Replies

Even though you actually know how anti-God and against the message,of the Bible this movie is (in spite of the fact that the studio lied about it and said it was faithful to the Bible) ... you seemed to have missed the posted articles on it, here on Free Republic ...

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

This verse repeatedly came to mind while reflecting on this movie because the film often flipped biblical morality on its head. It’s important to realize that the director and cowriter, Darren Aronofsky, is a self-professed atheist. This fact alone doesn’t mean that he couldn’t make a good film on the Bible’s history (especially if he seeks advice from Bible-believing Christians), but it should make believers wary of what he is going to present. Nearly every moral issue seen in Noah is inverted.

As mentioned earlier, Noah, renowned in the Bible for being a righteous man, is portrayed in the second half of the film as a psychopath bent on wiping out humanity. He is far more concerned about the plants and animals than he is about people.

Rather than being the holy God described in Scripture, the god of this film is a vengeful being who remains silent when Noah pleads for an answer about his pregnant daughter-in-law. The god of this film is shown as using the cruel process of evolution (survival of the fittest) to bring about Adam and Eve, meaning that billions of animals must have lived and died long before Adam sinned (more on the evolutionary teachings below). This pro-evolution approach turns the film’s god into a cosmic hypocrite. He wants Noah to save all the animals on the ark so they could repopulate a new paradise where man is absent, yet in the process of creating the world he allowed billions of animals to suffer and die long before man was ever on the scene. Why would he have ever created man in the first place?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/noah-movie/detailed-review

—

Those who know the Bible were aware of how little the script followed Scripture. Those who didn’t know the Bible still didn’t know it when the final credits appeared. It is to the movie studio’s credit that they chose to even make a film with a biblical theme, but the torturous fiction that was the final cut partly written and directed by an atheist is a discredit to both the studio and the actors and is, in result, worse than having not made it at all. Remember the old adage of making a bottle of poison look nicer by removing the ugly skull and crossbones label and replacing it with one that read “essence of peppermint?” The bottle now looks pretty, but is even more deadly because of its deceptive label.

To a generation that already rejects the Genesis account as pure fiction, mixing a little Bible with a film of impure fiction is even worse – and certainly more dangerous to faith. For those who have not seen the movie and may think my judgments too harsh, please consider the following.

The film presents the sole purpose of Noah and the Ark as the preservation of the innocent animals. The pre-Flood world is portrayed as barren and denuded as the result of human corruption. What could be more evil and deserving of judgment in ecologically-minded Hollywood? Therefore, as Noah interprets God’s purpose, mankind – all of mankind, including Noah and his family – are supposed to die so the new world can continue with only with an innocent animal population.

The Ark has nothing to do with the salvation of mankind, but with its punishment. Noah was only chosen to save the animals, and he is so intent on fulfilling his task to see humanity destroyed that he announces to his family on the Ark that they must all die, for “the Creation is only safe when mankind is dead.” For this reason, when Noah learns that Shem’s wife is pregnant, he declares that he will murder her baby, if it is a girl, as soon as it is born! The ensuing drama aboard the Ark has Mrs. Noah trying to help her expectant kids escape, a crazed Noah stalking his newly born twin granddaughters, and Shem and Ham trying to kill their father (especially after he sets fire to the couple’s escape raft).

Add to the drama the evil meat-eating king of the old world, Tubal-Cain, who sneaked on board and remained hidden throughout the voyage, only to finally die in a knife fight with Noah when the Ark lands and breaks in two.

In the end, Noah spares his family because of “love.” Mankind is not so bad after all, for as Mrs. Noah explains, “all the heart needs is love to be good.” God, who has remained silent through the drama on the Ark, despite Noah’s pleas for divine guidance, is shown to have stayed away because, as Noah’s adopted Cainite daughter (the wife of Shem who had been miraculously cured of bareness by a healing touch from Methuselah) states, God wanted to let Noah chose whether mankind should live or not.

So, in spite of the ecological hype, it is about humanism in the end. The film closes with newly sober Noah brandishing his snake-skin phylactery (a relic from the serpent in the Garden of Eden) and telling his kids to be “fruitful and multiply” as a rainbow appears (sans the Noahic covenant).

http://www.worldofthebible.com/update.htm

—

What does matter, though, is The Message. The Message is everything. And this is where Aronofsky is the snake in the garden. Using $135 million, he and Paramount have brilliantly and deviously disguised the Pagan god Gaia as the God of the Old Testament … as THE God.

And let’s give the Devil his due: using the story of Noah to twist Christianity into something it is not, is a genius piece of propagandizing that is sure to lead many away from God under the mistaken belief that through left-wing environmentalism they are coming closer to Him.

Aronofsky is the anti-Michelangelo: a master craftsman using his talents to a dishonest and wicked end.

Let me put it this way: According to Aronofsky’s mesmerizing multi-million dollar masterwork, God will later hand Moses only One Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Harm Mother Earth Beyond What Is Absolutely Necessary to Live In a Tent as a Vegetarian.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/03/28/Noah-review-brilliantly-sinister-anti-christian-filmmaking

—

If Paramount and Aronofsky had simply made a movie about a homicidal man and his two dysfunctional oversexed sons, who descended from aliens to a world filled with magical snake skins and lava monsters, but named them differently than Noah, Ham and Shem, it would fly just fine.

People would watch the movie, watch them get on a huge boat, watch the earth flood, and say to themselves: “Hey, this really reminds of me that story in the Bible where the guy builds the ark and all the animals get in, isn’t that the story of Noah?”

Christians would watch and and be like “wow he put some Biblical references in this fantasy movie, let’s give him points for using the Bible as inspiration!”

But no.

They got greedy, and decided to make a movie targeted at the “faith audience” but, true to their Hollywood spots and stripes, they couldn’t actually make a Biblically accurate movie and do it with A-list actors and such, because, well, that’s so 1950’s and 1960’s (”The Greatest Story Ever Told”, “The Ten Commandments”). They could have made a movie like “Ben Hur” and put Noah in it, but kept him in his Biblical character, and told the story.

Except, the Biblical story of the flood is not really a happy ending for anyone else except Noah and his family, right? I mean how would it be watching this movie about a guy who doesn’t get on the ark? No twist ending there. People don’t like unhappy endings, especially when they know it from the beginning.

So Paramount and Aronofsky took Noah and made it into “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” without realizing they were making a farce.

http://thanks-project.blogspot.com/2014/03/noah-classic-blunder.html