Search this blog

This came out last week:

russell_crowe_noahWhen I first heard that a movie based on the biblical story of Noah was being made, I figured it would be some low-budget film along the lines of the television travesties we’ve seen about the Great Flood. The trailer reveals that much more time and money has gone into this film than I would have expected.

Whenever Hollywood takes a biblical story as its basis for a movie, evangelicals tend to respond in one of two ways.


First, there is the group that is primarily concerned with biblical accuracy. Taking any sort of dramatic license is akin to tampering with the text, which can lead to the solidification of errors in the minds of the viewers.

This group gets on blogs or comment streams and points out all the flaws and errors in the director’s vision for the film.

  • If it’s The Nativity Story, they point out that we don’t know the wise men were kings, or that there were three of them.
  • If it’s The Prince of Egypt, they point out that it was Pharaoh’s daughter, not his wife, who discovered Moses in the river.
  • If it’s The Ten Commandments, they remind us there is no biblical record of an Egyptian princess saying “Moossseeeess, Mooosseeeess!” so many times.
  • If it’s the History Channel’s Bible series, they point out the Bible does not attribute ninja moves to the angels who helped Lot flee Sodom.

You get the gist. This group wants biblical accuracy, and all movies are judged based on their ability to get the details right.


Second, there is the group that is flattered to see Hollywood pay any attention to the Bible at all. No matter what Hollywood does with the sacred stories, it’s “getting the word out,” or “making the Bible seem cool.”

This group hosts preview screenings as a witnessing tool for the Lord (and a marketing tool for the moviemakers, of course). They find the good in any semblance of spirituality coming from Hollywood.

  • If it’s Bruce Almighty, they start a group discussion about how God may or may not be like Morgan Freeman.
  • If it’s The Passion of the Christ, they invite their lost friends and neighbors over for dinner and a bloodbath.
  • If it’s Spiderman 3, they do a sermon series on revenge and the spirituality of superhero movies.

No matter how bad the movie might be, it’s better than not engaging it at all. Make the best of a good Hollywood film!

What’s Right and Wrong in These Approaches?

I’ve deliberately caricatured the worst aspects of both these groups, but I don’t want us to miss the fact that there is something to be said for both reactions.

The critics are right to maintain a high view of the Bible and to judge everything by its standard. They’re also right about a movie’s ability to solidify mental pictures and details in our mind, whether they reflect the Bible well or not.

The celebrators are right to see an opportunity whenever Hollywood jumps on a biblical bandwagon. It’s easier to talk about spiritual things with your friends and neighbors when millions of people are flocking to spiritually themed films on the weekend. 

Where these two groups go wrong is in they tend to overplay both panic and promise.

The critics overplay the danger of a biblically inaccurate film, tending to see all artistic license as sacrilegious.

The celebrators overplay the promise of a Hollywood blockbuster, expecting spiritual fruit to come, not from the Word, but from pixels on the big screen.


That brings us back to Noah. It looks like 2014 will be interesting for having an epic film based on a Bible story.

No matter what Hollywood does with Noah, we should recognize the backhanded compliment in having biblical source material as the basis for a film. The reason Bible stories are appealing is their built-in familiarity, plus their emotional resonance.

So, the jury is out on this film.

How will Noah be portrayed? As a righteous man or a pragmatic dealmaker?

How will God be portrayed? As a righteous judge purging the world of wickedness or a bloodthirsty tyrant who can’t wait to destroy the earth?

What kind of conversations will come from this film? Will we have the opportunity to talk with people about the nature and character of God? About the nature and character of righteous faith?

I recommend Christians watch this movie the way we watch any movie – with discernment and wisdom. We shouldn’t overhype the movie’s flaws and miss the bigger opportunity. Neither should we see the movie as the most promising method of evangelism to appear in recent days, as if the Word of God needs visual representation in order to maximize its power.

What about you? How will you respond to Noah the movie?

View Comments


150 thoughts on “How Should Christians Respond to Noah the Movie?”

  1. Thank you for the words of wisdom here. I think watching, before judgement is usually the best call. This goes for reading books as well. There are things out there that can be judged without reading or watching them, but for things like this, culture is giving us an opportunity to engage them; why not lovingly take that opportunity.

    1. Rose says:

      Christians should respond by not seeing it. It’s an adaption of Aronofsky’s graphic novels coming out right before the movie. He only uses the story of Noah as a platform. Rather than trying to tell a religious tale, he said he wants to treat the story of Noah as a fable. Fallen angels,(and you do understand the angels that fell with satan that God wanted rid of, along with the offspring from human women), help Noah build the ark and protect the family as they get into the ark. Methuselah looks more like a shaman and Noah contemplates killing his unborn grandchild if it’s a girl, because he thinks God only wanted the animals saved.

      1. Casie says:

        Rose, How do you know this is the story line? Did you read the books you mentioned? Have you watched the movie? If I do not watch the movie, how will I be able to make informed comments or give instruction to my non-Christian friends and explain what the differences are between the movie and Biblical text? I would rather be informed and get all of the correct information I can first hand than take second hand information from others only to look stupid and judgmental towards non-believers. Also, as a seeking follower of Christ I believe I have a solid Biblical foundation for understanding the story of Noah and will probably be prompted to study it again in this situation. Yes, weaker and/or new Christians may have some confusion after watching the movie. However, I would hope that as Christ followers they will be prompted by the Holy Spirit to seek the truth, and talk with the spiritual leaders that are disciplining them, by looking even closer to the Biblical text to see God’s truth. Reminding others that it is a hollywood movie and not based on the actual Biblical text is fine. However, I don’t believe condemning the movie and/or condemning Christians that plan to watch it is Biblical. It is great that you have your own convictions from information that you have gathered. However, as a sister in Christ, I would like the opportunity to research and gather my own information about the movie. If we, as believers, are truly seeking God’s instruction then we should come to the same conclusions through the Holy Spirit’s guidance. We will also be fully informed and have the ability to lovingly instruct and defend the Biblical truth.

      2. wundermonkee says:

        Rose, I recently watched this movie after trying to read the book of Enoch. After 5 minutes of reading and 5 minutes of viewing, I realized why the council left the book out of the canon. The measurements of the size of the offspring of the fallen and the daughters of men were 4500 ft tall, or 3000 ells/cubits. After hearing Noah’s reenactment of the creation…. in the beginning there was nothing. That one statement screams of sacrilege, as it discounts the deity of Christ, as in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It is a very subtle omission, but one that bears great importance to our faith.

    2. Kathy Annis says:

      Good comment. I’m also reserving an opinion until seeing it, but from the trailers, there are several positives. This large budget Hollywood film acknowledges a Creator. The Creator speaks to Noah. He chose Noah for a purpose. Perhaps most importantly, the ark is portrayed in it’s biblical dimensions rather than as the toy boat that is depicted in many Christian children’s books.

      1. Ronnie says:

        Kathy: This film does not acknowledge a creator. It simply takes a story that Hollywood largely believes is a fable, and attempts an entertaining movie. Having said that, I am not advocating for or against attendance. But please let’s not assume any sort of spiritual admission by it’s makers.

        1. Kathy Annis says:

          I agree with you – I meant “acknowledges” in the sense that it’s in the story line – not typical in Hollywood movies – I’m not assuming any sort of spiritual admission by its makers.

  2. Rey De Armas says:

    No one should EVER associate themselves with Spiderman 3. :D

    1. Jermaine says:

      Pahaha. Amen.

    2. Chris says:

      The Spiderman 3 look has been working for me for some time now. People respect me.

  3. Norm says:


    I agree with your assessment of the “critics” and the “celebrators”. I remember a similar thing occurring with the film, “Jesus of Nazareth” by Franco Zeffirelli. Word, rumor, whatever, somehow got out that Zeffirelli was going to present Jesus as a mere human. Christians were very upset, that is until it was finally released. Yes, it definitely took some licenses and it had a Catholic slant to some of the scenes, but overall, it was the closest portrayal to the real Jesus as presented in the New Testament as had been done.

    I think it’s because, as you are aware, modern Hollywood, more often than not, is usually hostile to Christians, Christianity, and now God Himself.

    But, your point is well taken that we should wait and see it first before reacting and condemning.

    By the way, I thought “The Passion of the Christ” was very well done, and, I also thought there were some “teachable moments” in “Bruce Almighty”. So, I’m definitely in the “critic” category, but I also see that even in popular culture there are opportunities to bring out God’s truth.

    Thanks for listening.

  4. Jared Siangani says:

    Trevin, do you find it peculiar that the main cast for this movie is White?

    I’m not interested in this movie because it was not made with me or my people in mind. I’m appalled at the lack of diversity in this film.

    It was made for a consumer-driven white American audience that is too ignorant to realize its incessant cultural narcissism. An audience that loves its heroes and will always place itself on the big screen to perpetuate this love and continously flaunt its superior market dominancy.

    If I were American and white, maybe it’d appeal to my culturally narcisitic savior mentality driven heroism and I’d be geeked out about watching Russel Crowe and Emma Watson reinforce this values.

    1. Dean from Ohio says:

      Well, part of the problem in the world of Noah’s time was the lack of diversity–everyone on earth except Noah was all about evil, all the time. Put a different way, Noah and his family were diversity. In addition, the diverse ethnic groups apparently didn’t get really going until Genesis 11, and this is Genesis 6-8. So a monochromatic society, both spiritually and ethnically, seems to be an accurate and appropriate representation of the historical situation.

      Of course, was this ethnic group white? Who knows?

      Maybe Bollywood should make its own version with all-Indian actors and actresses. That would be just as accurate, and maybe more so!

      1. JS says:

        “Of course, was this ethnic group white? Who knows?”

