such God?

    The flood was God’s Plan A: to get rid of all who were destroying and defacing His glorious Creation, and start again.
    Through Noah and the Covenant, God now had a Plan B – the plan to save those who entered into His Covenant, and to save all His Creation through the self sacrifice of the one perfect human: the Messiah, His Son, so that all who believe in Him will be saved, and now we and all Creation wait for His Coming.

    I wish I knew why it is so difficult for some to love God with all their heart …

    • Pamela Myers

      It may appear to man that God had to change His original plan and come up with a Plan B. But God has only ever had one plan, plan A. Jesus is the Lamb that was slain before the creation of the world. And God knows the end from the beginning. He’s never had to change anything.

      Why is it difficult for people to love God with all their heart? Because “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?” Jeremiah 17:9. And mentioned above, Genesis 6:5, “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” An evil heart does not and can not love God. The heart must first be changed by God, on His initiative and on His terms.

      • colliemum

        Yes, the heart must first be changed by God, and for that to occur we must listen to His voice, which speaks to all, all the time.
        But then again – it is hard to hear that voice if one’s got fingers lodged firmly in one’s ears because one doesn’t want to hear that voice, isn’t it …

        I pray that one day even the hardest of hearing will open their ears, and open their hearts.

        • Pamela Myers

          Thank you for your response to my comments. The opening of ears and hearts is by God’s initiative. Ezekiel 36:26: “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you;
          and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a
          heart of flesh.” And Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him.” John 6:44. Pray that God open hearts and minds because it’s useless to depend on man to do so – it is not within his power.

  • stevemcfadden

    I’ll treat this hollywood movie the same way i treated the last temptation of christ and not ever watch it. My hope is that it’s a bust.

  • dneuwen

    don’t hold your hopes high. I read a review from ken ham’s answersingenesis site and just like any other hollywood movie about biblical themes it is a very corrupted rendition of noah’s story being spiced with the usual liberal tripe and pc and subtle anti-christian tirade and mockery. so never waste your money and essentially helping hollywood.

  • http://batman-news.com/ Bucketheadbaptist

    Scoop…

    Really disappointed with the “Sethite View” of Genesis 6 you gave.

    But… it’s the view of lamestream Christianity… so … go with it.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      I don’t know what the ‘sethite view’ is.

      I simply presented the Account of Noah as it was written. If you have a problem with that, perhaps your real problem is with the Bible itself.

      • http://batman-news.com/ Bucketheadbaptist

        “The Bible is no mere book, but a Living Creature, with a power that conquers all that oppose it. ” ~~Napoleon Bonaparte

        Scoop,

        Did it ever occur to you that a simple criticism of a particular doctrine doesn’t mean I have a problem with the bible?

        I actually have a very high regard for the bible… the person I studied under is friends with Walid Shoebat, Joe Farah, David Barton, and many others you would have heard of and respect.

        You know, being a big follower of Shoebat, I would think that after you ran that piece he wrote about “The American Church Sucks”… there might be one or two of us in America that ALREADY KNEW THAT?

        There may be times you and a few others consider me antagonistic around here… but that’s because I see a great number of Christians running off a cliff like Lemmings… because this is the most biblically illiterate generation we’ve ever had in this country.

        I actually love the bible…

        It’s not a normal book.

        If you do not know what the “Sethite View” is… then perhaps you might want to investigate it. Because you are pushing it whether you know it or not.

        • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

          I did look it up and I still have no idea what YOU are talking about. If you ever actually explain yourself perhaps then we can have discussion about it. But so far you have criticized me without explaining yourself.

          • http://batman-news.com/ Bucketheadbaptist

            Scoop… if you perceived that I was criticizing you… and not that doctrinal position… then I apologize. I’m looking at the wording of what I said… and I can see where you may have taken it that way… so I am sorry.

            If you’d like to have someone give a better review of Noah … then can I share screenwriter and author Brian Godawa’s review with you?

            He’s got a longer one on his site…

  • ApplePie101
  • stage9

    Do people in OUR generation heed warning?

