Loading...

資料庫

時代講場文章(至2017年2月14日)

《挪亞方舟》的三個文化啟示

《挪亞方舟驚世啟示》已近落畫,坊間此起彼落的評論亦相繼減少,此刻來作一個小結語,可能是個好時機。這篇文章的目的,不旨在為基督教爭取媒體地盤,又不是眼紅某人而在電影中處處挑骨頭,只希望基督教文化工作者、觀眾和非信徒來一次互動溝通,建立更中肯的評論平台。

  先申報個人利益,我是影音製作人、電影研究碩士及福音派基督徒,將以這三個綜合身分分析此片。

製作素質低

  近年的基督教影音,確實有不少進步,單看影音使團的作品,如《生命(手查)fit人》、《天作之盒》等,都得到觀眾支持及口碑。不過,此片開宗明義宣稱是紀錄片,就叫人失望。

  紀錄片的質素是包括資料搜集、舖排手法、後期製作等元素,而體現這些質素的就是製作人員。首先,他們準備不足。何解?片中監製親口說因土耳其政府的限制,只准兩位香港人上山,他就決定和李牧師同行。即是說,那土耳其攝影師是在沒有導演的指示下,自己想拍甚麼就拍甚麼。在基督教圈子中,大家都知道袁監製從來沒有擔任過導演,即或說他天資聰敏,也不是個資深的紀錄片導演,竟然將重任交給一位庫爾德族的伊斯蘭信徒,就是忽略了導演的重要性。其次,從片中也看到製作的粗劣,例如:片中字幕不時重疊在被訪者的樣貌、字幕時高時低、拍攝日本教授時對焦不準、講述洪水遺蹟重覆三次,都令人感到此片的製作水平只屬一般。

  有人指出此片是《尋找他鄉的故事》之資深製作人的作品,若平心而論,真的令人失望。《尋》片連奪多次最高欣賞指數大獎,核心是體材獨特,表達手法清晰有趣,深入探討中國人的異地情。反觀《挪》片,本來是順時序地紀錄影音使團如何從二○○○年開始追尋方舟遺蹟,但一而再,再而三跳返幾千年講述洪水歷史,或找尋方舟的外國人事蹟,令人失去觀看焦點;直到片子的中後段,觀眾才能安靜地追看最後一次上山旅程,真的有點叫人摸不著頭腦。

  還有一點,監製曾於二○○三年踏足土耳其,二○○四年得到可靠消息,方舟遺蹟可能在幾千米的亞拉臘山上,我們在片中卻見到一位中年監製,登上四千米時氣喘如牛,差不多要死。若果是經驗及確信方舟在山上,早就應該預備身體作高山之行,反而眼看當地人步履如飛,他卻是像遊客般騎馬來回,不禁令一般觀眾覺得他們像是旅行多於探險。因著這數點,今次監製和導演的表現是較從前的作品強差人意了。

  不過,片中擔任剪接工作的應記一功。只要觀眾細心留意,不難發現不少鏡頭是重覆使用,如亞拉臘山的正面影像、上山人群平淡的行山情況,都是因為剪接師利用快速鏡頭或偷格技巧,令畫面不至太沉悶;補充一句,畫面單調是導演和攝影師的責任,後期補救是剪接師的功勞。其次,配樂為全片生色不少,又是令觀眾不致中途離場的主因。

宣傳策略佳

  今個復活節《挪》片票房報捷,吸引了不少信徒及朋友家人購票入座,不就是行動證明一切嗎?上帝的作為有時並不因為人的因素,祢是獨行奇事的神。作為媒體工作者,我們感恩之餘,還有責任以冷靜的態度和批評的眼光,審視這個現象。城中著名影評人曾指出,《挪》片只拍攝到一個山洞就能叫座,唯一合理解釋可能是宗教力量了。他說對了一半。

  從影片資料所知,《挪》片拍攝到那個山洞是去年十月的事,後來他們再去土耳其、日本、埃及補拍其他方舟學者是今年二月的事,之後就全速做後期製作,目標是要復活節上映。為甚麼?撇開聖靈感動這主觀因素外,很明顯是宣傳策略的考慮。

