Sign in with Facebook
J.G. Keely's Reviews > The Holy Bible: King James Version
The Holy Bible: King James Version
by
by
I usually like historical fiction, but this particular example has been so mitigated by the poorly-hidden didactic tautology of its too-many-cooks legion of anonymous authors and editors that it was rather difficult to enjoy. It also fell into a similar trap to the somewhat similar 'Da Vinci Code', in that it utilized a lot of poorly-researched materials and claimed them as fact.
A lot of the data matched up poorly with other historical accounts, especially when it came to numerical data. It seems that the authors of this book had a need for an epic beyond epics, and several bodycounts beyond the capability of a pre-modern war.
There was also a problem with the moral and ethical position presented by the book. Normally, I'm not one to nit-pick about such things, since the exploration of ethicism is an important and interesting philosophical task; but, again, this book went in so many different directions with it that it was difficult to keep up. Though the intermittent noir-ish first-person narrative made a lot of moral claims about peace and justice and acceptance, the actual actions depicted by the self-same 'protagonist' were often in complete contrast, such as when he killed all the people in the world except one family.
In fact, the entire book seemed to be filled with sensationalist violence, sex, and incest. It's surprising that I haven't heard more crimes blamed on this book, which often orders the reader to kill people by throwing stones at them (I've heard the sequel, the Qur'an, is even worse).
Eventually, I began to suspect that the book was some sort of in-joke. I think that when all of the editors and writers saw what the other ones were writing, they decided to take their names off the book. Eventually, I guess they just decided to pull a sort of ultimate 'Alan Smithee'; but of course, once all culpability is gone, I think a lot of the authors lost their will to make this into a good book, and so it just got published 'as is'.
I know there are a lot of fans of this book, which makes sense, I guess, since it is really a lot like that Da Vinci Code book, which was also a bestseller. It is pretty fantastical and has a lot of really strong characters, like Jesus (though he's a bit of a Mary-Sue, isn't he?) and Onan. One of the main reasons I read it was because there's this really awesome Fanfic this guy Milton wrote about it, and apparently a lot of other authors were inspired by it, but I have to admit, this is one case where the Fanfic is a lot better than the original.
I guess it's like how sometimes, the first example of a genre ends up not really fitting because it feels so unsophisticated and erratic. I know that it can take a long time to try to get these ideas down pat. Maybe someone will rewrite it someday and try to get it to make some sense. Then again, it wasn't that great in the first place.
There was some really great writing in the book, though. Some of the poetic statements were really cool, like 'do unto others' or 'through a glass darkly', but I heard that those parts were stolen from Shakespeare, who stole them from Kyd, so I'm not really sure what to believe.
I think this is one of those cases where the controversy surrounding the book really trumps the book itself, like 'The Catcher in the Rye' or 'Gigli'. In fact, the Bible is a lot like Gigli.
A lot of the data matched up poorly with other historical accounts, especially when it came to numerical data. It seems that the authors of this book had a need for an epic beyond epics, and several bodycounts beyond the capability of a pre-modern war.
There was also a problem with the moral and ethical position presented by the book. Normally, I'm not one to nit-pick about such things, since the exploration of ethicism is an important and interesting philosophical task; but, again, this book went in so many different directions with it that it was difficult to keep up. Though the intermittent noir-ish first-person narrative made a lot of moral claims about peace and justice and acceptance, the actual actions depicted by the self-same 'protagonist' were often in complete contrast, such as when he killed all the people in the world except one family.
In fact, the entire book seemed to be filled with sensationalist violence, sex, and incest. It's surprising that I haven't heard more crimes blamed on this book, which often orders the reader to kill people by throwing stones at them (I've heard the sequel, the Qur'an, is even worse).
Eventually, I began to suspect that the book was some sort of in-joke. I think that when all of the editors and writers saw what the other ones were writing, they decided to take their names off the book. Eventually, I guess they just decided to pull a sort of ultimate 'Alan Smithee'; but of course, once all culpability is gone, I think a lot of the authors lost their will to make this into a good book, and so it just got published 'as is'.
