So on Saturday night I watched Evan Almighty. If Steve Carrell wasn't in it, I doubt I would have ever seen it. I have foregone Bruce Almighty, despite the random reminders I get that my name, too, is Bruce ("Bruce Almighty!" "Bruce the shark!" "Fish are our friends", etc...). Sorry. Detour there. I had heard much good about Evan Almighty. Much good + Steve Carrell - director of Knocked Up = worthwhile viewing (that is, even though I enjoy Carrell, I'll never see 40-Year-Old Virgin).
The movie has some really nice thoughts throughout, and I think the spiritual lessons are great. Morgan Freeman does an excellent job as God. I feel He was well-represented in His actions toward mankind.
Well, if you don't know, Evan Almighty is about a modern-day Noah. He is ostracized by his family and community. Everyone thinks he's lost it and is following a hair-brained idea. Carrell did a great representation of the change of a humbled heart. It was beautiful, actually, as odd as that sounds.
Of course, there was some dry humor, weak acting, and a few loose strands in the plotline. But all that important mumbo-jumbo aside, it was good.
Incidentally, I spent a lot of time reading about the flood in December and January, mostly from Arthur Rehwinkle's
The Flood and Rene somethingsomething's
The Ark File, but also some long essays that have been posted online. I haven't finished any of the books, but I intend to on my next visit to Michigan.
The Flood was more credible than The Ark File. The Ark File is focused on sightings of and expeditions for the ark, and is written with an open mind to the plausibility of many stories. For instance, it documents Marco Polo's support of the legendary frequent Armenian sightings. Yet when I cross-checked this with the most recent work to come out about Marco Polo's travels, it doesn't quite stand. According to a certain author, Polo left Armenia discouraged and disbelieving of the accounts. I'm not sure if that view is accurate, or is tainted by the author's own biases to the credibility of the Bible, so I need to look more into it.
Although the Ark File is rather hopeful, the author still makes distinctions between possible truths and probable hoaxes.
The Flood is more thorough in that it deals with all sorts of needless information you're probably not interested in. For instance, varying sizes of cubits and how that relates to the veracity of the ark holding every species; also, the growth of human population, generation to generation. But among the excess is rather interesting theories and information concerning the antidiluvian world (the world's one-season climate, the canopy theory, et al), duration of the flood, and the repopulation of the world post-deluge. A very colorful and unique read.
The main article I was reading online dealt with Genesis chapter 10 and 11, which chronicles the generations after the flood and the nations they became. It is commonly referred to as the Table of Nations. This is a fascinating study, as the Table of Nations covers everything from Babylon to Greece to Spain, to Russian and African territories. The last section of this essay covers the Celts in pre-Roman Britain, and how they could trace their lineage to Noah, even though they refused to practice monotheism. I have yet to read this part of the essay, but it sounds very interesting. The first half is very credible, so I expect the same scholasticism in the second half. We'll see.
All this has been part of my study on History and, especially, Anthropology. I've been doing studies on myths, and I'm trying to pull together an entirely credible, Biblically verified, secular-sourced worldview on origin. I believe it's all there in the information. We just need to be looking at it from the right perspective. It's just a little challenging when your sources are either Evolutionists/Naturalists, or Syncretists. So, we'll see.
Posts