        Who knows?
        Most people know.
        “white” is only an “ethnic group” in America.
        If you read the Bible, you’ll know that Noah is from Mesopotamia (Iraq and areas around it).
        So, that would be Persian/Middle-Eastern.

        What a dumb thing to say. Sorry, but I hate it when a few voices rise to the top and make Christians look foolish. We are a smart group if you can filter through the noise…

        “Maybe Bollywood should make a Christian movie”…Another gem. India is a Hindu country and only 2% of Indians are Christian. And why India? This takes place in the Middle East.

        I’m going out on a limb to say the reason for the white actors is because the movie was filmed in Hollywood. Probably a reasonable assumption that a movie in America, trying to create a regional society with a large cast will use white actors unless it completely throws off the story. It’s just the way life is right now. It’s not perfect. The movie industry get a lot of flak. For everything. Some of it is valid. This seems less valid. There are worse offenders in life.

        Overall, to the whole group…I’d say lighten up.

        There is a huge blockbuster movie about an amazing bible story right now.

        Of course the movie won’t be perfect or satisfy every person. Especially if you attack it with a fine-tooth comb (before even seeing it).

        No movie is perfect.

        It certainly won’t be a good substitute for a sermon or the gospel. Why would anyone expect that?

        Unless they really destroy this story (and with all the money spent, I’m guessing they’d want to avoid that) we may find good in this.

        Mass culture is turning its eyes to religious stories again. It might not be as “to-the-letter” as all Christians would like…but then…maybe if it were, we’d be the only ones watching it?

        Maybe whatever special effects and dramatic license they take—as long as they don’t offend the source material or those who believe in it—it will draw a wider audience to this important story.

        And maybe if we focus on the good instead of taking a magnifying glass to every possible bad thing, we’ll be happier :)

    2. Norm says:

      re: “I’m not interested in this movie because it was not made with me or my people in mind.”

      I don’t think the film was about promoting any one particular race of people – it’s about the story, not race, Jared.

      Just exactly what DID Noah and his family look like Jared? Do you know? As Dean from Ohio pointed out, by Genesis 6, the world’s population was still very small, and culturally “non-diverse”.

      I think you need to avoid viewing everything through the prism of “race”. I agree that Americans, as well as many peoples of the world, can definitely be narcissistic, but you seem to have blown this way out of proportion. I guess I could say the same thing about Bollywood’s films – everyone in them is from India (go figure).

      Again, whether the movie is good or bad, it’s about the story, not race.

      1. Siangani says:

        I don’t know what Noah & his family looked like but Hollywood surely believes they are white & have some sort of medieval English swagger & not forgetting that viking-looking nemesis.

        Just looking at the scenes in the preview, makes you wonder whether you’re watching Noah or a mesh of Braveheart & LOTR … What about those medieval English accents? like seriously! Oh wait, what would White audiences enjoy most? Oh snap! Makes perfect sense!!

        I’m not even American but its plain to me. But again you Americans are known for your blind pride & cultural ignorance. You must have a poor understanding of racism otherwise you would not have brought up Bollywood. But then again ignorance is the norm.

        So if you want to continue believing that you live in a post-racial society & this is reflective of Hollywood… go right ahead. I’m way too culturally intelligent so I refuse to be insulted by this movie.

        1. Melody says:

          Would it have been better to make the entire cast black, declare them so evil that they had to be wiped out by a catastrophic flood?

          It’s just like church. There is always going to be someone that isn’t happy with the choices that are made.

          I know this though. If Julianne Moore had ended up in it as originally planned there is no way I would have watched it even free on tv. My preference…

          1. Philippa says:

            “I know this though. If Julianne Moore had ended up in it as originally planned there is no way I would have watched it even free on tv. My preference…”

            Julianne Moore is a more compelling actress than Emma Watson. Just sayin’. :p But I guess from this that Moore was originally to play Noah’s wife. Jennifer Connelly is a good actress, though.

            (Apropos of nothing, I wanted Julianne Moore as Ada in the film version of ‘Cold Mountain’, not Nicole Kidman.)

            I am not convinced that the world’s population in the age of Noah, whilst still small, was entirely culturally and racially homogeneous … but anyway, Noah and his family weren’t Jews (the Jewish race had yet to come on the scene) but they were obviously from that region … so, yes, choosing white actors is a daft historical anomaly. ;) Middle Eastern or even Mediterranean actors would have looked better. :D

            But I don’t feel like rushing out to see this. The trailer did not impress me. It looks silly – a silly Hollywood take on the biblical material. Meh.

            ‘Gravity’, on the other hand, was definitely worth the hype …

        2. Dean says:


          Norm didn’t bring up Bollywood; I did. It’s the largest film industry I’m aware of outside the United States. If I knew of movie industries in Kenya or Kalamazoo, perhaps I would have mentioned them instead.

          Between growing up in South Carolina and Virginia, living in the Middle East, saving Haitians from drowning in the Caribbean, helping resettle Sudanese refugees in the metro DC area, supporting care for orphans in south Sudan, and traveling to Gabon to support missionaries in our family and learn first-hand about equatorial Africa, maybe–just maybe–I’ve gained some cross-cultural knowledge that even you don’t possess. My father’s travel to 110 countries and my mother’s to 60 might add a little bit too.

          If you are so culturally intelligent, why are you so quick to generalize and label everyone in America as a racist? Ironically, isn’t that what racists do? Someone has said, “Change the world–start with yourself.” That’s one thing to which I aspire.

          Better yet, I aspire to this:

          “But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.” –

          Yes, people who look like me may have hurt you and your family, but how can you know God if you don’t forgive them from your heart? You can’t. Give it to God; the debt of sin you (and I) owe him is so much greater. God bless you.

        3. Dean from Ohio says:

          Dear Moderator,

          I really think you’re not being even-handed in this. Jared can call Americans racist, ignorant and arrogant several times on this board, and we can’t even share the other side? Why did you admit Jared Siangani’s post in the first place?

          Not right.

          The man who first puts his cause before the judge seems to be in the right; but then his neighbour comes and puts his cause in its true light.

    3. Jim says:

      Strange I feel the same way whenever a Tyler Perry movie comes out.

      Perhaps we shouldn’t find our identity in our race or ethnicity but in the cross of Jesus Christ.

      Galatians 3:28

      1. Kerrie says:

        Jim – can you please expound upon what you meant by: Strange I feel the same way whenever a Tyler Perry movie comes out.? Was that comment really necessary? I would ask you and Norm to examine Scripture in a holistic context and understand that Jesus came to save all peoples. {Mark 16:15}

        It is not like Jesus or someone who follows Him to be so dismissive when a brother in Christ has a concern about why people that look like him are left out – why they don’t have a seat at the table in normative American culture. You have to realize that Noah could have been any “color”, so why didn’t someone take liberty with that and include a myriad of skin tones to appeal to as many people as possible? Isn’t our goal to save the lost, and aren’t the lost made up of different skin tones and types? Additionally your comparison to this being filmed in India for a Bollywood version were lost on me. If this is being filmed for American audiences, shouldn’t it be reflective of the melting pot that America is?

        While this movie is not about race – it would have been a great opportunity for the producers of this film to allow for a more inclusive experience… especially since Hollywood will use their poetic license anyway.

        I was really disappointed to see your responses… I pray God would bring enlightenment to both of you and that you cause no further harm in the body of Christ.

        1. Luke says:

          Noah is white because Russell Crowe sells more tickets than Tyler Perry in the US. It’s not about race it’s about dollars. So many feelings oozing all over the place here. Thicken up that skin people!

    4. John Chan says:

      Coming from a Chinese church, I suppose we need to recruit a dozen Jewish believers to do our Christmas play next month. Otherwise it won’t be authentic.

      1. Siangani says:

        I don’t know what Chinese church you are a part of but I bet it does not have the same social and economic capital plus added power and influence that Hollywood yields. I expect authenticity from Hollywood because they have the means to attain it but they don’t.

        1. John Chan says:

          Rolling Moses!Take a breath Siangani. Never bet until you know the odds and what are you demanding Hollywood to be authentic with? What DID Noah look like anyways?


      2. simon says:

        You should never expect authenticity from Hollywood. There are producers pulling the strings. The film industry is much more complicated than just making money.

    5. Jon says:

      Perhaps they should have just cast Vin Diesel as Noah and Vanessa Williams as the wife. I’m always seeing some ad online stating that Vanessa’s DNA comes from all over the world, and I think Vegas has running odds on what Diesel’s DNA test will show, so that should resolve this issue, right? I say this tongue in cheek, of course.

      Besides, what better stereotype is there to play the brutish bad guy bent on power and control than a large, overly hairy white guy?

  5. Justin Wylie says:

    Could not agree more. As a filmmaker myself I believe films to be the great conversation starter. An experience we all share in a dark theater is a surprisingly strong bond and one that can continue to the lobby, coffee shop, or the office days, weeks, months and years later.

    Personally, I am tremendously excited for this team of artists interpretation of this familiar story. There will most definitely be some artistic liberties taken by Darren Aronofski, the director. But those liberties will not be without thought and reason. He’s not the kind of filmmaker to put anything into a film without reason.

    Being critical of films rarely does any good. What speaks the most to the business of Hollywood is ticket sales. Go see films you want to see more of. Don’t go see the ones you don’t.

    1. Charmaine Nymann says:

      The ‘story’ of Noah is far more than just a story – it is a picture of God’s redemption. From what I have read about this movie, and what I have heard Russell Crowe saying, this director is taking far more than ‘artistic liberties’ – he is distorting biblical truth. There is grave danger in that. Sure, the director has plenty of thoughts and reasons behind what he is doing, but if it does not bring God the ultimate glory, it is a work of the devil, plain and simple! We MUST be critical if it is a movie that defames our LORD!