I know there are a lot of fans of this book, which makes sense, I guess, since it is really a lot like that Da Vinci Code book, which was also a bestseller. It is pretty fantastical and has a lot of really strong characters, like Jesus (though he's a bit of a Mary-Sue, isn't he?) and Onan. One of the main reasons I read it was because there's this really awesome Fanfic this guy Milton wrote about it, and apparently a lot of other authors were inspired by it, but I have to admit, this is one case where the Fanfic is a lot better than the original.
I guess it's like how sometimes, the first example of a genre ends up not really fitting because it feels so unsophisticated and erratic. I know that it can take a long time to try to get these ideas down pat. Maybe someone will rewrite it someday and try to get it to make some sense. Then again, it wasn't that great in the first place.
There was some really great writing in the book, though. Some of the poetic statements were really cool, like 'do unto others' or 'through a glass darkly', but I heard that those parts were stolen from Shakespeare, who stole them from Kyd, so I'm not really sure what to believe.
I think this is one of those cases where the controversy surrounding the book really trumps the book itself, like 'The Catcher in the Rye' or 'Gigli'. In fact, the Bible is a lot like Gigli.
3754 likes · Like
�
flag
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
The Holy Bible.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
June 1, 2007
– Shelved
June 1, 2007
– Shelved as:
contemporary-fiction
June 1, 2007
– Shelved as:
fantasy
October 22, 2007
– Shelved as:
religion
June 9, 2009
– Shelved as:
reviewed
Comments Showing 101-150 of 441 (441 new)
message 101:
by
aPriL does feral sometimes
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Feb 28, 2012 09:20PM
Keely saves me every day - from boredom.
reply
|
flag
Oh, I have been saved, quite thoroughly. The Muslims save me from the Christians, the Christians save me from the Scientologists, the Scientologists save me from the Mormons, the Mormons save me from the Buddhists, the Buddhists save me from the Hindus, and the Hindus save me from the Muslims.In the end, all that remains is me, being responsible for my own choices. I could hardly be more liberated than that.
I'm curious as to how long it took you to read it all. I've read a lot of it but never really sat down and finished it. I figured I might as well. Like Sun Tzu said: "Know thy enemy."
Oh, I haven't read every book or passage, yet. I read most of it either in reference for literature (mostly Blake, Milton, Melville, and Shakespeare) or in texts about theology and philosophy. That's part of why I wrote a more 'jokey' review: I didn't feel quite up to assembling a piece of biblical scholarship.As for 'knowing thine enemy', I actually think of the bible as a friend to all atheists. The opposition are believing Christians, and most of them simply don't know very much about the bible. Each sect has specific parts that they read over and over again, and outside of those passages, they don't tend to know much.
When I was a teen, my best friend's parents would take me to church every Sunday if I slept over--I think they were hoping to 'show me the way'--and sometimes, other teens would come over for bible study, afterwards. Whenever I talked with them, I was surprised that I seemed to know more about the bible than they did.
I remember one session, they were talking about the doubting voice in their head being the devil, constantly tempting them. Confused, I pointed out that the previous Sunday, their pastor had said that the only time the devil tempted anyone was the story of Job, and he'd had to ask god for permission, first--and he certainly hadn't put any thoughts into Job's head. The pastor then went on to say that people only fell because of their own free will.
The teens all seemed very confused by this, and didn't seem to have an answer for me. They had been at the same church that day, yet I was apparently the only one listening to the pastor. I had the same experience throughout college: whenever I was approached by one of the friendly proselytizers, I would quickly find out that they seemed to know much less about the bible than I did--which is rather surprising, since my learning is fairly meager.
I have spoken with some theologians and biblical scholars, which is a much different experience. Even when they are believers, they often talk about all the errors, inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, accidental inclusions, and other problems with the text.
