Noah as Al Gore

As you may have heard, a movie about Noah is in the works starring Russell Crowe.  But don’t get too excited.  Christian screenwriter Brian Godawa has seen the script.  The flood is being played as an environmentalist disaster, and Noah, in effect, is its Al Gore.

Having got a chance to read an undated version of the script for Noah I want to warn you. If you were expecting a Biblically faithful retelling of the story of the greatest mariner in history and a tale of redemption and obedience to God you’ll be sorely disappointed. Noah paints the primeval world of Genesis 6 as scorched arid desert, dry cracked earth, and a gray gloomy sky that gives no rain – and all this, caused by man’s “disrespect” for the environment. In short, an anachronistic doomsday scenario of ancient global warming. How Neolithic man was able to cause such anthropogenic catastrophic climate change without the “evil” carbon emissions of modern industrial revolution is not explained. Nevertheless, humanity wanders the land in nomadic warrior tribes killing animals for food or wasteful trophies.

In this oppressive world, Noah and his family seek to avoid the crowds and live off the land. Noah is a kind of rural shaman, and vegan hippy-like gatherer of herbs. Noah explains that his family “studies the world,” “healing it as best we can,” like a kind of environmentalist scientist. But he also mysteriously has the fighting skills of an ancient Near Eastern Ninja (Hey, it’s a movie, give it a break).

Noah maintains an animal hospital to take care of wounded animals or those who survive the evil “poachers,” of the land. Just whose animal rights laws they are violating, I am not sure, since there are only fiefdoms of warlords and tribes. Be that as it may, Noah is the Mother Teresa of animals.

Though God has not spoken to men or angels for a long time, Noah is haunted by recurring dreams of a rainstorm and flood that he surmises is God’s judgment on man because as Noah says, “At our hand, all he created is dying.” The trees, the animals, and the environment. “If we change, if we work to save it, perhaps he will too [save us].” Or as grandfather Methuselah reiterates, “We have destroyed this world, so we ourselves will be destroyed. Justice.” Oh, and I almost forgot, they kill people too, but it’s not really as important. In another place, “We have murdered each other. We raped the world. The Creator has judged us.” The notion of human evil is more of an afterthought or symptom of the bigger environmental concern of the great tree hugger in the sky. . . .

Meanwhile, Noah has himself become a bit psychotic, like an environmentalist or animal rights activist who concludes that people do not deserve to survive because of what they’ve done to the environment and to animals. Noah deduces that God’s only reason for his family on the boat is to shepherd the animals to safety, “and then mankind disappears. It would be a better world.” He concludes that there will be no more births in this family so that when they start over in the new world, they will eventually die out, leaving the animals in a humanless paradise of ecoharmony and peace. As Noah says, “The creatures of the earth, the world itself, shall be safe.” (Except for slamming intergalactic meteors, non-anthropocentric global warming, ice ages, sun spots, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and that “survival of the fittest,” eat-or-be-eaten thing. But other than that… “safe.”)

His ethical reasoning? The same as all environmentalist activists: The ends justify the means. “We must weigh those [human] lives against all creation.” Shades of Malthus and Al Gore.

There’s only one problem. One of the women on the ark is pregnant, and Noah decides that if it is a boy, it can live, but if it is a girl, he must kill it. We can’t have more of those nasty little virus-like humans swarming the earth. So most of the last half of the script is a family killer thriller like Sleeping With the Enemy, that asks the dark dramatic movie question “will Noah kill the child if it is a girl or not?” Ancient sex-selection infanticide.

via Darren Aronofsky’s Noah: Environmentalist Wacko | Godawa’s MovieBlog.

HT to Anthony Sacramone, whose commentary you should read and who ends his post with this:  “I only wish God could sue for copyright infringement.”

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Booklover

    Preposterous. Especially the part about Noah wanting to kill his granddaughter. The problem is, if we Christians make a big deal about the movie, it’s almost like advertisement. Do we just ignore it?

  • Booklover

    Preposterous. Especially the part about Noah wanting to kill his granddaughter. The problem is, if we Christians make a big deal about the movie, it’s almost like advertisement. Do we just ignore it?

  • Michael B.