  6. Jared L. says:

    I think the tone of this article is good. Films can be useful to start or spur spiritual conversations, but they are not the Bible. I think we shouldn’t let our hopes get too high that “Noah” (or any film based on Biblical accounts) will be 100% faithful to the text of Scripture. That is especially true when the film’s director is an atheist. But however Biblically accurate or inaccurate the “Noah” film is, hopefully we can use it to point people to what the Bible says about Noah, the Great Flood, and how Noah’s Ark is a type foreshadowing Jesus — that He provides the only way of salvation from God’s judgment of our sin.

  7. Dean from Ohio says:

    I hope the film helps readers realize “There is a God, and I am not him,” and there is such a thing as judgment that could reach me. If so, it can be a good cultural frame for timeless biblical truth.

  8. Melody says:

    Perhaps I missed it but the extreme of the critics is how nasty and verbally abusive they can get in the name of God. Your version is more the less extreme, moderately suspicious.

    I would suggest not taking any children until you have quizzed them thoroughly on their understanding of the biblical version. Just like music from teen years, incorrect versions can muddle the truth and stick in the mind way beyond what one would think.

  9. David Rasmussen says:

    This article represents the plaintive way in which American Christians have approached not only Hollywood but all of Western secular culture for the last several decades. Its core thesis seems to be represented by the sentence, “No matter what Hollywood does with Noah, we should recognize the backhanded compliment in having biblical source material as the basis for a film.” The longing of American Christians to have our lost position of respect, influence, and even power restored is pathetic enough; to suggest that we should be grateful that the world finds the Holy Word of God entertaining would once have been unthinkable; in the 21st century it is simply a cliché.

    1. Norm says:

      Actually, David, I disagree that the key sentence in Trevin’s article was the one you quoted, rather I think the whole point of his article was:

      “I recommend Christians watch this movie the way we watch any movie – with discernment and wisdom. We shouldn’t overhype the movie’s flaws and miss the bigger opportunity. Neither should we see the movie as the most promising method of evangelism to appear in recent days, as if the Word of God needs visual representation in order to maximize its power.”

      In other words, don’t assume the film is bad in regard to God’s Word – until you’ve seen it first! I have no illusions that Christianity will ever have the world’s respect (if it ever really did – remember Jesus said, “if the world hated me, it will hate you”), but the truth is, whether this film is good or bad, it WILL be a conversation starter with unbelievers to the real truth.

      What bothers me more, and where I think I might agree with you, is that Christianity at one time produced artists, musicians, and philosophers that led the world in excellence. I don’t think that is completely gone, but far more rare nowadays.

      So, I think your criticism of Trevin’s article is unfounded, unfair, and full of yourself.

      1. David Rasmussen says:

        Norm, I suppose I could point out that your “full of yourself” comment is ad hominem, and that you don’t know me. But I suppose I am a little full of my own issue, namely that as a pastor nine years ago I promoted (I started to say “got caught up in the promotion of”, but that would make it sound like an excuse, and there is none) – I promoted “The Passion of the Christ”, and I am exceedingly ashamed of myself. What was I thinking? I did better when I counseled people, 20 years earlier, NOT to see “The Last Temptation” despite the fact that I was told publicly not to judge what I haven’t seen. This is, by the way, about the worst counsel regarding the decision to watch or not watch that can be imagined.

        1. Philippa says:

          David, I’m with you. I think you’re a little hard on yourself and you are also taking some unwarranted flak in this thread.

          I don’t see why Christians should get all excited about Hollywood doing silly things with biblical material. Although Norm is right on one thing: conversation-starters are always good.

          ‘The Last Temptation’ was an awful, and very silly, film. (As well as being offensive, it was also boring …) I watched it on TV and was most offended by its depiction of a younger Christ being coerced by Romans to crucify a fellow Jew. Ugh!! What a horrid slur on our Lord. :( But you’re right about public protests, which are usually counter-productive: they’re a sure way to make people WANT to see a particular film that catches the ire of Christians.

        2. Norm says:


          After re-reading my original reply to you, I realize that the last sentence I wrote was unwarranted, unkind, and un-Christlike to say the least.

          Being passionate in one’s expression is one thing, but there is also just being a jerk and I definitely crossed over into “jerk” territory. For that I sincerely apologize to you. The only one “full of himself” was me, not you. I promise to try to be less of a blowhard in the future.

          1. David Rasmussen says:

            God bless you, brother. I certainly understand about getting passionate in one’s argument, as you can see.

            What I am asking for is a re-consideration of the assumption that Christians should see, and perhaps promote, commercial films about the Bible. It does seem, in view of what we have learned in the last few days (since Trevin’s original post) that the movie in question is a well-done package of lies and blasphemies, and, if there were ever a “Biblical epic” that we should avoid, it would be this one.

            I don’t think the approach we all took to “The Last Temptation”, which was to draw attention to it by protesting it, was mistaken. Better we do to it what was done to the last “Noah’s Ark” movie, the made-for-TV one with Jon Voight in 1999 – ignore it, and let it die a natural death.

          2. David Rasmussen says:

            On the post just addressed to Norm-
            (a) typo – meant to say I DO think the approach we took to “The Last Temptation” was mistaken.
            (b) I also meant to add that Norm, I don’t think you are a jerk.

    2. Ryan says:

      Unfortunately, this is exactly what’s happening. Before Noah has even been released, churches will be promoting it, pastors will be providing free advertising from the pulpit, youth groups will be planning trips to go see it, church ministries will be pre-ordering DVD copies, multimedia companies will be trying to secure the rights to clips that would make good sermon illustrations, etc.

      I’m already exhausted just thinking about it. As a pastor, I’m going to be expected to see the movie multiple times – on my own, with my small group, with my youth kids, with my youth leaders, and on and on and on. People will ask me what I think and then “rebuke” me if I say anything negative about it because “at least it’s helping to spread the Word of God – think carefully about what you’re opposing.” People will want me to say positive and cheery things about it in front of the church and get upset when I don’t. People will want me to organize a group showing and procure small group materials based around the movie and… I have a headache now. I’ve never even seen the movie and I already hate it. This is going to be like Courageous all over again.

      I know that sounds like some cynical jerk being negative for the sake of it, but there’s something deeper here that I’m trying to get at: the church’s habit of automatically endorsing anything that portrays God, Jesus, the Bible or even just a general religiousness is not only revelatory, as David pointed out, of a sort of bizarre cultural neediness and continual desire to be reaffirmed by Hollywood, as David pointed out, but also of an incredible vulnerability towards exploitation. Doesn’t it bother people that we are so desperate for cultural relevance that we will literally structure entire ministries around movies that briefly reference the Bible?

      1. Philippa says:

        Ryan, I hear you! I can only hope that many British churches don’t go overboard with this either and apply some proper discernment. Is there any way you, as a pastor, can avoid what sounds like a runaway bandwagon? Strength and grace to you. :)

        I’m not a big fan of Gibson’s ‘Passion of the Christ’ (there are other depictions of the life and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ which I regard as superior works) but at least it did have some biblical merit. I’m not seeing an awful lot of that in the ‘Noah’ trailer. :D

      2. Charmaine Nymann says:

        If all of this is already giving you a headache, why don’t you be proactive and speak about it before the movie comes out? Isn’t that your duty as a leader in the church? Isn’t that our duty as Christians, period? Read the post by Ken Ham on the AIG blog . . . I certainly plan to give my friends a ‘heads up’ about what to expect – if we know something is blasphemous towards our Lord it is our obligation as believers to warn others!

        On a side note – I am not sure how you can compare the hoopla about a secular-made movie such as Noah with a Christian-made movie such as Courageous. Did it have some doctrinal issues? Maybe – but it was powerful and gave God the glory, unlike what this new Noah movie seems to be promoting.

        1. Ryan says:

          Frankly, because I don’t trust Ken Ham’s judgment or capability to provide an accurate and balanced report of the contents of the film.

          I didn’t actually have much of a problem with Courageous’ message (I objected to a few things, like how the mothers were sidelined, but they were all issues that I expected based on the theme and source of the movie, so I mostly let them slide), I just thought it was a bad movie. I became incredibly frustrated because people would ask me what I thought of the movie, and I would tell them that I thought the characters were shallow and two-dimensional, the plot was non-existent, and the film was technically clumsy. People would then get all upset and begin lecturing me on how I shouldn’t be critical of something that God is using, etc.

          While the issues I have with Courageous and Noah will likely be very different, the source of my frustrations will be the same – an uncompromising insistence that anything portraying the Bible or God in a positive light should be unconditionally accepted and promoted by Christians.

          As an aside, did anyone else find Courageous to be a surprisingly racist movie? It was like “Hi everyone! I am a poor Latino man who cannot keep a job. Though we do not have a lot of money, our family is still very happy and welcoming. It is fortunate that I have met you because now I can finally get a good job because I have white people to give me connections.” “Well, it’s nice to meet you, Latino man! I’m a black man that was abandoned by a father who left kids all over town. I need to be very vigilant of my daughter’s love life because all the black guys who want to date her are gang members.”

          Come on. Seriously?

          1. Charamine Nymann says:

            I also don’t necessarily agree with everything Ken Ham says, but that is an entirely different conversation . . . his post is the first one that I saw from a Christian that actually seems to give an accurate ‘take’ on what we are in for with the “Noah” movie. I had plenty of fb friends posting the Noah trailer, but his was the first post that questioned whether or not we should give in to all the hype.