Which brings me to my next point: in-depth knowledge the bible seems to make people less likely to believe, not more. It's hard to actually go through such a bloody, sexist, racist, inconsistent book and come out feeling your belief is affirmed. After being away one summer, I returned to find the friend I used to go to church with had read the bible, Aquinas, Descartes, and Plato over the past few months and came away with the distinct impression that religion had no good defense. His brother managed to keep his faith intact until he went off to a Christian College and discovered biblical scholarship. He's still a believer in a higher power, but not in the infallibility of the book or the faith.
The same story can be found in the lives of many atheists, like Richard Dawkins or Bart Ehrman, who started as believers, but found that the more they learned about religion, the less they liked it. I think there are few things more destructive to a pervasive faith than actually sitting down and trying to come to make sense of the texts on which it is putatively based--and in that sense, I think of the bible as being on my side.
Very well put, I completely agree. Religion is an illusion easily shattered, relying on the faith of its followers rather than their knowledge.
I think everyone should enjoy this book, because there's a huge plot, lots of adventures, and lots of stories, and I think whoever isn't a Christian would possibly become one by hearing so many wonderful stories! The Bible is the most wonderful book in the world.
Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.
Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.
There are a lot of different stories of different types in the bible, which is fun. However, they didn't convince me to believe in them. There are plenty of myths out there, from Christian to Greek, Roman, Jewish, Norse, Fairy Tales, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and many more. I didn't find the stories in the bible to be different from the rest of human mythology.
There's also Hebrew (you'll actually find Hebrew above some Psalms chapters in certain Bibles).
Nate, why do you think that reading the bible would convert people to Christianity. This is a book, yes with some good stories, but its also full of stories of genocide, rape, murder, and incest, and in which the principle mover (god) actively encourages all these actions, as well as making laws that are homophobic, racist, sexist and immoral. Even one of the most well known and loved stories (abraham and isaac) is immoral and, quite frankly, sick.
"As for 'knowing thine enemy', I actually think of the bible as a friend to all atheists. The opposition are believing Christians, and most of them simply don't know very much about the bible. Each sect has specific parts that they read over and over again, and outside of those passages, they don't tend to know much."Yes I agree with that. There are many 'Christians' who don't read the Bible in great depth or detail.
"I remember one session, they were talking about the doubting voice in their head being the devil, constantly tempting them. Confused, I pointed out that the previous Sunday, their pastor had said that the only time the devil tempted anyone was the story of Job, and he'd had to ask god for permission, first--and he certainly hadn't put any thoughts into Job's head. The pastor then went on to say that people only fell because of their own free will."
Well actually the devil does tempt Jesus in the wilderness too to be exact so I don't know why he said only Job...
"There are a lot of different stories of different types in the bible, which is fun. However, they didn't convince me to believe in them. There are plenty of myths out there, from Christian to Greek, Roman, Jewish, Norse, Fairy Tales, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and many more. I didn't find the stories in the bible to be different from the rest of human mythology."
Any other mythologies of God coming to earth to die for all mankind? I'm pretty sure the Muslim religion treats Jesus as just another prophet.
@Hazel where did God encourage rape and murder? If you find some scriptures I can accept your claim but I've read no verse where God says: thou must murder. Instead his commandment is as in Exodus 20:13 - You shall not murder. There are also repeated references to fleeing sexual immortality. So I don't see where you're getting the encouraging of rape from.
But of course if you can show me I'll listen.
"Well actually the devil does tempt Jesus in the wilderness too to be exact so I don't know why he said only Job..."Ah, that's true--though Jesus is hardly an example of an ordinary man. As I recall, the pastor was speaking about the role of the devil as shown in the bible, that he is fundamentally not 'the enemy' because he is not an equal and opposite force to god. He can't just magically fill Jesus' head with doubts, all he can do is talk and try to convince him.
