OSCAR WATCH • Brooklyn: This is What American Exceptionalism Used to Be

Brooklyn

Circa 1950s, a young Irish girl makes her way to America to find work in New York, and finds herself falling in love with the Land of Dreams.

Saoirse Ronan gives an Oscar winning performance in this simple tale of Irish immigrants in the Big Apple. It follows her course as a young single girl named Eilis in Ireland from a struggling fatherless family of her mother and sister. She receives a sponsorship from a Catholic priest in New York to help her find work in America.

She arrives in the Land of Dreams and suffers homesickness and loneliness, until she meets a young Italian boy at a local dance who fancies Irish girls. They strike up a relationship that carries through to the end of the film with true American simplicity and honesty. He’s a plumber in a family with dreams to marry and to buy land and a home on an empty Long Island along with his family members.

It is truly the American Dream in its least corrupted form: hard working self-reliance coupled with family devotion and ethnic community that offers the hope of making one’s way in the world. The essence of the goodness of the middle-class. It is what made America great. Where normal people could come for a chance to work hard without the oppression of race, class or gender that plagued all of history’s cultures before.

It is tempting to find in Brooklyn an analogy with modern day immigration issues. But if anything, it is a rebuke to the tribalist rhetoric that dominates current minority and immigrant exploitation, creates a lawless defiance of legal boundaries, and promotes social violence.

Read on to see why…

Continue reading

In the Heart of the Sea: Greenpeace Whale Rights Blubbering

In-the-heart-of-the-sea-Banner

The so-called “true story” behind the fictional tale of Melville’s classic Moby Dick. White whale crashes evil human fishing party and hunts them down to teach them animal rights and earth worship.

Well, he’s at it again. Christophobe Ron Howard, the guy who made the hate hit piece on Jesus (and the Roman Catholics), The DaVinci Code, has just offered up a new sacrifice to the earth goddess, Gaia.

Howard and his writers bookends his tale with young Herman Melville tracking down a survivor of the whaleship Essex that was destroyed by a huge white whale, for the sake of research for his new novel. The monster whale is full of crusty sea barnacles and whaling wounds and has a preternatural ability to attack whaling ships out in the deep sea, thousands of miles from land.

The survivor being interviewed is a drunk who can’t live with himself because of the “abominations” the survivors had done. He tells his scary story and we see it all in flashback.

So, obviously, the whalers go awhaling, the white whale shows up and destroys their ship, casting them adrift, which forces them to become cannibals and thus shows them how evil it is to eat meat. But the privileged white “big Nemo” also shadows their lifeboats like an angry deity waiting to teach them a lesson.

And that is what the metaphor is all about. The white whale in this story represents the revenge of the animal world upon evil mankind that is slaughtering them for their oil. For whale oil fuels the lamps of the evil white Europeans.

This is earth worship versus the Judeo-Christian worldview, quite literally with a vengeance.

Before they launch off to their whaling expedition, we hear Christians praying that God will provide his blessings upon their industrial revolution (Of course, a demonized villain in Hollywood). So Christianity is One with the exploitation of energy resources to the storytellers.

At one point in the story, the captain, a young inexperienced blueblood jerk, tells the hero of the story that man is created as the pinnacle of creation and it is our calling by God to take dominion of the earth and bend nature to our wills. So, much like the idolatrous Noah movie, the two worldviews in conflict here are the Judeo-Christian ethic of dominion and the environmentalist/animal rights/earth worshipping ethic of pristine nature, unsullied by human interference. Or more accurately, human exceptionalism versus anti-humanism.

Can you guess which one wins?

Of course, in the end, the hero of the story, who became obsessed with killing the white whale, finally has his “come to Gaia” moment and refrains from his last chance to harpoon the leviathan. And of course, the ever-loving monster, who is apparently a fair and square kind of mammal, stops attacking them. You see? The poor whales just want to be left alone. They are more moral than us, and can teach us a lesson.

