We went to see Noah over the weekend and thought I would make a few comments on it.
So far it has gathered some strong reactions pro and con. Many religious fundamentalists are upset with it because it doesn’t follow the Bible that closely. Here are some of their complaints.
(1) Noah refers to God as “The Creator” rather than God. I don’t see a problem with this but some think it is disrespectful.
(2) Fallen Angels that look like Transformers made of stone help Noah build the ark. Believers think that this belongs in a science fiction movie rather than a Bible story.
Yes, the Bible does not back up such an ingredient, but it is a creative touch and makes the story more interesting.
(3) Noah doesn’t talk with God but learns about the flood through dreams and drinking a magical potion given to him by Methuselah, who comes across like a Shaman.
Again, I don’t have a problem with this. I thought it was a good creative touch. One orthodox critic made this observation, saying that if the movie just stuck to the few lines about Noah in the Bible without improvising, the story would have been pretty boring. He has a point.
Now I have no problem with movies taking some creative license to make the movie more interesting but some of the other deviations from the Bible text go way beyond a mere enhancement of the story.
I was a little perplexed that only one of Noah’s sons (Shem) in the story had a wife when the Bible clearly tells us that all three sons were married and had many children after the flood.
Why would they write such a script that runs in direct opposition to the Bible story? Making up details to fill in the gaps of the story is one thing, but this completely changes the story.
Then after I saw the film I put the pieces together. Here is what I came up with.
The writer and director Darren Aronofsky is an atheist and environmentalist. Now why would an atheist environmentalist write and direct a film about a famous Biblical character? Obviously his motive would not be to increase our faith in God.
BUT… if he could use it as a vehicle to further his personal agenda, then what the heck?
It appears that Aronofsky is not only an environmentalist but belongs to the wing who sees human kind as a mistake of nature, a virus in the earth that does more harm than good. This brand of environmentalist actually believes the earth would be much better off without human beings, who are a blight on the planet.
So, even though the guy is an atheist, he saw that the story of Noah would be the perfect medium for his message – that is, if he made a few fundamental changes to the Biblical record.
Here are some changes he had to make to turn Noah into an extreme environmentalist.
(1) He made Noah and his family vegetarians, even though we are clearly told that God approved of them being meat eaters, “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you,” said God to Noah. Gen 9:3.
(2) God was only angry with humans but was happy with the rest of the living creatures, which were innocent and wonderful.
Not so, says the Bible.
“And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” Gen 6:7-13
Here we are clearly told that God was not only upset with humans but “the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air…” and “ALL flesh.” We are even told that the earth itself “was corrupt.” The idea of Mother Earth being corrupt is particularly blasphemous to an extreme environmentalist so changes to the Bible text definitely had to be made.
So Noah was created in the image of Aronofsky. He was a strict vegetarian who lived to disturb nothing that was natural on the earth. He even forbids his child from disturbing a flower by picking it. It was wrong for his kid to pick a flower just to enjoy its smell and beauty.
On the other hand, the reason Aronofsky gives that the Creator wanted to destroy the earth was because greedy capitalists were ruining the planet. Their most egregious error was at they ate meat, but on top of this they did lots of strip mining and clear cutting of the forests doing lots of damage to the environment.
Who would have thought that they did Strip mining in the days of Noah?
So the basic idea in the head of the Creator from the mind of Aronofsky was that humans were a blight and needed to be completely destroyed – every man woman and child. After their destruction then the earth could continue in peace inhabited by the peaceful plants and animals.
To insure that humans would go extinct after the flood Aronofsky wrote in the script that Shem’s wife was barren and Japheth and Ham had no wives with which to procreate after the flood. Thus when Noah and his family died the human race would be no more.
That Shaman devil Methuselah thwarted the will of God just as the serpent did in the Garden of Eden. He healed Shem’s wife just before the flood so she could have children and thus the blight of human beings continued to exist on the face of the earth.
Never has a Bible story been so corrupted to further a political agenda. In fact I can’t think of a piece of recorded history that has been so drastically altered for an agenda film.
To portray humanity as a blight and a huge error of the Creator is about as harmful a doctrine as one can promote. Yeah, we are not perfect and make mistakes, but as time passes and we rise above our faults humans will become the most benevolent force on the planet and will nurture plant, animal and human life until the whole planet becomes a true Garden of Eden.
Copyright by J J Dewey 2014
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE