Noah (2014)

C

Column_sl

shitlord
9,833
7
j00t_sl said:
My point is nothing other than the king James bible is very much not the "original"
Click to expand...
Eh you have no point then because they didn't strive to add new chapters like the Catholics,The New American Bible , and the Mormons did centuries later..

King James said I want the Old and New testament translated to the best of your abilities in english, and that is what they did.

All the other editions of the King James version are just updated translations for a more modern society. One of the more popular ones is the NKJV published in 1980.
 
j00t

j00t

Silver Baronet of the Realm
7,380
7,471
I've got nothing against king James version. You just said it was the original. Its not. The end.
 
C

Column_sl

shitlord
9,833
7
Original King James version sometimes called Authorized King James version is the first King James version not the newest one which is the new king james version published in 1980

What part are you not grasping?

I was citing the Original King James version not the newest one because I have no idea what word they use for Nephilim
 
faille

faille

Molten Core Raider
1,832
422
I think it's your assumption that a translation if a perfect interpretation. Translations are not, and by their nature represent a rewriting of whatever original texts they are working from.
 
C

Column_sl

shitlord
9,833
7
faille_sl said:
I think it's your assumption that a translation if a perfect interpretation. Translations are not, and by their nature represent a rewriting of whatever original texts they are working from.
Click to expand...
That's fine, but Tall Men is how they are referred to in the original kjv, and that is what my argument was about. There are many cases of tall men in the Bible i.e David and Goliath

If you cite something from the Catholic bible as cannon, I'm going to come right back to the okjv with their translation.
And then I'm going to say the Catholic bible is known for adding content to the new and old testament especially if it wildly differs from that english translation.
 
j00t

j00t

Silver Baronet of the Realm
7,380
7,471
Fair enough. I assumed you were using the king James synonymously with the original text.
 
Olscratch

Olscratch

tour de salt
<Banned>
2,114
536
Actually KJV bible just ripped off the more accurately translatedTyndale Bible.

The big wigs of the day didn't dig his translation of the word church to congregation. " If the true church is defined as a congregation, as the common believers, then the Catholic Church?s claim that the clergy were of a higher order than the average Christian and that they had different roles to play in the religious process no longer held sway"

"Catholic doctrine was also challenged by Tyndale?s translation of the Greek ?????????? (metanoeite) as repent instead of do penance.[27] This translation attacked the Catholic sacrament of penance."

Scholars tell us that around 90% of the King James Version is from Tyndale?s works with as much as one third of the text being word for word Tyndale

So that's why we have that garbage King James bible.

Example of garbage :


John 15:13King James Version (KJV)
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Translation - It's great to be a martyr!

John 15:13; 1 John 4:18 (Tyndale)
13 Gretter love then this hath no man then that a man bestowe his lyfe for his frendes.

Translation - It's great to devote your life to your friends!
 
C

Column_sl

shitlord
9,833
7
And there are many versions that attempt to translate the testaments before the Tyndale, that's why preachers that attend the seminary use all versions, and studying any historical findings to attempt to decipher it more accurately which there has been many books written.

Which has nothing to do with my statement that in the KJV they are not fallen angels ,but tall men. I would garner If I read the Tyndale it would be much the same.

The fallen angels came from a text that was written in a book that attempts to rewrite completely ,and add to the bible. Much like this Michael bay version of Noah.
Which honestly I wouldn't have mind if the movie was decent which it is not. If Aronofsky was going to go that route I would have prefered him to go his acid trip poetic art film version.
I wouldn't have even known this was Aronofsky if it didn't contain some of his directing tropes, because the script itself screams hollywood rewrite.
 
C

Column_sl

shitlord
9,833
7
supertouch_sl said:
Who gives a shit about the Bible? It was written by a bunch of insignificant schlubs from a vassal state.
Click to expand...
SO_EDGY.png
 
Caliane

Caliane

Golden Baronet of the Realm
14,523
9,994
so got around to this.
I am confused.

how has no one mentioned this is post-apocalyptic? everyone is talking about creation stories, and the past, etc.. this movie occurs in the future. the blasted landscape, etc is nuclear fallout, global warming, or some shit.

Beginning of the movie when Emma gets her uterus stabbed, is clearly in a oil field or something.
When, the river is planted, it takes years, and goes by crumbling buildings.
When Noah gives his creation story, it clearly shows modern man, etc when talking about us ruining the world. the only thing not making sense, was saying it was only 10 generations since Adam.

14min in, this is where they find Emma.
vLcloml.jpg
 
Void

Void

Experiencer
<Gold Donor>
9,409
11,072
Mist_sl said:
It's not the future. It's the antediluvian civilization.
Click to expand...
What she said (except I have no idea what antediluvian means). It is not us, it is a prior advanced civilization that God decided to wipe out because they weren't following the program. Remember, in Old Testament shit he supposedly showed up all the time. New Testament he doesn't give a fuck, which is why we've (supposedly) gone even further off the rails and not been wiped out again.
 
Warrik

Warrik

Potato del Grande
<Donor>
1,295
-645
Vvoid_sl said:
New Testament he doesn't give a fuck, which is why we've (supposedly) gone even further off the rails and not been wiped out again.
Click to expand...
I don't know about us going 'further off the rails'. The story of Abraham has the Angels visiting Lot in Sodom and a mob forms outside his us demanding he allow them to rape his new guests, but Lot instead offers his daughters to calm the mob. That shit sounds pretty off the rails. The Old Testament has some crazy shit in it.
 
Lanx

Lanx

<Prior Amod>
60,535
132,452
If it didn't have the preface that it was a religious nutty movie about abraham or whatever the fuck, ppl would instantly recognize it as a shitty movie. however, since it's labeled a religious movie, it can hide behind that and usually score 2 additional points in ratings.

Otherwise, holy fuck those rock shits were shitty cgi. It was just some ugly shit, ILM really has gone down in quality.
 
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,518
583
supertouch_sl said:
Who gives a shit about the Bible? It was written by a bunch of insignificant schlubs from a vassal state.
Click to expand...
Kudos. Worst post in a pretty shitty thread.

Also, Noah was a terrible movie; Aronofsky is an overrated director who is only decent with extremely focused material (like The Fighter). When he tries to get all mystical he flat out sucks: Pi, The Fountain, Noah: all shitty movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.