I am amused by how earth worshippers like to humanize animals (and nature) as if they are equally moral sentient creatures. That is because they really do believe that humans are NOT created in God’s image as the pinnacle of creation. But notice, they have to HUMANIZE the animals, because the reality is more like the documentary Grizzly Man, where the naïve animal rights activist gets eaten by the very bears he is deluded into thinking that he is the guardian of. Watch Grizzly Man. THAT is the ironic truth, folks.

At one point, the storyteller is talking of whale oil and he simply calls it, “oil,” an obvious connection with the so-called “evil” of fossil fuels. In fact, at the end, he says something like, “I hear they have found oil in the ground in the United States. Imagine that.” So the evils of the industrial revolution will move on from whale oil to crude oil.

Oh, Lordy, will man ever stop utilizing the earth for his own greedy survival? Why don’t we just lay down our energy needs and die? Let that pristine nature take over and eat us all in the wonderful circle of life that is survival of the fittest? It’s okay for sharks to eat whales, but we humans aren’t allowed to? After all, bending nature to benefit mankind is speciest, right?

Whale sh*t.

Earth worship has been eeking into Hollywood movies for some time now and it is going to be more ubiquitious as a theme. The rising god of Hollywood is the earth, and if the ancient history of earth worship is anything to go by, these idolaters are violent and will not stop until they have enslaved or destroyed everybody. (This same antihuman theme of the earth as a divine being “getting revenge” on humans is in The Happening. But in other movies, it’s localized in a substitute deity, like aliens in The Day the Earth Stood Still, or in a subverted Biblical Creator in Noah, Evan Almighty, and others)

Hollywood social justice warriors rant about how evil oil is, while burning a thousand times what normal people use, and spewing out more carbon emissions than anyone else with their huge mansions and private jets. It’s more than hypocritical. It’s despicable. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with riches. And I don’t believe carbon is pollution (if you do, you are a science denier). But these mostly white, all privileged, aristocratic fascists love to force others to suffer while they live “above the morality” of the plebeian class. Where is Bernie Sanders when you need him?

Environmentalist policies are already murdering poor black people by the MILLIONS in third world countries, precisely by keeping oil from them (as well as other policies). Earth worshippers believe in saving the whales, but let those poor people of color die to maintain their crusading fanaticism. Paul Driessen is blowing the whistle on this genocidal environmentalism. By liberal standards of outcome distribution, environmentalism is racist to the core.

It is the Judeo-Christian ethic of dominion that desacralized nature and allowed man to rise up out of the depraved self-destructive barbarism of earth worship and other idolatries. It allowed us to harness nature for the good of mankind, which resulted in science and technology that advanced civilization and brought about everything that the earth worshippers rely upon, from medicine to travel to safe living to their smart phones. Check out the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and get educated. The computer screen you are reading this on is because of fossil fuels.

And no, I am not now, nor have I ever been a card carrying member of the oil cartel, nor have I ever been knowingly paid by oil interests (but if they want to pay me for telling the truth, I’ll gladly take it).

But, boy, there sure are billions and billions of dollars in the pockets of those paid by Big Green and Big Government to deny science and suppress the facts (There are many reputable scientists and researchers who are exposing this Big Green corruption: Climate Change Dispatch, Climate Audit, Dr. Roy Spencer, Science and Public Policy Institute, Climate Depot, Climate Etc, Watts Up With That? And others.

Cornwall Alliance is the best in providing a Judeo-Christian approach to a balanced proper conservation of the environment with human interests.

Yes, we must be careful to regulate our energy usage and waste. But don’t be a fool. Energy consumption is not inherently evil, it is scientifically axiomatic to existence. All living systems create waste as a by-product of the conversion of energy into life. So the only way for us to achieve the ultimate end of a pristine nature untouched by human waste is of course to extinguish all of humanity.

Jesus Was a Giant Killer

And I don’t mean metaphorically.

Okay, I know what you are thinking. “Godawa, you have gone too far. You are now officially a Nephilim Nut who has hallucinations of giants where there are none. There are no giants in the Gospels. And besides, Jesus was peaceful. He told his disciples to put away their swords. Heresy, I say! Burn!”

