I don't want to cross the line into a religion debate and I hope I can make my point without doing that.
I think part of the problem is that the deviations from the Biblical account were not revealed in the initial press releases. It was billed as the story of Noah, not an artistic interpretation with the Biblical story used mainly as a starting point.
For millions and millions of people, we believe the Bible story is true. To us, changing the basic story by adding rock people and all of the other changes is as offensive as making a movie saying Muhammad consulted with aliens.
Unlike many movies using historical characters for a fantasy movie (like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer), this one was not presented as such.
Just my opinion.
I doubt many devout Christians are looking to Hollywood to produce biblically accurate, faith-affirming films that encourage us in our walk. I actually think the ones that are "way out to lunch" can be useful opportunities for dialogue if they evoke curiosity about spiritual things and if one is ready to give a reasoned answer. I hope believers will think about this a little in advance in case discussions open up around them instead of just expressing offence and indignation.
I think many people were expecting a movie similar in the tone and depiction of
The Ten Commandments, which airs once a year. I think hat is most people's reference point for biblical movies.
Also, Producer, Mark Burnett and his wife, Roma Downey, recently made a movie that is out now called,
Son of God, that is on certain points in the bible. I don't know what the reviews are or the criticisms of accuracy are, but may churches are suggesting their congregation watch it.
Mel Gibson made
Passion of the Christ, and tried to make a movie he thought was historically accurate and was severely bashed for having Jesus speak in the Aramaic language. Many Jews also bashed the movie as they didn't the ending or how they were depicted as the ones who crucified Christ. I guess they don't know the story.
What does that mean? "....progressed enough..."?
I think she means people who don't take all parts of the bible literally, but believe some parts are allegorical, and as a PP said, can "give a reasoned answer" for the parts they don't think are literally true.
Actually, there was most likely a flood in the area (which would be considered a "great" flood when you don't have ways to travel all that quickly or even know about some other areas of the world). So there is some history based in it... just not to the extent of the story that we find today.
Also, just about every religion of the world has a "flood" story. It really is interesting how alike they are. It's one of my favorite parts of comparative religion! Looking at the myths and stories that you see in multiple religions is just really interesting and cool.
I haven't studied comparative religion. I did read Joseph Campbell's
The Power of Myth, which talks about how how almost all religions have various similar stories or themes, just represented/depicted differently. And many of them are allegorical, not to be taken literally. And again one must be "progressed enough" to know which ones are literal versus allegorical and give "reasoned answers" for the allegorical ones.
By speaking very, very slowly?
Best post of the thread!
.
