Thursday, November 14, 2013

Noah With Russell Crowe



The scene in the trailer of the desperate people rushing to the ark reminds me of the clawing men and women that Basil Wolverton drew for our lovely children's Bible Story book.







28 comments:

DennisCDiehl said...

It would be nice if there was an explanation at the beginning of the movie that:

"This presentation is for your entertainment pleasure only. It is a fiction, historically and scientifically inaccurate and impossible and not intended to give the impression such a story is literally true. No animals were injured or abused in the production of this mythology."

While you are waiting on your entertainment to start, feel free to read:

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/top-ten-reasons-noahs-flood-is-mythology/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

I would assume that most critically thinking adults would understand this by now but meme's and Sunday School lessons die hard before giving up to reality.

Joe Moeller said...

DENNIS WROTE:
...die hard before giving up to reality.

MY RESPONSE:
Dennis,... wrong actor!. "Die Hard" was Bruce Willis. "Noah" stars Russell Crowe, ala "Gladiator" fame.

No problem, its easy to mix up all the media's "Super Heroes".
(smile) !

Your Friend,
Joe Moeller
Cody, WY

Byker Bob said...

Back when I was into my mythology stage, Zecharia Sitchin was one author whom I read. In fact, I've got his "The 12th Planet" which I purchased and read back in 2003 while on a business trip to Texas sitting in front of me on my coffee table right now. The book presented an alternative theory of Earth's origins, based on ancient mythology derived from the writings on pottery discovered at the sites of Akkadia, and Sumer. Apparently, these people were extensive record keepers, and scholars have just recently come to an understanding of their language, cuneiform writing, and symbols.

Sitchin made something of the silt layer covering the sites of ancient Akkadian cities, and stated that this was totally predictable, based on what we know from the ancients about global floods, whether we take this knowledge from Gilgamesh, or Noachian origins. Scientists now believe that this silt layer was actually blown in during the opposite of a flood, in fact a drought. There is also volcanic ash in this layer.

Ultimately, I found the basis of the book, an eliptically orbiting 12th planet, on which "the Nephalim" dwelt, and from which the earth was colonized, to be preposterous. The planet would be uninhabitable, due to temperature extremes alone. I must add that Sitchin presents much archaeological and scientific documentation throughout the course of this dissertation. I have never seen a more thorough discussion of the ancient pagan gods and godesses.

My personal opinion is that the flood, if it happened at all, was a local Mesopotamian event, one that included the entire "known" (whatever that means) world at the time. While I studied at Embarrassing College in Pasadena, there was an annual field trip to Shark's Tooth Mountain, where we conducted first person investigation of the flood in conjunction with Bible Class. The fact that there were shark's teeth on an inland mountain passed as proof that the flood really happened, and was a global event. Back in those days, students knew that you just didn't introduce into the classroom discussions evidence that countered what the ministers/professors taught. Basically, you were there to learn their doctrine, not to follow some sort of evidentiary trail based on science. Not that most of us could have done that, anyway. We were all pretty naive at the time, but would have argued against that label like a pit bull had anyone dared to apply it to us.

BB

Corky said...

If it was a local Mesopotamian flood, an "ark" wouldn't have been necessary for all the animals and birds. Not even for Noah & family...they could have just traveled to the mountains of Turkey (Ararat) on foot. After all, they had 120 years to do so.

Of course, if one believes that Noah lived nine hundred and fifty years one will believe just about any stupid thing.

DennisCDiehl said...

DENNIS WROTE:
...die hard before giving up to reality.

MY RESPONSE:
Dennis,... wrong actor!. "Die Hard" was Bruce Willis. "Noah" stars Russell Crowe, ala "Gladiator" fame.

No problem, its easy to mix up all the media's "Super Heroes".
(smile) !"

Sorry Joe, I don't understand what you are getting at. I said, Sunday School lessons die hard before giving up to reality" I don't get the connection or the mistake?

DennisCDiehl said...

Oh good ol' Sharks Tooth Mountain. It was indeed full of sharks teeth in the middle of nowhere and was a great trip for the wrong reasons and conclusions! lol

What also funny is that the Creation Museum in Kentucky is built on a base of cretaceous fossils. I attended some Wayne Gish lectures back in the day and I have to say he was a liar and one who could repeat lectures that had long since been shown to be ill informed and incorrect in their content. I recall him saying in one that there are no fossils showing triceretops with one horn , two horns then three. Of course this is BS. The fossil record shows exactly that! He had to know that.

DennisCDiehl said...

Oh good ol' Sharks Tooth Mountain. It was indeed full of sharks teeth in the middle of nowhere and was a great trip for the wrong reasons and conclusions! lol

What also funny is that the Creation Museum in Kentucky is built on a base of cretaceous fossils. I attended some Wayne Gish lectures back in the day and I have to say he was a liar and one who could repeat lectures that had long since been shown to be ill informed and incorrect in their content. I recall him saying in one that there are no fossils showing triceretops with one horn , two horns then three. Of course this is BS. The fossil record shows exactly that! He had to know that.

Joe Moeller said...

Dennis-

Just a joke about the movie Die Hard.
Not intended to have any real meaning other than an odd "double entendre" and coincidence with Bruce Willis, Russell Crowe , Die Hard and Noah.

Your Friend,
Joe Moeller
Cody, WY

Allen C. Dexter said...

I remember our trip to shark tooth mountain and I dug up a few teeth. Don't know what happened to them or what year it was. We were so naive back then, but we were certainly sincere in our arrogant certainty.

Anonymous said...

I thought Die Hard was a movie about when more than half the ministers of the UCG left and formed the COGWA.

I promise to read the movie descriptions on Netflix more carefully in the future!

Anonymous said...

I don't believe Noah's flood was local. What Corky said is 1 reason. But also after the great flood God promised the earth would never be flooded like that again ie globally (Gen 9:11). If the great flood was local and local floods still happen all over the earth today then God's promise would be meaningless even a lie.
IAE the movie looks pretty cool!

Head Usher said...

Sweet. Another iconic comic book superhero like Thor, dramatized and brought to the big screen. Looks like a good movie.

Anonymous said...

Those pictures are awful and really traumatized me as a child. The Basil Wolverton drawings were the worst, but the imagery of mushroom clouds (in the youth YES lessons) and photographs of mutilated dead bodies (also in the youth YES lessons, probably somewhere around 3rd grade) left even more of a mark on my psyche. What kind of a fool thinks it is ok to inflict such garbage on children? I only wish there was a hell so such perpetrators could suffer for the damage they caused to me and countless others.

DennisCDiehl said...

Gotcha Joe!

Anon said:

" If the great flood was local and local floods still happen all over the earth today then God's promise would be meaningless even a lie."

It's a story with God as a player in the script. It orignally is a Sumerian Flood story adapted and borrowed with Hebrew twists. God's promise is not a lie. It is not a promise by a real God. It is a story written by a human being.

If it was a real story, the Mayans, Inca and Aztecs would have not existed when discovered. Among countless other peoples.

Don't over analyze the story.

Anonymous said...

I read this book when it came out, of course because of my religious persuasion at the time and affiliation with the CoGs. What made me think of it was the scenes of the water spouts shown in the trailer. The author here: http://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Flood-Scientific-Discoveries-Changed/dp/0684859203, talks about those things happening about 7600 years ago near the black sea with traces of masses of humans running for the mountain tops. Interesting thoughts in some ways, a bit broadbrush in others.

Anonymous said...

Dennis said: "...If it was a real story, the Mayans, Inca and Aztecs would have not existed when discovered. Among countless other peoples..."

I'm sorry Dennis, but I respectfully disagree. While I don't claim to have all the answers (cause I don't!) I reckon the earth was originally one contiguous landmass prior to Noah's flood (Gen 1:9-10). Afterwards I really don't know. Theory 1 is that the earth itself was split during the flood (causing the different continents) while theory 2 argues that this occurred later during Peleg's time (Gen 10:25) after the division of languages at Babel (Gen 11:1, 9). Either way I believe those animals taken aboard Noah's ark migrated all over the earth (Gen 8:19) as did the whole of humanity to various parts of the globe too. Whether this occurred via navigation of vast oceans or land bridges or ice-free waterways that are no longer passable etc I simply don't know. I'm inclined to agree with theory no 2, but I'm open to revision! ;-) I'm sure a lot of what we don't know when the Creator fills in the blanks for us will blow our minds, but hopefully we'll be able to handle it (unlike that Irina Spalko character from Indiana Jones IV!!!) ;-)

Corky said...

Anonymous - November 15, 2013 at 8:56 PM - is a perfect example of what happens when someone is totally ignorant of all sciences and feels like it's okay to just make up stuff.

Unless Peleg lived hundreds of millions of years before Adam, he wasn't there when the continents separated. And, since the American Indians were already here for 10,000 years at the time of the biblical flood of about 4300 years ago but not here hundreds of millions of years ago...well, might as well believe Joseph Smith's idea that the American Indians were Israelites who came over on a boat during the Babylonian exile.

Byker Bob said...