  第一,《挪》片要搶先宣佈影音使團是首個華人團體找到方舟的位置,可在電影宣傳上吃個甜頭。我們可以從影片中,多次聽到有人強調這是「首次」、「第一次」、「歷史性的」等等字眼,要向世人宣稱發現方舟的第一隊華人是他們。為甚麼第一次那麼重要?難道第二次就不會世界末日?反而,若有別一套關於方舟的電影搶在《挪》片以先上畫,《挪》片的票房肯定大受打擊。所以,有影評曾說為甚麼不多作研究及科學探索,發現了更清晰的方舟外殼才上映不是更有說服力嗎?可惜,影評只關心影片的質素,沒有巿場觸角,要找到真憑實據可能還要花上幾年甚至十年時間,萬一土耳其政府向美國人開放登山權,以影音使團的財力物力必然吃虧,這個「第一次」宣傳效力立時消聲匿跡。

  第二,香港剛飽受了SARS災難、目睹九一一事件,物理及心靈上都可能沾染到末世的警號,《挪》片正好趕上這個末世浪潮,為巿民及信徒提供一個聖經解釋,加上經濟漸有起色,大家有點閒錢可找套「正經電影」來看。這個時機確是千載難逢,甚至一去不返。所以,今次《挪》片的宣傳是全方位性的,有海報、電視廣告、小說、光碟,一湧而上,製造一個城中話題,只要關心未來或末世的人是不能不看的。

  作為傳媒人,大家應向此片的宣傳學習,我不是說風涼話,這是衷心讚賞。

觀眾評價力高

  《挪》片在基督教討論區中,確實引起不少爭論,有人強調此片是香港人的驕傲,有人指它是垃圾,更有人推演到信心的問題,這裏不能一一討論。但還可以粗略分為三種論調,有趣的是,其實他們都是有根有據,而且言之成理。

  第一類是信心派。只要你是基督徒,只要你有信心,就應該相信《挪》片所拍攝到的就是方舟。信心,就是要在未看到證據之先便相信,不然信心有何作用。這類信心派觀眾,他們一定是基督徒,對自己的信仰立場非常清楚。即使有沒有看此片,也絕不會影響他們的信仰觀。他們對神很有信心。

  不過,和他們唱反調的正好是第二類觀眾,他們多是非信徒,或者是希望以科學為基礎的基督徒。這班觀眾認為《挪》片以紀錄片作招徠,那一定是可拿出真憑實據,才敢宣稱方舟重現人間。他們一直期望到片末,希望看到幾千米山峰之巔起碼有一片大木塊,或製作人員走進一個有木結構的偌大山洞,來證明這是方舟。結果失望而回,當然氣憤之極!他們以事實為依據來評價此片,是《挪》片這部紀錄片一手一腳製造出來的評價準則,所以這批觀眾是有水準之入場人士。這兩類觀眾之爭,其實是立論不同,不必爭吵!歸根究柢,是拍攝此片的基督徒表達能力低,和製作能力差同義。

  至於第三類,是基督徒影評人。他們多是知識分子,大專或以上程度,希望透過客觀評論來叫人深入了解此片內容。我沒有通看所有評論,部分人以考古學或其他研究角度為基礎指出此片的不足,可以一讀。但另有一批影評人卻是叫人擔心,他們的出發點是要讀者從分析中接受《挪》片是好片。這是評論的大忌,忌在先入為主,希望讀者認同基督教影片有上乘之作,叫人另眼相看。結果,我們看到有評論誇說此片能成功展示方舟所在地,此片是華人的驕傲等。若果他們是真心的評論,那麼他們對基督教影片的要求未免過低,容易讓這班電影製作人以為自己的製作已經很有水準,將來就難有進步。而且,這班影評人多是未能以片中的影像或資料作基礎,詳盡分析其利弊,只是印象式的說條理分明、考究嚴謹。就我的淺見,已經發現片中從來不敢直說洪水是同時間發生,只能說世界各地都有洪水,因前些日子電視台曾播放外國紀錄片研究洪水,指出確有洪水,卻不是同時期,而且規模不像聖經所說的大。我並不是同意它,只是說一個嚴謹的紀錄片,必須力陳原因,掃除誤解,而不是避重就輕,為自己製造有利條件。所以,評論者要中肯嚴肅小心地處理當中理據,不能因為是傳福音而降低評價水平。

