Noah
is saving mankind again in a new movie that combines science fiction with the
barely recognizable biblical account.
Naturally, the end result is that religious conservatives are outraged,
while anyone else who goes to such movies shows up for the adventure.
The
debate is nothing new. After all, this is
hardly the first time someone movie has focused on Noah and the flood that
supposedly washed away most of mankind.
It’s just the most radical view, branching away from the basic story to
include a vengeful king, “Watchers” who have been punished by God, and a deceitful
Ham, Noah’s youngest son.
In
the Biblical account, Noah is chosen by God to build an Ark, to collect
representatives of all animals and to wait out a flood which destroys all other
humans. It’s not a lengthy story,
running five chapters in Genesis from the last sentence of Chapter 5 to the end
of Chapter 10. Previous movies have
attempted to follow that basic outline: evil mankind that God wants to destroy,
righteous Noah, Ark, the flood and then a rainbow heralding the continuation of
life. .
 |
| Simba |
In
this movie, however, Tubal-Cain is a terrible king who serves as Noah’s
antagonist, like the devious Scar in the Lion
King to the heroic Simba. Tubal-Cain
does appear in the Bible, but only as a brief mention in Genesis 4:22: “Zillah
also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and
iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah.” She, too, shows up in the movie, but not as
Tubal-Cain’s sister. Her name resembles Nala, Simba's eventually wife.
In
the Bible, Ham is condemned to serve his brothers because he saw his father
naked, a story that once served as a pretext to endorse slavery. Ham was the supposed father of Africans. However,
in the Bible, unlike the movie, he was not manipulated by the evil Tubal-Cain to
turn against Noah.
Of
course, there are no Watchers in the Bible, no miracles of rain animating
instant flowers, and entire forests popping up as the movie depicts. The Holy Book contains miracles, of course,
but not the kind in the movie, which has a better selection of technological
tools to draw on than any biblical writer ever imagined.
 |
| Traditional Noah |
Does
it really matter how much the Bible and the movie differ?
Lost
in the debate – and loftier ticket sales, which is all the producers want – is the
question of the historical nature of Noah.
To
religious conservatives, Noah is real.
The flood happened. That’s why
this movie has created so much animosity. It’s as though the producers have messed with
God’s word.
Unfortunately,
they are wrong. Noah never lived. A flood of this magnitude would have left
evidence. There is none. Scientists have found fossilized shellfish
and other marine creatures near the tops of mountains, but not universally as
would have happened if the flood had covered the Earth. The artifacts weren’t planted by God, but
arrived through a natural process called uplifting. That created all the mountain ranges in the
world.
 |
| Albright |
Nor
has evidence of a flood found on a lower level, although once the devout thought
so. Decades ago, research led by biblical
historian William Albright located thick clay beneath the land once called Mesopotamia. That was proclaimed as evidence of a flood. Unfortunately, artifacts above and below the
clay are the same. The people supposedly
killed by the flood came back.
Then,
there’s the basic problem of where the water went. If it evaporated, it would simply return to
Earth as rain. The Bible solves that by
placing rain above the firmament, some kind of covering above and below the
Earth. However, as space exploration
demonstrated, there’s no water hiding about the clouds and no firmament either. There’s also no wood on Mt. Ararat, the Ark’s
supposed resting spot.
Other
theories for the flood have been proposed, including the Black Sea bursting
through a natural barrier and more. None
of these creative ideas match the biblical account, which requires flood waters
to cover the Earth. To claim, as has been
done, that the flood inundated what Noah considered Earth ignores that other
part of the story – that the disaster destroyed mankind. If it’s a limited flood, people living elsewhere
survived.
 |
| Gilgamesh |
Actually,
DNA testing shows that we are products of a mixture of genes, some of which
were passed along from extinct humanoids, none of whom were drowned. Representatives of all animals couldn’t have
fit on the Ark either.
In
short, it’s all fiction. There’s no debate about that. Some of the biblical account
was generated to support theology. Some
comes from an ancient Babylonian mythological saga called the Gilgamesh.
At
its core, there may have been someone named Noah who escaped a minor flood with his
family and a few animals on a makeshift raft.
If
someone wants to make a movie about a real Noah, that would be a good place to start.
Long-time
religious historian Bill Lazarus regularly writes about religion and religious
history. He also speaks at various
religious organizations throughout Florida.
You can reach him at www.williamplazarus.net. He is the author of the famed Unauthorized
Biography of Nostradamus; The Last Testament of Simon Peter; The Gospel Truth: Where Did the Gospel
Writers Get Their Information; Noel:
The Lore and Tradition of Christmas Carols; and Dummies Guide to Comparative
Religion. His books are available on Amazon.com,
Kindle, bookstores and via various publishers.
He can also be followed on Twitter.
You
can enroll in his on-line class, Comparative Religion for Dummies, at
http://www.udemy.com/comparative-religion-for-dummies/?promote=1
No comments:
Post a Comment