"Any other mythologies of God coming to earth to die for all mankind?"
I think the real question is whether there are any religions besides Christianity where all people are presented as being so screwed that they need a god to die in order to fix things.
That being said, there are a lot of out there, many of whom predate Jesus, and several who gained wisdom through a death event (Odin) and went through the ordeal and rebirth in order to help mankind (Prometheus).
Oh, and here are some fun and passages from the bible, a few of which are right from the mouth of god.
I recommend Joseph Campbell whose books list dozens of specific dying/resurrected gods throughout antiquity.
Yeah, his work--as well as earlier writings by Frazer and Jung--goes into detail trying to catalogue the dying god phenomenon, though care must be taken, since a lot of the mythic conclusions Frazer laid down were oversimplifications and have been contradicted by modern anthropological findings and theories.
Keely wrote: "They were, it's true, and therein lies the true challenge for the chronic book-classifier: when does animal husband really become cowboy? But yeah, the Bible is pretty Historically Fabulous."When they swap asses for horses...
Hmmm interesting to note that those supposed 'rape' verses if you read them in context taken from the same translations actually are more about taking the women as wives. Because that site takes different translations out of context something that cannot be done. And many of them are not in the same situation as where God has commanded the situation but rather the human chiefs. Or they're not looking properly at the Hebrew words being used. I just think it's interesting those against the Bible will take scripture like that and then ignore the many times where it is quite clearly stated that sexual immorality is wrong as in Ephesians 5:3 "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people."Or as pertaining to the 'murder' verse the many times that thou shall not kill (in the murder sense) is stated or that if you even think a hateful thought you've as good as killed someone (in a murder sense). Many of those verses used are again out of context and various different translations. But if they want to pick the little few verses out of context so be it.
Jonathen, do you honestly think that any woman taken as a wife in the manners these verses describe are willing participants in their abductions? IN their being taken as slaves? And in their being used for sex? Of course not. Even if a woman is married to a man, its still rape if she has to have sex when she doesn't want to."When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." Deuteronomy 21:10-14
So, god says that the man may have relations with the woman,the womans point of view isn't even considered. This is rape.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)
So, not only can a man sell his daughter into slavery by gods dictate, but the girl has to please her new owner, and has to marry him or his son if he so chooses, no matter her view on the situation, and has to submit to them in all things, including sexually. Sex with a woman when its not her choice, and when she's expected to submit is rape.
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.(Zechariah 14:1-2)
This one specifically has god saying that the women shall be ravished. If god were good, he would not allow it. And as he's meant to be omnipotent, he should certainly have the capacity to prevent it.
So God, as presented in the bible, gives men jurisdiction over women and control over their bodies, and "right" to use them when they see fit. This is god condoning rape, as at no point does the womans feelings or rights come into play. In fact, its very obvious that women are considered property, and to have few, if not no, rights, and expecting a woman to submit to a man means that she has to have sex against her will, and that is rape.
Firstly Deuteronomy 21: 10 - 14 is not allowing rape. It is making reference to the fact that a soldier is allowed to take a wife from among the prisoners of war. This was also Moses' address not Gods just to point out.Exodus 21:7-11 7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money."
Many other translations also use the word servant or handmaid. This verse talks about a master buying the services of a maid servant (who was sold as a servant to help work off a debt - not slavery) and then God says if the master wishes to sleep with her he must marry her. Thus not condoning rape. If he wishes her to marry his son he must give her a dowry and make her free.
As for the last verse this is a prophecy of a time when Jerusalem's sin is such that God will gather nations to rise against that sin. And you leave out the next crucial verse Zechariah 14: 3 "3Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle."
He doesn't leave his people to suffer. He allows the nations to gather because of the people's sin and then he arises to fight for his people.
Look at other verses such as Deuteronomy 22:25-28 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
That indicates that God is very much against rape as the rapist, rather than being simply jailed as we tamely do and then allow them out into society again, is killed for his crime.