    From a college New Testament Textbook:

    From the beginning his mother knew that he was
    no ordinary person. Prior to his birth, a heavenly
    figure appeared to her, announcing that her son
    would not be a mere mortal but would himself be
    divine. This prophecy was confirmed by the
    miraculous character of his birth, a birth accompa-
    nied by supernatural signs. The boy was already
    recognized as a spiritual authority in his youth; his
    discussions with recognized experts showed his
    superior knowledge of all things religious. As an
    adult he left home to engage in an itinerant
    preaching ministry. He went from village to town
    with his message of good news, proclaiming that
    people should forgo their concerns for the materi-
    al things of this life, such as how they should dress
    and what they should eat. They should instead be
    concerned with their eternal souls.

    He gathered around him a number of disciples
    who were amazed by his teaching and his flawless
    character. They became convinced that he was no
    ordinary man but was the Son of God. Their faith
    received striking confirmation in the miraculous
    things that he did. He could reportedly predict
    the future, heal the sick, cast out demons, and
    raise the dead. Not everyone proved friendly,
    however. At the end of his life, his enemies
    trumped up charges against him, and he was
    placed on trial before Roman authorities for
    crimes against the state.

    Even after he departed this realm, however, he
    did not forsake his devoted followers. Some
    claimed that he had ascended bodily into heaven;
    others said that he had appeared to them, alive,
    afterwards, that they had talked with him and
    touched him and become convinced that he could
    not be bound by death. A number of his followers
    spread the good news about this man, recounting
    what they had seen him say and do. Eventually
    some of these accounts came to be written down
    in books that circulated throughout the empire.

    But I doubt that you have ever read them. In
    fact, I suspect you have never heard the name of
    this miracle-working “Son of God.” The man I
    have been referring to is the great neo-
    Pythagorean teacher and pagan holy man of the
    first century C.E., Apollonius of Tyana, a worship-
    per of the Roman gods, whose life and teachings
    are recorded in the writings of his later follower
    Philostratus, in his book The Life of Apollonius.

    Apollonius lived at about the time of Jesus.
    Even though they never met, the reports about
    their lives were in many ways similar. At a later
    time, Jesus’ followers argued that Jesus was the mir-
    acle-working Son of God, and that Apollonius was
    an impostor, a magician, and a fraud. Perhaps not
    surprisingly, Apollonius’s followers made just the
    opposite claim, asserting that he was the miracle-
    working Son of God, and that Jesus was a fraud.

    What is remarkable is that these were not the
    only two persons in the Greco-Roman world who
    were thought to have been supernaturally
    endowed as teachers and miracle workers. In fact,
    we know from the tantalizing but fragmentary
    records that have survived that numerous other
    persons were also said to have performed miracles,
    to have calmed the storm and multiplied the
    loaves, to have told the future and healed the sick,
    to have cast out demons and raised the dead, to
    have been supernaturally born and taken up into
    heaven at the end of their life. Even though Jesus
    may be the only miracle-working Son of God that
    we know about in our world, he was one of many
    talked about in the first century.

    ~~
    Just some thoughts on the whole “copyright lawsuit”.

  • Michael B.

    From a college New Testament Textbook:

    From the beginning his mother knew that he was
    no ordinary person. Prior to his birth, a heavenly
    figure appeared to her, announcing that her son
    would not be a mere mortal but would himself be
    divine. This prophecy was confirmed by the
    miraculous character of his birth, a birth accompa-
    nied by supernatural signs. The boy was already
    recognized as a spiritual authority in his youth; his
    discussions with recognized experts showed his
    superior knowledge of all things religious. As an
    adult he left home to engage in an itinerant
    preaching ministry. He went from village to town
    with his message of good news, proclaiming that
    people should forgo their concerns for the materi-
    al things of this life, such as how they should dress
    and what they should eat. They should instead be
    concerned with their eternal souls.

    He gathered around him a number of disciples
    who were amazed by his teaching and his flawless
    character. They became convinced that he was no
    ordinary man but was the Son of God. Their faith
    received striking confirmation in the miraculous
    things that he did. He could reportedly predict
    the future, heal the sick, cast out demons, and
    raise the dead. Not everyone proved friendly,
    however. At the end of his life, his enemies
    trumped up charges against him, and he was
    placed on trial before Roman authorities for
    crimes against the state.

