Ken Ham wants to “Wash the evil off me” after seeing “Noah” movie

| 128 Comments

noahmovie.jpg

Well, AiG’s Ken Ham has seen the movie “Noah” starring Russell Crowe, and boy, is he steamed!

Friends, I just arrived home after seeing the Hollywood (Paramount) movie NOAH tonight. It is MUCH much worse than I thought it would be. Much worse.

The Director of the movie, Darren Aronofsky has been quoted in the media as saying NOAH is ‘the least biblical biblical film ever made’, I agree wholeheartedly with him.

I am disgusted. I am going to come right out and say it-it is disgusting and evil-paganism! Do you really want your family to see a pagan movie the has Noah as some psychopath who says if his daughter-in-law’s baby is a girl, he will kill it as soon as it’s born. And then when two girls are born, bloodstained Noah (the man the Bible calls righteous Noah-Genesis 7:1), brings a knife down to one of the baby’s heads to kill it and at the last minute doesn’t do it-and then a bit later says he failed because he didn’t kill the babies. How can we recommend this movie and then speak against abortion! Psychopathic Noah sees humans as a blight on the planet and wants to rid the world of people.

I feel dirty-as if I have to somehow wash the evil off me.

I cannot believe there are Christian leaders who have recommended people see this movie.

It’s as if someone heard the name Noah, that there was a Flood and and Ark and then made a pagan movie up about it. I don’t think there is anything else that really has to do with the Bible’s account except some names of people! Methuselah is some sort of witchdoctor who can do magical things.

There is so much more I could say about it-so much more. And what’s with the bizarre fallen angels being living rocks helping Noah??

I suggest you join us tomorrow night for our live stream at 8 pm EST. A number of AiG researches watched the movie tonight and four of us will be on the live stream to explain what we saw and heard.

I am SO GLAD my wife did not come with me to see this-she would have been terribly upset.

I feel violated as a Christian.

Regardless of what others say-I just had to come right out and say this.

Oh-it is also a boring movie-yes boring! Worst movie I think I’ve ever seen.

That’s my personal take-join us tomorrow night for our discussion of NOAH.

The movie begins with (and has the same statement later on):

‘In there beginning there was nothing’

The Bible states ‘In the beginning God.’

That really sums up the difference!

Discuss.

128 Comments

Psychopathic Yahweh sees humans as a blight on the planet and wants to rid the world of people, kittens, puppies.… There…fixed that.

The persecutions continue.

Now go out and build your Ark Park complete with the screams of the babies that God kills, Ken. That should make you feel better.

Glen Davidson

Ken Ham said:

I feel dirty-as if I have to somehow wash the evil off me.

I feel the same way after a visit to the AiG website.

But they were evil babies, so it’s OK.

prongs said:

Ken Ham said:

I feel dirty-as if I have to somehow wash the evil off me.

I feel the same way after a visit to the AiG website.

Ken Ham said:

I feel violated as a Christian.

I feel the same way after a visit to the AiG website.

So it’s an “unbiblical fantasy” … as opposed to a biblical fantasy?

Funny thing, there was a YEC on my campus last night. He gave a talk entitled “Evidence for a World WIde flood”. He gave away two tickets to the movie “Noah” as a door prize. I guess he loved the movie. Perhaps the big tent is starting to show some signs of ripping apart. In all fairness, he probably had not seen the movie yet before he had decided to give away tickets. I guess he just thought that anything with a magic flood must be good. It will be interesting to see if he renounces the movie after he sees it. If so, I guess he will feel really bad about giving out those tickets. If not, I guess Kenny boy will have another debate on his hands, this time with an irate YEC.

I feel violated as a Christian.

I think most reasonable Christians feel violated after listening to K-Ham’s b.s. I know I do. If he hates it this much, it must be pretty good, so I’ll probably borrow it from the library when it’s out on DVD.

I feel dirty-as if I have to somehow wash the evil off me.

That’s a tall order, and would require another world-wide flood.

Ironically, there will be plenty of floods if we don’t do something about global warming, which is something the creationists deny.

After reading the NY Times review of the film: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/m[…]in-noah.html I would like to see it. Ken Ham’s “review” doesn’t dissuade me.

But, it’s so *evil* because it portrays Noah as almost killing babies, but doesn’t… unlike God who, according to Genesis and Exodus (and elsewhere) is all too happy to kill off scads of babies (and everyone else)?????