            As for Courageous, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and you should not have been lectured about your point of view just because you didn’t care for it! Personally, I found it very refreshing to finally see a ‘hollywood quality’ movie coming from the Christian community. Was it perfect and worth awards? No. But we laughed, we cried, and as a family, we quite enjoyed it. Sure, there were things that could have been done better, but I was impressed that the main character dug into scripture for his answers and realized what God required of him. Was it maybe too stereotypical? Possibly. Racist? I think that is extreme to say the least. It was the white guy that got the girl pregnant and the other white guy that ended up in jail . . . every race represented had various ‘issues’, but the main theme of the movie transcended race. All I know is that it really spoke to my hubby, and that was the entire point . . . now, maybe they’ll make a mvoie for moms/women. Now, THAT could get controversial, couldn’t it? :-)

  10. Melody says:

    None of the bible is about race. It was sin that caused people to make skin color an issue. It was always about who worshipped the One True God and who didn’t.

  11. Keith says:

    “The Last Temptation of Christ” started conversations.
    “The Shack” and “Love Wins” started conversations.
    The crucifix in a jar of urine started conversations.
    I’m sure the high places and carved images in the Bible started conversations.
    This is not to compare “Noah” to any of those, since we have no basis to do so, but to ask generally, at what point do we stop defending something because people talk about it?
    We know the altar on Mars Hill “to an unknown God” started a conversation, but that doesn’t make it any less an offense to God. Ultimately, is it not what God thinks that matters, rather than us? Does anyone think He’s ever OK with mangling His Word? In the Bible, how does He take it when people depict Him on their terms and not His? And even when He uses those offenses for His good purposes, does His use of flawed vessels excuse the flaws?

    1. Ryan says:

      Well, that’s the thing. God is an omnipotent deity and could use anything to bring people to Him. Not to be crude, but I could get up on stage and break wind into a microphone and, hypothetically, the Holy Spirit could use it to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to billions of people. I have no idea how He would accomplish such a thing, but it’s certainly within His power.

      That is to say, “starting conversation” isn’t really all that laudable or impressive because God can do it with anything. That’s not to say that conversation starters aren’t worth paying attention to, but rather that starting these conversations isn’t, in and of itself, a reason to support something.

      So yes, we should embrace the conversations that come from it, but that doesn’t mean that we should embrace the medium through which the conversations arrived. I think you’re right to suggest that we shouldn’t promote anything that could possibly get people talking about the Gospel (especially since, as noted above, that category includes literally everything, and frankly I haven’t got the energy for that).

    2. Melody says:

      I’m pretty sure that He says that He will be the judge of that – not us. He has it covered. We are to love and speak the truth but lovingly. Like Stephen did as Paul was having him stoned.

  12. Angelo says:

    I think we should ask questions, are movies and tv shows methods/forms of instruction? If it is, then we ask, is it ok to present a biblical story inaccurately? Or who do we allow to present it inaccurately? Can a non-believer present it inaccurately? How about a professing believer (those who professed faith alone in Christ alone for salvation)? Or what do we allow to be presented inaccurately?
    We can ask it ok to allow a movie like ‘The Last temptation of Christ’ for the sake of an opportunity to talk about Christ?

  13. Abigail L says:

    I really appreciate this gracious take, and I agree that both extremes have their problems. Thanks for the reminder of the importance of a balanced perspective.

    I’m mostly concerned about how God is portrayed in this movie. Taking liberties with the wise men and the Egyptian princess are one thing; making God look like someone He isn’t is much more serious.

  14. Mark says:

    Russell Crowe says his portrayal of Noah may represent him as something far different than a benevolent figure…which is partly right, but mostly wrong.

    Watch his 47 second comment:

    1. David says:

      It is disappointing to see Mr. Crowe accuse Noah of simply standing by and watching the world perish. Perhaps we should hold him to account for his integrity. It really shows his antagonism to the Word of God and his lack of knowledge concerning the truth. II Peter 2:5 says that Noah was a “preacher of righteousness,” and considering the time it took to build the ark, the ridicule i.e., persecution he went through during that time, I do not see how he could be accused of anything but being exactly what God wanted him to be. Hebrews 11 says that he did what he did by faith. We know that without faith it is impossible to please God (He. 11:6) and that anything that is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23). Having said this, anything that denigrates the truth should concern all of us who delight in the truth. Error comes subtly to the weak and uninformed.

    2. Charlie says:

      Noah was a preacher of righteousness. He was preaching to the people of the coming judgment as he worked on the ark. 2 Peter 2:5

  15. Lelo says:

    I saw a YouTube video clip on Todd Friel’s Wretched titled ‘Russell Crowes Noah’ in which Crowe is being interviewed and explains that the one thing he likes about this film is that people will see Noah “for what he truly is, not a benevolent man,but one who let an entire population get destroyed.” If that’s how they will potray Noah, imagine how they will potray the Lord. Naturally, after seeing this, all hope I had of enjoying this film vanished faster than the disciples at Getsemane.

    1. Melody says:

      So he sees Noah as an historical figure? That’s interesting.

  16. Tim Irvin says:

    It’s a movie and it looks like it’s going to be fun! I enjoy the movies for their entertainment value. I never expect Hollywood to present a Sunday School lesson or a Theological Treatise and… “I Am Not Alone!”

  17. Sky says:

    It’s not accurate or appropriate to label all the critics as some sort of legalists, which is pretty much what you’re implying. Most of us who saw the film already (I screened it) think it’s important or allowable to add certain dialogue that although not recorded in the Bible, might have happened realistically (i.e. “Mooooooossseseesss” *could have happened*)

    As far as I know, there’s no Biblical record for any of the apostles taking a poop. (I know, blunt, but you get the point.)

    there are valid reasons why “the critics” are critically thinking about this film and discussing the serious errors it presents. Good acting, terrible story line.


    1). Noah is told by God to kill baby girls but not boys if Shem’s wife indeed has girls. Man is considered sinful because of their treatment of plants and therefore no one is allowed to survive, including Noah’s family. (see point 3)

    2) Noah’s sons attempt to kill Noah because he’s now become an insane baby killer.

    3) God is depicted as a pissed off tyrant pretty much the whole film.

    4) God tells Noah that he’s killing off humanity including them because they’ve corrupted the good things of earth (animals and trees. Seriously?)

    5) In the end, Shem’s wife tells Noah that “all he needs is to have love” and that God was cool with it…then the rainbow appeared.

    Because I don’t want to ruin the film (which I will see again once it’s finished) I will refrain from saying any more. But, to the article writer, there are genuine criticisms that stem far beyond minor criticisms. He makes God out to be some woman-hating, baby-killing environmentalist tyrant, and no that’s not ok.

    Everyone who saw the film was pretty much angry that they depicted the story in the way they did. Everyone. Including paramount who is pissed at Aronofsky. I’m not joking.

    Anyway, thought I’d throw my 2c in since I actually saw the film.

    1. Ellery says:

      Supposedly a graphic novel based on the film includes six armed giant ‘Watchers’.
      Is this accurate?

  18. FYI Brian Godawa (to End All Wars director, and author of “Noah Primeval”, a book) has written about the screenplay of Noah.

    This link might be helpful and informative for those wishing to assess the film’s handling of biblical material and its potential for cultural impact.

  19. Tim says:

    I thought this article was interesting and sheds some light on how the Bible will be portrayed. Also have heard similar things for the AiG website.

  20. Tom says:

    Growing up fundamental Baptist I was always hearing from the “critics” of these movies. I think the straw that broke the camel’s back was when Passion of the Christ came out- I found it an awesome conversation tool with all my unsaved co-workers. It opened up two doors where I was able to give almost the whole salvation message. But then when I got to church or school (a fundamental Baptist institution) I would hear the critics go on and on about how “Roman Catholic” it was and how it was a heresy to depict Satan as a woman (which it technically didn’t). On and on. I don’t disagree with the fact that it wasn’t perfect but wow, they made it sound like Hangover 2 or something. I agree with this article whole-heartedly, there is two sides & I think it takes tact as well as discernment to see both the good & the bad. Great article. Also, I’m not bashing fundamentalism- there’s some good things about it, just giving you my experience.

    1. Melody says:

      I loved the Passion. It was the first movie that didn’t make hanging on the cross look like it was just “uncomfortable”. The stupidest conversations I have had are with people that say they don’t need to see it because their imaginations are bad enough – a lie. They don’t want to face what Christ went through physically for them.
      The other dumb thing was someone saying that they thought they exaggerated the violence so they left before the end.

      1. David Rasmussen says:

        Melody, I saw The Passion twice and promoted it. I regret doing so now for several reasons, several of them connected to the violence. On the one hand, like so many films about true violent events, this movie did not faithfully represent it – which is, despite violence-obsessed Mel Gibson’s ghastly attempt, impossible – but rather trivialized it into a cinematic experience. We all felt so much like we were, if not there, then at least, feeling something, certainly more than those who saw versions that were only, say, half as disturbing. Second, the Scriptures have given us God’s account, four times, and Jesus Himself gave us a way to remember His broken body and His poured out blood, but for 21st century Christian moviegoers those things are somehow not enough. And third, please consider: If an important historical figure -say, William Wallace – underwent great suffering for, say, Scottish independence, you might have an interest in seeing an explicit movie about it (though as a student of history I find that a bit absurd). But if someone whom you dearly love, personally, was brutally attacked and gruesomely murdered, the last thing you want to see is some actor attempting to replay it to a crowd of movie fans.

        1. Melody says:

          Well I didn’t see it in the theater or promote it. I’m not into the big mass fake emotional experience. I saw it years later on dvd alone knowing what everyone’s complaints were.

          Sounds like you have some anecdotal stories based on freaky people you know and I have some based on fluffy people that do not really comprehend their own sin that I know.

