7 votes

In “Noah”, The Fallen Angels Are The Good Guys

In “Noah”, The Fallen Angels Are The Good Guys

By Michael Snyder, on March 30th, 2014

In “Noah”, the fallen angels are “good guys” that were kicked out of heaven because of their compassion for humanity, they help Noah build the ark, and they ascend to heaven when they die helping defend the ark against a band of marauding evil humans. Director Darren Aronofsky stated that he attempted to make “the least biblical biblical film ever made”, and he may have achieved that. In “Noah”, almost everything is the opposite of what it should be. Instead of villains, the fallen angels are heroes. Instead of a preacher of righteousness, Noah is depicted as a psychopathic maniac that hates humanity and wants to kill his unborn grandchild if it is a girl. The movie somehow finds a way to avoid using the word “God” the entire time, and during a scene where Noah explains to his family how the world was “created”, the film displays visuals depicting Darwinian evolution. But all of the controversy surrounding the film only seems to have helped it at the box office. In fact, it pulled in approximately 44 million dollars in North America alone over opening weekend.

Read more: http://thetruthwins.com/archives/in-noah-the-fallen-angels-a...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Misunderstandings and over-reactions...

...seem to plague a bunch of the reviews such as Michael Snyder's and others I have read regarding this film.

I went to see it last night, and while I can certainly see why some aspects of the movie would be controversial from a traditional reading/Sunday School visualization of the biblical narrative, I also think that it was very moving and thought-provoking in many positive ways and is also being misrepresented in a lot of ways as somehow sinister.

First of all, yes, fallen angels being reconciled somehow back to the service of the Creator is definitely a controversial idea; but it is hardly alien to Christian thinking and extends back to some of the early church fathers such as St. Gregory of Nyssa, who believed in apokatastasis, or ultimate reconciliation of all things in Creation back to the Father through the Son (which is actually what I believe as well as an Evangelical Universalist, and which, I believe, has scriptural support). Gregory was involved with establishing the early creeds and was never considered by the councils to be outside the fold of Christianity for these views (although Origen ran into trouble with some of his other views on things such as transmigration of souls, and by extension some of his particular universalism). So while I admit that it is highly speculative to include the Watchers in the Noah story, the Bible certainly doesn't rule out such involvement or some ultimate mechanism of redemption for fallen angels. I don't believe in a God of Love hating any fallen creatures, human or angelic, but rather desiring all to be restored to Love. And I believe that will be achieved, however much other Christians may view such ideas of reconciliation to be horrible.

Furthermore, there are many Christians who don't take the whole passage of 'sons of God' mating with 'daughters of men' as fallen angels procreating with humans, but rather as the line of Seth (those who walked with God) as mingling with the line of Cain and having relations. This seems to be the tack the movie takes, with the Watchers not really being the kind of Nephilim offspring that people often speculate about, but rather angels that sided with Adam in the fall and were cast to earth and mired in earthy substance as punishment.

As far as the idea that Noah turns into some psychopathic killer, let me just say that I think it very unlikely that Noah was Mr. Perfect all through his life, through the Flood, and then BAM, suddenly he's the bad guy drunkard after the Flood. It is a fundamental misunderstanding to take the 'blameless' description of Noah as generally 'sinless', rather than pointing to his particular faith and obedience to the Creator as being 'credited as righteousness' -- just as with other imperfect people like Abraham, Moses, David, us. So the idea that Noah struggled with moral dilemmas and misunderstandings and outright sinful failures in his life is not really an absurdity. The movie is actually very good at pointing out that Noah and his family were in the same boat of sin as all the rest of humanity, despite their particular faith and selection for this mission of a reset. They, too, were still to die and move beyond this earthly phase, despite being temporarily saved by the Ark.

