Just Saw Noah Today

Possible spoiler alert!!

Like the title says, I just saw Noah today. Nice. Nice except for having to use the bathroom twice during the best parts. I really enjoyed when Noah was retelling the events from the creation up until their point of time. I thought it was interesting how Darren Aronofsky pictured Adam and Eve as beings of light. Everybody harps on it not being based on the Bible. This is what I gotta say to them: If you want to know about the Bible, read the Bible!! As I saw mentioned elsewhere, there are a lot of gaps in the Noah account in the Bible; Aronofsky was simply filling in the gaps.

What did you enjoy about Noah, if you haven't already mentioned so in another thread?

Just saw Noah today? I thought you meant literally until I remembered it was a movie. LOL I haven't seen it yet but would like to.

Spoiler alert!

-------------

I'm pretty sure that the Zohar rocks were some kind of uranium or something. They glowed, you had to hit them to get them to spark off (that's how we get nukes to ignite, with smaller charge explosions), and very small amounts cause things to go up in flames in milliseconds.

It would explain how so much of the planet was such a barren wasteland as well. I mean, even ravaged by humans acting like locusts shouldn't be THAT horrific looking, but it seriously looked like the landscape of Fallout 3.

I liked that and also how it really made it hit home just how wicked the whole thing was. I mean, you think about the Bible talking about sin, but you don't really realize how horrific it was if such account are true even in metaphor, just pure taint right down to the core.

I didn't go to a theater to view the film but I am going to comment on it anyhow. Neither have I ever gone to an Ozzie Osborne spectacle or any other Satanically inspired heavy metal concert but I know that I'm equipped intellectually and spiritually to comment on the evil contained therein. Same goes for 'Noah.'

Attending any screening of the film 'Noah' the viewer/moviegoer would do well to enter with great caution into such an agreement, meaning a bargain, as in a pact with the devil, because that's what one does when one willingly participates in such a thing by making a conscious decision - under their own volition - to participate in such a scandalous epic. The very act of watching such a propaganda hit piece as this implicates the viewer in no less a manner than the actors themselves.

I heard an actor once say ... ... ..."well, I was just playing a part and whatever roles I play they don't really have any effect on my 'real' life, nor am I anything at all like the characters I portray."

Everyone involved in this production (including the moviegoers themselves) - from the producers of the film, as well as the actors, all the way on down to the owners of the venue where its being shown - are operating under phony pretenses inasmuch as the film gives an artificial characterization of Noah, as well as the entire epic of the biblical flood. By creating a false narrative the movie speaks ill of one of the greatest of biblical characters - next to Job, perhaps the greatest.

In short - the Satanically inspired, Kabala saturated, Zionist backed biblical hit piece (of Anti-Christ propaganda) "Noah," is a blasphemous cartoon written, produced and promoted by the Kabalist Jews, Darren Aronofsky and co-writer Ari Handel. Every utterance in this 'epic' film is a lie intended to seduce "the Goy," and stands in stark contrast to, not merely the biblical account of Noah and the flood, but to the whole of the Old and the New Testaments.

Be mindful: Kabalistic Judaism/Freemasonry is a Satanic cult in control of much of the world that makes extensive use of Zionist controlled Hollywood to spread its message of evil to all who would 'watch and listen' in hopes of gaining favor with the evil one.

An excellent review titled "Noah - Cabalist Jewish Blasphemy"
is found HERE anothervoicerev184.blogspot.ca...

valdonzontaz
By creating a false narrative the movie speaks ill of one of the greatest of biblical characters - next to Job, perhaps the greatest..... In short - the Satanically inspired, Kabala saturated, Zionist backed biblical hit piece (of Anti-Christ propaganda)

You do realize that the story of Noah is a MYTH, right? You can't do a 'hit piece' on fiction.
Hollywierd can tell the story however they want ... because it's just a made up story anyways.

Rabbonim have for thousands of years filled in gaps in the stories from the Torah. The embellished stories were called Midrashim and are found in the Midrash. At first Aronofsky and the screen writer Ari Handel were quite proud about making the self proclaimed "least biblical" Bible epic ever made.

Apparently the studio informed the creative duo of their desire to also pilfer the pockets of the religious faithful. They then changed their tune and claimed to have made a midrashim and as you said "fill in the gaps" of the biblical narrative. But this is blatantly false. Not only are many gaps filled in with contradictory information, events and circumstances that are found in the Bible are altered or omitted.