          The line violent-obsessed Mel Gibson implies that you know him personally and well enough to make that determination. Or perhaps you are just like everyone else and have judged a man that suffers from a mental illness instead of just looking at the individual work.

          I doubt that any of the men of the bible could survive the scrutiny of the technological age.

          I could understand your critique if it was directed toward yourself somehow and some kind of confession on how you were mistaken before but you seem to have all kinds of judgement on the actors and directors. That is very confusing. You can’t see in their hearts. If they are guilty then you are guilty with them for going twice.

        2. Chris Zmuda says:

          “Second, the Scriptures have given us God’s account, four times, and Jesus Himself gave us a way to remember His broken body and His poured out blood, but for 21st century Christian moviegoers those things are somehow not enough.”

          David, the problem I have with this line of reasoning is that the 1st century church, at least, was intimately familiar with scourging and crucifixion. The Gospel writers didn’t need to get into the gory details, because their immediate readers would have pictures in their heads at least as horrifying as The Passion of the Christ. Most 21st century Christians had no idea what Jesus gave himself over to until The Passion. I, for one, am thankful to have been shown the true horror of Christ’s sacrifice, as it helped reveal to me the horror of my own sin.

          1. Melody says:

            Would explain why so many go around wearing a gold version of the torture device around their neck and dangling from their ears.

            I don’t ever want to have a Sunday school flannel graph view of the cross again.

          2. Ryan says:

            Fantastic response. It’s similar to the age-old question: “Why should pastors have to go to seminary when the apostles and church fathers didn’t?”

            Well, for one thing, no one today speaks Koine Greek.

        3. Philippa says:

          @ David Rasmussen: I hear you. I’m from the UK and I didn’t care much for Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion of the Christ’ either. I wonder whether the reason why some evangelicals responded to it the way they did was because evangelicals simply aren’t used to the graphic, visceral depiction of Jesus’ physical sufferings the way that Catholics are. I thought ‘Passion’ was a very Counter-Reformation sort of film, in some ways. It was very much in the style of the realistic sacred art of the Counter-Reformation (and I’m not against that kind of art, by the way). Interestingly, a Catholic friend of mine refused to see it because, in her words, ‘why would I want to watch someone I love being tortured?’ I don’t regret seeing it but I wouldn’t do so again.

          I regard Franco Zefferelli’s ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ as far superior and more biblically faithful, especially in its depiction of the Crucifixion: stark and cruel, but NOT gratuitous. (Although Robert Powell’s Jesus really should not have had piercing blue eyes … ;) )

          I certainly don’t want the sufferings of Jesus sugar-coated. (Shudder.) As a 15 year old, I well remember when a youth leader brought home to me just, exactly, what Jesus suffered. We all need to hear that. But I prefer Zefferelli’s film treatment over Gibson’s.

          For me, the best life of Christ in film is the beautiful animation ‘The Miracle Maker’, based pretty much on Luke’s Gospel. Just superb. Christ-honouring on every level. I can’t recommend it highly enough. Joint Welsh/Russian production, with the voice of Ralph Fiennes as Jesus (looking properly Jewish for once, praise God) and a host of other famous British actors voicing the other characters.

          The 2010 BBC ‘Nativity’ is also very, VERY good (much better than their ‘Passion’, which I wouldn’t recommend). Ignore the historical anachronisms – the whole thing was shot in Morocco so you have the absurd scenario of first-century Jews living in 14th century Arabic buildings, LOL – because the storytelling is excellent, even if the script takes some liberties with Joseph’s reluctance to accept Mary’s story about her miraculous pregnancy. But this portrayal of Joseph made me appreciate biblical Joseph even more – he’s often rather overlooked. ‘The Nativity’ leaves no doubt about the divinity of the Christ-child, and showcases Mary’s courage and obedience. The depiction of the Star of Bethlehem, and the fulfilment of ancient prophecy, is just wonderful, and very moving. I watch it every Advent: it’s spiritually uplifting. :)

          And of course Catherine Hardwicke’s 2006 film ‘Nativity Story’ is a lovely, reverent take. The film got unfairly bashed by the critics for being too bland – well, I love it. Nice to see a Hollywood film that takes the Bible seriously, for a change.
          I am not convinced that ‘Noah’ will be on that level.

          1. Melody says:

            I liked the visual bible of Matthew. It’s the one version that had Jesus smiling and looking like a normal human being instead of some freaky blue eyed zombie that didn’t really relate to people. John the Baptizer had a really bad wig that made me look through my hands just to get through the cheesiness of it but I needed to see the film for other reasons.

            I loved the Nativity and it’s the one that I will watch each year. I love how they have Mary grow to love Joseph based on his character and his desire to do right for God. I hate it when they take stories in the bible and make them into a love story or give a love interest like they did with the Ten Commandments. The Story of Ruth is probably one of the worst films I have seen for that. You complete lose the kinship redeemer in that one and you find film in the Christian book stores. I just want to throw the whole pile out the door onto the sidewalk.

  21. PS that link has spoilers

  22. Tom says:

    Thank you for bringing out the balanced approach when considering anything the world does when it tries to relate to Biblical subjects. As a Hebraic Roots student one of the first things you learn is the tension that comes from the “on one hand, on the other hand” approach to evaluating biblical scriptures. Also, God often leaves us to “search out” the culture of the those biblical times and stories. Some of the “poetic license” may come from a “what would I or other people do in this situation” thought process.

    The great sages and biblical scholars don’t always agree on some of the finer points of scripture. If they, who study the Bible for a living, can’t always agree, I can give a little grace to those who are trying to wrestle with the tensions of biblical accuracy in a culture they/we may not fully understand.

    As for me, I will watch it with a skeptical eye. But, I wouldn’t bet the farm that it will be fully biblically accurate. Entertainment is just that – more about entertaining than teaching. And it for certain is not about teaching history with the intent on bringing one closer to the Father, making one desire to pursue holiness and righteousness. After all, those virtues often conflict with Hollywood. Be in the world and not of the world. Seeing a lie doesn’t mean you have to accept it, and it readies you for correcting the lie in any daily conversation.

    1. Melody says:

      Can it be worse than that stupid comedy that Christians went to with Steve what’s his name?

  23. Charmaine Nymann says:

    May I suggest that you check out the review by Ken Ham on the Answers in Genesis website before you just go out and watch the movie?

    Here is a small portion of what he writes:”Is the movie trailer promoting the blockbuster film Noah—to be released in March—part of a Hollywood con?

    Why would I even suggest that? Well, if you watch the movie’s trailer, it seems that the film might be compatible with the biblical account of the Flood and Ark of Noah. But I believe the trailer was put together very carefully and cleverly to attract Christians and Jews—those who might be inclined to pay to see the film and not speak out against it. In fact, many Christians and Christian organizations have already come out publicly to say they can’t wait to see this movie. But what will Noah, with movie star Russell Crowe, really show? Should Christians promote this movie just based on what Hollywood is letting them see?

    We have heard from various sources—including two close friends of AiG who watched a rough cut of the film—that it is not at all faithful to the biblical account in Genesis. The final movie will probably be very unbiblical in some bizarre and shocking ways.”

    Mr. Ham goes on to explain much of what was seen in the rough cut . . . really gives food for thought as to whether promoting it is really such a great idea until we have seen it and judged it for ourselves. I must agree with “Keith”‘s comments above – just because such things can ‘start conversations’ doesn’t mean they’re a good idea . . .

  24. Nathan W. says:

    I think the proper Christian response to “Noah” is to blog about it. Tirelessly. From every angle imaginable. :)

  25. Rodney Solomon says:

    My main objection is that the director is belligerently twisting scripture to fit his agenda. This is known widely in the media as well. I’m sorry. I won’t be supporting this film financially.

  26. Julie says:

    I am Christian and I am interested now that I know Russell Crowe, a great actor will be the leading man. I have always had questions about some of the Old Testament stories…the ones where innocent children suffer the same fate as the wicked adults. It will be interesting to watch this version for sure.

    1. Dean from Ohio says:


      Ironically, the human impulse to reject revealed truth from God and substitute our human reasoning is the root of what caused the flood in the first place–sin. Having a question is not rejection, of course, but it sounds as if you need to be doubly vigilant that you don’t fall into unbelief as did the readers of the book of Hebrews. If you doubt, ask God by all means, but decide in advance to accept and obey whatever he shows you. Spiritual truth is learned only through obedience, not by study alone.

      Solomon was the wisest person who ever lived and ever will live, except Jesus, but he fell into grievous error and sin because he trusted that wisdom over God’s revelation. There’s no record of any prophet active during his reign, as Ravi Zacharias points out, and his wisdom wasn’t enough.

      God always does the most loving and the most just thing possible. Always.

      Reading up on Russell Crowe, I find that he is a flawed human, as we all are. That underscores how unqualified he, and we, are to sit in judgment on God and his word. Be careful; here there be dragons.

  27. Julie says:

    To Sky that saw the film, thanks for letting us know those key points. as to how God felt about women….most women in the Old Testament were an afterthought…we were lucky to even see they were listed as the wife of someone….as they were not even mentioned in the lineage in Genesis…only the sons. There were few women actually named at all. They were property AND in some cases worth less than cattle. So, the sentiment toward females is not unwarranted. As far as the killing babies and plants thing, well that sounds pretty dumb. As for the Passion of the Christ, why wouldnt Satan appear female-like? Why the shock? The Bible refers to SIN in the female tense numerous times. I think it’s cool that a movie is being made about it at all. MAYBE it will cause people to pick up a Bible and look at the story there AND the other stories and get interested in it. I had to sound like a feminist but it is what it is.

    1. Dean from Ohio says:

      Sin in the female gender? Hamartion in Greek is neuter.