Also, I think Aronofsky is pulling in elements of stories from some other Biblical patriarchs back into the Noah character, in order to present some of these types of moral struggles and tests he might have faced, himself. To those who are in shock that Noah might misunderstand the Creator to be wanting him to slay his unborn grandchild if it is a girl, I find it ironic that they are perfectly ok with the idea that the Creator actually did tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. To those who are in shock at the portrayal of Noah's wife trying to go behind his back and secure a future for her sons, I find it ironic that they are perfectly ok with the idea that God would bless the efforts of Rebekah and Jacob in securing the rights of firstborn, through plotting behind the back of a misunderstanding Isaac who would rather go with an Esau. The idea that a Noah would misinterpret something is not really so far-fetched.

It's important to note that the movie explicitly shows in visions the things that the Bible actually does say God told Noah, but that it never shows a vision in which He tells Noah to kill his unborn grandchild -- it's left as a plot tension device, with the audience wondering whether that was really the instruction or not. And there are plenty of subsequent signs that it was not, and the story becomes a very moving portrayal of love and mercy in the midst of judgement. The Creator is portrayed in a good light by the movie, not a bad one as some claim.

As to the whole 'Darwinian' creation imagery, Aronofsky actually kind of blurred that in a fence-straddling move, so you lose sense of how much actual time has passed while the narrative still calls it 'days', or whether any creatures actually die in a survival of the fittest environment. It doesn't actually portray any death before the Fall, which you would think six-day creationists would note. It seems Aronofsky is respectfully side-stepping that whole discussion and leaving it up for people to understand that in the way they want to.

There are other blogs out there finding fault with the idea of the serpent's skin from Eden being passed down as a token of blessing through the line of Seth, as if it is some kind of Gnostic endorsement of the serpent as the true good agent, enlightening humanity. While the snakeskin is a bit of an odd, unexpected thing in the story, it is clear from the presentation that this skin was shed by the originally-good serpent before it emerges as a black serpent and then proceeds to tempt Eve. This skin is a symbol of Eden, Creation as it was meant to be in its unfallen state, of the good the Creator intended -- not the subsequent evil nature of the serpent.

I could go on. My point here isn't to scoff at people for finding the movie controversial in some ways; I understand why they would. It's just that in reacting to it, they often go overboard in their specific claims, without carefully checking whether these claims are in fact a valid representation of what the movie is meaning. Some things are claimed to be intentionally sinister, when a more careful examination shows that not to be the case at all.

Paradise Lost

Justifing the ways of man to God ?


I haven't seen the movie ...

... and I probably won't, but I do find it interesting that the concept of the fallen angels being good guys reminds me of something I read about some sort of "Illuminati-style" religious ideas where they think something similar.

I haven't seen the movie either,

but would you consider deuteronomical books, those books rejected by those who put the "canonical" bibles together, something that a movie that depicts the story of Noah in a different frame that takes some license, but not much, from those stories a drastic departure from the main story?

People here claim that Hollywood is to blame for the misunderstanding between those that have read what their King James Bible of the version says and what the movie says. However, if you take into account the deuteronomical books, you have much of Hollywood's vision; or more accurately, Darren Aronofsky's vision of the story that is told.

Again, I haven't seen the movie, but based off of what the complaints have been and my own research, the complaints are based on ignorance of the history of Judaism and Christianity.

Love thy enemy.

Big shocker there

The tribe that operates Hollyweird perverts the Bible and makes the Anti-Christ assistants the heroes.

Just another day taking the "long march through the institutions".

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

The Tribe?

You do realize Noah is an Old Testament/Torah story, do you not?

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

So True ..

Thanks for posting Joe

The underdogs of mythology...

..have always held my greater sympathies.
Prometheus gave man fire, and for his trouble has his liver eaten every day. Lucifer ("the light bearer") brought knowledge to the Garden of Ignorance, and has been since scorned. Judas was betrayed most deeply, used and misused in Yeshua's plan of redemption for all (except the most vital actor himself.)

The message is hammered into us thoroughly:
"No good deed goes unpunished."

