MovieChat Forums > The Story of Ruth (1960) Discussion > Not bibical

Not bibical

posted 17 years ago by royfrommetairie
16 replies | jump to latest

This is for people that have not read the book of Ruth. No one knows how Naomi's husband and her 2 sons died. Naomi's sons Married Orpah and Ruth of Moab and dwelled there about ten years. After Naomi's sons died Orpah stayed and Ruth left with Naomi to go to Bethlehem. And the best part is Elimelech, Mahlon and Chilion are only in the first five verses of Ruth. Nice story but just not right.

I just finished watching the movie and I can't believe how they changed the book. Their is no Tob in the book of Ruth and I'm surriprised they didn't have Tob marry Ruth, the way they changed the book. Read the book of Ruth it's better then the movie.

RS

[–] X-Evolutionist 17 years ago

Watching movies made from Bible stories is so frustrating! If they think that it is such a good story that it would make a good movie, then why don't they stick to the story?

X

www.X-Evolutionist.com
http://X-Evolutionist.spaces.live.com

[–] keroeste 17 years ago

I had to do a report on the Story of Ruth and I actually think it's well adapted to the original version.
Some parts may have been explored in the different way, like the fact that Ruth was a pagan god priestess, but it all comes down very nicely to a meaningfull biblical narrative. Tob is mentioned in the Bible, but he's name is never clarified.
Basically the movie includes more religious important concepts, like conversation and tolerance, then just the exemplification of the ancient israelite law of the marriage of the widow to the husband's next of kin (wich is the main theme in the book of Ruth).
Although some parts in the movie are not found in the source of it, I think they are quite complementary and only enhance, not change, the original text.

[–] Martyrs55 16 years ago

The topic post made a point. But almost no movie I have ever seen stay exactly with the Bible. I wish they did because one cannot improve on the stories of scripture.

Nonetheless, this movie had a real impact on me when I was a kid. I was moved by this strange tale. Then I was even more delighted when I read the book of Ruth when I was older and found out what really happened.

Overall, it is a wonderful story and it typifies the kinsmen-Redeemer symbolism of Christ and His church. How? Boaz typified Christ and Ruth, the gentile, symbolized the church.

[–] meLazlo1953 16 years ago

What a ridiculous thread. It's a story, like any other story. What story doesn't change from the book to the movie?

**** --------------- ****
It's all in the reflexes!

[–] Phantomrose86 15 years ago

I can see your frustration (I've seen the film and read the book of Ruth), but Hollywood doesn't even follow history correctly let alone the Bible.

[–] EdgarST 9 years ago

Yes, and what story does not change from reality to book?

[–] melnar1 10 years ago

it typifies the kinsmen-Redeemer symbolism of Christ and His church. How? Boaz typified Christ and Ruth, the gentile, symbolized the church.

How so? The story of Ruth is from the Hebrew Bible ("Old Testament") and took place centuries before Christ.

[–] BobinArizona 8 years ago

Christ is found foreshadowed throughout the Old Testament. This is only one place where that is done. Christians believe that Christ is eternal and so was active in this story.

[–] CelluloidDog 11 years ago

I agree with you! The movie is very faithful to the concepts of conversion, faithful to a mother-in-law, humility, etc. It adds a bit to fill in the holes since lots of Ruth's story is missing from the Bible. And then, back in a 1960 Biblical film, no one is going to show Ruth going to bed with Boaz. If the writers stuck to the Biblical version, it would be less than an hour. It's one of the best Bible movies since it captures the spirit and doesn't get carried away with special effects, miracles, star power, etc. It relies on its story of conversion, faith and love rather than battles or miracles.

[–] Jaymz13 10 years ago

Yes, Ruth was a pagan. A gentile from a land of gentiles. The operative word here being "was". As Naomi is telling her daughters in law that she is leaving and going back to Israel, Ruth says something that is KEY to the whole story: "Don’t ask me to leave you and turn back. I will go wherever you go and live wherever you live. Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God. I will die where you die and will be buried there." (Ruth, Chapter 1: verse 16)
Ruth is a foreshadowing of a gentile world come to belief in a Jewish Deity through devotion to a loved one and the paying of a price by a Kinsman Redeemer.

--Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

[–] slinter 15 years ago

There's nothing in the film (watched my VHS copy again last night) that contradicts Scripture. The screenwriter merely expanded on the slim Biblical text, to fill out a full-length screenplay. True, we do not know the name of the other kinsman, but it would be ridiculous to spend the whole movie calling him "Hey you".

[–] Keishii-Kasey 12 years ago

Yes it DOES contradict scripture. The movie shows that Ruth met Mahlon and they married and he died from his wounds immediately thereafter, whereas in scripture they dwelled together there about ten years (Ruth 1:4). Even something as innocent as that completely takes the story out of context. I think the purpose of the Book of Ruth in the Bible is to explain that Ruth trusted God enough to forsake her place of birth and to go where her mother-in-law's God was leading Naomi. There she fulfilled her purpose in marrying Boaz and helping to create the lineage of David.

[–] Jaymz13 10 years ago

Chuck Missler suggested Danny DeVito for the role of the nearer kinsman. lol

I haven't watched the movie yet. I'm waiting for it to arrive from Amazon. I'm hoping it will at least follow the spirit of the book, if you know what I mean. Yes, it's a short book, but most people fail to realize how very deep it is. Ruth and Orpah both initially sought to go with Naomi back to Bethlehem. Naomi told them both to go back to their people for their own sake for she had no future to offer them in Judah. Orpah saw the sense in Naomi's argument, kissed her cheek, and went home. Ruth wouldn't hear any of it. She pledged her devotion to Naomi, forsaking all she had ever known to be with her, and left Moab to journey into a strange land. And because of that devotion, the name of Ruth will live forever...

She is the grandmother of King David. She is one of only four women named in the genealogy of The Christ. She is the reason Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

[–] slinter 10 years ago

The Bible gives us a scant 4 chapters to go on. Not much for a screenplay there. A little padding, as long as it contradicts nothing in Scripture, is fine.

[–] dmnemaine 10 years ago

ANd herein lies one of the problems with many biblical epics. The source is so closely tied to people's religous beliefs that it becomes sacrilege to make even a slight deviation from the text. This leads to a lot of the biblically based films to staying too close to the source material, and not opening it up enough to fully accommodate the medium of film rather than the printed word so that they'll offend as few religious sensibilities as possible. With that said, this particular film doesn't fall into that trap. It very correctly takes the source material and adapts it very well to the medium of film. Unfortunately, doing so brings out the complainers, like the OP.

[–] HerrStrauss (122) 7 months ago

Unfortunately, I was also disappointed with the unfaithful adaptation. The beginning is fine, they just try to provide a backstory but they change the whole issue at the end and the whole story changes. Tob (the name isn’t mentioned in the Bible) didn’t want to marry Ruth and Boaz was doing Ruth a big favor. Ruth wasn’t supposed to be the hot girl everyone fighting over but a poor widow who was a burden that nobody wanted to carry apart from Boaz.