      Let’s see, Sarah, Hannah, Rebekah and Ruth (both “types” representing the believer in intimate relationship to Jesus), Deborah, etc. Methinks your memory is failing.

      Don’t saw off the branch you’re sitting on. You criticize the Bible for supposedly perpetuating a low view of women, but forget that the very societal viewpoint you advocate–equal value and worth of men and women–came straight from the New Testament.

      BTW the character of Satan in The Passion of the Christ is androgynous.

    2. Melody says:

      Eve was made in the image of God just as Adam was. You’re prejudice is causing you to see things that are not there. When the women matter in issues of faith they were mentioned. The faith was what mattered.

      God is the same in the Old Testament as the New. Jesus is God in the flesh. The God was that was willing to be rejected by the people that he fed, loved and healed day after day turned Him over to be tortured and killed. If you do not lean on that when you read the old testament, when you can’t understand what the ancient texts mean, you will be putting yourself in the position of judging God. You do not want to go there. Who are we to judge God?? You just end up in the same place after you finish only without your faith. In the end it’s still the same. He is still God and you are still just a mortal being with your fate in His hands. Don’t go there. If you can’t read it any other way then don’t read it. Do like I do and wait to do a bible study with trustworthy people.

      Matthew 25:24-30 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed,so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

  28. Tom Brewer says:

    Noah is called a preacher of righteousness (2 Pet 2:5), and the writer of Hebrews says Noah moved with fear (Heb 11:7). Who are we to believe? Russell Crowe or the Word of God? Crowe slanders one of our fathers of the faith when he says Noah was not benevolent and that Noah was “not even nice.” Crowe says Noah was “the dude who stood by and watched the population of the entire planet perish.” The Bible doesn’t say Noah just “stood by”; the Bible says he preached righteousness; that is, Noah warned people for 120 years. The truth can be found in Genesis chapters 6, 7 and 8. The Bible says Noah was a just man. The Bible says, “Noah walked with God.” The Bible says Noah did, “according to all that God commanded him.” The LORD says to Noah, “for thee have I seen righteous before me.” Crowe is an Academy Award winning actor who does not just simply read a script and recite the lines. Crowe gets into his character, and like all good actors he interprets the reading of his script. Crowe’s interpretation will be portrayed in the way he acts out his perception of Noah. I do not doubt that there was much blood, sweat, and tears shed by Noah and his family over that 120 year period before the flood. I do not doubt there was much rejection, mockery, and even persecution from the world during those years.
    To confuse the beauty of the Gospel with Crowe’s slander of a member of the hall of faith (Hebrews 11) is not honoring God. There are none righteous apart from the imputed righteousness of Christ. And Noah did not have to be a “nice guy” in order to be counted worthy of being used by God. But because of God’s grace and favor toward Noah, God was pleased to use Noah and caused Noah to be a just (or faithful) preacher of righteousness. God doesn’t save “nice guys”; there are no “nice guys.” But when God does save a wretch, He conforms him to the image of His blessed Son. The world, the flesh, and the devil hate God and they hate God’s people. When we Christians finally begin to understand this and quit trying to be friends of the world, and quit thinking that Hollywood films can be neutral, we will finally be able to be in the world but not of the world. Hollywood has no great love for God, truth, the Bible, or God’s people; because, just like the rest of the world, Hollywood types suppress the truth in unrighteousness because they love their sin.

    1. Charmaine Nymann says:

      Very well stated, Tom! God can even take someone like Crowe and redeem him – we need to pray that God will indeed do that! We also need to pray that God will use this movie – and the controversy about it – to stir the hearts of those that watch it to turn to scripture to see the TRUTH!

  29. Melody says:


    Russell Crowe is an unbeliever. You cannot hold him to the same standard. You end up looking hateful when you do. Or like you are pulling out a sword ready to slay someone for the sake of God, as if He needed you to do that. Pray for him. Share the gospel for those like him but Jesus says you absolutely do not get to hate him. Paul was a murderer of Christians. Think about that.

    1. Charmaine Nymann says:

      Melody – You are being unfair to Tom by saying “you do not get to hate him”. Tom did not say that he hated Russell Crowe. Crowe is speaking, and acting out, blasphemous things about the Word of God – and ultimately God Himself. That is offensive, and Tom is pointing out the errors of Crowe’s ways. There is no hate in what he is saying – I only see him trying to present the truth of the Gospel in his statement. And we are to hold EVERYONE and ALL things up in light of scripture. Is Crowe FOR God? If not, he is AGAINST God. It’s really quite simple. We must pray that God will use this movie to work in the hearts of unbelievers (including Crowe) – and even nominal believers – to open God’s Word and see the TRUTH!

      1. Melody says:

        Looking hateful is looking hateful. And you do not get to be “offended”. Crowe is a man made in the image of God that does not have the light of the Holy Spirit. He will act like a man that does not have the Holy Spirit. God does not need you to get offended for Him.

        Where does Jesus or Paul say to get offended at secular society for God?

  30. Darren Blair says:

    I’m an actual movie reviewer; I have a review come out each Tuesday in my hometown bi-weekly.

    As a movie reviewer, it’s my obligation to be neutral and critique a film based on its respective merits.

    I take the first paragraph in my review to explain anything that might potentially bias me towards a movie, and off I go.

    Even if it’s a film I find morally objectionable (like “Bad Grandpa”) or involves a creative talent that I find morally objectionable (Tom Hanks is just left of Mel Gibson, yet I reviewed “Captain Phillips” anyway).

    I will likely see “Noah” when it comes out, in large part because I want to see what sort of film we’ve gotten for all of the money that has likely been pumped into it.

    1. Darren Blair says:

      OK –

      The local movie theater decided to pick up “God’s Not Dead” based on its surprising first-week results and local demand.

      The film was running opposite “Noah”, and so I had to make a decision. I’ve typically gone with “underdog” films, and so I went ahead and saw “God’s Not Dead” for my weekly review.

  31. Nev says:

    On the comment, “How will God be portrayed? As a righteous judge purging the world of wickedness or a bloodthirsty tyrant who can’t wait to destroy the earth?”, I don’t think the biblical text reveals an emphasis on either of these traits in the divine character.

    According to 6:6 God’s motivation for wiping out humankind is remorse and deep grief, not judgemental anger. Further along in 8:21 God appears to change his mind again (about wiping them out), deciding instead that, even though they are innately sinful, God will commit to a relationship with them, come what may.

    If the story’s point was in fact meant to portray a “righteous judge purging the world of wickedness”, then, by God’s own admission, God appears to have failed to achieve his objective, as sinful humankind, at the end of the story, are granted a new remit and are safeguarded by a new divine promise.

    I’ll be surprised if THAT storyline shows up in the movie however!

  32. debbie says:

    Can’t say what my response to it will be until I see it. How can anyone?

  33. Charlie says:

    Sad that more Christians are excited about big Hollywood productions than films with Christian values. I’ve heard more about this Noah film several months away from theaters than this good film in theaters right now. Go see the Christmas Candle.

  34. Heather says:

    Who is this movie marketed to, the lost or Christians? Are you going to shell out your hard earned cash to see what we already know is going to be loaded with Scriptural inaccuracies? Why? Who will be laughing all the way to the bank? Save your cash and give it to those in real need, or to those who preach the gospel w/out compromise.

    I can understand the need to be objective here; no one wants to be perceived as being holier than thou, but holiness must not be forsaken entirely. When the demon possessed girl who was well known for being a soothsayer, followed Paul and told everyone that he and his companions were servants of the God Most High, and knew the way of salvation, what was Paul’s reaction? Paul wasn’t hysterical, objective, or flattered, nor was he complacent to use her as a tool to further witness the gospel. He cast that demon out!

    Simon the sorcerer was formerly thought to have the power of God, and professed to be converted under the leadership of Philip. Then his real motives were revealed when Peter and John arrived with the gift of the Holy Spirit. What did Peter do? Did he foam at the mouth like a rabid dog at Simon’s evil request, or use it as an opportunity to witness for Christ? He simply rebuked the guy and said if he didn’t repent, then he would be damned.

    Why would a professing Christian go to a production that is skillfully and intentionally marketed to them, yet holds little or no biblical truth in it? The blind will lead the blind into a ditch, so don’t follow them.

  35. Ben says:

    Pretty balanced post, thanks for the thoughts Trevin. I have to admit, the first time I saw the trailer, the first thing that happened was I got goosebumps. From a cinematic standpoint coupled with all the marvels of modern film making, it sure looks as though budget constraints were no concern. The second thing that took place was an active mind, busy foreseeing all the facebook posts and Christian blogs ripping Hollywood as the purveyor of all evil, the director as an artistic liberal, and endless harping on the fact that there will be artistic license taken in order to fill out the story. With that, I have a few additional thoughts to offer to an already balanced, reasoned, and much appreciated blog post:

    1.) Christian’s throw the word ‘Hollywood’ around too easily. There’s secularism and the praise of things contrary to the holiness of God that come out of Hollywood. There’s also some incredible art that’s made there too. Sometimes they’re both together. There’s Christians, agnostics, and there’s atheists. I have Christian friends there in film, we need more there. Hollywood first is a community of people passionate about capturing story in particular art forms. And surprise, most of them probably aren’t believers. We should encourage an active discerning participation in the arts. Usually Christians stereotype the entire thing, not acknowledging the good that takes place, and throw the good under the bus with the bad. It’s an unfortunate, and unfair, perception we create.

    2.) Seek out interviews with the director. Before casting your stones, find out what his approach was. Read him, listen to him. I’ve sought it out, it was kind of encouraging. He’s not evil, he’s a film maker. That’s his profession. Engage with him in love.