Not to mention the verse in Ephesians 5:3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.
Or 1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
I would argue that today's society with all the bilboards of semi-dressed women, the magazines, the movies, the models, the sheer quantity of material online allow for more immorality than back then. Any man with his chemical system which is, I might add biologically activated by sight, can merely log online and in an instant get his gratified fantasy ideal. What kind of message is society saying about gender when we allow that kind of media to float around? Not a respectful one at all I would say.
Jonathen, it is rape, if a soldier takes one fo the women fromt he defeated city, and takes her as wife, and has sex with her, do you honestly think thats what she wants? Would you want your sister (assuming you have one, pretend if you don't) taken by some foreign soldier, and forced into marriage and all that involved. You don't think thats rape? And so its Abraham saying it, not god, Abraham, the man chosen by god as the leader of is people, the man sanctioned by god, and who is not contradicted by god in this, so god is either happy with it, or doesn't actually careIf a woman is SOLD to someone else, that makes her that persons property, call her a maid servent if you like, but as the exchange of money takes place, and isn't a dowry, because marriage is a possibilty, not part of the deal, then she is a slave. Your double speak interpretations notwithstanding, the girl is a slave. So what if god says he must marry her if he wants sex, that means nothing, as it doesn't ask if the girl wants to marry him, or wants to have sex with him. If he marries her to have sex with her, without taking into account what she wants, and as she's expected to submit, its rape. You seem to be suggesting that unwanted sex within marriage is not rape. You also seem to suggest that it doesn't matter if the woman has no choice in what happens to her.
Your quote from deutoronmy over the punbishment of the rapist etc, only works in cases when there was no-one to hear the girl scream. If it occurs where someone can hear her, yet she's still raped, then she's punished:
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
so, if she was within ear shot of other people, and was still raped, its her fault, but as your quote says, if she's not within ear shot of other people its accepted that no-one could hear her no matter how much she screams, and so shouldn't be punished. There is no way you can argue this as moral, the woman shouldn't be punished in either case.
As for your final two quotes, they're relative to what god has already laid down as law on what sexual morality is, which as we can see, is pretty damn immoral.
When we remove god from the situation though, what with him not actually existing, then all it does is highlight the contradictory nature of the bible, due to it being written over several hundred years by lots of anonymous people.
The last paragraph, we're not debating that, I'm not willing to move on to a new point while we're still dealing with the current one. One debate point at a time, please.
You presume marriage is consent, it is not. If a woman is sold (again she is property) to be a maidservant and she is not to go free as male servants do, nor can he sell (again she is property) her to foreigners, what is that but slavery, she indentured unless he chooses to marry her and mistreat her thus allowing her to go free (without any payment for her "services" thus leaving her vunerable) or marry her to his son.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
King James Version (KJV)
23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
and another
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
I think you are using the New American Standard Bible?
I didn't like the last review I read, but, I'm okay with this one.Of course your going to take heat for it, but, then, some how I think you knew that writing it.
I'm not saying I agree with the conclusions, but I do appreciate the sense of Irony and sarcasm. I even laughed.
I won't be following this thread, because I've already read how little sense and brain power went into over half of the comments on the discussion thread, which was enivitable by the way.
I'm not saluting your "balls" (which is really a disgusting metaphor once you think about it) because it's not always cowardice that keeps people from jumping into a snake pit. And not always Hubris that keeps people from getting in mud fights with pigs (You know what they say, never get in a mud fight with a pig, you'll both get dirty and the pig likes it...or something like that.)
Still, I think any negative comments I may have directed at you over ..."that other review"... may be as justly deserved or more so by those making the counter argument.
You remind me of the golfer that loves playing golf in lightning storms. It's not worth complaining when you go out on a grassy field with metal spikes in your shoes (which most people don't use these days), a metal rod in your hands, held over your head and happen to be the tallest object within fifty feet of you, when you get struck by lightning.
