Film makers always have an agenda. Even if the agenda is art, fame, money, or personal inner release concerning some issue or topic that is bursting them open at the seams, there is always a reason for making a film.
But the director and maker of this film is a new atheist. Which begs the question; why would a new atheist desire to make a movie about Noah?
I have seen a lot of ‘Biblical Epics’ over the years, some good some not good. But most of them, if not all have been set in the ‘Biblical eras’. Such did not appear to be the case with the ‘Noah’ movie. It was filmed in Southern Iceland with no attempt to make it look Babylonian or Turkish.
What struck me on the opening scenes was the films ‘Apocalyptic’ appearance. The cloths appeared more futuristic and the landscape not at all like the Biblical Sacred Geography of the Bible lands.
It soon became quite clear to me that this film was not about the Bible at all. It was not even about the Biblical story of the flood. Something else was going on.
Some scenes were not too bad, but then I noticed when Tony Hopkins appeared on screen he repeatedly mentioned the drinking of “tea”. Anthony Hopkins was of course playing a representation of ‘Methuselah’ but he was not at all like a Biblical Prophet but rather resembled some kind of witch doctor or spiritualist.
Why, I asked, would ‘Methuselah’ mention Noah as ‘drinking tea with an old man’ when there is no evidence that people drank tea in the areas inhabited by Noah. Tea drinking likely began in China yet the script made a clear point of repeating the habit. Why? A conclusion I made was that the reference to drinking tea was a covert method of disconnecting the story to the Biblical eras and giving it a more recent or futuristic setting.
What struck me about the film was that it appeared apocalyptic rather than historical and really, the topic itself was about ‘depopulation’. The popular notion which many of those who presently embrace the theory of ‘Global warming’ that ‘Man has corrupted this world and must be destroyed’. The focus was not upon the Biblical claim that God was correcting the corrupted seed which the serpent had sown. No, the focus was upon ‘saving the animals’ and getting back to ‘Eden’ without man. The animals were the innocent. Man must be destroyed even to the point of a savage and unBiblical representation of Noah as one who became like a madman, wholly intent upon killing the new born child of ‘Shem’s wife’.
The covert yet apparent topic of ‘depopulation’ became quite apparent within the film, the seeds of which the theory of overpopulation can be traced to a Darwinian origin. Darwins acceptance of Thomas Robert Malthus’ principle of population of which his proof was concerning population expansion in America. The film quite clearly represented ‘Darwinian Theory’ in a scene where ‘Noah’ was in the ark after the floods came and he told the story of Creation which in this case was little more than a basic representation of the big bang. The scenes quite swiftly progressed to show a mass of water and sea creatures, one of which crawls out of the water and onto dry land, soon to be transformed into a reptile, then a beast, then a monkey and then ‘Adam and Eve’. The scene was little more than a representation of the often misinformed view of ‘Theistic evolution’.
What could have been rather good was the resurrected inclusion of Tubul Cain, an obscure Biblical character as mentioned in Genesis 4: 22. The Mosaic narrative says that Tubal-Cain was “an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron”.
The Jewish historian Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 1. 2. 2 affirms this and wrote “Tubal…exceeded all men in strength, and was very expert and famous in martial performances”. He also states that he “first of all invented the art of making brass”.
Concerning the historical references to the ancient use of Iron, written history itself disagrees with modern scientific claims concerning the dating of the iron age and even though the character of Noah was not represented Biblically in the film, outside of the English accent and appearance, Tubel-Cain appears quite accurate?
It cannot be merely argued that the film made Biblical mistakes, but more choices of either interpretation or the so-called ‘artistic license’. Such licences were extreme. Such was the case concerning the violence of Noah and his family when the flood waters came and the great springs of the deep burst forth (Genesis 7: 11) and people tried to get on the ark. Noah and his sons were depicted as killing them. This is a distinct misrepresentation. But the claim that people attempted to get on the ark can be traced historically to the Talmud, where the Babylonian version claims “the people came to the ark and clung to it, and cried to Noah for help, but he answered them: “For a hundred and twenty years I entreated ye to follow my words; alas, tis now too late” (The Talmud. Translated by Polano. Part first. Page 25. London)
Thus, it seems that in some ways the writers did some research into the ark, the written texts and so forth, yet they seemed to mingle these things with other ideas. Such things as the representation of the ‘fallen angels’ I thought was pathetic. The Deist representation of God, always named “The creator” is inconsistent with the Noahic story.