I've detailed many of the inaccuracies here: Noah's Farce

FlyersFan

valdonzontaz
By creating a false narrative the movie speaks ill of one of the greatest of biblical characters - next to Job, perhaps the greatest..... In short - the Satanically inspired, Kabala saturated, Zionist backed biblical hit piece (of Anti-Christ propaganda)

You do realize that the story of Noah is a MYTH, right? You can't do a 'hit piece' on fiction.
Hollywierd can tell the story however they want ... because it's just a made up story anyways.

Let us extend your convoluted logic a bit further (not farther) to the well know Jewish myth "The Diary of Anne Frank." You do realize that the story of Anne Frank is a MYTH, right? Very many observers do not believe for one minute the story of Anne Frank and so they have permission to relegate it to the status of a "Myth" much in the same way that you have done with the story of "Noah."

So, according to your logic "The Diary of Anne Frank." is nothing more than a literary device - an historical invention; a purely fictional account of a horror done to a Jewish woman designed to show the world the true horrors of the Nazi regime - before, during, and after the war. A fictional account of a young woman subjected to the most unimaginable horrors at the hands of the equally 'mythical' Nazi's. And being the contrived account that it really is, the producer therefore has the right to portray Anne Frank in any way he so pleases.

Look man, I'm only following your convoluted logic.

Now, suppose some anti-semitic producer lurking out there somewhere, perhaps on the staff of David Duke or some other notorious KKK'er, decides to make a movie about Anne Frank portraying her as a subversive agent working for the other side and that she's also a prostitute hiding in that attic turning tricks for sex starved German soldiers.

After all - its only a fictional story - a Myth - and the writer/producers have total liberty to express their artistic license and to portray Anne Frank in any way that they want to - right?

reply to post by valdonzontaz


Some people actually just enjoy movies regardless of the story line and what references it may include. Not everyone cares about God or Satan, they just might enjoy watching computer generated scenes of things you'll never see with your own eyes (without dying).

It's a movie, not gospel.


Enjoy or don't, choice is yours.

valdonzontaz

FlyersFan

valdonzontaz
By creating a false narrative the movie speaks ill of one of the greatest of biblical characters - next to Job, perhaps the greatest..... In short - the Satanically inspired, Kabala saturated, Zionist backed biblical hit piece (of Anti-Christ propaganda)

You do realize that the story of Noah is a MYTH, right? You can't do a 'hit piece' on fiction.
Hollywierd can tell the story however they want ... because it's just a made up story anyways.

Let us extend your convoluted logic a bit further (not farther) to the well know Jewish myth "The Diary of Anne Frank." You do realize that the story of Anne Frank is a MYTH, right? Very many observers do not believe for one minute the story of Anne Frank and so they have permission to relegate it to the status of a "Myth" much in the same way that you have done with the story of "Noah."

So, according to your logic "The Diary of Anne Frank." is nothing more than a literary device - an historical invention; a purely fictional account of a horror done to a Jewish woman designed to show the world the true horrors of the Nazi regime - before, during, and after the war. A fictional account of a young woman subjected to the most unimaginable horrors at the hands of the equally 'mythical' Nazi's. And being the contrived account that it really is, the producer therefore has the right to portray Anne Frank in any way he so pleases.

Look man, I'm only following your convoluted logic.

Now, suppose some anti-semitic producer lurking out there somewhere, perhaps on the staff of David Duke or some other notorious KKK'er, decides to make a movie about Anne Frank portraying her as a subversive agent working for the other side and that she's also a prostitute hiding in that attic turning tricks for sex starved German soldiers.

After all - its only a fictional story - a Myth - and the writer/producers have total liberty to express their artistic license and to portray Anne Frank in any way that they want to - right?

edit on 8-4-2014 by valdonzontaz because: (no reason given)

So with your logic in account, the same theory would go with the Bible too? considering it's been interpreted and compiled how many times?

valdonzontaz
Let us extend your convoluted logic a bit further ....

Oh stop it. It's a FACT that Noahs Ark is a myth. Myths can be told any way that people want. It isn't 'evil' to change a myth story. The change may make the story even more absurd than it already is ... but it's not 'evil'. The only 'convoluted logic' is that which is being shown by those who insist that the myth be told in the traditional way it has been. It simply doesn't matter .. it's all fake anyways.


If Noahs Ark happened .. then this 80,000 year old tree colony wouldn't have survived.
PANDO Tree Colony

Pando (Latin for "I spread"), also known as The Trembling Giant,[1][2] is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers[3] and one massive underground root system. The plant is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000,000 kg (6,600 short tons),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.[5] The root system of Pando, at an estimated 80,000 years old, is among the oldest known living organisms.[6][7]
Pando is located 1 mile southwest of Fish Lake on Utah route 25.[8] in the Fremont River Ranger District of the Fishlake National Forest, at the western edge of the Colorado Plateau in South-central Utah, at N 38.525 W 111.75.

Science Daily
At this time there are 6.5 million land animal species on the planet. There were even more back in what was supposedly Noahs time. Two of each animal would mean at least 13 million animals on that boat. NOT A CHANCE!! Couldn't happen.

Light doesnt penetrate the ocean more than about 500 ft. if the earth were submerged under 29,000 ft. in order to cover mt. everest, no marine plant life would have survived and the oceans would be dead. Obviously that didn't happen.

Could Noahs' Ark Have Actually Happened?

If the 2350 date were correct, then human civilization would’ve had to undergo an extreme population explosion in the millenium following the flood. According to Biblical sources, there would have been millions of Jews leaving Egypt, so assuming a global population of 40 million around that time (~1350 BC), and comparing that to global population estimates later in history (an estimated 200+ million by 0 AD), would require an incredibly high population growth between 2350 BC and 1350 BC (5,000,000 fold increase in 1,000 years), and a much lower population growth after 1350 BC – usually less than 5 fold population growth within any 1,000 year period between 1350 BC and 1800 AD.

(3) The distribution of animals is not what we would expect if there were a global flood killing all life. If all life was limited to the top of a mountain in the Middle East in 2350 B.C., then how to explain the distribution of animals across the world? All the kangaroos on the Ark went to Australia? How did the animals get to the Americas? If they crossed via an ice-bridge in the Bering Strait, then the Americas should be limited to animals that are warm blooded and capable of traveling hundreds of miles across snow. This means no reptiles, no spiders, etc. Yet, the Amazon contains a wide variety of animal biodiversity. And why didn’t American desert animals stay behind in the deserts of the Old World? (See related post: “Creationism versus Animal Biodiversity”)

(4) Genetic evidence shows that human beings are far to genetically diverse to be descended from a single family in 2350 B.C. If Noah’s Ark were true, then all men alive today would’ve gotten their Y-chromosomes from Noah, and all human mitochondrial DNA would come from Noah’s wife and the three daughter-in-laws. Studies of the human Y-Chromosome show that you’d need far more than 4,300 years to accumulate that many mutations. Human beings could not be descended from a single male in 2350 B.C. What the studies show, instead, is that, in order to explain the number of mutations in the human Y-Chromosome, you have to allow for roughly 60,000-90,000 years. Similarly, human mitochondrial DNA requires roughly 160,000 years to accumulate that many mutations — showing that Eve could not have lived 6,000 years ago as the Bible says.

AND MORE INFORMATION AT THAT SITE.

Adam and his Eves - A lesson on DNA and population distribution

Creationism vs Biodiversity

Additionally, once the animals left the Ark, there are a lot of nearby regions they could inhabit, but didn’t. For example, all varieties of rattlesnakes are found in the Americas (33 species, and numerous subspecies). There are none in the Old World – despite the fact that there are regions similar to the American deserts – the Sahara, the Middle East, the Gobi Desert, etc. Llamas fit this same pattern – found in the New World, but not in the Old World. The Caucus (where the Ark supposedly landed) and Himalaya mountains have different species than the Rocky Mountains and Andes. Why didn’t some of the Rocky Mountain species stick around in the Caucus Mountains – they were already there the minute they stepped off the Ark. Similarly, the species in the South American tropics aren’t found in Old World tropics (Southeast Asia and Africa), and vice-versa. For example, New World cats and monkeys are different species than Old World cats and monkeys. Theoretically, with the movement of creatures caused by the global flood, one could find the same species living in distant places. Somehow, we don’t.

National Geographic - Human DNA Journey
For Noahs Ark to have happened exactly as the bible claims, we'd expect the highest levels of genetic diversity to be in the Middle East. But the fact is that the highest levels of human genetic diversity occur in Africa where humanity evolved.

Noahs Ark Doesn't Float

Miles of coral reef, hundreds of feet thick, still survive intact at the Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The violent flood would have certainly destroyed these formations, yet the rate of deposit tells us that the reefs have survived for over 100,000 undisturbed years. Similarly, the floodwaters, not to mention the other factors leading to a boiling sea, would have obviously melted the polar ice caps. However, ice layers in Greenland and Antarctica date back at least 40,000 years.

