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 151-200 of 441 (441 new)
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "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 ficti..."April: I am sorry that my previous post may have been misconstrued as an attempt to persuade anyone to believe in the bible. I was merely stating that because religious texts are in a category all their own, whether you believe it to be true or not makes no difference and you can't review it as you would any other book. I don't believe in the Islam Q'Uaran or the Hindi Satra, but neither would I read and review it as a fictional novel because it isn't. It is a religious text. I again refer to my previous statements about academic texts, which also cannot be read and reviewed as fiction weather you believe the statements asserted in them or not. I hope I have clarified myself a little better. I think Shanna, who posted after you and also in response to my first post, gave a very good a non-christian review of the bible.
P.S. I just read more of the posts than the first one that Keeley wrote and should have done so before I posted. There was obviously a Very good scholarly discussion going on about this long before I got here and I really shouldn't have bothered at all. Oh, well.I do encourage anyone else thinking about posting to anything on here to first read the first two pages or so of postings before doing so.
Signing off
The Bible is a fictional novel. It should be reviewed as a fictional novel. It is a book of myths, which makes it fictional. Fiction is imaginary. The bible is about imaginary stuff. It is a collection of myths, fictional stories. It is fiction. Fiction. it may also be called a religious text, but that doesn't mean it isn't fictional. Being a religious text doesn't mean it isn't also fiction. There is no reason it can't be reviewed as a work of fiction. We review all kinds of religious texts as fiction, all the time. Ever hear of the Iliad and the Odyssey? It's all about the Greek Gods and other things they believed in, built temple to, and made sacrifices. It is about the Greek gods mixing up human affairs, like Job being used as a living pawn between the devil and the christian god. The same. You study the Iliad and the Odyssey in, ta da, Literature class. Right now people study the bible in, ta da, mythology classes. The bible is a work of fiction.My other bone of irritation was it seemed you were trying for censorship. I will not be censored, and I suspect neither will Keely, but he has to speak for himself. It really sounded like you want him to delete this entire thread because he reviewed the bible as a work of fiction. First, he was being a creatively funny writer. Second, I think he has the right to see the bible as a work of fiction, as do I. Third, at least in America, he has the right to print what he thinks of any book., You did not sound like you were protesting his review. You sounded like you were protesting his right to see the bible as a work of fiction, and his right to print it. That is censorship.
He CAN do that. So can I. That is why I kept repeating that. I'll repeat it again, In print.
The bible is a work of fiction. The bible is a work of fiction. The bible is a work of fiction.
See? I CAN do that!
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "The Bible is a fictional novel. It should be reviewed as a fictional novel. It is a book of myths, which makes it fictional. Fiction is imaginary. The bible is about imaginary stuff. It is a colle..."*Sigh* Just because you can do it doesn't make it true.
I wasn't trying to censor you; you are most certainly entitled to your opinion and to express it.
However, that doesn't make it true.
Ask any lit prof, myth does not equal fiction, they are not necessarily the same. Whether it is true or not does not merit the action of reviewing a mythological or religious text as a fictional novel. I have taken more than one class where this discussion has come up -- if you believe nothing else than believe this: I know what I'm talking about.
And I was not protesting against anyone's rights, only their opinions. It is incorrect - not my belief that it is such, it simply is - to review the bible or any religious or mythological text similar to it as a fictional novel. Period. That is fact.
I understand that you don't believe it and that you think, along with many other scholars, that it was all made up my some old men centuries ago who were simply looking for a figure to lead their people out of bondage from a country and ruler they did not like. You are not the first nor the last. But too many people throw it in the same pile as "Twilight," "1984," and "Great Expectations." The problem is they are not in the same category.
All I am saying is that any religious/mythological text is not a fictional novel. That's it.
Now please, April, leave me alone and stop trying to read between the lines of my texts and putting words where they are not. I don't mean to start a "the bible is/isn't true" debate. I don't care to make that kind of argument with anyone, least of all with someone as prone to aggravation as you. It truly does not matter to me what you believe nor am I trying trying to persuade you or anyone else to believe what I do. I am only stating facts.
Again, just because you say it, doesn't make it true.
That is all.
message 156:
by
aPriL does feral sometimes
(last edited Aug 29, 2012 07:14PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
From Wikipedia: Correspondence theories state that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory posits a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or objects on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle solely by how it relates to "things", by whether it accurately describes those "things". An example of correspondence theory is the statement by the Thirteenth Century philosopher/theologian Thomas Aquinas: Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus ("Truth is the equation [or adequation] of things and intellect"), a statement which Aquinas attributed to the Ninth Century neoplatonist Isaac Israeli. Aquinas also restated the theory as: "A judgment is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality"
Fiction per Wikipedia:
Fiction is the form of any narrative or informative work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary—that is, invented by the author. Although fiction describes a major branch of literary work, it may also refer to theatrical, cinematic or musical work. Fiction contrasts with non-fiction, which deals exclusively with factual (or, at least, assumed factual) events, descriptions, observations, etc. (e.g., biographies, histories).