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

thanks for letting me know. I

thanks for letting me know. I won't waste my money.

The word Amen comes from

Amen (Amon) and Amen-Ra, King of the Gods, and the Triad of Thebes

Among the gods who were known to the Egyptians in very early times were Amen and his consort Ament, and their names are found in the Pyramid Texts, e.g., Unas, line 558, where they are mentioned immediately after the pair of gods Nau and Nen, and in connection with the twin Lion-gods Shu and Tefnut, who are described as the two gods who made their own bodies, and with the goddess Temt, the female counterpart of Tem. It is evident that even in the remote period of the Vth Dynasty Amen and Ament were numbered among the primeval gods, if not as gods in chief certainly as subsidiary forms of some of them, and from the fact that they are mentioned immediately after the deities of primeval matter, Nau and Nen, who we may consider to be the equivalents of the watery abyss from which all things sprang, and immediately before Temt and Shu and Tefnut, it would seem that the writers or editors of the Pyramid Texts assigned great antiquity to their existence. Of the attributes ascribed to Amen in the Ancient Empire nothing is known, but, if we accept the meaning "hidden" which is usually given to his name, we must conclude that he was the personification of the hidden and unknown creative power which was associated with the primeval abyss, gods in the creation of the world, and all that is in it. The word or root amen, certainly means "what is hidden," "what is not seen," "what cannot be seen," and the like, and this fact is proved by scores of examples which may be collected from texts of all periods. In hymns to Amen we often read that he is "hidden to his children, "and "hidden to gods and men," and it has been stated that these expressions only refer to the "hiding," i.e., "setting" of the sun each evening, and that they are only to be understood in a physical sense, and to mean nothing more than the disappearance of the god Amen from the sight of men at the close of day. Now, not only is the god himself said to be "hidden," but his name also is "hidden," and his form, or similitude, is said to be "unknown;" these statements show that "hidden," when applied to Amen, the great god, has reference to something more than the "sun which has disappeared below the horizon," and that it indicates the god who cannot be seen with the mortal eyes, and who is invisible, as well as inscrutable, to gods as well as men. In the times approaching the Ptolemaic period the name Amen appears to have been connected with the root men, "to abide, to be permanent;" and one of the attributes which were applied to him was that of eternal. Amen is represented in five forms: 1. As a man, when he is seen seated on a throne, and holding in one hand the scepter, and in the other the symbol of "life." In this form he is one of the nine deities who compose the company of the gods of Amen-Ra, the other eight being Ament, Nu, Nut, Hehui, Hehet, Kekui, Keket, and Hathor. 2. As a man with the head of a frog, whilst his female counterpart Ament has the head of a uraeus. 3. As a man with the head of a uraeus, whilst his female counterpart has the head of a cat. 4. As an ape. 5. As a lion couching upon a pedestal. http://www.touregypt.net/amen.htm


is also a Hebrew word meaning "so be it."

There is no evidence that it is in any way related to an Egyptian god whose name is occasionally spelled similarly. Believe it or not, some words that look similar have nothing to do with each other.

I find it astounding just how far people are willing to go to make connections that just. Aren't. There. There was the one moron a while back who tried to claim that Christianity was disguised sun worship, based in part on the similarity of the English words "sun" and "son," in spite of the fact that English as a language didn't exist when the Bible was written.

deacon's picture

astounding...you say?



If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Soooo, do the downvoters lack the capacity to identify sarcasm?

Just wondering.

just great... thanks for messing up the movie for me

I was really looking forward to watching the fantasy when some religious zealot screws the whole thing up. Keep your stupid religion to yourself. No one cares.

When did common sense become a super power? –Patrick F. Holman

The movie

came from Religion lol. Don't make a movie that came from the Bible if you don't want to hear Religious people talk about how bad it was interpreted.

it posted twice


A Little Overview

from Candler School of Theology at Emory Univ.


Irony at its finest...