Anon 8:56:

I seem to remember a single continent theory, with the original continent being called something like Gonawonland. However, motion, rising and falling of tectonic plates was involved in the formation of the continents. Perhaps massive volumes of water, and the sheer weight could do this, but where would all of that water suddenly go in 50-150 days? Would polar ice caps, and pourous aquifers be sufficient to draw out the volume so there could be land masses again? I've heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson state that the water on planet Earth most likely came from ice from crashing asteroids over a period of billions of years. Although continuously being redistributed through natural processes, the basic overall volume now seems to be a constant.

The civilization of China dates to way further back in time beyond any estimated dates for Noah's flood, or the Gilgamesh flood. Also, the Sphinx of Egypt is dated prior to the estimates of these floods, and Egypt's historical records predate such floods, as well. These all go back to well within the tohu and bohu zone of HWA's so called "gap theory".

The variety of animals present which are specific to certain islands, or certain continents suggests separate evolutions, as opposed to dispersion from a central point following a disaster. Lemurs, as an example, I understand are only found on the island of Madagascar. Kangaroos seem to be native to Australia. They fit into one particular ecology. Each continent also seems to have had extinct prehistoric animals specific to its borders as well, such as wooly mammoths, mastodons, and giant sloths.

I am looking forward to learning exactly how everything around us was orchestrated into being. But, for right now, there is still a great aura of mystery. I believe that the theories of young earth creationists are not even supportable from a Biblical perspective, and should not be taught in schools. Gap theory seems to be ridiculous and unsupportable at this point, as well. Scientists can detect past disasters and other earth conditions based on the measurable compositions of layers of ice, sedimentary rock, underwater caves, tree rings, and other records literally written into the face of the earth.

BB

Anonymous said...


"This is how you are to BUILD it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high" (Genesis 6:15, NIV).

Someone should have told Basil Wolverton, "This is how you are to DRAW it: The ark is to be 450 units long, 75 units wide and 45 units high"

Basil's drawing makes it look like the ark is higher than it is wide. He has it backwards. This is so typical of people drawing biblical pictures. They do not even read the story before making up stuff the way they think it should be. Invariably, they get it wrong. Children's coloring books typically show a little tub with giraffes and elephants crowded in it and about to topple out the top. They appear to be designed to make the story look like nonsense.

I was never a big fan of Basil Wolverton's ugly drawings in WCG literature. Basil should have stuck with drawing freaks for Mad Magazine.

Anonymous said...


DennisCDiehl said...

“It's a story with God as a player in the script. It orignally is a Sumerian Flood story adapted and borrowed with Hebrew twists.”

“Don't over analyze the story.



Well now, DCD, let us analyze this story just a little bit more. You seem to disagree with whatever the Bible says, while at the same time you seem to agree quickly with any book that speaks against the Bible and claims to have found fault with it. Instead of just reading anti-God garbage all the time, give books like the one mentioned below a look--and maybe even comment on it in one of your articles that you write here.

A man by the name of Ben Hobrink wrote a book called MODERN SCIENCE IN THE BIBLE: Amazing Scientific Truths Found in Ancient Texts. On page 2 he wrote (with some emphasis mine),

“The third instance, and what led to the writing of this book, is the account of the construction of Noah's ark (Genesis 6:14-16). The ark has been shown to be the best and most stable design of vessel. The dimensions and proportions in length, width, and height are the most ideal for a seagoing vessel not driven by a sail or engine. Large ships are still built in accordance with this design. Compared with Noah's ark, the vessels mentioned in other accounts of the Flood around the world are extremely primitive and unscientific. For example, in the Babylonian account of the Flood (the Gilgamesh Epic), the main character, Utanapishtim, survives the Flood in a cube-shaped boat. This happens to be the least stable design of vessel. While at sea, it will gradually start to roll over the waves. It's not difficult to distinguish which of the two accounts of the Flood is the more plausible and more scientifically well founded.

Anonymous said...

Corky said: "Anonymous - November 15, 2013 at 8:56 PM - is a perfect example of what happens when someone is totally ignorant of all sciences and feels like it's okay to just make up stuff. Unless Peleg lived hundreds of millions of years before Adam, he wasn't there when the continents separated. And, since the American Indians were already here for 10,000 years at the time of the biblical flood of about 4300 years ago but not here hundreds of millions of years ago...well, might as well believe Joseph Smith's idea that the American Indians were Israelites who came over on a boat during the Babylonian exile."

Oh, of course! I forgot! You (and all these "scientists") WERE there weren't you, Corky, when all of this happened?!...right...right...right *facepalm*

I'm a Christian so forgive me, but I choose to look at the world around me from the perspective that our understanding and discoveries in science, astronomy, biology, archaeology, history, etc. will compliment what the Bible says not contradict it. I know that various governments and institutions (both religious and secular!) today in our global scientific dictatorship choose, however, to reject what the Bible says for what the technocrats say. Well so long as I have a choice (and I still do thank God!) I can choose to reject their theories for theories that ARE Biblically based. Simple as that.