結語

  以上簡短檢視了《挪》片的前後期製作,發現其製作水平不及宣傳策略好;可幸,成功吸引了不少觀眾進場,這是件好事。不過,從網上討論及部分的觀眾反應又揭示了某程度的不良後果,縱然有不少人因此片信主,但亦有不少人對福音機構所製作的紀錄片失去信心。若借用商業機構的述語「信譽撇賬」,今次影音使團可能一次過把多年建立的信譽全部撇賬,令部分觀眾從此對該機構的作品望而卻步,他們可能要重新評價得失。

Donationcall

舊回應73則


cindy / 2005-05-13 13:00:57

他們是這樣思想的,拿他們怎麼辦?


他們是這樣思想的,拿他們怎麼辦?


不要對他們要求過高,什麼critical thinking,


神學思考, j在堂會牧養都用不著。只要引起教友傳福音的興趣,搞起一些活動,大家happy.


Maybe they are right. That's the way to do ministry.


I don't know.


 

銀狐 / 2005-05-12 22:17:45

降溫


大家的討論又再熾熱起來,筆者只欲贈與幾句給大家共勉:


思辯之道,在思考方法,在正心誠意,在止於冷。冷而後能靜,靜而後能定,定而後能安,安而後能慮,慮而後能尖,尖而後能刺,刺而後能穿。


摘錄自「李天命的思考藝術」

銀狐 / 2005-05-12 22:16:57

問Cindy:請問何為福音?

如題

銀狐 / 2005-05-12 22:11:20

回海尼夫


我記得賴品超好似是在道風出版的「生態神學」裡寫過一點東西,龔立人都曾經開過一個小小的課程講過生態神學。不過,之後好似都無了下文.....


我只是在極有限的印象中,記得有一本由台灣人寫的書談過生態神學(仲要是舊約做主題)。坦白說,生態神學本身亦不見得很談科學,反而多跟女性主義掛扣....


不如看返Lynn White 好了。我只是知道以上那麼多了


 


 

海尼夫 / 2005-05-12 21:21:45

一些感想


其實香港的教牧對科學的了解能力真的不高,一般市民的水平同樣不高。另外教牧對進化有敵意,雖然不一定懂,但有許多印像認為肯定了進化就一定肯定了無神論。對於不少人,仍然相信年輕地球。在這背景下,不少教牧都可能會傾向相信方舟可以推翻進化,而影音都是用這做宣傳。


在本地教會中,主張進化是真實的,已有不少壓力。當然,接受進化不就是接受進化「論」,進化論有不少地方甚是可疑,而且也沒有「一個」進化論。common descent是一個重點,但否認common descent也可以肯定進化。總之在不認識進化,又想推翻進化論的潛在動力下,教牧容易相信影音的攻擊。


至於神學院老師,有那一個在科學上有足夠功夫?香港的神學院,仍多是講聖經為主。我不反對以聖經為主,但由於神學院是訓練教會牧養為主,許多深入一點的神學,例如系統神學,生態神學,科學神學等等專題,都少人研究。中神有少少人研究,浸會大學都有一個中心,但其他的神學院就好像無,多半以靈修(中宣,信義宗...),宣教(??建道?),牧養(牧職,播道、港神...),宣講,輔導(伯神)等為重點。崇基更沒有重點,以前由李熾昌主政,政治、宗教學和文化較重,現在變了神學院,由盧牧擔大旗,在堂會牧養上開始有一點重視,學術上也多元化,有保守的,有中間的,也有自由的。在科學神學方面,好像也沒有誰有興趣。以前李少秋都會講下,而家去了伯神,睇來都無機會搞科學神學了。或者賴品超有興趣,不過未見過佢寫。


講了這麼多,都想講香港的神學人材沒有朝向科學神學上發展。雖然基本道理都知道,但因沒有甚麼專才,怎會對影音這些商業機構指指點點呢?