So far, it has received a rating of 7.3 on IMDB, which is not too bad.

http://goo.gl/Se0UD8

An unidentified editor has just posted what claims to be the plot of the movie on Wikipedia Noah (movie)#Plot. It fits what little I’d seen elsewhere, but this as a first draft it is subject to change (or even deletion).

Perhaps Ham is worried that people who’ve seen the film will find the Ark Park tame by comparison.

So it’s a terrible and boring movie and we shouldn’t see it, but we should totally tune in to hear him and his buddies who did see it talk about it?

If the movie is so awful and boring, why would i want to hear people talk about it?

To be honest, the only reason i would even entertain seeing it is because i like Darren Aronofsky’s work in general. Biblical epics are always dull films. The fact that it’s not very biblical might actually make it more interesting.

Further compounding the troubles with the film was the depiction of Noah and his relationship with God. Noah comes off as a psychopathic murderer who is too weak to carry out what he believes is his God-given task.

This problem arises because God does not speak clearly to Noah but expects him to assemble a puzzle from a few dreams and visions.

Noah, who is willing to murder three men to save one animal, interprets these dreams to mean he is to save “the innocents”—the animals—and kill all of the humans so that the creation can be restored to the way God intended it.

Here the filmmakers distort the character of Noah, described as a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), and being a faithful and just man (Genesis 6:9; Hebrews 11:7), as well as the character of God who, in the film, cannot communicate clearly with His prophet.

That is not faithful to the essence, values, and integrity of God’s Word regardless of what Paramount Pictures claims.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/art[…]e-unbiblical

FL

I never go to movies as they are terrible and so only later word of mouth constancy motivates me to seek them out otherwise. Its only a story and movies shouldn’t matter more then the prestige of a good story. if they are right or wrong its irrelevant. Can’t agree with ham on this or it mattering. I know many evangelicals who are planning on watching it because its NOAH. I guess its a tougher and sexier Noah. There is so much now and in the past wrong about hollywood as to make any complaint on any movie silly. Its the left wing that insists movies show the right conclusions and agendas in the story’s. They are the ones who beleive and desire movie makers to have moral and intellectual and political influence. Normal people should not believe or desire this. A story is just a story from story teller. thats it folks. Otherwise everyone at all times was right to control what Hollywood does. its come up before but its all stupid to care except to complain about offensive or message. But don’t get excited. I think a Noah movie , by a YEC, might of been better then the ark park. Bigger audience and around for ever.

It’s only about an hour until Ken Ham vents in a live stream.

I’m sure Answers in Genesis would appreciate my linking to their live stream - but you folks are intelligent enough to find it if you really want to ! (But, aren’t you a little concerned with having such masochistic tendencies?).

Noah is a fictional character, and so is his god. Good thing for humanity, too …’cause that god character in the Wholly Babble is a psychotic and megalomaniacal mass murderer.

Well Hell’s bells Ken. Thanks.

I will see it now.

Down with this sort of thing.….….

Well Hell’s bells Ken. Thanks.

I will see it now.

Indeed, that’s what always happens when you kick up a fuss about things on religious grounds. A line from Father Ted:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xo[…]-vost-fr_fun

“Congratulations. You’ve made this film the most successful since Jurassic Park. They’re coming from all over the country to see the film. They’re even coming from Gdansk to see the film”.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n[…]9946077.html

nobodythatmatters said:

Biblical epics are always dull films. The fact that it’s not very biblical might actually make it more interesting.

The Ten Commandments, with Charlton Heston as Moses and Yul Brenner as Pharaoh, is coming soon to a television set near you. (Strange that every Easter we get to see a movie about a Jewish Myth.)

This is one of the finest of Hollywood classics. Don’t miss it. It is a gem.

When Anne Baxter as Nefretiri moans, “Moses, Moses”, you know what she’s asking for. What a great movie. So subtle. So Jewish.

I love it.

Mike Waldteufel said:

Noah is a fictional character, and so is his god. Good thing for humanity, too …’cause that god character in the Wholly Babble is a psychotic and megalomaniacal mass murderer.

Yeah, we’re already chock-full of non-fictional megalomaniacal mass murderers sadly.

John Harshman said:

But they were evil babies, so it’s OK.

And now I can’t get Alice Cooper’s song “Dead Babies” out of my mind.

SWT said:

prongs said:

Ken Ham said:

I feel dirty-as if I have to somehow wash the evil off me.

I feel the same way after a visit to the AiG website.

