Creation sequence in NOAH: is it unbiblical?

Status
Not open for further replies.
In Hollywood there is often little regard for truth, and much more regard for attention and money. The desire was to not show forth the glory of the Creator God or Biblical truth, it was to use a familiar story to make a movie along the line of Lord of the Rings. If you approach something as a myth...what's the big deal if you throw a few more myths into it? It seems that even holy scripture is at the whim of artistic license...but if one does not view it as holy scripture then there is nothing to hold you back from making changes.
The last thing I saw that even came close to following the Biblical text was the Passion of the Christ. It did have a little bit of "Catholicy" stuff in it, but it was...overall...well done.

It would be folly to approach the Biblical flood story as anything but myth. Like any good myth, the flood story illustrates important truths, and we do the story an injustice by treating it as literal history.
 
All, as with all things, humans judge with the own biases. A Christian Jew will see the movie one way, a Russian Orthodox another way, a Christian Arab, yet another. The vast majority of so-called Christians do not have a clue how to live in the Spirit realm. So they judge from the only thing they know, the flesh. They try to put God into their own mindset and limit Him, Ps 78:41. The question is: is God please with the movie? He knows we don't have all the answers. What was in the heart of the director? What was in the heart of the writer? Only God knows. That doesn't mean we let errors slide when they are clearly written in the word of God, but we keep blowing up the bridge to see and recognize God to an unsaved world. A heart bent on finding the truth will always find the truth.
 
All, as with all things, humans judge with the own biases. A Christian Jew will see the movie one way, a Russian Orthodox another way, a Christian Arab, yet another. The vast majority of so-called Christians do not have a clue how to live in the Spirit realm. So they judge from the only thing they know, the flesh. They try to put God into their own mindset and limit Him, Ps 78:41. The question is: is God please with the movie? He knows we don't have all the answers. What was in the heart of the director? What was in the heart of the writer? Only God knows. That doesn't mean we let errors slide when they are clearly written in the word of God, but we keep blowing up the bridge to see and recognize God to an unsaved world. A heart bent on finding the truth will always find the truth.
If something contains error and a believer knows it but the unbeliever has no clue it is still in error even to the unbeliever.
 
If the movie had 99 percent right and 1 percent false it still is a movie of error and no believer needs to watch.

That's the problem with many Christians, they take the mind set of ... oh I don't believe all this but I just want to hear what they say.

Then they get all these weeds of untruth in them and you know what weeds do left in treated.

You play with fire long enough your going to get burned.
Blessings
FCJ
 
If the movie had 99 percent right and 1 percent false it still is a movie of error and no believer needs to watch.

None of us 100% correct. What if the one error in your hypothetical movie was an honest mistake? Should believers shun the movie? Should believers shun one another since we are all wrong about some things?
 
I'd be glad to get into further detail. What specifically do you want to know?
What exactly are you trying to say?

You said....It would be folly to approach the Biblical flood story as anything but myth. Like any good myth, the flood story illustrates important truths, and we do the story an injustice by treating it as literal history.


So let's look at the word folly
fol·ly
ˈfälē/
noun
  1. 1.
    lack of good sense; foolishness.
    "an act of sheer folly"
So it's foolishness to treat the flood as truth but as a myth
 
None of us 100% correct. What if the one error in your hypothetical movie was an honest mistake? Should believers shun the movie? Should believers shun one another since we are all wrong about some things?


We only know it part so that means there is a lot or parts we don't know and this is like wholes in any doctrine.
That's one thing.

To willfully allow things containing error against the word of God into your thinking is yet another thing.
 
What exactly are you trying to say?

You said....It would be folly to approach the Biblical flood story as anything but myth. Like any good myth, the flood story illustrates important truths, and we do the story an injustice by treating it as literal history.


So let's look at the word folly
fol·ly
ˈfälē/
noun
  1. 1.
    lack of good sense; foolishness.
    "an act of sheer folly"
So it's foolishness to treat the flood as truth but as a myth

Why do you say that?

As for what I wrote, I don't know how much plainer I can make it. What exactly are you needing clarification on?
 
We only know it part so that means there is a lot or parts we don't know and this is like wholes in any doctrine.
That's one thing.

To willfully allow things containing error against the word of God into your thinking is yet another thing.

So by watching "Noah", you think you are allowing error into your thinking?
 
It's your entire myth thing. Nothing in the written word of God is myth.

So you're saying that the flood story is not "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events"?
 
So you're saying that the flood story is not a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events?

No I am saying the flood is truth. I am saying if it is in the word of God its truth.
 
No I am saying the flood is truth. I am saying if it is in the word of God its truth.

Let's take this slow.

A 'myth' is defined as "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events?"

Do you accept this definition?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top