我要用筆名才能寫這麼多,行頭很窄,得罪人多對自己雖無益處,更怕連累別人。上年年底在崇基有一個突破性的研討會,有不少本地大專從事科研的老師都有參與,算是在香港的第一炮。不知日後還有沒有這一類的節目。


我試把資料傳給台灣的朋友,可能在民間流傳一下都有幫助,但台灣的教牧在科學上的水平,不能會否比香港高?

Hin / 2005-05-12 19:20:11

Why are they not responding?


As I said earlier, some of the Christian pastors, Christian scientists didn't respond to the movie not because they have no ground but they don't even know about the movie.


This might not be an excuse in Hong Kong, but it is true in North America. Don't over-estimate ME's popularity in North America as we can see that reflected in the ticket sale in Taiwan.


I asked two very Godly Christian scientists who have been doing evangelism for many many years, they are both well known in North America and even in some Asia countries and Europe.  Both of them said that they never heard of this and didn't know much about Media. Both of them said that we should have enough evidence before we made such a claim. We can say what we believe in but don't say that we have found the proof.  Presupposition is needed in any scientific research but again a presupposition is only a presupposition and not a conclusion. Projection is a projection, assumption is an assumption, don't mix up with fact.


These people are also busy in doing their ministry and there are more important things for them to focus upon. They are not interested in this kind of child play.


Once again, don't overestimate ME.


The responsibility of the Hong Kong pastors, artists are great, make good use of your reputation and popularity, don't let them fall into the wrong hand, please!

Hin / 2005-05-12 18:12:00

To古斌: It is a tricky game


Your comments have a lot of things for us to reflect upon.


Indeed, I believe it might have reflect some of the thinking or logic of Yuen and ME. They have to believe what they are doing is right because they still have a conscience.  In order for them to deny all the criticisms, they must have something to override all our logical and reasonable and even biblical criticisms.


In Matthew 7, it is shocking to know that our Lord said that He didn't know a group of people who were deeply involved in the ministry. I am not saying that ME is exactly like that but I am sure there will be surprises for them.


When we go to heaven, there will be four surprises: one is that we will see some that we thought they shouldn't be there; two is that we won't see some that we thought they should be there; three is that many of us will receive reward more than we think we deserve and fourth is that many of us will receive reward much less than we think we should.


It is painful to face oneself, it is extreme painful to admit one's mistakes but that is the way of Bible and that is the narrow way and Jesus said that there aren't too many who is willing to take that narrow way.


There are so many people who use the spiritual means to do the most unspiritual things. When you invite someone to go to a church's meeting, they will ask you to pray for them and see how God is going to lead them but actually they are just lazy.


When someone said that I pray for this and pray for that, it doesn't mean that whatever he or she did will be right or God is with them.


When someone said that I did this for God and did that for God, it also doesn't mean that whatever he or she did will be Godly.


People will blame Satan for their mistakes and pull God into their case for support. If Satan and God are going to file cases against us, I think it will be countless.


In Ecclesiastes 10:1, it said "As dead flies give perfume a bad smell, as a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor."


In another chapter of the same book, in 7:29, it said "God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes."


 


 

古斌 / 2005-05-12 12:50:21

為天國進帳的邏輯



我相信李健文的文章,是故意把宣傳和製作分開,以宣傳的高度,比對製作的惡劣,以此製造對這齣電影的另一個批判,因此我們又不必太認真,以為作者對宣傳的讚賞,是忽略了欺哄誇大等問題。


不過,我相信宣傳和製作的分裂,體現了機構的人格分裂,如果一個泉水不能同時出甜水和苦水,這種分裂只能讓我們作出任擇其一的診斷,它是道德的,還是不道德的,只能擇一,請諸位決定。


其實這種決定很重要的,諸位牧者,神學工作者,機構事奉者,我們是否可以把對不道德的容忍,和我們自已堂口的工作涇渭分明?是否可能對不義寬容,但在講台上、文字工作上或通過自己的事工,又在傳講我們要有上帝國的義??