Towards the end of the film when the ark had landed, it seems that the film-maker depicted the vessel as broken in two. This, is likely to be based upon the eyewitness claim of George Hagopian who claimed that when he was a boy he was taken to view Noah’s ark on Ararat around the years between 1900-1905. He stated that he saw the ark and went onto it and it was split in two. This, among a good number of reliable historical eye witness accounts that range from Josephus to Marco Polo, give us many indications and evidences concerning the historical whereabouts of the ark. Evidences it seems, the film-maker is aware of?
Thus, in our modern age where some people consider the Bible unreliable, those who believe that Noah’s ark and Biblical Creation are historical facts are sometimes labelled as ‘fanatics’ or ‘uneducated’ or ‘morons’. These claims are untrue. The word ‘uneducated’ should be replaced in many cases with ‘unpersuaded’. For, such claims are often based upon disinformation and misinformation.
Major facts which divide those two groups are matters of faith and facts on both sides. The Darwinian’s and uniformitarians, who must deny the historical reality of Noah’s flood in order for their ‘uniformitarian assumption’ to work, must, if they are sold out to their atheistic world-view play the event down. The event of the flood would disprove their ‘unformitarian assumption’ that the present is the key to the past. For, the implications of a worldwide flood, would be that it had affects concerning the mutations of the earth and the earth’s crust. If there was a worldwide flood, then the fact that 71% of the earth’s surface is water, must be played down by new atheist scientists as being unrelated to a worldwide flood, but the product of highly speculative theories. Thus, when their body of scientists are set up and declare their finds as ‘fact’ then those sheep who follow them are in fact, little more than scientific faith-heads who put their trust in interpretations of science and ignore the historical texts. Or merely label them as unscientific myths for deluded religious morons.
The facts remain that the story of a worldwide flood is highly documented throughout history, geology and archaeology and whether or not a person believes those claims I have made there, is really a matter of faith in objective argument.
The question is; who are you going to put your trust in? Science or scientists? Arguments or Truth? Written proofs or the claims made about them? Darwin or God? Because, as Bob Dylan rightly put it, “You’ve gotta serves somebody. It may be the devil or it may be the Lord but you’ve got to serve somebody”.
The God of the Bible will not take second place. For the Truth, as the great hymn writer put it “demands my soul, my life, my all”
In conclusion; the Noah film was not at all Biblical but a mere hotchpotch of deism and fantasy. Shame because it could have been good. What was good though is the way the film was depicted, which dissolves somewhat the children’s story like representation in other films, cartoons and books and atheist fiction and mockery. However, I thought they spoiled the film and muddled it up. But I don’t think it was intended to be Biblically based, but merely a film which used popular and central characters and events to further something else. A subliminal message of which I think relates to a predicted and futuristic mass genocide of depopulation? Where men seek justification to “annihilate” man and save the earth because according to them, man is destroying it. A wretched notion on their part, which I think should be consistently opposed.
The god of the Noah film is not the God of the Bible. He is the ideal god that the new atheists would prefer, if indeed, in their minds there were such a being, he is a deist god, and one whom, the new atheists in their wishful thinking, would rather exist, than the Biblical Creator. Science views itself as a type of god, the creator of life and this universe and it is science that will seek to give or take away life. The institution of modern science is not a friend of the earth or of people, it is merely gaining peoples confidence as a friend in the present, only to turn and rise up against them in the future. A new army is rising and a new era; science has been hijacked and will be used against us by militants and the one institution which they have presented as the peoples enemy, will be the one institution that will save us and concerning those wretch notions that some people have concerning depopulation, from the likes of Jacques Cousteau, John P. Holdren, Ted Turner, Bill Maher and many more, I think they are disgusting, for there is enough room in this world for all of us.