Have fun earning your opinion on this one.
Snakes really don't bother you unless you grab them or step on them. Even if it's the right thing to do, if you choose to jump into a snake pit, don't complain if you get bit.
Snakes won't change no matter what facts, evidence, research or proof you show them, and they almost all bite. And with that, I've already said too much.
You know, people were coming around to the idea of Dying with Dignity until Dr. Kovorkian took up the cause. At one time the concept included more than just doctor assisted suicide. It was a discussion about how to help people get the most out of days that might otherwise be filled with misery and pain and included things like "do not resuscitate" orders and "living wills" Crazy people both repel and attract chaos to the point of living in a constant storm where ever they go. Do try to not be the Atheist's Kovorkian if you can help it? Sometimes the messenger really can poison the message.
Jonathan wrote: ". . . those supposed 'rape' verses if you read them in context taken from the same translations actually are more about taking the women as wives."With an emphasis on the 'taking'.
"I would argue that today's society with all the bilboards of semi-dressed women, the magazines, the movies, the models, the sheer quantity of material online allow for more immorality than back then."
I think a guy who touches himself is more moral than a soldier who kills a man then kidnaps and rapes his daughter. Whether he marries her at that point is really immaterial.
Hazel wrote: "God, as presented in the bible, gives men jurisdiction over women and control over their bodies, and "right" to use them when they see fit. This is god condoning rape, as at no point does the womans feelings or rights come into play. In fact, its very obvious that women are considered property, and to have few, if not no, rights, and expecting a woman to submit to a man means that she has to have sex against her will, and that is rape."
Yeah, that's the long and short of it. The bible lays out a systematic, repetitive system of power where women are sexual property bought, sold, and stolen by men, and where female opinion is never considered.
Curmudgeon wrote: "I've already read how little sense and brain power went into over half of the comments on the discussion thread, which was enivitable by the way."
Of course, it's a review on the internet: the majority of comments are going to be thoughtless and pointless.
"You remind me of the golfer that loves playing golf in lightning storms."
I don't write these reviews for anyone but myself. I don't delight in the bland stupidity of the discussions they sometimes inspire, but I do consider it polite to respond to those who took time out of their day to comment.
"Do try to not be the Atheist's Kovorkian if you can help it? Sometimes the messenger really can poison the message."
There will always be naive, angry people who will miss the point, no matter how concertedly you try to discuss it. Tailoring to the least capable is an exercise in futility.
Thank you.
You do realize you put this in the same league as the Da Vinchi code. Which is fiction. Which is ridiculous.Oh, and the Qur'an is not the "sequel" to the Bible.
Honestly, where did you get this stuff?
Andrey wrote: "You do realize you put this in the same league as the Da Vinchi code. Which is fiction. Which is ridiculous.Oh, and the Qur'an is not the "sequel" to the Bible.
Honestly, where did you get this st..."
It is the same as fiction. The Bible is a historical fiction genre.
The Quran is the sequel.
Honestly, where do you get YOUR stuff?
nah, the Quran isn't the sequel, that would suggest it tells a different story, its just the updated version.
Hazel wrote: "nah, the Quran isn't the sequel, that would suggest it tells a different story, its just the updated version."; D
I stand corrected!
Well, the Quran is based upon the Old and New Testaments, drawing concepts, characters, strictures, and quotes from those earlier works. Muslims do indeed revere The Bible and are one of the three , along with Christianity and Judaism. First, the Jews wrote the Old Testament, then the Christians emerged and added the New Testament to it, and eventually, the Muslims added the Quran. All three faiths have the same roots and fundamental beliefs, and all three believe in the same god.
The Quran, using the bible as its basis, does in fact go on to tell other stories, giving us the life of the prophet Mohammed just as the New Testament gave us the life of Jesus. In that sense, it is a very direct and deliberate sequel to The Bible.