Anonymous said...

"......you seem to agree quickly with any book that speaks against the Bible..."

Irrational? Yes. Definitely. Anonymous, I believe you've got it. It's the compartmentalizing wall we all tend to build during certain parts of our recovery from the spiritual rape of Armstrongism. It would seem odd to a neutral observer, because it ends up being a reversal of the same shoddy research methodology and proof texting that Herb laid upon us, a mind lock in the opposite direction. Some eventually swing back to a more centrist line of thinking, while others never do.

Anonymous said...

"I'm a Christian so forgive me, but I choose to look at the world around me from the perspective that our understanding and discoveries in science, astronomy, biology, archaeology, history, etc. will compliment what the Bible says not contradict it. I know that various governments and institutions (both religious and secular!) today in our global scientific dictatorship choose, however, to reject what the Bible says for what the technocrats say. Well so long as I have a choice (and I still do thank God!) I can choose to reject their theories for theories that ARE Biblically based. Simple as that.."

Well, I don't consider myself a Christian, and I can forgive you anyways. I know, crazy, right?

See, it's "choosing" to "rationalize" what the scientists find with what "the bible says" (which is just whatever you interpret it to say anyway...) that leads people like the previous anon who Corky was responding to, who thought that the tectonic plates of the earth could have shifted from Pangea into all 7 contintents where they are today, like, all in 1 day or something, either as a result of Noah's flood ~4,400 years ago (though scientists say, given what they've found, such a flood is IMPOSSIBLE) or else as a result of the Tower of Babel (???), which is another story that is probably also 100% mythical, but certainly says nothing about continental drift. There's NO WAY that continental drift, of the type necessary to create the ocean floors as they are, could have happened in a day, or even in a million years. In the end, you don't end up rationalizing anything, you just concoct a bunch of hogwash pseudoscientific theories that don't square with any of the sciences in any way, in order to "support" the inerrancy of an ancient book of myths. What you wind up with is precisely as you have stated, "biblically-based theories," but which are now completely bastardized and disconnected from the findings those theories were originally proposed to explain. The problem here is that you cannot successfully rationalize the bible with the real world. Attempts to explain the world as we find it will necessarily invalidate the bible, and attempts to explain the bible as fact must necessarily depart wildly from what the observed findings are telling us. If you're honest, you have to throw away one or the other. Religious people would simply prefer to throw away the observed findings (reality) so they can continue to be comforted by their "inerrant book." Simple as that.

Anonymous said...

Yeah you would think these atheists on this board who are so sure of what is reality would make millions writing books about what it is all about. but no, they just spew their views as if they know it all, convincing no one.You would think they would learn something from their great master and mentor HWA and explain things simply and convincing.

Anonymous said...

According to the latest Gallup Poll, 67% of Americans who attend church weekly believe that God created "man" in his present form within the last 10,000 years, which aligns with the 'Young Earth Creationists' view.

Anonymous said...

Yup, it's a story - but not an accurate one in any way, stretch, or form. (Except in the minds of those who believe it.)

Anonymous said...

Anon 11/18 9:19AM wrote: "Yup, it's a story - but not an accurate one in any way, stretch, or form. (Except in the minds of those who believe it.)

tbh I think everyone on this planet is walking around believing made up stories about people, places, events, etc. on all sides of any given debate be it the biblical flood, evolution, the holocaust, 9/11, climate change, etc.
As they say, "fantasy is reality"! ;-)

Anonymous said...

Anon 11/18 5:15PM wrote: "tbh I think everyone on this planet is walking around believing made up stories about people, places, events, etc. on all sides of any given debate be it the biblical flood, evolution, the holocaust, 9/11, climate change, etc. As they say, 'fantasy is reality'! ;-)"

Well, that may be, but there's a huge cognitive difference when approaching stuff about which our information is very limited, between saying:

"I 'believe' evolution is the most probable explanation for how we came to exist given the fossil record. It certainly contradicts the entire Genesis narrative."

vs.

"I 'believe' there's a man in the sky who answers to the name Jesus because I read it in a book that says he's on his way. He should be here any day now, and then you'll see that I am right and you are wrong."

The first one is making an educated guess based on what the earth has to say for itself, the second is pretending to know things you don't know because of some old writing that OTOH we have no reason to expect should be an accurate retelling of real events, and OTOH, looks a heckuvalot like other old writings over which there's dispute are fictitious.