Impact craters from pre-historical asteroid strikes still exist even though the tumultuous floodwaters would have completely eroded them. If these craters were formed concurrently with the flood, as it has been irresponsibly suggested, the magnificent heat from the massive impacts would have immediately boiled large quantities of the ocean, as if it wasn’t hot enough already. Like the asteroid craters, global mountain ranges would exhibit uniform erosion as a result of a global flood. Unsurprisingly, we witness just the opposite in neighboring pairs of greatly contrasting examples, such as the Rockies and Appalachians.

Even if we erroneously assume there to be enough water under the earth’s surface in order to satisfy the required flood levels, the size of the openings necessary to permit passage for a sufficient amount of water would be large enough to destroy the cohesive properties of the earth’s crust. However, the outer layer is firmly intact, and there’s no evidence indicating that it ever collapsed. All this hypothetical escaping water would have greatly eroded the sides of the deep ocean fissures as well, but no such observable evidence exists for this phenomenon either.

We can also observe algae deposits within the fossil layers, a phenomenon that could not have formed during the flood because they require sunlight to thrive. It’s quite reasonable to assume that the clouds would have thoroughly obstructed the sunlight during such a tremendous rain indicative of the flood. Setting aside this and all other known fossil inconsistencies with the Bible, archaeologists have found human footprints within the upper layers. Moving water simply could not have deposited these markings. As I alluded to earlier, this seemingly endless list of geological problems was completely unforeseeable to the primitive authors, thus the Bible offers no justifications or explanations for our discoveries.

India and the Indus Valley Civilization

The Indus Valley Civilization, which spread and flourished in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent from c. 3300 to 1300 BCE in present-day Pakistan and northwest India, was the first major civilization in South Asia.[2] A sophisticated and technologically advanced urban culture developed in the Mature Harappan period, from 2600 to 1900 BCE.[3]
This civilization collapsed at the start of the second millennium BCE and was later followed by the Iron Age Vedic Civilization, which extended over much of the Indo-Gangetic plain and which witness the rise of major polities known as the Mahajanapadas. In one of these kingdoms, (Magadha), Mahavira and Buddha were born in the 6th or 5th century BCE and propagated their Shramanic philosophies.

FlyersFan

valdonzontaz
Let us extend your convoluted logic a bit further ....

Oh stop it. It's a FACT that Noahs Ark is a myth. Myths can be told any way that people want. It isn't 'evil' to change a myth story. The change may make the story even more absurd than it already is ... but it's not 'evil'. The only 'convoluted logic' is that which is being shown by those who insist that the myth be told in the traditional way it has been. It simply doesn't matter .. it's all fake anyways.

YOU STOP IT Mr.Bully. Its NOT a myth. Its part of biblical truth and is an important aspect of the overall narrative as the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD.

Again, according to your anti-biblical posture the entire scriptural account is mythical. And that is the stance of a Godless atheist.

I thought Passion Of The Christ was good, but for the most part, I cannot stomach most of the crap that comes out of Hollyweird. A lot of it is zio-propaganda, or hit pieces to distort history or to fuzzy-up facts. As far as Noah goes; No thanks. I wanna see Clerks III.

valdonzontaz
Mr.Bully.

1 - I"m a girl.
2 - Stating facts is not being a 'bully'. It's stating facts.

Its NOT a myth.

It is a myth. The facts I presented prove it didn't happen.
Try to disprove the facts I gave. Go ahead. Good luck with that.

according to your anti-biblical posture the entire scriptural account is mythical.

It's not 'my anti-biblical posture'. It's a fact that the account is a myth. Most of the christian denominations agree that it did not happen. All of science agrees it did not happen.

And that is the stance of a Godless atheist.

That's absurd. People don't have to believe that bible myths are 'literal truth' in order to believe in God.

You advertise being Catholic but for some reason claim that a literal belief in the entire bible is necessary ... so try this on for size The Vatican Claims Darwins THeory of Evolution is Compatible With Christianity . The Catholic church does NOT say you have to literally believe the entire bible otherwise you are an atheist. Not even close.

In America about 60% on Average believe in Noahs Ark and the other Old Testament fables ... which means %40 of Christians DO NOT and are still Christian.
80% of Catholics do not take the bible myths literally .. and they are still Christians
40% of Evangelical Christians do not believe in Adam and Eve and they are still Christians
Evangelical Christian Theologians Who Defend Evolution
Only 30% of Americans Take the Bible Literally

Also of note may be the clear majority of Catholics (65 percent) who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God but should not be taken literally word for word,

Gallup Polls on Christians
41% of Protestant Americans believe the bible is to be taken literally.
Less than one third of Catholics believe the bible is to be taken literally.