Rather like the book of mormon
that's Book 4! i love epic fantasy series, i should check these out.
mark wrote: "that's Book 4! i love epic fantasy series, i should check these out.": D
Yeah, but you have to wait so long between books--like, whole centuries. It makes it hard for me to get into them.
ha! it's the GRRM syndrome, all over again. time sure moves in cycles.
Yeah, and the fans are just as bad.
I must say, poster examples, of rabid fan girls and boys
What is wrong you people!?! This is how the world came to be! This is the history of the world! You may not like it, but you can't change history: You can't change the fact that JFK got shot! You can't change the fact that the WW1 and WW2 happened! But guess what? YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT!!! Wake up, realize the connections between the Holy Bible and the real world! Please! Come on people, PLEASE!!
Actually, the bible is not a particularly accurate source for history. If you compare it to other historical accounts from other cultures of the same period or with archaeological evidence, the bible often contains errors or comes up short. For instance, the Egyptians kept precise enough records that we know how many goats were imported from a certain Greek city-state each year, and the Egyptians wrote many accounts of slave revolts, yet nowhere in the Egyptian records is anything that could correspond to the biblical story of Exodus.In terms of archaeology, Exodus states that six hundred thousand men, plus their wives and children left Egypt. Using average statistics for family size in that period, that would mean the exodus consisted of around two million people. Yet, the entire population of Egypt at the time was only three and a half million. There has never been any archaeological evidence that Egypt lost more than half its population at any point.
There are certainly connections between biblical stories and real world events, but the biblical accounts are full of inaccuracies and impossibilities that do not match up. If you're interested at looking at other problems and conflicts with the text of the bible, you might want to look at .
The Bible... Shows God's love for us from beginning to end. Without it, we would know a lot less about our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And for that, we should be grateful :)And as far as literary criticism goes, I agree with the person that said the Bible is far too vast to give it a proper review. Instead, it would be more worthwhile to review each book in the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, ect) separately since they were written by different authors at different times, respectively.
Keely, you are so logical. I enjoy all your reviews, even though this one is a little unconventional. God bless you!
"The Bible... Shows God's love for us from beginning to end."Oh, I don't know about love beginning to end, there are a lot of parts in there where god is killing people, ordering us to kill people, setting arbitrary strictures over people with extreme punishments--by one count, he kills 371,186 himself and orders the deaths of 1,862,265 more, many of them innocents, women, and children. As Winston Churchill's son Randolph said when he first read the bible 'Isn't God a shit?'
But yeah, it does make sense to look at the different books and different accounts individually, since each one has its own ideas and goals--even amongst the gospels there are a lot of variations and contradictions in the details of Jesus' life and philosophy.
"Keely, you are so logical."
Oh, I don't know, I think we're all pretty logical--most of the differences between people seem to be the information they base their decisions on.
"I enjoy all your reviews, even though this one is a little unconventional."
Thanks so much. This one is a bit sillier than my normal reviews, but I had fun writing it and people seem to enjoy it, so that's nice.
Keely wrote: "Oh, I don't know about love beginning to end, there are a lot of parts in there where god is killing people, ordering us to kill people, setting arbitrary strictures over people with extreme punishments--by one count, he kills 371,186 himself and orders the deaths of 1,862,265 more, many of them innocents, women, and children."Can a God of love also be a God of wrath? Of course. All loving persons are sometimes filled with wrath, precisely because of their love! What kind of a God would not be angry at all the injustice and evil? Take, for example, a loving father and his son. As a father, you want what is best for your son. And, as a loving father, you would not hesitate to rebuke or correct your son if he has or is making a terrible mistake. It is precisely because of your love for your son that you must sometimes disapprove of his ways, in order to set him on the straight path.
However, this is all I am going to say about this subject. I am afraid it is no use discussing the Bible if our views, as non-believers and believers, are already divergent from the very beginning. I am afraid we will never be able to agree on very much.