That Americans line up and expect an organization like Hollywood, who puts out some of the most perverse and spiritually subversive content known, to produce an accurate movie based on a Biblical story accounting how God wiped out a whole group of people for their perversion and spiritually subversive behavior.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

Par for the course.

This reminds me of that really awful reboot of the King Arthur story that Clive Owen was in back in 2004 where the indigenous Britons were somehow these advanced precursors to John Locke (they were as brutal as the Celts on their worst days, finger and ear necklaces, drinking the blood of their slain enemies and all), the Saxons and the Romans were cannibalistic barbarians, and the notorious heretic preacher Pelagius was treated as some sort of holy martyr who was executed by the Latin magisterium (he was excommunicated for picking a pointless fight with Augustine of Hippo over a prayer he wrote and trying to advance a pagan/humanist counterfeit version of Christianity, he ended up living peacefully in Egypt).

Not only was it an obvious attempt at putting forth a lie as true history, but was also one of the lamest, poorly conceived action/adventure movies I've ever seen. I'm pretty sure that "Noah" will probably be similar, I'll save my money, thank you very much.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

ChristianAnarchist's picture

bizarroworld Noah...

bizarroworld Noah...

Beware the cult of "government"...

Didn't Constantine invent

Didn't Constantine invent Christianity? What am I missing here? All religions come from Africa! They started it all! Good n bad. They were the first humans, so yes they were the first racist too. Am I missing something here?

deacon's picture


would wake up in the morning and bow to the morning sun.In doing so,he had to squint,(hence the cross).
What he did do,according to the bible,was make it illegal to celebrate the feasts of the lord,in doing so,took the real worship to the creator out of the mix,then the other church was installed,and this is what we have today

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Messianic Judaism

The Messiah and His followers (Early Church) were Jews. Yeshua the Messiah, aka Jesus Christ, fulfilled the Jewish prophesy. His followers for hundreds of years after retained their Jewish beliefs and identity. Jesus celebrated the Passover (last supper) and Hannukah (feast of dedications). He studied the Torah, and was a Rabbi. His followers did not change their religion or traditions for hundreds of years.

It wasn't until around 325 A.D., that Constantine forced conversion of all the pagan Roman Empire to "Christianity". By that time, both Messianic and Talmudic Judaism were spreading in Rome. The Messianics (now called 'Christians') had been persecuted harshly for a long time. He ordered a meeting of the Messianic denominations (Council of Nicea) to come up with one single version or 'canonize' an official Roman version of the religion, that Caesar could enforce.

The word 'Christian' comes from Christ or 'Christos', which is a Greek word meaning 'the anointed', and it is a Greek word because the Bible was originally translated into Greek from the written Hebrew and spoken word (Aramaic. The original Greek translation is known as 'the Septuagint'. The translation of the bible into Greek is one of the crucial things in history that led to the spreading of Messianic Judaism, which was morphed into 'Christianity' under Constantine in Rome and Europe.

If you think Christianity was just made up, and there is no legitimate truth behind it, think again. It would really help your understanding if you read the Old Testament, and then read the New Testament.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Why am I being downvoted!?

Why am I being downvoted!? Christianity comes from Egyptian mythology. Am i wrong? I dont understand, I really dont. Do you know the know where the word "Amen" comes from?

Common misconception.

Here's a site that deals with it quite thoroughly: http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.php

It's Hebrew for "so be it".

It's Hebrew for "so be it".

deacon's picture


To you buck fiddy :)

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Exactly Deacon, teach these

Exactly Deacon, teach these fools man! Lol

deacon's picture


I have taken my licks concerning this topic.And as you can see so did you :)
There is one topic here not to be discussed,and you found it,you will not challenge the ones here to get past their indoctrination and up bringing
They will fight you tooth and nail,and to the bitter end,and this is just to stay within their comfort zones. Trying to get through is liken to trying to change a dems or reps mind about politics and who is better

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence