Posted on 03/16/2014 9:25:11 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
I was invited to attend a screening of the movie Noah on Thursday March 6. The movie starring Russell Crowe as Noah (and including Jennifer Connelly, Emma Watson, Anthony Hopkins and Ray Winstone) is set to be released on March 28, 2014. While reviews are embargoed, I wanted to share a few specific thoughts in response to all the chatter out there from people who haven't seen the film.
There has been some concern expressed in the Christian community due to the fact that the movie is not a literal depiction of the scriptural account of Noah (chapters 5-9 from the Book of Genesis). There has also been concern expressed about the choices the director and screenwriters made adding details to the account that weren't in Genesis. For example, how did Noah build an ark that big? How did Noah react to the death and destruction of all things living in the world outside of the ark? Did Noah's contemporaries know the floods were going to come and what (if anything) did they do to fight for their lives? How did 7 pairs of each animal come to be in the ark and stay calm for months on board?
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
The term [Fundamentalism] was born when conservative Protestants in early-20th-century America committed themselves to defend the five "fundamentals" of their faith -- the inerrancy of the Bible, virgin birth and deity of Jesus, doctrine of atonement, bodily resurrection of Jesus, and His imminent return.
-- from the thread The many forms of fundamentalism
Fundamentalist: A term created during the turn-of-the-20th-century Protestant church splits to define those who held to the fundamentals of Christianitythe inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Jesus and his literal resurrection from the dead. The term is now considered pejorative. (Wheaton College philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga famously observed, The full meaning of the term can be given by something like stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine.)
-- from the thread New Kids In The Flock
Alex:
Well, again, the Catholic blogger, if we are to take him at his word, stated he had seen an “advanced screening of the movie. I agree, the director’s prior work, or some of it, is problematic, and one such movie was clearly a shot at the Catholic Church in Ireland and how Irish society and thus the Catholic Church as well dealt with young women who were pregnant before marriage. Of course this was another time and place and I guess reflected a time when out of wedlock pregnancy had a different stigma than it does today.
So I agree, I have not seen the movie nor seen an advanced screening and will wait and decide whether or not to see it once the full plot is know and others have a chance to review it and give an account of the plot and whether the substance of its message is consistent with the OT and even more so, Historic Christian theology. I have liked some of Russell Crowe’s work in the past, Gladiator, Beautiful Mind, and might see his work in this film, again, maybe not.
But back to my OP, the Catholic Blogger was only offering a review of the film and making a case why “Catholics” should not just write the film off based on criticism that is being levied against the film from some circles.
God is pretty clear about divorce in the Old Testament as well:
Reason number #3
My daughter's 6th grade catechist told the class that the Noah's Ark story of the Bible is a myth. What is the Catholic belief? I watched a documentary on the Discovery Channel that showed part of what they thought was the Ark. The teacher told her it couldn't be true, because he couldn't have built that big of a boat in those days; it would've taken too long.
Thanks for your response.
Christine Seel
Dear Christine:
The Church has no dogmatic views one way or another. Huge floods were common in ancient Mesopotamia, so the Noah story could well have a basis in fact (see, for instance, the colossal flood) in antiquity.
Nor is the problem of a world-destroying flood so problematic if humanity was confined to a fairly small geographical area.
Bottom line: We don't know enough to make very many confident proclamations about how much of the Noah story is to be taken as scientific fact, particularly since the author of Genesis had no interest in writing science.
Mark Shea
Luk_3:36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
BTW-I believe this is the same Mark Shea that our Catholic friends here fawn over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.