    You could warn a sinner until your vocal cords freeze of the coming wrath of God, but that is the thing about hard-hearted sinners — they never adhere to warning. They’re willfully in rebellion against God and they refuse to turn from their sin, “lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted.” (Matthew13:15)

    And no matter how we may feel about the sinner and how much we feel he should be warned, I assure you that God feels far more sadness over them than any one of us could EVER hope to imagine. (2 Peter 3:9)

    But let’s not kid ourselves, the people in Noah’s day, as in our day, WERE warned. God ALWAYS warns before He judges. ALWAYS!

    It isn’t that the people of Noah’s day weren’t warned, it’s that they had no interest in the warning, and when that day finally came, they were “unaware” at the sudden coming of it. It wasn’t that they weren’t warned that the day would come, it’s that they didn’t believe that the day would come. They paid it no attention. It was irrelevant to their “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage”. Things in their lives were going on as they always had (2 Peter 3:4) and their disinterest reflected their unbelief.

    I read of a “Viking Apocalypse” that is supposed to occur 100 days from yesterday. The world is going to end according to this ancient Viking Prophesy, Ragnarok. Will we still be here, or will people’s lives go on as they always have?

    Last year, we were told of a Mayan prophesy that foretold the end of the world, yet the day came and went and nothing. And people’s lives go on as they always have.

    A year prior to that, a minister claimed that he knew the day and hour of Christ’s return, yet the day came and went and still nothing. And people’s lives go on as they always have.

    Many people mocked, many people laughed (especially at the minister) that anyone could POSSIBLY believe the nonsensical idea that the “end of the world” would ever come. “Just as it was in the days of Noah”.

    There is a tendency of mankind to grow comfortable in sin and disregard anything that doesn’t fit his 9-5 schedule. He tends to get lazy minded. He stops watching and waiting and falls asleep (Mark 13:36). Jesus warned us 2,000 years ago, “Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you suddenly like a trap.” (Luke 21:34)

    For 2,000 years warnings have been issued to mankind. For two thousand years, generation after generation has had the opportunity to repent and turn from their sin and the wrath of God to come, but in every generation there have been untold millions who have refused. They were unconcerned about eternity until it was finally upon them. They were more concerned about their own plans and ambitions than their eternal destination.

    Noah couldn’t build an ark of the size and scope he did without someone taking notice of it. I imagine that at first it would have only been a laughable idea to the people around him — a man and his family building a boat…and there’s no water? Insane! Then as the ark began to take shape it probably became a mild curiosity, and then ultimately disregarded entirely. One hundred and twenty years is a long time. After a while, people would simply grow accustomed to seeing Noah and his family adding on to his ridiculous ark until eventually it blended into the background of other things and events occurring in that day.

    It’s like the guy who you see working on his classic Mustang day after day after day in his garage. He’s been doing it for so long that you really don’t pay him any attention anymore. It’s just a ridiculous hobby he has that he’ll never really finish. That is until one day you watch as he backs it out of the driveway and drives off. What had become just another casual observance in your life was now coasting down your neighborhood street in all of its immaculate glory.

    That’s how it was in Noah’s day, and that’s how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. They will be “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” paying no attention to the signs, the warnings or caring about anything outside of their RIDICULOUS SELF-ABSORBED SOCIAL MEDIA. But then that day will come suddenly.

    It took Noah 120 years to build that ark. One hundred and twenty years of walking past Noah’s property and seeing that giant eye-sore of a barge sitting there as a reminder that God was going to flood the earth. One hundred and twenty years they ignored it and payed no attention to it. After all, Noah was only ONE still small voice in a world of a billion (Henry Morris). You don’t uproot your entire life for one man’s crazy idea. Do you?

    Go back to sleep. All is well. There’s nothing to see here. What’s that? It’s beginning to rain. The waters are rising. It’s reached the end of our property. Pay it no attention. “Oh, look, CSI is on.” Hmmm, the water’s up to our door stoop now. “Honey, water is coming in the house!” Now we’re having to climb to the roof to escape the rising flood waters. We’ve lost everything. Our family photos. Our furniture. How will I check Facebook? At least my IPhone still works. I can barely make it out in the distance there. Do you see it? Just on the outskirts of town there? That giant eye-sore. “Was Noah right? Surely not.” He’s just a crazy old man — a Bible thumper. What does NOAA have to say about this weather? Check your phone. This happens all the time. It rains. It floods. The waters recede. “But this time, something’s different.” The waters keep rising. There’s a stray dog swimming by, struggling to stay afloat amidst the crashing flood waters. I can’t reach him. The water is almost to the top of the house. What house? We’re being swept away by the current. Someone help us! GOD, HELP US! I can’t breathe! I’M DROWNING! NOAH, SAVE US! GOD, SAVE US! Silence.

