Noah Movie: From 3 Guys Who Have Seen It.

Noah movie psoter 660

Okay, so three respectable Christian leaders have seen the Noah movie because Paramount is trying desperately to keep bad press from hurting their release within the religious community. Fair enough.

The three men were at the NRB and had a panel discussion about the film. But they also posted their views.

John Snowden, an advisor on the film wrote “Why People of Faith Can Embrace the Noah Movie.” He’s paid by Paramount, but let’s be fair to him, he did seek to try to influence the movie for the better during his consultation. But he was almost only positive.

Phil Cooke, a filmmaker and media consultant, wrote, “Should Christians Support the Movie Noah” in the Huff Post. His conclusion was that whatever negatives of the movie are outweighed by the positives, and we should all see it and use it as an opportunity to dialogue about this Biblical subject while we have the chance. Very thoughtful challenges.

The last guy, Jerry Johnson, president of NRB was in my opinion the most balanced in his presentation of Five Postive Facts About Noah, and Five Negative Features About Noah.

I say this because his view represents what I think most movies are, a mixture of good and bad elements. And he acknowledges both with fairness.

His five positives are:
Noah’s context among all films is positive.
Noah knows its place among Bible films.
Noah follows the basic plotline of the biblical story.
Noah takes some key Gospel doctrines seriously.
Noah takes some textual elements literally.

His five negatives are:
Noah’s main character does not ring true.
The environmental agenda is overdone.
The theistic evolution scene will be a concern for many.
The Nephilim concept seems convoluted.
Secondary biblical details are blurred.

Those first two were my biggest concern about the script that I had read. We will see if they have pulled back on the extremity of those depictions or not. As I’ve always said, I was analyzing a script, not the movie, and we will see if there is much of a change there.


I must say, several of these negatives are not issues for me.

Though I am not a believer in evolution, the evolutionary sequence is not bothersome for me, because I know there are many intelligent and godly Christians who have some good arguments for evolutionary creation that I respect. I am actually open to this as a possibility. I do not believe Genesis One has anything to do with scientific textbooks of material creation, so it has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not. It is an ancient creation story which does different things than our modern scientific minds who think God was explaining physics. As I understand it, if God is given the authorship of that evolutionary process, then that is entirely consistent with the Scriptures.

Also, the secondary biblical details that he mentions are not of issue either because they are ultimately consistent with the Bible anyway. Tubal-cain gets on the ark. But he is killed so he doesn’t survive on the ark. If the family clan was six, but then one girl was pregnant with twins, then that means there were 8 on the ark, hyper-literalists. Unless you are not pro-lifers. The point here is that those are consistent with the spirit of the text. I take some very similar liberties in my bestselling novel, Noah Primeval. So give us a break.

I’ve always said the most important issues are the original intent of the sacred stories, not always the details. But you know, even then, that is a matter of interpretation too. Because as I said, if the girl is pregnant on the ark, and those children will be the wives of the other sons, then that is consistent with the text. There are many examples of this in the Bible. For instance, there are four giants that were killed by David’s men in 2 Samuel 21:16-22. But then it concludes, “These four were descended from the giants in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.” Well, hyper literalists, the text earlier does not say David killed them at all, but that only his men did. So we understand that being “felled by David’s hand” is a NON-LITERAL way of saying David gets the credit for what those under him do. There are so many examples of this in Scripture.

The Nephilim concept is a personal issue for me, as you may already know by previous posts here and in future posts. What a wasted opportunity to finally bring to the screen and to the discussion about this very important storyline neglected in the faith community.

Not only do I write about this in my Noah novel, but I also just released a Biblical study book detailing the fall of the Watchers, the Nephilim and how their storyline flows through the entire Bible. It’s called When Giants Were Upon the Earth: The Watchers, The Nephilim, and the Cosmic War of the Seed.

Buy the novel Noah Primeval, here on in Kindle or paperback. The website has tons of way cool free videos, scholarly articles about Watchers and Nephilim Giants, artwork for the series, as well as a sign-up for updates and special deals.

2 comments on “Noah Movie: From 3 Guys Who Have Seen It.

  • “As I understand it, if God is given the authorship of that evolutionary process, then that is entirely consistent with the Scriptures.”

    Really? This kind of thinking opens the door up to swallow the theory of evolution- hook, line and sinker. The main problem with that train of thought is if God created all creation in this way then how God can call what he created ‘good’ and also if death is part of evolution process ie. the weak die and strong survive means death didn’t come into the world via sin, it came before the fall of man. Do christians get sucked into pseudo science where it appears to be science vs faith, where science seems to be compelling and irrefutable? when in fact its just faith vs faith. Evolution is a religion not science. Those trying to marry the two together (Christianity with evolution) is like tearing a new shirt to mend a ripped one.

    If death was already in the world due to evolutionary like development of creation then Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross was null right? The first death (shedding of blood) in Eden was which God did and made being animal skin garments to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve. The promises made to Abraham. Hints of Christ all through the OT and the shredding of blood references throughout. Why not go far as to say God created man as a sinner (because death and imperfection is part of creation) and its not our fault we sin and so how can we be judged? This is the kind of slippery slope of thought that the devil wants mankind to descent down if he cannot get a man to believe God doesn’t exist.

    As soon as we say, ‘well Genesis isn’t literal’ then we can say that about any part of the bible where our faith wavers. Either God is God or he is not. Is it beyond Him to create something new and perfect? Why would he do the opposite? Is he constrained to dimensions of time and space (which he created both). This kind of compromised thinking only lowers God and gives a place for these deceivers to say evolution IS science and not a religion. It’s bad enough this is taught in schools around the world as being scientific facts when creation scientists refutes them at every turn as well as give scientific evidence debunking this idea the earth is millions and millions years old as well as evidence of the flood and other things.

    I realise your statement wasn’t fully endorsing evolution but it wasn’t exactly putting a sword to it either.

  • “If God is given the authorship of that evolutionary process….” then you are talking about Intelligent Design and not evolution. You can’t have it both ways and from a philosophical perspective, “if God is the author of evolution” then it is no longer a random process but instead becomes a purposeful design by an albeit weaker intelligence than the Bible proclaims. If the power of God could raise Jesus from the dead, do your friends really believe He needs evolution to create? Is anything too big for God? Not my God!

Comments are closed.