    3.) Seek out interviews with the actors. Don’t be surprised when Russell Crow gives a secular approach to his take on the story of Noah. Because guess what: Unbelievers think like unbelievers. Imagine that. Don’t get angry, don’t write blog posts about how anti-Christian Russell Crow is. Don’t, please don’t. Pray for him, and recognize he took this role as an actor, a professional, and someone passionate about story.

    4.) Remember this: Most directors don’t create films to display the glory of Christ in God through the lineage of Noah. Ever realize that? They make movies because they fall in love with story, they’re artists, and to make money (not inherently bad). Noah is a compelling and engaging story, regardless of your beliefs. Hollywood is the business of story. Don’t get offended if they’re take or interpretation in the information gaps isn’t what you wanted. Engage with it.

    I don’t mean to be heavy-handed. But Christians can be so stiff when it comes to the “evil-empire” , there comes a point where it’s wearying to read. Cynicism and finger pointing have no place, and there will be much of it come March 2014. Many Christians, unfortunately, won’t enjoy and more importantly interact respectfully and intelligently with the movie because of it.

    I’m excited about this movie. It looks awesome. The actors are top notch, made in the image of God with incredible gifts. From what I’ve read the director did justice to the text as far as he could, and filled in gaps where there was no information (gaaaasp…he did what?!) That’s right, there will be artistic liberties.

    Watch with a balanced mindset. Discern, but don’t destroy.

    1. Andrew Kinane says:

      Interesting comments. Suggest a movie be made about a more modern Noah based on Noah II, the End of the Rainbow.


      Andrew Kinane

  36. James Brickley says:

    From what I’ve read about the movie and reviews of early cuts shown to Christian groups; it’s not Biblical in the slightest and the trailers are not revealing that fact. So that is a manipulation of the audience who is expecting the story they know. It’s not based on the Bible’s story of Noah, it is based on a graphic novel (a comic book). There are a great many changes that will shock Jews and Christians alike. The graphic novelist ripped off the Noah story and made extreme changes to the story that do not reflect God’s views. It is very distorted and twisted. The message of Gods word is changed in this movie. It has more in common with Conan the Barbarian than it does with the Biblical Noah.

    1. Ben says:

      From what you’ve read? Have you read any interviews with the actors and directors? Have you seen the movie yet? If the answer is no…which it is…wait until you watch it before you crush it. Always always always, no matter the body of work. Moreover…you’re not expecting liberties to be taken where the Bible doesn’t provide narrative? Come on…

  37. Duke says:

    “No matter what Hollywood does with Noah, we should recognize the backhanded compliment in having biblical source material as the basis for a film.”

    Mr. Wax… Seriously? And you call yourself a follower of Jesus Christ?

    Hmm… in this “film”… Noah is an environmentalist, runs an animal hospital for creatures who survive evil poachers, has the fighting skills of a Ninja, receives a magic seed from Methuselah that blooms a magical forest in the desert, and goes to the Watchers; aka “Fallen Angels” for help. And that’s just for starters.

    This “film” is blatantly a political propaganda piece for environmentalism.

    “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.” – Proverbs 30:5-6

    1. Melody says:

      Duke did you seriously just question if someone is a follower of Christ because of a blog post about a movie?

      In the measure that you judge you will be judged, I don’t think you can with stand your own standards of what is a follower of Christ.

      John 13:34-35

  38. Paula says:

    “If it’s The Prince of Egypt, they point out that it was Pharaoh’s daughter, not his wife, who discovered Moses in the river.”

    That’s a hat tip to Islam, not just an inaccuracy.

    They also show a dead lamb slaughtered in the road during passover. Um… Really? They were not killing lambs in the street willy nilly and letting them lie there. The way passover was to be carried out was extremely important to the story since it foreshadows Christ.

    “If it’s the History Channel’s Bible series, they point out the Bible does not attribute ninja moves to the angels who helped Lot flee Sodom.”

    there was farrrrrr more wrong with that series than just inaccuracies. The whole main message of the movie was wrong. The gospel was wrong. they deliberately left out INCREDIBLY important passages in the passion section. Jesus didn’t say he came to change the world, when he called the disciples. Yes, at what point does artistic license become heresy? For sure when they are portraying a scene that IS included in Scripture and leave stuff out or change things to make it fit a liberal interpretation or avoid offending some other religion like Islam.

    Come on, Trevin. Why would you be arguing against accuracy? Seriously.

  39. Melody says:

    Can we still watch it if we don’t worship it?

    Can we still watch it if we don’t think it is a bible story?

    Can we still watch it if we think Captain America is a better leader but still not real?

  40. Carla says:

    Christians should respond honestly according to their God given discernment and convictions, not spout something pre-chewed that you or their pastor told them to say.

  41. lew m. says:

    what difference doe’s it make how christians responde to noah? noah is an old testament story.

  42. lew m. says:

    why be concerned how christians think about noah? noah is an old testament story.

  43. Jimmy says:

    Can someone please explain why there is an all white cast when Noah was born in Mesopotamia which is dead in the middle of Iraq? Last I checked Iraq had brown people. #appropriation

    1. Melody says:

      1)How long ago was it? Do we have photographs to prove what people looked like?
      2)Why are people white and various shades of brown?
      3)What difference does it make with a movie that is just very loosely based on the story?

  44. Cheryl Meisel says:

    I can’t wait to see it. I use bible movies as a learning tool for my eight year old grandson. I explain to him if it differs from the bible by saying it’s a movie. Movies have to be made to fit all movie goers.
    My grandson is no ordinary child when it comes to the bible. These movies have helped us look things up in the bible and study them.
    We go to see all the super heroes why not BIBLE movies? We love them.
    I don’t know why it is people have to go see a movie and the anti-god people, the Christians etc. have to fight about it. Just go see it if you want to and enjoy it for a movie. If you have opinions of right and wrong go read it in your bible or don’t read it at all. Simple as that.
    Though I have to laugh, because NOTHING brings more conflict and big mouths then a Bible movie. NOTHING! Thinking on that for myself I just smile because isn’t that just how it has always been? and will always be. Because GOD is bigger then life and he will NEVER go away.
    ENJOY the flick it looks awesome!

  45. tom says:

    For me it depends on how it is rated. I do not believe Christians should go to R rated movies and so if it is R, I will not watch it.

    1. todd says:

      That’s absurd. The Bible would be R-rated.

  46. Skep P says:

    I’m always a fan of anyone who uses the phrase “Biblical accuracy” with a straight face… doubly so if they don’t speak Aramaic.

  47. Dale Barry says:

    I don’t need the movie, I read the Book

  48. Godtalkradio says:

    I’m excited about it and I look forward to the movie opening doors for greater, gospel, conversations.

  49. Pingback: Noah Movie 2014
  50. Ted Roebuck says:

    im not worried of how Christians will respond we know the truth and can pick out the in accuracies im praying the non believers seeing and taking Hollywood version as gospel the worst Noah was NBC version ugh i stopped watching it a quarter the way through in Jesus name let this bring some truth

  51. Karen Arnpriester says:

    Thank you for some logic when it comes to movies that are Christian based. Hollywood is always about what will bring in the dollars so they are going to do what is best for them, I don’t think their primary agenda will ever be to present the Bible accurately. This movie is a tough call for me, I love the actors, the story is controversial at best, how could a loving God drown all of His kids, and I am curious to see how they produce such an epic event. But then I think, do I financially support Hollywood’s disregard for the accuracy of the Bible? Maybe wait till its on tv? I think that Christians forget that Hollywood is secular and we need to drop the anger, but instead pray and love on others so that they see Christ through us and allow God to deal with Hollywood. I also wonder if seeing the movie and it’s imperfections wouldn’t equip you to have open dialogue with others. To know what they saw and what was distorted. I realized some years ago that the Holy Spirit within me sees and experiences everything I do. So I have the responsibility to decide what I subject us to when it comes to entertainment. I will listen to this internal guidance before I buy a ticket.

  52. Melody says:

    Watching it on tv makes it feel free but it’s not. Money exchanges hands everytime something is on. I absolutely will not watch anything on NBC because I do not want to be part if their advertising audience. I’m only one person so I’m sure it doesn’t matter to them one iota but it gives me joy.

    I wouldn’t take my grandson to it cause a child doesn’t need competing stories from the bible in his head. I’m still mad at the Charlton Heston movie that duped me as a kid.

  53. bruce says:

    point taken – and it is good that hollywood is looking into biblical events and characters. the only issue though, is that when hollywood comes up with their own movies, everyone can enjoy because it is “Fiction” make believe, out of the air stuff. when taking biblical accounts into mind, you need to realise that these are historical truthful events that have taken place. and these have taken place in specific sequences. perhaps a story line in between, could be added, however, the overall gist of the story needs to be according to that which the bible portrays, sinful world, preacher of repentance, God of Love and justice.

  54. Euvangelia says:

    Too bad they didn’t use Christian consultants and Christian actors. It could have been really EXCELLENT.

  55. Sunny Shell says:

    This post is disturbing. I’m surprised to find that a site named “The Gospel Coalition” promotes and defends heretical projects from New-Agers like Roma Downey and Mark Burnett (as noted about in Trevin’s critique about NOT “The Bible” miniseries). That miniseries attacked the Gospel numerous times, yet you criticize those who point that out? Strange.

    And now, these same non-Christians put out the same blasphemy of our Savior on the Big Screen and we’re to look at this as an opportunity to speak to our friends and neighbors about the true Gospel, because we’re such wimps and have so little love for God and trust in His Holy Spirit’s work in us, that we can’t talk to people about Jesus without the use of a heretical film?

    Very sad and troubling indeed.

