Russell Crowe's Raggedy New Look For NOAH; Plus Logan Lerman & Douglas Booth In Costume

Probly not but oh well.. ^

@Supes They've been around since 6th century BCE.

I'm loving the refugee motif.

I don't know anything about this movie, so I could be wrong, but based on these photos (the clothes and hair), I'm betting it's a fake-out and it actually takes place in a dystopian future rather than biblical times.

@venkman9993592 Depends on which version you go by.

via wikiAnswers
"The biblical story of Noah's Ark actually has two, slightly different stories woven together to appear to be one complex and slightly confusing story. The first of these was written by the Yahwist source, who lived around 800-900 BCE, while the second story was written by the Priestly source, who probably lived during the sixth century BCE."

@titansupes that would be amazing

I don't know if I'm up for a religious action movie
Or whatever genre it is
Haven't been paying attention

For those who questioned...Yes, they wore pants with tunics over them in biblical times, but not the women. It was not appropriate for women to dress like the men.

@soberchimera61
It's ironic, 'cause I was just discussing that 2 days ago. You refer to this so-called 'Documentary Hypothesis' that supposes different authors are responsibe for writing different parts of the Torah, or even verses in the Torah, and it's based basically on the notion that the use of several designations for God ie. Jehovah, 'Elohim, 'Adonai, etc. must needs-be suggest different authors are at work and the text we have is derived from several versions. There's not a single shred of evidence for the claim. In fact they've discovered evidence to the contrary. It nevertheless remains a popular theory among the increasingly sceptic scholarly community, despide its unscholarly foundations. ...And I'm just SURE you find all this INCREDIBLY facinating (heh heh)....hope I didn't bore ya to much, dude. But on the other hand, what we DO know is the story is SET 4380 years ago by Bible chronology in ancient Turkey/Mesopotamia, and they sure didn't have pants back then and I'm bettin' they looked nothing like all these fine actors...and for this, the purist in me is a tad terribly disappointed. Aw, well.

@ Lem1

- as a former minister of biblical literalism, and now a non-interventionist diest, i COMPLETELY believe the "documentary hypothesis".

you say "there's no evidence" for it- but the evidence is tight in FRONT OF YOU!

WHY would "moses" write TWO versions of the story with conflicting details and referring to the diety as YAHWEH in one version, and EL/elohim in another?
WHY would "moses" even bother to write it twice?
and why is the later version - with it's designation of "clean and unclean" animals indicative of a dietary ("kosher") law that was not given to noah, but rather (supposedly) given to moses at a considerably later date?

for that matter- why did g/God(s) make an animal "unclean" in the first place?

the noah "doublet" is one of MANY. there are MANY stories in the bible that are duplicated with modified details that reflect a culture MUCH later than the events described.

and we really don't have any idea if the people of that time had trousers. likely they wore animal skins draped over their privates or coats when it was cold. but we really don't know.

they almost certainly didn't have as good of teeth or were as pretty as jennifer connelly, but hey- pick your battles.