The majority of protestants and Catholics do not take the Old Testament literally. They understand that its' full of allegory and myth and folklore. Good stories for learning from ... but not to be banked on as fact. AND ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE CHRISTIANS

Reform Judaism - Moses stories of Egypt are allegories

Jewish World Thinker - Jews were never slaves in Egypt

LA Times

After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archeologists say there is no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved, ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua's leadership. To the contrary, the prevailing view is that most of Joshua's fabled military campaigns never occurred--archeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible.

Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan--modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel--whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt--explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.

"Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we've broken the news very gently," said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America's preeminent archeologists.

reply to post by FlyersFan


It is quite possible that the story of Noah's Ark is not a myth.

Of course the whole world was not flooded. Your quaking aspen colony proves that.

It must be realized that the story is how a person living that long ago would have experienced a truly massive flood that covered what they knew to be the whole world.

butcherguy
Of course the whole world was not flooded. Your quaking aspen colony proves that.

There ya' go. The Noahs Ark story did not happen the way the bible claims. Not even close. It's impossible. So therefore, since the story is either myth (total fiction) or folklore (fiction built upon a bit of truth), then it doesn't matter what Hollyweird does with it because it's not literal truth. Re-telling Noahs Ark with a Hollywood twist is not 'evil' and it's not some kind of bizarre 'zionist plot' ... it's just Hollywood taking liberties with a story that isn't true anyways. So what? The movie has great visual effects ... and the story sucks - Just like a whole lot of other Hollywood versions of stories.

reply to post by FlyersFan

The movie has great visual effects ... and the story sucks - Just like a whole lot of other Hollywood versions of stories.

Hollywood in a nutshell.

Saw trailers of it,read some reviews,wanna see what's all the bruhahah is about but not in my neck o the woods just yet,I think it was banned in Indonesia for being anti-Islamic,some far right religious folks in the states hated it,claiming it is pushing some sorta hippie climate change tree hugging agenda..but if I were to make that movie I'd have a very ScI FI angle to it, I would link it with Prometheus the movie,the ark would actually be an air ship all the animals would exist as Dna stored in a cooler or something to save space,other human genetic stuff would be stored so as to prevent incest and inbreeding after the flood unlike the biblical version,minus the lizard people off course..waaait plot twist! ..a couple of lizard people did make it on board and duked it out with Noah and fam and lost..buuut hold it!!..one of the lizard people a female laid some eggs in some hidden compartment hatching and emerging after the air ship landed on Mt Ararat, if any of you script writers out there made this movie I wanna cut or at-least couple o 1st class tks lodging at a 5 star hotel and premium seats at the premier ..

FlyersFan

valdonzontaz
Mr.Bully.

1 - I"m a girl.

Oh I see. How quaint. So that explains a lot - you're being a girl, i.e.
And being a feminist hardliner precludes one from identifying you as "Bully"?
Shouting STOP IT is bully talk whether from a fem or no!
Some of the worst bullies I know are "girls."
Your also a Bible Bully as well!

reply to post by valdonzontaz

1 - You called me MR. Bully ... so I politely informed you that I'm not a 'MR'.
2 - Your post is still just off topic rudeness. (you are the one shouting in caps and bold .. not me.)
Address the issues.

- I gave scientific factual information showing that the Noah bible myth (or folklore) did not happen.
- I gave theological information showing that most Christians are not bible literalists, and yet are still Christian.

So basically, I've proven your statements wrong.
Address the facts presented. Go ahead. Give it a try.
Address the facts without using insults ... We'll be waiting to see how you do.

Hollywood can tell whatever Noah story it wants.
The Noah story is fictional. It's not historical fact.
Crappy story = crappy money making. So what?

reply to post by valdonzontaz


Instead of attacking flyers as a person why not attack the facts she has shown you?.
Oh wait she just destroyed your "Word of God" with actual facts....why can't you accept it is a myth and did not happen?.
It doesn't disprove god.
Flyers is the best example of a christian who uses her god given mind to discover what happened and what has not in the bible...just because it may not have happened doesn't mean the tale has no meaning btw.

oh and I loled hard at you saying everyone involved is part of the satanic scheme....just lol are you from 1812?.