    1. Melody says:

      Sunny Shell isn’t there a better way that you could have expressed your opinion without trashing people? Something more Christ-like?

      1. Sunny Shell says:

        Melody, I didn’t trash (i.e., call derogatory names, etc.). I only spoke truth and asked a valid question. It’s funny, the religious Pharisees told Jesus He wasn’t very God-like. So, I’m gonna take your comment as a compliment. Thanks. :)

        “Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy…But we are not like those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.” ~Proverbs 27:5-6, Hebrews 10:39

        1. Melody says:

          First of all I never said I planned to see the movie because I do not. I was very careful to temper my response with love so that you would see how hateful you sounded.
          You cannot judge a person’s heart. YOU are not God and it is blasphemy to act like you can. So call me all the names you want even with your cheering section. It doesn’t make you right or your heart true.

    2. David Rasmussen says:

      Sunny, thank you for your bold stand for the truth in the face of so many who care more about the opinion of the world than for the truth of God’s Word or the honor of His name. It is sad that some believe that you are being less than Christ-like when you speak out against those who are leading precious souls astray. Our Savior treated, and still treats, repentant sinners with tenderness, but was not and is not “tolerant” toward false teachers of religion or with those who twisted God’s Word.

      1. Sunny Shell says:

        Amen brother David. Thank you for your encouragement. You’re certainly a blessing in an environment where people love their golden calves so much, they get angry and jeer at you for exposing their idolatry and exhorting them to worship the One True God…Jesus Christ the Lord, as revealed in His Word and NOT in theaters.

    3. Rick says:

      Sunny, in the article, Trevin said:
      “The critics overplay the danger of a biblically inaccurate film, tending to see all artistic license as sacrilegious.

      The celebrators overplay the promise of a Hollywood blockbuster, expecting spiritual fruit to come, not from the Word, but from pixels on the big screen.”

      That seems very balanced and reasonable to me. I can’t see how the article or TGC:

      “promotes and defends heretical projects from New-Agers like Roma Downey and Mark Burnett”

      This article does no such thing. I don’t know for sure, but I think that’s what Melody meant by “trashing”. If that is what she meant, I think she’s right.

      You seem to be solidly in the critics group. But surely you don’t think that a Christian cannot see a film like this or use it to point out what is really true to a dying world, do you?

      Of course films are not our primary tool for witnessing. But why would you not want to have familiarity with a harmless film (for believers) like this in order to interact with a non-believer who might think this film is great?

  56. Sara says:

    I actually saw this movie today with my husband after seeing the trailer. I understand the liberties that Hollywood takes with films. I also understand the need to add certain parts to make their story. What I don’t agree with is changing parts of the story of Noah in the Bible to conform to the film they are making. I’m not an avid scholar of the Bible but a lot in the movie didn’t sit right with me as I didn’t remember ever reading such things in the Bible. So I came home and re-read Genesis.

    In the story Noah sees his father killed when he is a boy, no such thing took place as Lamech lived 595 years after Noah’s birth. Noah’s grandfather Methuselah lived 969 years and died but not in the flood (as depicted in the movie) The ages of Noah’s son’s are in accurate but more than that the Bible states they brought their wives on the Ark with them. That is not what the film portrays. Actually it is the complete opposite. This which causes animosity and hate between Ham and Noah. (this never happened). Noah having to kill his newborn grandchild if its a girl (never happened).

    So again my problem with the movie is the changing of the accounts as written in the Book of Genesis not the liberty to add to the story.

  57. Steve says:

    I think the bigger question is how should the Jews view this movie!? This is NOT a Christian story. The story of Noah and the flood is from the OLD testament. LONG before Christ’s birth,death and resurrection.

  58. I just watched the movie. Yes, go see it. To prevent spoiling it for those who have not seen it yet I will keep my comment general. Are there things in that stray from biblical narrative? Yes, there are some. However, this movie shows Noah as a man who obeyed God. Shows God as Creator. Shows mankind as wicked. And shows that the righteousness of Noah created in him a heart of humility knowing his own depravity. The film making is very well done and the acting draws the viewer into the world of Noah and his family. Go see it.

  59. Melody says:

    From everything I have read it is a stupid movie and all it has in common with the bible is that the guy’s name is Noah, he builds a boat and there is a flood.

    Here is an hilarious review –

    talks a lot about rock people

  60. Shelly Timbol says:

    To my family in the faith of Jesus Christ, I ask you to understand what those outside the church hear when you shoot down this movie. Wouldn’t it be so much better to employ grace and encourage those who may have questions after seeing it to refer to the actual account in Genesis? Getting indignant or insulting only adds to the bad reputation so many have of the Church.
    Hey, if your pastor is preaching the script of this movie, you have a reason for negative criticism. But, in this movie we have a case for God as Creator, man as sinful and a plan for redemption being made to the American movie going public. It’s so much more than the Apostle Paul had to work with when beginning a sermon on the statue to “an unknown god”.

    1. Melody says:

      Shelly I can answer questions because I have actually done a study on Genesis. It’s because of the study that I would never push a bad movie on someone wiser than me. Nor would I push it on someone that may be confused by it’s misrepresentation of God’s story. Got that? It’s God’s story. It’s not Noah’s or Christians’, Jews’, or Muslims’ story.
      Do you seriously think that God would not use my loyalty to Him for good use?

      1. Shelly Timbol says:

        Melody, I’m not certain how you understood my point. Yes, I most certainly believe God can use your loyalty to Him for good use, if you act in love toward others they may even see Him in you.

  61. Mr Mac says:

    I saw the movie,and as a male I found it offensive to the point I would end Hollywood as a raciest man bashing temple to the great lie “Men are evil”.
    1. all white no color?
    2. women are seen as healers,mild and the men as blood thirsty killers, so women dont murder?
    3. God destroyed the world because all humankind was to wicked, not just the male side, specifically not just because of whites, who are shown as the only villains in the movie.
    4 Don’t lie and call it an interpretation of a known story, and pit father vs son, but white mom is perfect.
    5. This whole story would seem to be male bashing, but to me all men regardless of color are not murdering beasts, and that mild women have sacrificed so much to put up with men and without women humans would have been wiped out…to feel this you must be a woman reading this, and you drank your own rational mind koolaid.
    6. Sin evil is in all of us, accept that and move on, but this is my personal view on the movie.

  62. Navonna Browning says:

    I have yet to see this film and have heard more negative than good at this point. I don’t like to give my opinion on such, unless I’ve seen for myself. As everyone should. My point is this, we shouldn’t dismiss any film that wants to put ANY idea of God in our minds when the world has tried so hard to dismiss Him. Movies have slowly over time, put satans wiley ways into our lives, most of the time, being sneaky and we just don’t realize it. The little things that we think are nothing are really very important. For instance, a little over time, women have went from showing ANY skin in front of the camera to completely naked. Slowly morals have gone down.The work of satan? Of course it is. The world has made it ok for women to do this. A woman’s right to choose? You’re absolutely right. God or Satan? Anyway, this is my observation.

  63. Andy says:

    Question: Where does the world (and Hollywood) get its bad theology? Answer: Plenty of it comes from the Christian church. Consider for a moment that MILLIONS of Noah’s ark pictures are drawn in Sunday schools every year, yet the vast majority of the artwork fails to depict CLEAN ANIMALS in larger groups (of seven – per the Genesis 7 plain text). This simple fact demonstrates that children are learning from biblically illiterate adults and institutions. Surely, if Christendom cleans its own house and reads its own book, the rest of the world won’t be as dirty and confused.

  64. As Christians, we should not expect hollywood to act like Bible professors. Don’t expect a pagan to act like a Christian and we should never be. Instead of labeling this movie, why not let’s focus more on engaging our culture by teaching them the Biblical one and reach and lead them to Christ.

  65. Jon T says:

    I just saw the movie. I don’t mind creative license here and there on small things in bible based movies, but when you leave out the Nephilim all together who were a large part of the cause for the flood being brought in the first place and then make the Demons pitiable from their being disabled by God and furthermore show them in the light of really still loving God and wanting to serve him and THEN show them helping Adam’s descendant Noah to build the Ark and THEN at the end of helping Noah they are forgiven and brought back to heaven by god… Oh yeah, and the Demons were never cast down to earth back in Noah’s day nor did they go down to “help- mankind” as they claim in the movie. They went down, had sex with women and produced giant demi humans that god finally wiped out with the flood for their treachery on earth.

    Put it this way, if I was someone that had no clue about what the bible really says, I would have found myself offering inward sympathy for the demons and feeling bad for them and being glad that they were forgiven and I also would have thought god was a total tool. In fact, it might actually make me question whether Demons are not all that bad in RL. “Could they be poor unfortunate beings still in this day and age and not really so bad after all?” ‘Perhaps I will experiment with them through various media to find out…”

    No one is perfect let alone Hollywood film makers, but this film makes one wonder if the dark was not behind it’s production. Or someone who follows the dark path. The term “sympathy for the devil” is not unheard of. And this film seems to actually show you how it’s done.

    All that being said, at a certain point in the movie, I just clicked off the Christian Critic in me and enjoyed it as a fable all on it’s own without ties to the bible. But no serious Christian will see this movie without wondering how many humans will see it and be misled. It is quite the bent picture of Biblical teachings.

    Still Love Russell Crowe though and Sir Hopkins *wink. Although I do wonder at their choice to join this production if they are Christian. They probably aren’t. *shrugs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Search this blog


Trevin Wax photo

Trevin Wax

​Trevin Wax is Bible and Reference Publisher at LifeWay Christian Resources and managing editor of The Gospel Project. You can follow him on Twitter or receive blog posts via email. Click here for Trevin’s full bio.

Trevin Wax's Books