話說回來,宣傳和製作,作為機構的負責人,我相信道德比一切應該更重要。例如,有藥品仍在試驗中,為了乘上市場熱潮,就急於推出市場,那是不道德的,為的就是公司的進帳。同樣,為了搶佔銷路,不顧製品的誤導性,為的,是天國的進帳。


也許,人間的不道德,在天國有進帳下,仍是光榮的。罪人需要拯救進入天國,是否失實是其次的。


不要緊,我們相信有許多人第一次決志都是被人半迷惑半糊塗的。就像色情邏輯,我欺騙你的身體不要緊,早晚你會發現我的暴力,原是你的興奮,早晚你會轉頭感謝我當初的強暴,原諒我因你冷感而生的急燥。


這場天國進帳,我不肯定上帝賺了多少,但肯定拆帳中,賺的人有有關機構,有關機構的支持教會,有關機構的捧場人士,因為,他們都賺取了上帝的讚賞,因為,他們為上帝國傳揚了真道,而且版本完整,交足貨,所以,我們天上的賞賜是大的--至少會有人這樣想。



當然,天國要繼續進帳,我作為天父的代理人,我必須存在,所以,天國進帳了,我也繼續存活下去,我的存活倒過來又證明上帝祝福我,我值得存活,我於天國有用,所以,我又繼續忘記背後,忘記批評,繼續幫天父賺取下一次大規模決志的場合。



還記得,聽聞(陶恕說的),宣道會創辦人宣信曾說:如果上帝不喜歡宣道會,我會關掉了它。


可惜,今天我們沒有這份無私的信心。自己的利益已跟天國的利益難捨難分。



 

Hin / 2005-05-12 10:25:53

To Cindy: I am a bit surprise


I am surprise to hear you say that.


How could that be right? I love to hear your rational behind this.  Is fast always right?

cindy / 2005-05-12 08:07:16

Maybe they are right!


Just a gut reaction.


Maybe they are right. It is the way to do ministry.


Maybe It is the way to spread the gospel, by all means, to all the world in the fastest way.


I don't know..


.


 


 

Hin / 2005-05-11 23:28:32

It is easier to be the nice guy


It is always easier to be the nice guy to commend others instead of being the one who criticize others. That is the common and more popular preference for Christian workers and pastors.


We all rather to have friends than foes, that is our human nature.  If there is a dirty job, we would prefer others to do them.  After all, no one knows 100% about the issue, instead of making a wrong judgement and cause problem for oneself, it is better to stay off the war zone and let others do the dirty job.


Pastors, theologians, Christian scientists kept quiet  for many reasons.  Some of them didn't know what is happening, some of them know but didn't know too much and they will prefer to stay quiet, some know but didn't think it is that bad and prefer to support than criticize, some know and even think they are OK, for sure they won't say anything against them.  We all have reasons to do or not to do, to say or not to say.  Things that seems obvious to us might not be obvious to others.


The way we look at ME might be the same way they are looking at us.  I think we just have to present the facts and raise the questions as we should and leave this to each one to make their own decisions.

車朗生 / 2005-05-11 22:29:01

The fire is burning


Taiwan, Canada, USA, Australia......What else ?


Why the pastors, professors in theology schools, and also the Christian organizations still keep quiet ? Is that what the old people say : "各家自掃門前雪 ?"


However, we are all ONE family in Christ !

Hin / 2005-05-11 19:48:08

Response to Taiwan's responses


If the comments are so good, how come the ticket sales is so poor?


I don't think they can represent the Christians in Taiwan at all. Most people will say things that are nice, when there are doubts, usually they keep them to themselves.


I wish there are pastors and Christian leaders who are willing to reflect their reservations about the movie.


Actually, Rev. So's(蘇穎智) interview in ME's website did point out some of the doubts and reservations but it is not very obvious and strong. I believe this is the characteristic of a pastor, especially for such a well known pastor.  He will leave some room for himself and also leave a way for ME to continue their ministry.

銀狐 / 2005-05-11 19:29:49

台灣名牧的宣傳


http://www.thedaysofnoah.com/index_info_taiwan.asp


手法同出一徹,筆者不禁要問,這是個什麼世界!

銀狐 / 2005-05-11 18:55:39

回Kar Yan Ng


有2點回應


1)廣告可以有跨大的地方,但那不可以誤導,這是有法律的約束,便正如無一種葯可以在廣告中聲稱能起死回生。


2)你應該看一看小說或是電影,那你才會更明白我們的懷疑


3)300年前的化驗,我的重點不是他們的:dishonesty",而是要他們講出化驗的方法和化驗所的名稱。


他們當然是問那班Kurd得到資料了,但我的問題是,那班人講的是否可信?如果人人講的我都信,何不我跑去問祈福党?