    Even after he departed this realm, however, he
    did not forsake his devoted followers. Some
    claimed that he had ascended bodily into heaven;
    others said that he had appeared to them, alive,
    afterwards, that they had talked with him and
    touched him and become convinced that he could
    not be bound by death. A number of his followers
    spread the good news about this man, recounting
    what they had seen him say and do. Eventually
    some of these accounts came to be written down
    in books that circulated throughout the empire.

    But I doubt that you have ever read them. In
    fact, I suspect you have never heard the name of
    this miracle-working “Son of God.” The man I
    have been referring to is the great neo-
    Pythagorean teacher and pagan holy man of the
    first century C.E., Apollonius of Tyana, a worship-
    per of the Roman gods, whose life and teachings
    are recorded in the writings of his later follower
    Philostratus, in his book The Life of Apollonius.

    Apollonius lived at about the time of Jesus.
    Even though they never met, the reports about
    their lives were in many ways similar. At a later
    time, Jesus’ followers argued that Jesus was the mir-
    acle-working Son of God, and that Apollonius was
    an impostor, a magician, and a fraud. Perhaps not
    surprisingly, Apollonius’s followers made just the
    opposite claim, asserting that he was the miracle-
    working Son of God, and that Jesus was a fraud.

    What is remarkable is that these were not the
    only two persons in the Greco-Roman world who
    were thought to have been supernaturally
    endowed as teachers and miracle workers. In fact,
    we know from the tantalizing but fragmentary
    records that have survived that numerous other
    persons were also said to have performed miracles,
    to have calmed the storm and multiplied the
    loaves, to have told the future and healed the sick,
    to have cast out demons and raised the dead, to
    have been supernaturally born and taken up into
    heaven at the end of their life. Even though Jesus
    may be the only miracle-working Son of God that
    we know about in our world, he was one of many
    talked about in the first century.

    ~~
    Just some thoughts on the whole “copyright lawsuit”.

  • Tom Hering

    Yeah, the studio is promoting Noah as a biblical epic. No surprise. There’s a market out there for religious movies, and the studio needs to recoup $130 million dollars – by any means necessary. But is a biblical epic what the filmmakers intended? Or are they just playing with the biblical material to make an apocalyptic fantasy film? A look at the graphic novel that preceded the movie project reveals the latter is indeed the case. And my reaction is, “big deal.”

    It’s not as if Hollywood hasn’t taken a lot of license with biblical material before, even in supposedly faithful films like The Ten Commandments and The Passion of the Christ. Will most moviegoers think they’re watching the actual Bible story when they see Noah? Heck no. Will they think they’re watching a “truer” interpretation of the Bible story? A relatively few will, I’m sure. But so what?

    What seems to really be irking Christian critics of this movie is its inclusion of non-conservative cultural values. Okay, fine. Go get a Noah movie made you’d like better. All it takes is investors. And the free market will decide which movie is more successful as entertainment.

  • Tom Hering

    Yeah, the studio is promoting Noah as a biblical epic. No surprise. There’s a market out there for religious movies, and the studio needs to recoup $130 million dollars – by any means necessary. But is a biblical epic what the filmmakers intended? Or are they just playing with the biblical material to make an apocalyptic fantasy film? A look at the graphic novel that preceded the movie project reveals the latter is indeed the case. And my reaction is, “big deal.”

    It’s not as if Hollywood hasn’t taken a lot of license with biblical material before, even in supposedly faithful films like The Ten Commandments and The Passion of the Christ. Will most moviegoers think they’re watching the actual Bible story when they see Noah? Heck no. Will they think they’re watching a “truer” interpretation of the Bible story? A relatively few will, I’m sure. But so what?

    What seems to really be irking Christian critics of this movie is its inclusion of non-conservative cultural values. Okay, fine. Go get a Noah movie made you’d like better. All it takes is investors. And the free market will decide which movie is more successful as entertainment.

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    Philostratus’ book about Appolonius was written in the 3rd century. The Gospels were written in the 1st. So yeah… copyright.

    I can claim today that there was a miracle-worker named Bob of Carthage who lived around the same time as Jesus, but it doesn’t really have the same substance as what we know about Christ.