    Has anything REALLY changed since that generation? Is anyone paying any attention? Those crazy Christians are always going on about the return of their Christ who, IMO, didn’t even exist. “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” (2 Peter 3:4) Go back to sleep. All is well. There’s nothing to see here.

    What’s that? What’s happening there in the Eastern sky? It’s breaking open…GLORIOUS!

  • stage9

    DON’T BE TAKEN IN BY NOAH MOVIE’S PROMOTION
    http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/11/19/dont-be-taken-in-by-the-noah-movies-promotion/

    Here are a few more problem areas seen in the rough cut of the film, most of which I expect to be in the final film:

    1. In the film, Noah was robbed of his birthright by Tubal-Cain. The serpent’s body (i.e., Satan), which was shed in Eden, was their “birthright reminder.” It also doubled with magical power that they would wrap around their arm. So weird!

    2. Noah’s family only consists of his wife, three sons, and one daughter-in-law, contrary to the Bible.

    3. It appears as if every species was crammed in the Ark instead of just the kinds of animals, thus mocking the Ark account the same way secularists do today.

    4. “Rocks” (that seem to be fallen angels) build the Ark with Noah!

    5. Methuselah (Noah’s grandfather) is a type of witch-doctor, whose mental health is questionable.

    6. Tubal-Cain defeats the Rocks who were protecting the finished Ark.

    7. A wounded Tubal-Cain axes his way inside the Ark in only about ten minutes and then hides inside. Tubal-Cain then convinces the middle son to lure Noah to the bottom of the Ark in order to murder him (because he was not allowed a wife in the Ark). Tubal-Cain stays alive by eating hibernating lizards. The middle son of Noah has a change of heart and helps kill Tubal-Cain instead.

    8. Noah becomes almost crazy as he believes the only purpose to his family’s existence was to help build the Ark for the “innocent” animals (this is a worship of creation).

    9. Noah repeatedly tells his family that they were the last generation and were never to procreate. So when his daughter-in-law becomes pregnant, he vows to murder his own grandchild. But he finally has a change of heart.

    10. Noah does not have a relationship with God but rather with circumstances and has deadly visions of the Flood.

    11. The Ark lands on a cliff next to a beach.

    12. After the Flood Noah becomes so distant from his family that he lives in a cave, getting drunk by the beach.

    • Conservator1

      Based on what I’ve read, there’s a great deal more of Hollywood special effects than biblical accuracy.

    • badbadlibs

      Good grief! They must have spent many a night around the witches fire conjuring up that bunch of crapola!
      Talk about godless….that’s just revolting!

  • 4liberty

    While what you say is what is in the Bible, it isn’t like Noah hid what he was doing. You cant possible imagine that the Godless people didn’t notice and question Noah. No where does it say Noah denied or hid what he was doing. It stands to reason that the word got out. I mean it was a huge undertaking in those times it wouldn’t have gone unnoticed!

  • 4liberty

    IMHO this will be just another example of Hollywood trying to rewrite history. They make these movies and then the libs hold it up as the truth. And atheists use it to ridicule believers!!

  • Laurel

    Something doesn’t pass the smell test with this movie for me.

    And yes Scoop I do believe society has softened it’s view of God. I think it is the evolution of preaching to keep backsides in the pews. People tend to forget that while God is loving and merciful he also has wrath, and I do mean ‘wrath’ not ‘strife’. We just haven’t seen it because he gave us Christ.

    Oddly enough when my daughter was very little and I bought her a children’s book of Bible stories to get her started (I think she was about three) I always pointed to Noah, not Sodom and Gomorrah as evidence of God’s wrath against evil. I still do. It’s not that I negate Sodom and Gomorrah, it’s just that Noah is much more all encompassing to me and it puts all of the Greek, Roman, and Persian mythology in it’s place as being unwise/evil…for lack of a better word.

  • DebbyX

    Roma Downey and Mark Burnett were on Hannity last night for the full hour talking about their new movie Son of God. It was a well spent hour.