Hin / 2005-05-11 17:24:01

To 車朗生: keep digging


Keep exposing their errors so that we can make them accountable, not just for the movie but also for their finance.


The general Christian public is not very strong in discernment regarding Media since they can't see the whole picture or the trend of ME but just one incident at a time.


I will try to find some Christian scientists to look at the book or ask them to watch the movie and then write me some comments and then I will ask 安吉to post them on the website www.noahlie.blogspot.com. They know how to use famous people to commend them before they even watch the movie, we won't do the same but we will ask famous people to comment on them after they read the book or watch the movie, this is 以其人之道還自其人之身 and not 同流合烏.


May God help us!

Hin / 2005-05-11 16:34:37

To P and Kar Yan Ng: What is fairness?


P asked whether our accusations are based on facts? Well, at least our accusations are based on what we saw in the movie, on the poster, from the website, in the book from Media.  We didn't make them up or speculate anything.


For some points, we are raising questions and not drawing conclusion. For some points, we are asking for more solid evidence and didn't deny the experience of the exploration team.


For example, in the book (p.109 to 110), it said that the inside of the cave is very big and the walls are covered with volcano ashes and the ground is icy.  Due to the danger of falling through the ice, they didn't entered the cave but only threw stones into it.  They said that the stone rolled a long way and the sound sounded like a stone hitting wood.  If the walls are covered with volcano ashes and the floor is icy, why would they concluded that the sound is stone hitting wood. We are questioning and judging based on what they presented. It is just common sense and simple logic. Am I right? There are a lot more these kind of doubts presented in the movie as well as in the book. Is this fair or are we just giving a hard time to a group of zealous explorer trying to help people to believe in the Bible?


Ng said that Media exaggerated a little. Between yes and no is not exaggeration but distortion. If I told you I have went to Mars and I haven't, is that exaggeration. Either they have discovered the Ark or they have not, there is no between.  If they said that they almost discovered the Ark, they still haven't.  If I said I am almost dead, I am still alive.  If they said it seems to be the Ark, then they can't said it is the Ark.  If I saw someone walking toward me and seems to be my father, the clothes and the size of the person is very close, I can't just say that is my father. Almost truth is not truth. Is that fair?


In advertisement, exaggeration is used to achieve a desired result but this is a documentary.  Even though other people use that, it doesn't mean we should. On the other hand, we should be different.  I wonder if we could use exaggeration in all our preachings and Bible studies in order to achieve a "better" result.  I agreed that we can use more attractive topics and themes to attract people such as "Abundant life at last", "No way out, one way up"...Catching phrases are acceptable but not false claims. Media claimed in their website that this is the first Chinese documentary film. Is this exaggeration or distortion? Is this just a way of promotion or a lie?


What is acceptabe as evidence of a finding? Indeed it is very subjective. But, when you want to present to the public, at least you need to meet certain standard. I can believe in Noah's Ark without one single piece of objective evidences because I believe in the Bible but the non-believers don't.


Right in p.6 of the book, they claimed that "傳說頓成事實,挪亞方舟現於人前". What they saw is an empty cave with a 4m beam exposed and the sound that they claimed is stone hitting wood when they threw stones inside the cave. They indeed begin with a presupposition and then everything they saw, they just tied them to their presupposition. If they do that, we can call that faith and not science.  I would suggest they don't even have to go there at all, why risk their lives at all. There is no sense for that unless they want to prove the existence by objective facts. They can just stand at the bottom of the hill and look upward and claim that they believed that the Ark was there.  That is it, they don't even have to go up, why border to do so?


I agreed that they are just reporting what they heard from the local people.  The 300 years old experiment is not reliable at all. But, they went on with them depend on their trustworthiness. This point is so obvious unreliable, they should have that discernment.  I believe they didn't wrote down every word that the local people told them. They must be selective since the story is only 3 pages in the book without a lot of empty spaces and pictures. If that part is unacceptable, they should have taken that part out because that will cause us problems in believing other parts of the story.