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    Philostratus’ book about Appolonius was written in the 3rd century. The Gospels were written in the 1st. So yeah… copyright.

    I can claim today that there was a miracle-worker named Bob of Carthage who lived around the same time as Jesus, but it doesn’t really have the same substance as what we know about Christ.

  • Abby

    @2 That sounds like a lesson I heard Rob Bell preach!

  • Abby

    @2 That sounds like a lesson I heard Rob Bell preach!

  • Jon

    Sounds like Noah meets Mad Max meets The Shining, maybe with a little Ace Ventura thrown in.

  • Jon

    Sounds like Noah meets Mad Max meets The Shining, maybe with a little Ace Ventura thrown in.

  • DonS

    It’s not as if Hollywood hasn’t taken a lot of license with biblical material before, even in supposedly faithful films like The Ten Commandments and The Passion of the Christ.

    True, Tom @ 3. But there’s a difference between respectful license and disrespectful license. License that misses the entire point of the Biblical account is Satanic.

    As a side note, if the handful of pre-Noahic earth occupants could bring such environmental destruction on the earth, this is an indication that we 7 billion are doomed — there’s certainly nothing we can do to reverse environmental destruction brought onto the earth by the other 6.6 billion occupants by regulating the U.S. economy into oblivion. So actually, the lesson of this story is probably opposite to what the producers intend.

  • DonS

    It’s not as if Hollywood hasn’t taken a lot of license with biblical material before, even in supposedly faithful films like The Ten Commandments and The Passion of the Christ.

    True, Tom @ 3. But there’s a difference between respectful license and disrespectful license. License that misses the entire point of the Biblical account is Satanic.

    As a side note, if the handful of pre-Noahic earth occupants could bring such environmental destruction on the earth, this is an indication that we 7 billion are doomed — there’s certainly nothing we can do to reverse environmental destruction brought onto the earth by the other 6.6 billion occupants by regulating the U.S. economy into oblivion. So actually, the lesson of this story is probably opposite to what the producers intend.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Can I raise a practical question at this point? Are they gonna film Genesis 9:20-23 or not? Because surely some Russell Crowe soft porn would sell tickets.

    But yeah, environmental disaster flicks. Man, we need another one of those. So compelling. Zzzzzzz….

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Can I raise a practical question at this point? Are they gonna film Genesis 9:20-23 or not? Because surely some Russell Crowe soft porn would sell tickets.

    But yeah, environmental disaster flicks. Man, we need another one of those. So compelling. Zzzzzzz….

  • Tom Hering

    … there’s a difference between respectful license and disrespectful license. License that misses the entire point of the Biblical account is Satanic. (@ 7)

    So what do you do with Steinbeck’s East of Eden? Or Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom!? Or any one of thousands upon thousands of works of art that draw inspiration – respectfully or otherwise – from biblical characters, themes, imagery, etc.? Are they all satanic if they don’t make the same point as the biblical source material?

    But again, I don’t think the problem you and others have with this movie is theological so much as it’s cultural. Arnofsky wants to make some points (or maybe just play with some popular ideas?) you don’t like because they’re not conservative. That’s a threat to America and/or Christianity how, exactly?

  • Tom Hering

    … there’s a difference between respectful license and disrespectful license. License that misses the entire point of the Biblical account is Satanic. (@ 7)

    So what do you do with Steinbeck’s East of Eden? Or Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom!? Or any one of thousands upon thousands of works of art that draw inspiration – respectfully or otherwise – from biblical characters, themes, imagery, etc.? Are they all satanic if they don’t make the same point as the biblical source material?

    But again, I don’t think the problem you and others have with this movie is theological so much as it’s cultural. Arnofsky wants to make some points (or maybe just play with some popular ideas?) you don’t like because they’re not conservative. That’s a threat to America and/or Christianity how, exactly?

  • DonS

    Tom @ 9: East of Eden isn’t a retelling of the story of Adam and Eve. Other than the title, evoking the idea that we are not talking about the biblical paradise, it has nothing to do with the biblical account of creation. Or maybe I forget — I haven’t read the book since I was a teen. But isn’t it about the Salinas valley?

    The biblical account of Noah is a type of the final white throne judgment. To pervert that, and its sweeping account of the judgment that will befall all disobedient humankind, absent their salvation through the grace of God’s provision of mercy, for the purpose of telling a silly little story of environmentalism, is a travesty.

  • DonS

    Tom @ 9: East of Eden isn’t a retelling of the story of Adam and Eve. Other than the title, evoking the idea that we are not talking about the biblical paradise, it has nothing to do with the biblical account of creation. Or maybe I forget — I haven’t read the book since I was a teen. But isn’t it about the Salinas valley?

    The biblical account of Noah is a type of the final white throne judgment. To pervert that, and its sweeping account of the judgment that will befall all disobedient humankind, absent their salvation through the grace of God’s provision of mercy, for the purpose of telling a silly little story of environmentalism, is a travesty.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@10) said:

    The biblical account of Noah is a type of the final white throne judgment.

    Of course, Scripture itself seems to emphasize a different reading of the event:

    …when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you…

    Salvation, not judgment (though the two are, of course, not unrelated).

    Still, one wonders how a commitment made by man can do such great things…

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@10) said:

    The biblical account of Noah is a type of the final white throne judgment.

    Of course, Scripture itself seems to emphasize a different reading of the event:

    …when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you…

    Salvation, not judgment (though the two are, of course, not unrelated).

    Still, one wonders how a commitment made by man can do such great things…

  • DonS

    tODD @ 11: fair enough. To my larger point, I’m not sure it makes much difference whether you emphasize salvation or judgment, both of which are prominent aspects of the Noah story. I wrote the comment off the top of my head. The point is, the movie trivializes an important biblical account which unfolds God’s plan of salvation. Steinbeck’s work is not a parallel to this.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 11: fair enough. To my larger point, I’m not sure it makes much difference whether you emphasize salvation or judgment, both of which are prominent aspects of the Noah story. I wrote the comment off the top of my head. The point is, the movie trivializes an important biblical account which unfolds God’s plan of salvation. Steinbeck’s work is not a parallel to this.

  • Tom Hering

    Don, you’ll recall that East of Eden is the story of Adam (yes, Adam) Trask and his two Cain-and-Abel sons. Insofar as it’s a secularization of the biblical account, it could be said to be a trivialization, too. But is that satanic? Of course not. Though, I guess, it would have been – if Steinbeck had made the Trasks’ story an environmental tale. Yes?

  • Tom Hering

    Don, you’ll recall that East of Eden is the story of Adam (yes, Adam) Trask and his two Cain-and-Abel sons. Insofar as it’s a secularization of the biblical account, it could be said to be a trivialization, too. But is that satanic? Of course not. Though, I guess, it would have been – if Steinbeck had made the Trasks’ story an environmental tale. Yes?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@12), agreed on Steinbeck. Lots of people use metaphors or allusions from the Bible.

    But I would argue that The Passion of the Christ may actually have been a more dangerous movie.

    This Noah movie sounds self-evidently goofy. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Biblical account should recognize the screenplay as only tangentially related. And, obviously, Christians will react poorly (especially Evangelicals; I think we can already see that here), making it clear they don’t endorse it as a faithful retelling.

    Contrast that with The Passion, a movie that American Christians went out of their way to endorse, to the point of bussing their congregations to screenings (or airing ads for the film in their sanctuaries; hello, money-changers). And yet, I would argue, The Passion really misses the point of the story of Jesus, practically ignoring the Resurrection, apparently because so much time was spent on torture-guilt gore.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@12), agreed on Steinbeck. Lots of people use metaphors or allusions from the Bible.

    But I would argue that The Passion of the Christ may actually have been a more dangerous movie.

    This Noah movie sounds self-evidently goofy. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Biblical account should recognize the screenplay as only tangentially related. And, obviously, Christians will react poorly (especially Evangelicals; I think we can already see that here), making it clear they don’t endorse it as a faithful retelling.

    Contrast that with The Passion, a movie that American Christians went out of their way to endorse, to the point of bussing their congregations to screenings (or airing ads for the film in their sanctuaries; hello, money-changers). And yet, I would argue, The Passion really misses the point of the story of Jesus, practically ignoring the Resurrection, apparently because so much time was spent on torture-guilt gore.