  • http://politicalknow.blogspot.com/ SheerPolitics

    Talking about whether Noah warned the people reminded me of this story.

    Luke 19-31: 19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ 25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ 27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ 30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ “

  • ManfredtheWonderDog

    We must also recognize that the account in Genesis is not comprehensive and not all that the Bible has to say about it or Noah. With regards as to whether Noah warned people, consider what Peter (who was NOT the first Pope) said in 2 Peter 2:5 – God didn’t spare the ancient world, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others, when He brought a flood on the world of the ungodly. Sounds like he maybe warned people of God’s judgment.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      Actually I think you are reading into it. Calling him a preacher of righteousness doesn’t mean he warned people. After all he was 500 years old when he was called to build the ark. Plenty of time to be a preacher.

      • ManfredtheWonderDog

        Lots of others have pondered what Peter said about Noah, including many Jewish rabbis and the Baptist John Gill. The Greek word behind “preacher” means herald, one who announces. John Gill, in chapter 22 of the Pirke R. Eliezer, quotes Noah’s words according to Jewish tradition: “Be ye turned from your evil ways and works, lest the waters of the flood come upon you, and cut off all the seed of the children of men.”

        The tradition shows Noah giving both a warning and a means of salvation. If this extrabiblical source has any truth in it, then Noah is asking for people to repent, which would certainly fit with his own source of salvation through Christ. Noah was not saved because of his righteousness—at least not in a worldly sense. Hebrews 11 tells us from where Noah’s righteousness came. The Greek word is dikaiosune (δικαιοσύνη), which refers to a form of righteousness that is unattainable by law or by merit.

        Hebrews 11:7 says, “By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.”

        • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

          I think your last paragraph nearly makes my point. He prepared an ark for the saving of us his household. — not for the saving of the rest of mankind.

      • las1

        Actually Manfred may be on to something if Noah was considered a preacher of righteousness. But with the account limited, we can only speculate. It’s similar to another people who received a similar fate, the Sodomites of Genesis 19. They were tired of Lot’s judging of them from verse 9. I guess we can conclude that Lot also was preaching to them at some time during his “sojourn” in Sodom. But that’s the extent to this narrative. Again… we can only speculate.

  • Jim Land

    The part that makes me most uncomfortable isn’t God’s justice, it is God being “sorry” that he created man. I’m not entirely sure how I feel about God being regretful.

  • spydaweb

    I take issue with your first quotation and explanation.

    You’re misinterpreting the text of 6:3. Read in context, chapter 6 is actually talking about humans breeding with angels. The result was humans living beyond what God had meant for them to live (post-sin). The implication is that humans living longer lives while under sin would be a bad thing for the earth. In effect they’d have a chance to do too much damage so, God wants to quite literally wipe the slate clean. Noah talks him out of offing everyone and instead God allows him to save those faithful few, if any can be found. That’s the gist of the Noah’s Ark story. Very straightforward.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      Um…Noah was post-sin and he lived 950 yrs. Methuselah lived almost to 1,000. He was also post-sin.

      • spydaweb

        That’s anecdotal. Again, I urge you to read things in context. The fact that some characters lives are longer than others does not itself disprove what I wrote. Regardless, it was just my thoughts. I think your audience is smart enough to read the full chapter (in context) and come to their own conclusions.

        Just as an intellectual exercise, let’s assume you’re right and I’m wrong in my interpretation of the text. What do angels and Nephilim (offspring of human and angel) have to do in the context of those first few verses in the story? Why are they mentioned at all? If not for their influence on humanity’s physical evolution.

  • Phil_GA

    Following up on the myriad comments on this posting (some of which I was personally thrilled to cause a stir — heheheheh…), it turns out that much consternation on the part of those who expected unreasonably high standards of biblical literal interpretation out of the film not only shouldn’t be concerned about the work, but also *should actually go see the movie* — a stance I have *always* supported.

    Heck, even major denominational leaders are actually supporting seeing the film.

    Why is this?

    Check out the following link from the NoahMovie.com home page:

    http://www.paramount.com/news-and-social-media/news-and-press-releases/noah

 
 
Follow Us!
Get all of our posts delivered directly to your inbox every day!

Join other followers

Powered By WPFruits.com