God bless.
what kind of god would not be angry at all the injustice and evil? The kind of god described in the bible of course. The kind of god that is defined as omniscient, thus already knew everything that was going to happen from before the beginning, so can't be taken by surprise, the kind of god that is omnipotent, thus has the power to ensure that the injustices never happen, simply be deciding that it is so. If god is omniscient and omnipotent, then all that happens, happens by his design, and so getting angry at it would be getting angry over something he caused, and could change, but chooses not to. IN fact, as he knows exactly how the universe was going to go before he created it, this posits the question, why did he actually need to make it ion the first place? He doesn't need to experiment, he can just make a world that doesn't have evil and injustice in it, thus if there is a god, and he made this world, the evil and injustice are here because he wants it to be, a bit like a kid with a magnifying glass over a nest of ants, he knows he's going to hurt the ants, but he doesn't care.I am afraid it is no use discussing the Bible if our views, as non-believers and believers, are already divergent from the very beginning.
Thats the only time its worth discussing, otherwise its just:
[conversation starts]person 1: I think x
Everyone else: I agree. [conversation ends]
He is angry at injustice, but maybe he wants you to be able to make you're own choices, and that means sin, injustice and craziness.(See: Me above.) And if you disagree, then you disagree. I wasn't thinking on the logical side of things, so if that's what you think, that's you're opinion.
Hazel wrote: "Thats the only time its worth discussing, otherwise its just:[conversation starts]person 1: I think x
Everyone else: I agree. [conversation ends]"
You would think. But even as believers, we can interpret the Bible differently. The fun part (for me, at least) is knowing what other believers think of this verse, that verse, and so-and-so. I used to be a non-believer. I know how to think skeptically and base my arguments on pure logic alone. However, this sort of thinking does not advance my quest to want to know God. This is why I am uninterested in this sort of discussion.
That is all I am going to say about the subject. Just wanted to add my two-cents. Don't see much sense in arguing.
God bless, everyone.
Titus2teen wrote: "He is angry at injustice, but maybe he wants you to be able to make you're own choices, and that means sin, injustice and craziness.(See: Me above.) And if you disagree, then you disagree. I wasn't..."And we're back to the fallacy of free will when there is a omniscient and omnipotent being. Its an illusion if god knows what you're going to do. I've discussed this at length elsewhere, but as a quick summary, if you agree that you can't deviate from what god knows you're going to do, because god is omniscient, than you are forced to agree that you have no free will, and can only do what god wills.
Goodbye everybody, and Dominic, thank you acting like a true follower of God. A humbled (And ashamed) Titus2teen, out.
Thanks for making me grin while reading this :D.
Glad you liked it, thanks.
Keely, you should know that you can't read a religious text and critique just like any other book! It is not like any other book. Religious texts are their own category just as fiction, historical fiction, mystery, etc...it therefore must be treated with concepts dealing with that particular genre. It is ludicrous to try and compare a religious text to a novel, because it is not a novel! You just can't do that. You have to review it against the religions that use it and how they extract their particular doctrine from it. It is the most rediculous thing in the world to even attempt to review a religious text and if it were not. You would review a journalistic text on DNA or Astronomy as a fiction novel, would you? You need to take your haughty vocabulary and put it where it belongs...in the garbage.
Tawnya wrote: "Keely, you should know that you can't read a religious text and critique just like any other book! It is not like any other book. Religious texts are their own category just as fiction, historical ..."Many of us believe the bible is a fiction novel, including me. I'm very insulted at YOUR presumptions and in attempting to force your censorship on my free speech rights. No one forced you to read this review, and I really liked Keely's review, and I read it to feel better about when I run into people who force their beliefs on me, like praying at a sport event in a public place I'm sitting in and paid a ticket for. I'm a native American. Christians always try to forcibly convert throughout history. Perhaps ou are blind or ignorant of this. Do you drink blood? You do, symbolically every Sunday. It turns my stomach.