  • DonS

    Tom @ 13: I went and looked it up on Wikipedia, as I didn’t even recall any connection to the Genesis account. I didn’t necessarily read books in high school with a great deal of insight ;-)

    Let’s just say it’s a very “loose” adaptation of the Cain and Abel story, as it doesn’t even include a murder and all of the names have been changed. Moreover, the Cain and Abel story is not a bedrock story concerning God’s plan of salvation, as is Noah’s ark. I don’t think it’s a good parallel at all, nor is the Steinbeck story necessarily a “trivialization” of that particular biblical account. It seems to be respectful of the original, not directly contrary to it, etc., etc.

  • DonS

    Tom @ 13: I went and looked it up on Wikipedia, as I didn’t even recall any connection to the Genesis account. I didn’t necessarily read books in high school with a great deal of insight ;-)

    Let’s just say it’s a very “loose” adaptation of the Cain and Abel story, as it doesn’t even include a murder and all of the names have been changed. Moreover, the Cain and Abel story is not a bedrock story concerning God’s plan of salvation, as is Noah’s ark. I don’t think it’s a good parallel at all, nor is the Steinbeck story necessarily a “trivialization” of that particular biblical account. It seems to be respectful of the original, not directly contrary to it, etc., etc.

  • DonS

    tODD, I pretty much agree with you on The Passion. It did miss the point of Christ’s resurrection, and its Catholic roots led to far too much of an emphasis on Mary. I wouldn’t put it in the category of what this Noah movie seems to be, because I think it was a sincere effort on Gibson’s part to tell an obviously crucial story to humankind, far from a trivialization, but I never had a desire to see it again, that’s for sure.

  • DonS

    tODD, I pretty much agree with you on The Passion. It did miss the point of Christ’s resurrection, and its Catholic roots led to far too much of an emphasis on Mary. I wouldn’t put it in the category of what this Noah movie seems to be, because I think it was a sincere effort on Gibson’s part to tell an obviously crucial story to humankind, far from a trivialization, but I never had a desire to see it again, that’s for sure.

  • http://cockahoop.com tODD

    But DonS (@16), that’s my point! A “sincere” movie, endorsed by Christians, that is largely accurate as to what it shows (though with one glaring near-omission), yet misses the point of THE story of the Bible, is vastly more dangerous than a film that is none of those things.

  • http://cockahoop.com tODD

    But DonS (@16), that’s my point! A “sincere” movie, endorsed by Christians, that is largely accurate as to what it shows (though with one glaring near-omission), yet misses the point of THE story of the Bible, is vastly more dangerous than a film that is none of those things.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 17: the last scene shows the resurrection. It’s not a “near omission”. It’s just a different emphasis than you (or I) would have preferred. I overstated the case above when I said it “missed” the point, it just didn’t have the same emphasis I would have had.

    I guess we do disagree on the relative danger of the two approaches.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 17: the last scene shows the resurrection. It’s not a “near omission”. It’s just a different emphasis than you (or I) would have preferred. I overstated the case above when I said it “missed” the point, it just didn’t have the same emphasis I would have had.

    I guess we do disagree on the relative danger of the two approaches.

  • Tom Hering

    … a bedrock story concerning God’s plan of salvation, as is Noah’s ark.

    I couldn’t agree more, Don. But did you notice that God saved all the creatures of the Earth? 99.999 percent of which man would have no practical use for after the Flood. So I don’t mind that Arnofsky’s Noah will express the truth that God loves every beast He’s ever made. Though I’ll be disappointed that – leaving out the plan of salvation – the movie will leave out the hope and promise that’s for them, too. But it might still be good entertainment. Maybe. We’ll have to wait and see.

  • Tom Hering

    … a bedrock story concerning God’s plan of salvation, as is Noah’s ark.

    I couldn’t agree more, Don. But did you notice that God saved all the creatures of the Earth? 99.999 percent of which man would have no practical use for after the Flood. So I don’t mind that Arnofsky’s Noah will express the truth that God loves every beast He’s ever made. Though I’ll be disappointed that – leaving out the plan of salvation – the movie will leave out the hope and promise that’s for them, too. But it might still be good entertainment. Maybe. We’ll have to wait and see.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X