They received a VCD from the local people, why can't they show some of the evidence from it in the book or in the movie?


Finally, I don't think we need the reappearance of the Ark in order to have people believing in Christ. Thousands have come to Christ in the past. Finding the Ark is great but don't force it, it will backfire.


In one of the stories told by Jesus, the rich man asked Abraham to send someone to his brothers so that they can believe and he rejected his request. Abraham said that they have the words from Moses and the prophets that they can listen to.  If they don't believe that, even a person come back from the dead go to them, they still won't listen.


How true this is? Even during the days of Jesus, He was right there with the people but many still didn't believe.


Let's assume we can have the whole Ark excavated and display in Hong Kong. Scientists have proven the age of the Ark to be in the days of Noah.  The compartments inside the Ark proved the possibility of taking care of all the creatures brought into the Ark by Noah.  The materials found in the Ark all matches the timing of the flood. This great discovery is being broadcast all over the world through satellite and all channels. So, does that mean all people on the earth will believe in Christ or the reliability of the Bible? You can answer this yourself.


I am not saying that we shouldn't continue the search but what I am saying is that it is just one event, one possible discovery not the whole Christianity. Don't push it and don't try to help God. Don't blow this out of the proportion, that is what Media is doing right now. The focus should be the Cross of Christ!!!


 


 


 

Kar Yan Ng / 2005-05-11 15:13:57

Re: To be fair


I have neither watched the movie nor read the book.


But based on the discussion here in this past few weeks, it seems fair to say that ME has exaggerated a little bit in their promotion and they have not been very professional in the production of the movie and the book.


On the other hand, I don't see sufficient evidence to justify a claim of fraud, dishonesty, negligence, or wilful misrepresentation here. It is very debatable as to what level of evidence may qualify as sufficient evidence of a discovery. In any case, in the realm of advertisement, a higher level of exaggeration is typically tolerated by the public.


Like many posters here, I also find it doubtful the claim that some wheat could have been tested some 300 years ago to be thousands of years old. But if this is indeed the story which ME heard from the people (Kurdish?) there, then mentioning this in the book is not a case of dishonesty. It is a case of imprudence and insufficient critical judgment.


In terms of the quality of the production, let's pray that ME will make improvement in the future. I certainly hope that they could do a Part II of the movie when they may actually enter the Ark, but this entails a lot of risk to the exploration team. Moreover, to obtain a better view of the object that they believe to be the Ark, the weather conditions have to be very favorable; in particular, the area has to be very warm in the year preceding the exploration such that enough ice/ snow melts away to reveal a recognizable portion of the Ark and expose its entrance. Furthermore, obtaining permit from the Turkish government for the exploration is probably not easy, and they may not allow a large team of well-equipped explorers and movie-makers.


To be fair to ME, I think we need to take all these factors into account in making our judgment about ME's work.

p / 2005-05-11 10:18:48

To be fair


Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.


I think this principle can be applied to ME's findings, but, at the same time, it can be applied to the accusations made here.


We are critical to ME, but are we critical to our accusations? Are they based on facts?


Remark: I am not a supporter of ME and still have great doubts of the findings of Mr. Yuen.

車朗生 / 2005-05-11 09:15:51

ME 去解畫


Just heard from friends that ME's Andrew Yuen went here to explain and defend the accusations generated by a Christian scientist here. I do not know the result, however, some Christians still believed ME is a good firm.


On the salary problem, Andrew explained that the situation is still critical. Some Christians here doubted the cashflow problem of ME, but he did not explain in detail. We questioned the salary problem again and again to some Christians who supported ME, and they said the salary of March and April has not been issued till now. This news, however, needed to be confirmed by people in Hong Kong.


We are waiting for the new donation letter, and some of the doubts will be cleared. Seems they have many versions of donation letters. Some are for churches, some are for a specific group of Christians, and some are for normal Christians......


Why do they do so ? I think ME is hiding some facts from the public, and only release their faults to someone who is LOYAL to ME and believe their alibi......


I am sad to know that someone still believe in their empty promises and fake information.


I am now finding some friends to edit the accusation of the fiction. Someone here wondered why the fiction of Noah could be published with that poor quality !