Ken Ham said:

I feel violated as a Christian.

I feel the same way after a visit to the AiG website.

Don’t think I could ever shake hands with Ken Ham, but I’d be honored to shake hands with SWT.

cmb said:

John Harshman said:

But they were evil babies, so it’s OK.

And now I can’t get Alice Cooper’s song “Dead Babies” out of my mind.

“Can’t take things off the shelf”

The pathos!

Glen Davidson

FL said:

Further compounding the troubles with the film was the depiction of Noah and his relationship with God. Noah comes off as a psychopathic murderer who is too weak to carry out what he believes is his God-given task.

This problem arises because God does not speak clearly to Noah but expects him to assemble a puzzle from a few dreams and visions.

Noah, who is willing to murder three men to save one animal, interprets these dreams to mean he is to save “the innocents”—the animals—and kill all of the humans so that the creation can be restored to the way God intended it.

Here the filmmakers distort the character of Noah, described as a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), and being a faithful and just man (Genesis 6:9; Hebrews 11:7), as well as the character of God who, in the film, cannot communicate clearly with His prophet.

That is not faithful to the essence, values, and integrity of God’s Word regardless of what Paramount Pictures claims.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/art[…]e-unbiblical

Poor old FL.

A quasi-religious film like Hollywood Noah puts him in an uncomfortable spot. He already has difficulty distinguishing fiction from reality (e.g. Unsolved Mysteries), but he still feels dissonance when an alternative Hollywood Noah story clashes with the Biblical Noah.

FL is too impaired to confront the dissonance directly, too incapable of explaining his own point of view or articulating his own opinion of the Hollywood Noah version of his myth, so to allay the dissonance, he seeks succor in the borrowed opinions of the authorities at AiG. FL is too rigid to accommodate the notion of different but equally valid versions of his mythic fiction, or even of different opinions about a particular version or fragment. It’s gotta be FL’s second-hand interpretation or the hiway to hell, sucker, because coercion of belief with the threat of infinite torture is the Christian Way as FL practices it.

FL doesn’t like it that there can be different versions of his myth. He feels certain that some versions, like the Hollywood version of Noah, just aren’t True Fiction™ and therefore should not be allowed. He doesn’t like it that the Hollywood Noah (just like FL himself) constructs his delusional narrative from dreams and visions.

FL doesn’t think that Hollywood knows how God intended it. Only certain people, like Answers in Genesis (and, by cut’n’paste implication, FL) know how God intended it, and even they can’t say in their own words what that intention is. All they can do is to insist that Hollywood Noah does not exemplify it.

But he does. Hollywood Noah is loving and just exactly to the extent that his (and FL’s) own God is loving and just: both are psychopathic mass murderers.

Robert Byers said: Normal people should not believe or desire this.

Only weirdos think that.

I just came from ol’ Hambo’s carnival of stupid. What to say? The delusion, stupidity and fear are strong at AiG. Now that I know how much Hambo hates the Noah movie version of this fairy tale, I’m for sure going to watch it.

One wonders if Hambo’s dislike for the movie might be driven by his perception of how the rubes may think his Ark Park is relatively boring by comparison. That’s how carnival barkers and side-show operators think.

prongs said:

When Anne Baxter as Nefretiri moans, “Moses, Moses”, you know what she’s asking for. What a great movie. So subtle. So Jewish.

…and so full of pointy bras.

I want Poseidon! Where do I sign up? Is there a waiting list?

Just Bob said:

I want Poseidon! Where do I sign up? Is there a waiting list?

Sorry, Poseidon is obviously kicking around down in Chile causing tsunamis. He was the one who drowned Atlantis, after all.

I’d want Horus – I mean, FALCONS FTW – but I’m sure he’s still in Egypt somewhere.

AltairIV said:

Just Bob said:

phhht said: … Godzilla has the word God in it.

That’s a typical American mispronunciation. The original Japanese was something like Gojira. But Americans ‘knew’ Japanese couldn’t pronounce Ls.

I imagine it was more of a simple Anglicization and marketing decision than a mispronunciation issue. The unfamiliar foreign word doesn’t provide English speakers with much of an image, so the importers of the original movie probably decided to spice it up a little for American audiences.

Japanese pronunciation doesn’t actually have either “l” or “r”, but rather a softer rolling sound about halfway between them. This gives them a lot of trouble when it comes to hearing and speaking the separate English sounds. It can sometimes take quite a bit of practice for a native Japanese to learn to pronounce the l/r distinction correctly.

