Carol and I watch very little television -- and visit the theaters even less. But for two weeks, we had seen four commercials each evening for the movie "Noah," and we've heard a lot about "God's Not Dead." So we decided to see them.
We watched "God's Not Dead" first, and enjoyed it. With four sub-plots running, the main story line was twofold: 1) a philosophy professor wanted to teach about the great thinkers of the ages, but wanted to simplify the lectures by calling Christianity a "superstition" and keeping Christianity out of the lectures; 2) he had a personal vendetta against Christianity. His ploy was to have each student write "God Is Dead" on a sheet of paper and sign it in order to get a passing grade.
Afterwards I heard a viewer say, "That was a good film, but some parts were rather unrealistic." I agree. The personal relationships were kept shallow to allow time for the major theme. Another viewer said, "No professor would ever make students declare that God is dead. He would be fired!" Well, maybe -- maybe not.
When our daughter, Darlene, was in high school in 1984, her English teacher required the students to write a paper in opposition to their faith or belief system. That would require Darlene to try to prove that God or Jesus Christ does not exist. I protested: for that was immoral, unethical, unconstitutional, and could potentially weaken the faith of a person who is not rock-solid in his/her faith. And there are not many teen-agers who are maturely grounded in their faith.
In "God's Not Dead" only one student in a class of 80, Josh Wheaton, refused to deny Christ; thereby potentially failing the class and losing his sweet-but-controlling girlfriend. The prof then told him that in order to pass the class Josh had to present evidence to the class that God did indeed exist. Josh told the professor that the class, not the prof, would be the jury, and on their verdict Josh would pass or fail. The prof agreed.
Josh's three presentations were amazingly professional, and scientifically and philosophically accurate; but uncharacteristic of a university freshman. However, having an evangelical background, and having worked in the scientific arena, I found Josh's arguments uplifting, and my spirit soared as I heard them.
My major criticism: I may be wrong but it seemed that Josh ended his final presentation with an attack on the professor. He could have ended his discourse in a kinder manner. And Brian, our 12-year-old grandson, asked a question which gave me an opportunity to explain that just because someone comes to faith in Jesus Christ, life does not become perfect. But it does grant us eternal life in heaven with Jesus.
I firmly endorse this film, and will buy the DVD when it's available.
• • •
I watched "Noah" and believe it or not, I actually found 12 clearly-defined concepts the film had in common with the Bible: there is a God; He created the universe; He created humanity; fallen angels were cast to earth; the serpent deceived Eve; there were people named Noah, Methuselah, Tubal-Cain, etc.; Noah had a wife and three sons; God told Noah to build a wooden ark; he built it; there was a worldwide flood; they survived the flood; and Noah got drunk.
Except for minor inferences and details, most of everything else was fictitious and/or anti-Biblical. For example:
1) The Bible lets us know the fallen angels rebelled against God and will face eternal judgment, but this film shows that they helped Noah build the ark and returned to heaven when they "died." This infers that there is no hell.
2) The Bible tells us that God preserved humanity to repopulate the earth, but the movie tells us God wanted mankind to be eradicated so the "innocent animals" could inherit and repopulate the renewed earth. This is a loud and clear message from the animal-rights crowd.
3) God puts high value on human life -- man was made in the image of God -- but the movie erased that value and supported murder and infanticide.
4) The Bible tells us that God gave Noah 120 years to complete the job, but the movie gave him a year or so.
5) The Bible says that Noah preached repentance to the people so they could be rescued, but the movie tells us Noah was hateful, vengeful, and mean.
6) The Bible informs us Shem was born two years after Noah began building the ark, but the movie shows him in his early 20s as construction began.
7) The Bible tells us that Shem's son was born two years after the flood, but the movie shows twins being born during the flood.
8) The Bible says that Noah, family, and the zoo were in the ark for seven days before the rain began, but the movie has Noah and the fallen angels fighting and killing their attackers as the flood was coming on in full force.
9) The Bible tells us that Noah, his wife, three sons, and three daughters-in-law were on the ark, but the movie has Noah, with his wife, three sons, only one daughter-in-law, AND an evil stowaway on the ark.
10) The Bible teaches about God's righteous character and nature, but this film badly distorts Gods character and integrity.
11) And the fast-forward motion of the creation "event" clearly portrays Darwinian evolution, rather than "And God said...."
There are other discrepancies, such as God being more concerned about the environment than for his special creation -- man. And the film intermingles events between Bible stories -- such as Ham walking away from the family, where the Bible tells us that it was Cain who walked away 1,600 years earlier. Also, Noah talked in such an unnatural, soft tone of voice that I -- who have a minor hearing deficiency -- could hardly hear him throughout the film.
I was disappointed in the film, but I am glad I saw it. I wish that the Bible-oriented movies would stay true to Holy Scripture.
One final comment: The Book was better.
-- Gene Linzey is a speaker, author, and former pastor. Send comments and questions to [email protected]. The opinions expressed are those of the author.
Religion on 04/09/2014