Well, fear not. Even though I have in fact discovered an historically documented giant over ten and a half feet tall in the approximate same time and location as Jesus (details to come in future posts of my novel Jesus Triumphant), I am not talking about the New Testament. I’m talking about the Old Testament. And that’s a different story—kind of, but not totally.

The Angel of Yahweh

A visible tangible Angel of the Lord, or more accurately, “Angel of Yahweh,” appears throughout the Old Testament in many times and places.

He met with Abraham several times (Genesis 16:7-11; 21:17; 22:1-9).
He met with Isaac (Genesis 26:1-5; 23-25).
He met with Jacob (Genesis 28:10-22).
He met with Moses (Exodus 3).
He met with Joshua (Joshua 5:13-15).
And many other prophets and people of God (1Kings 19:7; Zech 3:1).

So, who is he?

Some readers may assume “Angel of Yahweh” means an Angel from Yahweh. But it doesn’t usually. It often means “Angel, the being of Yahweh” or “Yahweh as an Angel” because it is used interchangeably with Yahweh himself (Gen 31:11-13; Exodus 3:2-6).

And actually, “Angel” means “messenger,” so, technically, the Angel of Yahweh is “Yahweh as messenger.”

The Angel of Yahweh is Yahweh

When God was explaining that he would lead Joshua in conquest of Canaan, here is what he said:

Exodus 23:20–21
“Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice…for my name is in him.”

Ad300x250-Gen2RevIn his new book, The Unseen Realm, scholar Michael Heiser explains that the ancient Jewish word for “The Name” of God, (ha-shem), was the equivalent of God’s own presence. The name carried the very essence of a being, much like Abraham meant “father of a multitude.” So when God says his name was “in an angel,” he was saying that that angel was his very presence.

Notice how in these passages, Yahweh and Angel of Yahweh are used interchangeably:

Leviticus 11:45
“For I am Yahweh who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”

Judges 2:1
Now the angel of Yahweh went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, “I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers.”

There are a lot of other examples, but you get the point. The Angel of Yahweh is Yahweh’s presence amidst his people in the humanoid form of an angel.

Jesus is the Angel of Yahweh

There are plenty of theologically refined ways in which Jesus is implied as being Yahweh through the name of Yahweh being in him (John 17:6; 8:58) and the deity of the Son of Man (Dan 7:13; Matt 26:64), among others.

The most blatant example of Jesus being explicitly described as the Old Testament Angel of Yahweh is in the New Testament book of Jude.

Jude 5
Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Exodus 32:34
“Behold, my angel shall go before you. Nevertheless, in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them.”

Judges 2:1
Now the angel of Yahweh…said, “I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers.”

So, the Angel of Yahweh in the Old Testament is a pre-incarnate manifestation of Jesus as Yahweh. The texts in Exodus and Judges then show the equivalence of Jesus “saving his people out of Egypt” with the Angel of Yahweh going before Israel and bringing them up out of Egypt. But you might also notice that the Jude passage adds that Jesus “destroyed those who did not believe.” See? I didn’t make it up. Let’s take a closer look at these actions of destructive judgment taken by Jesus in the Old Testament. Continue reading

New Young Adult Version of Chronicles of the Nephilim

YA_ChroniclesSeries_banner1

Edited Age-Appropriate for Teens and Above 

Chronicles of the Nephilim for Young Adults is a version of the original Biblical Fiction series that has been edited to be age-appropriate for Ages 13 and above, Grades 8 and above.

Fans of the Chronicles know that the original series is rated PG-13 (R in some places). But this version for young adults has edited the explicit descriptions of sin and toned down the violence to be rated PG for teens.

But it is the same rip roaring action adventure, romance and spiritual journey about Nephilim Giants, Watchers, and the Biblical Cosmic War of the Seed that will keep you on the edge of your seat and help you see the Biblical narrative with fresh perspective.

I have also taken out the theological appendices from each of the books that explained the Biblical and ancient historical research behind the fiction. If readers want to read these appendices, they can buy the book When Giants Were Upon the Earth that contains all the appendices gathered in one volume with extras.

All volumes are available on Kindle and in paperback exclusively at Amazon.com here.

YA_PaperbacksChronicles2

Exodus: Gods & Kings: Thank God it Ain’t Noah. But Please DO NOT do King David.

The story of Moses retold through the eyes of secular humanists, atheists and agnostics. Okay, in some ways it wasn’t as explicitly subversive as Noah, and I liked it somewhat, but it wasn’t a great movie, it was only a good movie. Is it offensive to the Biblical worldview? Yes, though I suspect some Christians will enjoy this movie, even with its failings, than they did the horribly-done and anti-Biblical Noah movie.

But in other ways, it is more explicitly subversive of God and the Bible than Noah.

For those familiar with the Biblical story, there are some moving moments of emotion such as every scene with Ben Kingsley as Nun, a patriarch of Israel. But also Moses’ final acceptance of his people. And of course, the plagues are quite spectacular.

The story opens with Moses as an adult and a general in the Egyptian army. The Bible doesn’t say what Moses was in the service of Egypt, so this is a logical choice for an action movie, and it will come into play later as a powerful display of man’s failure to achieve through his strength what only God himself can achieve in the Exodus.

We see Moses as beloved of the Emperor over his true son Commodus — Er, wait, was this Gladiator? Oh no, I mean Moses was beloved of the Pharoah over his true son Ramses. When Moses discovers who he is, and then Ramses discovers who he is, Moses is exiled.

Oh, all the details are trivial, let’s get to the plagues!

The point is, the story is about the rivalry between two men brought up almost as brothers and how their religious identities tear them apart. Pretty cool idea, but it didn’t engage me. I didn’t believe it. Joel Edgerton is much more believable than the terribly weak cuts they used of him in the trailer. But Christian Bale seems distant, even in his romance with his wife Zipporah. He is a great actor for cold, alienating or removed characters (like American Psycho) but Moses is a man of passionate extremes. This makes it hard to care much for the human drama of the story, especially his unromantic romance with Zipporah.

Could this be because Bale was trying to play his Moses as a “schizophrenic barbarian”? The Moses in this movie does struggle with faith in God, which is Biblically fair, and he becomes more ragged and crazy looking over time, but he never crosses that border into madness that is so typical of secular interpretations of prophets. So maybe that was just Bale’s own madness in his pursuit of some kind of method acting technique. A caveat here is that it’s a great technique to make a prophet appear to be mad to the populace, when he is actually right. That kind of irony is standard storytelling technique. But it wouldn’t surprise me if Scott actually does consider Moses a crazy leader, considering his portrayal of God as well.

The problem is that Bale’s Moses never really emotionally connects with anyone, not even God. But then, God isn’t very engaging either. And maybe this is where it starts to feel off. There is a lot of intimate and engaging relationship between Moses and Yahweh in the Bible, but in this story, Moses doesn’t talk much to God and he never seems to know if he is in fact talking to God, since he alone can see him.

And God appears as a temperamental ten year old child.

A word to all you Hollywood kiss-ass Christians who want to be accepted by the “cool” secular community: It is not merely “Fundamentalist Phariseeism” to critique the God of the movie. (One could even say defending Hollywood without discernment would be like Sadducees. Pharisees aren’t too fair, you see, but Sadducees are quite sad, you see). After all is said and done, God is everything. So, yes, we care how our God is portrayed.

Now we all know that you can’t put everything in the Bible in the movie and you have to make some changes for the sake of the movie story. But the problem with this god is not merely that it does not follow the relationship as depicted in the Bible, but for mere storytelling as well, it is an alienating unfulfilling relationship. Yes, Moses had his times of arguing with Yahweh in the Scriptures, but he also communed with him. In this movie, he does not. Even apart from the Biblical text, this simply isn’t a fulfilling relationship. It is cold and distant. But then again, I would expect that atheists, agnostics and secular humanist storytellers do not understand how to portray such communing relationship because they have no experience to go by. After all, they don’t even believe it exists.