English speakers, conversely, tend to harden the Japanese pronunciation to one side or the other, although this causes fewer problems with communication than in the other direction.

In any case, Gojira (ゴジラ) is a portmanteau of “gorilla” and “kujira” (whale), two particularly large and powerful creatures. The Japanese pronunciation of the imported word “gorilla” is usually romanized as “go-ri-ra”, but it could just as easily be rendered as “go-li-la”, and thus the monster’s name to “Go-ji-la”. Then it’s just one more small step to “Godzilla”.

Nope. The Japanese CLEARLY pronounce “L”s as “R”s. Period.I have spent years in Japan and have been on Naval exercises with the Japanese Navy (officially the Maritime Self Defence Force). I have never heard any of the radio operators pronounce phonetics like “lima” anywhere near correctly; it ALWAYS came out as reema. These were highly trained professionals.

Nope. The Japanese CLEARLY pronounce “L”s as “R”s. Period.I have spent years in Japan and have been on Naval exercises with the Japanese Navy (officially the Maritime Self Defence Force). I have never heard any of the radio operators pronounce phonetics like “lima” anywhere near correctly; it ALWAYS came out as reema. These were highly trained professionals.

And I’m in Japan now. I’ve been living here for close to 20 years and deal with students studying English every day.

The actual phonetic sound they use is /ɽ/. Depending on the exact word, and the individual, and probably even the region in question, even the Japanese will pronounce it more strongly one way or the other, generally sounding closer to ‘r’ than ‘l’ to western ears, but still without quite the clear distinction that there is in English.

From Wikipedia:

/ɽ/ is an apical postalveolar flap undefined for laterality. That is, it is specified as neither a central nor a lateral flap, but may vary between the two. It is similar to the Korean r. To an English speaker’s ears, its pronunciation varies between a flapped d ([ɾ], as in American English buddy) and a flapped l [ɺ], sounding most like d before /i/ and /j/, most like l before /o/, and most like a retracted flap [ɽ] before /a/.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_phonology

I also personally think that the influence of decades of English education and multicultural contact has shifted the native pronunciation so that there is tendency to more of a clear ‘r’ sound now than in the past.

I should also point out that this mostly applies to Japanese speaking Japanese. How well they pronounce foreign words depends a lot on the individual and the amount of study, training, and exposure they’ve had.

I don’t doubt that most of the people you met in the Navy had had a lot of exposure to English, and were more capable than average in pronouncing “l” and “r”. But the very fact that they still confuse “lima” and “reema” shows that their brains and vocal chords were still trying to process them according to their native conditioning.

[Apologies for the off-topic detour, BTW. I’ll shut up about it now. ;)]

From the Quotemining Used In Book and Movie Advertisements Department.

I was flipping tv channels this evening and saw for the hundredth time a commercial for the movie Noah. This time, like many commercials, the advertisement had been edited down in running time to about five or six seconds making it much cheaper to broadcast. At the end of the advert they give two “quotes” from reviewers, one of which was …

Rolling Stone calls Noah “EPIC”

The actual text from the review (giving 3 out of 5 stars) reads …

“Pick your gospel: the Scriptures or rock & roll. Both figure into director Darren Aronofsky’s Noah, a biblical epic that follows no rules except its creator’s teeming imagination.”

In a word, we switch the adjective up from …

: telling a story about a hero or about exciting events or adventures

to

: very great or large and usually difficult or impressive

Dude, have you seen Noah ? It’s “EPIC” !

Nice.

Ooops, pardon me. (3 out of 4 stars)

I believe the movie is actually a adapt reflection of the world we live in and truthfully mirrors the Biblical story of Noah . “In a world ravaged by human sin, Noah is given a divine mission: to build an Ark to save creation from the coming flood.” (unknown,Google review,2014)

We live in a world of human sin, but there are still glimpses of humanity and moral displays seen through out the world. A very exaggerated example of this, is when Noah claims he will kill his daughter-in-law’s baby, if it is a female. However he cannot bring himself to go through with the act.

So yes, Hollywood has glamorized the biblical tale of Noah, but in essence the fundamental message is still clearly seen throughout this brilliant movie. Although the story has been fractionally altered,i believe this refreshed tale of Noah, better reflects the world we live in, yet still keeps true to its Biblical lesson.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on March 28, 2014 8:58 AM.

Aythya americana was the previous entry in this blog.

How many animals did Noah take aboard the ark? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter