Cain kills Abel (8). Cain gets cursed. (11) Cain is afraid he’ll be killed by… ??? (14). God is all, nah fam karma mark lmao. (15) Cain goes and lives in the land of Nod. (16) Cain, one of three living humans at this point, makes love to his wife, who randomly now exists, and births a son, Enoch. Cain also builds a city… for the now five people who live on Earth. (17).
Apparently the biblical explanation is that it’s a sister of Cain. Maybe the daughters births didn’t warrant an extra line in the Bible? It probably doesn’t keep a record of when Adam and Eve acquire new property as that’s mostly what women were considered.
I loved their explanation regarding building the Ark authentically when Noah lived to be over 900 years old. It’s simple really. He built it when he was like 300. You see it makes perfect sense. Next question.
Not sure I would trust anything from the creation museum to be actually biblical.
I know there’s an ancient myth about Adam having a first wife before Eve — there’s probably also other myths that fill in the blanks. There’s also nothing stopping God from making more people during this period like he made Adam and Eve. They were probably just the “first batch” so to speak.
Ive heard people say that Adam being the first human is metaphorical in the text, and means “first YHWH worshipper”, not sure how widespread or accurate this view is.
The general answers to this question is or that Cain married his sister (fundamentalist view) or that Adam and Cain are metaphors and didn’t existed at all (mainline view).
What’s interesting is in Genesis 1 God created all the stuff, but in Genesis 2 it says none of the plants or animals or man had materialized yet, then God makes then an asks Adam to name them.
I definitely read Genesis as a story of tribal origins
I’ve honestly never met a fan of the books that didn’t also like the movie. I think it did a great job of appealing to fans of the book and a not so good job appealing to non fans.
I never saw the movie because I never understood what value that medium would have to offer. There’s just too many jokes packed into the text for it to translate into something you can watch in one sitting. It’s like when they made a movie about catch-22. It’s great to get the material to more audiences, but there’s just no way to correctly translate it no matter how good you do it.
Especially crazy when Douglas Adams has a writing credit on the screenplay, and all indications are that he was substantially involved in it’s contents.
Edit:
The script we shot was very much based on the last draft that Douglas wrote… All the substantive new ideas in the movie… are brand new Douglas ideas written especially for the movie by him… Douglas was always up for reinventing HHGG in each of its different incarnations and he knew that working harder on some character development and some of the key relationships was an integral part of turning HHGG into a movie.
Is that a bad thing? It’s a different medium that can reach a much wider audience. I’d bet that at least 80% of people who enjoy the BBC miniseries have never heard of the radio program.
It would have been better if it varied more from the radio show as the books did, and the special effects were largely cringeworthy if a product of the time and budget. The animations were very good though.
My point was that it doesn’t particularly support the idea that all the different versions have been drastically different.
I do! It’s one of my favorite parts. I read the books long before I saw the movie and I enjoyed them both. Didn’t really get all the hate for it to be honest.
That VCR is from my parents, they don’t use it anymore. I don’t really have any tapes for it though.
We had the first 3 Star Wars movies on VHS, which was the reason I set the thing up. Unfortunately, these tapes have somehow disappeared completely, they are nowhere to be found.
So it’s just decoration for now, but I’ll definitley get some other movies one day. Thank you for your comment!
lemmy.world
Oldest