The Depiction of God’s Presence

Okay, everyone knows how difficult it is to depict God’s presence in a film, and Ridley Scott has my sympathies. We all acknowledge that the Old Hollywood way of having a disembodied voice is visually less engaging. God did appear as the “Angel of Yahweh” in many instances in the Bible, so showing him as a human figure is Biblical and works (The name of the character in the credits is “Malak” which is the Hebrew word for Angel. The Angel of Yahweh in the Bible is “Malak Yahweh” in Hebrew). Scott has said he liked the idea of a child being innocent and pure. But in contrast, the child in his movie is quite precocious and temperamental, so I think he is not being entirely forthright with us. I think he is trying to sell us.

Ad300x250-ScreenwrtgChristiansAgain, the Bible definitely shows God getting angry, so I wouldn’t complain about that. And a child is certainly a creative choice that defies expectations, which is not inherently bad either. But watching this, you can’t help but see this impetuous child as being the incarnation of what secular humanists, agnostics and atheists like Scott and the others who wrote the movie think about the Biblical God: A tantrum throwing childish deity. This is even what many village atheists have accused the Biblical God of being in an attempt to ridicule or mock him. So I think Hollywood suck-up Christians who try to accept this incarnation as “thought-provoking,” “unique,” “conversation-starting” are just fooling themselves. The atheist and agnostic secular filmmakers are deconstructing the God of the Bible.

The Naturalism of the Story

Scott has indicated he doesn’t believe in the miracles of the Bible and wanted to depict them with some naturalistic explanations. Well, I’m going to surprise you here, but I am not entirely against depicting miracles in a way that they can be disbelieved. After all, this is exactly what happened. The Israelites would see such things and then slip right back into worshipping Ba’al or Asherah. The Egyptians and Pharaoh did not repent. The Jewish leaders concocted a theory that the disciples stole the body of the resurrected Jesus. I like the idea of showing miracles in a way that unbelievers can justify their foolishness. To be fair to Scott, during the plagues, he shows the “scientists” of Pharaoh’s court giving their pompous natural explanations for what was happening. And they clearly looked foolish, so that supported the miraculous nature of the plagues.

But here is where the story becomes confusing. Scott withdraws God so much from the story that he never communicates anything to us. The plagues just occur, one after the other without any introduction or explanation from God or Moses to anyone. To be quite frank, I would think that unless you are familiar with the story, you wouldn’t really know what was going on. And nowadays I do not think it is correct to assume that everyone knows the story. In the Bible of course, Yahweh announces through Moses each step what he is doing and why. He makes it clear. Okay, some artistic ambiguity is fine, but one can clearly see Scott’s intent is to strip God out of the picture as much as he can get away with. To make the story as human as possible. Remember, Scott does not believe Yahweh is real anyway, so he is just a metaphor for some other interpretation of human need. The more human, the less God, the better.

As a side note, the ultimate love in this story is the love that ends the picture and is a repetitive series of sayings between Moses and his wife Zipporah. “Who makes you happy? (you do). What is the most important thing in your life? (you are). When will I leave you? (never).” On a human level, these are understandable expressions of love between husband and wife. But it points out the idolatry of all humanistic stories like this. In all secular stories, the ultimate love relationship that gives meaning to life is NOT a love relationship with God, but with another human being. Again, this is understandable coming from a humanistic storyteller, that human love would become a God replacement because after all, that is the highest kind of love that they know. What secularists do not understand is that all those sayings above are what believers say of God. God is our joy, God is the most important thing in our life, and God will never leave us or forsake us. Just a little deconstruction of atheist, agnostic and secular idolatry for you.

Back to the miracles. Here is where I may surprise you. I actually liked the parting of the Red Sea as a tsunami (and the crocodile attacks turning the river to blood). It doesn’t make it less of a miracle. Kinda coincidental timing, don’t ya think? And so what if it gives unbelievers a chance to reject it. They wouldn’t believe if someone returned from the dead anyway. Now, I am not a theologian, but the term used for “dividing” the Sea in Hebrew means “to cleave, break open or break through,” (BDB lexicon), all of which can be literary or poetic expressions of what happened with that tsunami. The way the Sea was parted in the classic The Ten Commandments was just as much an interpretation and no more Biblical.

The problem with it is the same problem throughout the story. In the Bible God announces what he is going to do and challenges Moses to step out in faith and do things like pronounce the Nile will turn to blood, or in this case, hold out his staff and the waters would part. In the movie, Moses throws his sword into the water in anger that God has left them to die. Then he wakes up to see the sword sticking in the mud with the waters pulled back. So, every step is surprising to Moses. Sure, God surprises us, but I can see how Scott and his agnostic, atheist and secular storytellers want God to be unclear so that it all comes down to interpretation. In a way, it seems like making this movie for them is like the unbeliever explaining away all the miracles just like the Egyptian “scientists.”

Update: Interestingly, the most important miracle of all is the Ten Commandments written by the very “finger of God.” In the film, Moses is the one carving the tablets, not God, thus again, reducing the very foundation of morality to man’s creation, not God’s. This is far more important than you may know. What atheists, agnostics and other seculars and humanists do not realize is that without God as the foundation of morality, there is no authority above man’s arbitrary will to power. The one with the most power determines right and wrong. Period. Blather all you want about your subjective feelings, social contracts or even natural selection of morals, at the end of it all, there is no objectively real right and wrong, there is only personal feelings in conflict — the will to power.

But I deconstruct again.

The Politics of the Movie

All period pieces are stories of the past retold in light of our present situation. We tend to see through our eyes, but also seek to make lessons for the present out of the past. And movies do not exist in a vacuum. They often reflect the zeitgeist of an era. Thus the Noah movie becomes an environmentalist parable.

Ad300x250-IncarnSubverSo, Exodus is infected by modern Hollywood leftist anti-Israel politics. In the Bible, Moses never uses force or violence against the Egyptians. The point is to show that Yahweh is the one who delivers, not horses and chariots or man’s strength. The movie makes a similar point, but through a different path. When the movie Moses thinks he is to deliver his people, since that annoyingly precocious and distant God doesn’t explain himself, Moses concludes that he can do the only thing you can do when you are an oppressed minority: terrorist guerilla tactics of hit and run “bombings.” And God is portrayed as accepting it, and only deciding to take over with his plagues when he concludes it will take too long for terrorist tactics to work (“Maybe a generation”). So God is a revolutionary Marxist here. Or at least an Alinskyite. Oppressed workers of the World, unite and rise up! (The conquest of Canaan is a different story with a very different justification that doesn’t apply to this story).

Do you see where this is leading? Ah yes, the Jews, were terrorists themselves. The connection to today is obvious. The dominant media and most of Hollywood are Israel haters who claim Israel is the oppressor today, when they are the ones who are being attacked. Some even claim Israel is doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them (As some professors at Oxford have claimed in a recent debate with Dennis Prager). This of course is a monstrous lie. The Palestinians, who are actually Nazi-like in their ideology (dedicated to genocide) have been able to spin the liberal media and entertainment so that the Nazis are accusing their victims of being Nazis. Reprehensible. Insane. Evil. But fashionable in Hollywood. And truly postmodern. What next, accuse the Jews of being genocidal as Islamic regimes like Iran engage in genocide against them?

This is why I cannot help but have a little bit of schadenfreude when I see Scott having to squirm against the accusations of racism because his casting was white for all the leads. It’s nice to see that leftist political correctness come back on liberals. Liberals must eventually become victims of their own oppressive politics. Sweet. I would think this would show Scott that maybe he should not be part of that liberal insanity. Of course, Scott is actually in the right, on this one. It is the world market (and the money is based on the world) that wants those white people as leads. The world that is full of all kinds of non-white people will not pay for movies unless they have those evil white crackers in the lead. So, really, by liberal standards, if you are against casting Exodus to please a world of multicolored people, then YOU are the racist.

Bottom Line: Gimme Some Truth

One cannot help but compare it to the classic The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston. Yes, that movie didn’t follow the Bible perfectly. Yes, it has flaws of its own, and this is a different new and modern take with a different audience with different needs and desires. But if you can just put aside all the modernist prejudice against the old classic, if you can hold off the elitist snobbery accusations of corniness, if you can suspend your modern intolerance of lesser acting and production quality of older movies, you can see something that made that old movie the massive beloved classic it is. And that something is what seems to lack in this slick special effects, cold, distant and modern version of Moses: heart and soul.

I have read liberal scholarship on King David. I know the fashionable subversion of writers like Halpern who seek to deconstruct David as a serial killer terrorist who did the opposite of everything the Bible says he did. For God’s sake, Liberal Hollywood, please DO NOT make a King David movie. Instead, I dare you to make a movie about the Islamic god, Allah, like you do about the Biblical God Yahweh. Oh no, wait, you won’t DO THAT, because THAT would get you murdered. Yahweh, Christians and Jews are safer targets for bigotry and hate speech.

One of the powerful moments of truth came from Pharaoh’s words, “Men who crave power are best fit to acquire it, and least fit to exercise it.” Maybe that’s true of Bible movies as well.

If you want an engaging and entertaining sequel to Exodus: Gods and Kings, then buy the novels, Joshua Valiant and Caleb Vigilant from the series Chronicles of the Nephilim. They will give you back that heart and soul with a love for the Biblical God so often vacant from Hollywood Biblical movies.

joshua_caleb_banner2

Finally, Christian Bale and I Agree on Moses. But Maybe Not.

o-CHRISTIAN-BALE-MOSES-570

A Huffington Post UK post had some new quotes from Christian Bale about Moses while being interviewed for the forthcoming movie: Exodus: Gods and Kings. Here is a clip:

“He was so much more human than I had ever imagined,” said Bale of his character in the film, adding that Moses was “absolutely seen as a freedom fighter for the Hebrews, but a terrorist in terms of the Egyptian empire”.

He said: “What would happen to Moses if he arrived today? Drones would be sent out after him, right?”

I do agree with Bale that Obama, (as Pharaoh by analogy), would most likely send drones against Moses and those freedom loving Jews, since his administration has over and over again proven to be anti-Israel.

Since a reference to drones draws the obvious parallel of the big issue of the US using drones to kill terrorists.

Or is he referring to the tactic of trying to make a moral equivalency between free Israel and the Sharia-driven Islamo-fascists who seek to destroy the Jews on every border?

If that’s what he meant, then I’m afraid we still disagree after all.

The Hebrews fought the Amalekite terrorists in the desert, but they never fought Egypt. So to consider the Hebrews as terrorists with typical postmodern lack of moral clarity, would be nonsensical.

And there is a third person’s perspective that is conspicuously absent in this moral equivalency game. Now, who could that be?

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Oh, yeah, GOD! Not Pharaoh who claims to be a god, but the real God, Yahweh. He says that Egypt was the terror, and Israel deserved justice and their own land, and deserved not to be slaves of foreign terrorist gods.

Just. Like. Today.

So, like Christian Bale, I see an analogy with today. But do we agree on the interpretation of those sides?

This isn’t a case of whose side God is on, it’s a case of whose God’s side are you on?

Check out this novel that has Moses in it. Joshua Valiant on Amazon. You’ve never read anything about the Conquest of Canaan like this before. There are giants in the land. And Moses brings them to the threshold before Joshua leads them in.

Godawa Video Interview on Nephilim & David Ascendant: The Sharpening-Josh Peck

Check out a GREAT video interview with Josh Peck on The Sharpening.

I address everything from the Noah Movie, The Exodus Movie, Chronicles of the Nephilim, Giants, Watchers, And I explain the latest book, David Ascendant and amazing stuff about his story you may not be aware of.

Video Link Here

Audio Link Here

Click Here to get Discounts on David Ascendant and all the Chronicles of the Nephilim
Only Until December 20.