The best parts of this movie are those that depict the story of Noah and certain portions of the story of Abraham, particularly the Epiphany sequences surrounding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Covenant sacrifice. John Huston, with a mixture of seriousness and sweet humor, is terrific as Noah, and George C. Scott's Abraham is not only the very best ever put on film, it is one of the very best performances Scott has ever given, a performance that ranks with his other great ones in Patton, Dr. Strangelove and The Hospital.
For those of you who are not learned readers of scripture, "the three angels" are actually an appearance of the Angel of the Lord--in Christian theology, an incorporeal, howbeit, visible visitation of the pre-incarnate Christ. The Angel of the Lord is not a created being, i.e., a mere messenger, but God Himself, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God. These rare appearances in the Old Testament known as the Epiphanies strictly occur within the spiritual realm, for Christ has not yet taken on human flesh. Moses and Abraham are among the very few persons in history to have witnessed them. They are instances whereupon the veil that separates the overlapping spiritual and temporal dimensions is pulled back so that they may be seen by humans. The Burning Bush, for example, is another of these Epiphanies. Huston, a great reader, was familiar with this Christian tradition. In scripture, the Angel of the Lord's appearance to Abraham regarding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah consists of three beings in human form talking and acting in concert or consists of the Epiphany and two angelic beings at His side. Scripture may be construed either way. Huston mostly went with the former while allowing for the latter. Hence, they are all Peter O'Toole, alternately speaking as one, though the greater attention is given to the specter in the center. Elegant.
Let's get back to that word "literally" and the rhyme behind the reason of my digression will become apparent.
Many great developments have occurred in the fields of science and biblical hermeneutics (interpretation) in the last two centuries especially. Their dramatic revelations for a believer like me are delightful, even thrilling. But for some, both believers and non-believers, they have served to create a great deal of tension that is both unnecessary and tragic. For example, there remains a sincere and well-meaning segment of the orthodox Christian community which staunchly insists that scripture calls for a young-earth creationism, when in fact it does not. This error is compounded by non-believers--mostly ignorant of the biblical text and its theology--who insist that the Bible necessarily calls for a young-earth creationism as well. These are the sort who talk about ancient biblical history as myth or legend--a collection of absurdities supposedly exposed by scientific fact.
Their premise is wrong.
The perceived and ultimately illusory tension between natural history and revelation arises from two problems: (1) the age of the universe and (2) the origins of life. All of the other varies controversies are contingent to these. The eternal, static universe model that was once passionately defended by Darwinists, by the way, for reasons that should be obvious, can no longer be rationally sustained. It is essentially dead. It appears to be the stuff of scientific myth. The finite,expanding universe model, based on the so-called "Big Bang Theory", is perfectly consistent with scripture. Score one for the Bible.
The origins of life, of course, is a much more complex matter. Too many Christians have simply walked off the field of battle. Insisting on a young earth, they fail to realize that the expanding universe model supports their position of a finite creation with a beginning. A beginning requires a beginner--of one sort or another. Also, a finite, expanding universe dramatically shortens the period of time that evolutionists once claimed was required for all of their various mechanisms to produce life as we know it today. Obviously, this hasn't caused evolutionists to abandon their theory, just modify it.
In spite of what so many evolutionists disingenuously claim, the jury is still out, and some of us, who believe that both the general revelation (or natural history) and the special revelation are ultimately consistent, understand precisely the nature of their slight of hand and their motive. We are not hemmed in by any other particular model or mode of interpretation other than the knowledge that God is the author of both the general and special revelations. We are open.
So was Huston. And that's the point. Too many commenting on this board fail to realize that his film, like the Bible, allows for a much broader understanding of both the scientific data and the biblical account--in both is metaphoric and literal senses--than they would allow for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the reasonably established facts in and of themselves.
Too many have already made up theirs minds based on nothing more substantial than faulty premises and foolish prejudices. If this were more generally understood, Huston's film, in spite of its faults, would be more highly regarded.
For those of you who are not learned readers of scripture, "the three angels" are actually an appearance of the Angel of the Lord--in Christian theology, an incorporeal, howbeit, visible visitation of the pre-incarnate Christ. The Angel of the Lord is not a created being, i.e., a mere messenger, but God Himself, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God. These rare appearances in the Old Testament known as the Epiphanies strictly occur within the spiritual realm, for Christ has not yet taken on human flesh. Moses and Abraham are among the very few persons in history to have witnessed them. They are instances whereupon the veil that separates the overlapping spiritual and temporal dimensions is pulled back so that they may be seen by humans. The Burning Bush, for example, is another of these Epiphanies. Huston, a great reader, was familiar with this Christian tradition. In scripture, the Angel of the Lord's appearance to Abraham regarding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah consists of three beings in human form talking and acting in concert or consists of the Epiphany and two angelic beings at His side. Scripture may be construed either way. Huston mostly went with the former while allowing for the latter. Hence, they are all Peter O'Toole, alternately speaking as one, though the greater attention is given to the specter in the center. Elegant.
Let's get back to that word "literally" and the rhyme behind the reason of my digression will become apparent.
Many great developments have occurred in the fields of science and biblical hermeneutics (interpretation) in the last two centuries especially. Their dramatic revelations for a believer like me are delightful, even thrilling. But for some, both believers and non-believers, they have served to create a great deal of tension that is both unnecessary and tragic. For example, there remains a sincere and well-meaning segment of the orthodox Christian community which staunchly insists that scripture calls for a young-earth creationism, when in fact it does not. This error is compounded by non-believers--mostly ignorant of the biblical text and its theology--who insist that the Bible necessarily calls for a young-earth creationism as well. These are the sort who talk about ancient biblical history as myth or legend--a collection of absurdities supposedly exposed by scientific fact.
Their premise is wrong.
The perceived and ultimately illusory tension between natural history and revelation arises from two problems: (1) the age of the universe and (2) the origins of life. All of the other varies controversies are contingent to these. The eternal, static universe model that was once passionately defended by Darwinists, by the way, for reasons that should be obvious, can no longer be rationally sustained. It is essentially dead. It appears to be the stuff of scientific myth. The finite,expanding universe model, based on the so-called "Big Bang Theory", is perfectly consistent with scripture. Score one for the Bible.
The origins of life, of course, is a much more complex matter. Too many Christians have simply walked off the field of battle. Insisting on a young earth, they fail to realize that the expanding universe model supports their position of a finite creation with a beginning. A beginning requires a beginner--of one sort or another. Also, a finite, expanding universe dramatically shortens the period of time that evolutionists once claimed was required for all of their various mechanisms to produce life as we know it today. Obviously, this hasn't caused evolutionists to abandon their theory, just modify it.
In spite of what so many evolutionists disingenuously claim, the jury is still out, and some of us, who believe that both the general revelation (or natural history) and the special revelation are ultimately consistent, understand precisely the nature of their slight of hand and their motive. We are not hemmed in by any other particular model or mode of interpretation other than the knowledge that God is the author of both the general and special revelations. We are open.
So was Huston. And that's the point. Too many commenting on this board fail to realize that his film, like the Bible, allows for a much broader understanding of both the scientific data and the biblical account--in both is metaphoric and literal senses--than they would allow for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the reasonably established facts in and of themselves.
Too many have already made up theirs minds based on nothing more substantial than faulty premises and foolish prejudices. If this were more generally understood, Huston's film, in spite of its faults, would be more highly regarded.