I can put concepts together, as well.
No, you know how to type "fiction" and "Truth" into the google bar. Congrats. But it truly doesn't matter in the long scheme of things. I am not going to be convinced of your opinion nor you of mine. And I suspect this stalemate will only turn verbally violent. So might I suggest we simply agree to disagree and end this? If nothing else I'm getting bored of the redundancy of this conversation.
Goodbye
: D
Dave wrote: "why is it so hard to believe the bible's accounts of time?"Here let me explain in one sentence. Because it doesn't match up with facts.
That is why.
I don't know who told you the bible was fiction, but really, it's a historical book, telling of the past. Not fiction.
Sarah said: "I don't know who told you the bible was fiction"Historians, archaeologists, and biblical scholars, mostly.
Oh, I agree that large parts of it are based on past events, but it's not a history, it's full of errors, contradictions, and glosses that simply don't match up with the facts. It's like when you see a movie that claims to be 'based on a true story'--you know it's only going to bear a superficial resemblance to what actually happened.
I think your review is hilarious! Stolen from Shakespeare? You crack me up! I think you are definitely joking, and I read the first paragraph of one of your later comments, that you meant the Bible to be reviewed like any other book. It's a very nice view of religion and the bible!
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it--though all the jokes I put in there are references to real problems and ideas concerning the text, since humor only really works when it contains a grain of truth. For instance, the Shakespeare bit is a reference to the theory that the King James Bible was written in part by Shakespeare--as certainly it was written by a number of talented English poets, though history cannot say for certain which ones.
Very interesting conversation! May O suggest
Sorry! New phone. May I suggest reading The Book Of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants & finally The Pearl of Great Price - along with the Holy Bible, these are the "standard works" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ( popularly known as "Mormons"). These books complement the Bible, serving as a second witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ. I know, I know, this may require more suspension of currently held opinions, but I promise you will be well rewarded! If you prefer a shorter course you might consider reading "A Rational Theology As Taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" by Dr. John A. Widtsoe, first published in 1915. I first read it on Google Books 4 years ago. It is (to me) the most succinct & rational explanation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ I have ever read. At least read the preface! It may entice you to peruse the entire volume.
It is a book of facts not opinions. For the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. 1 Corinthians 1:18. Its not written for the wise in there own eyes...
Deuteronomy 10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Deuteronomy 15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: 16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: 17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
Deuteronomy The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Deuteronomy 22 13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
message 172:
by
aPriL does feral sometimes
(last edited Dec 06, 2013 10:19PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Deuteronomy If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. I HATE tHis gOD BECAUSE HE HATES WOMEN!
Thank you, believer, for confirming these are 'facts' and why I no longer believe...
James wrote: "It is a book of facts not opinions. For the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. 1 Corinthians 1:18. Its not written for the wise in there own eyes..."James this is your opinion, the bible as fact just doesn't hold up, the OT is clearly plagiarised from Sumerian and Babylonian mythology(the epic of gilgamesh, in particular), the new testament is clearly plaigiarised from egyptian mythology.
None of the new testament texts were written contemporary to the supposed life of the Jesus figure, and not a single extrabiblical reference is made during this period either despite other "messiahs" running around ancient Palestine being written about at the time. That's not to mention supposed miracles, like Matthews account of zombies walking the streets of jerusalem, earthquakes and eclipses that no one else saw or documented.
It's internally inconsistent with conflicting genealogies (not to mention giving us Joseph's family tree like that has anything to do with the illegimate Jesus), the accounts of the crucifixion are all inconsistent and irreconcilable (go on I challenge you, write a timeline of the crucifixion including every event in all four gospels and Paul's version, do it honestly with out fudging anything).
For goodness sake there are two different versions of genesis unashamedly side by side that directly confict each other. Herod did not slaughter the innocents, the census never happened (and would never had happened the way the bible would have it, it's really idiotic to effectively shut the empire down and insist everyone return to their home town, the Romans were nothing if not bureaucratic pragmatists, to insist that everyone leave their job, shut down their businesses is nuts and just didn't happen). The book is loaded with not-facts.
Lillian wrote: "I hate to break it to you, but this isn't historical fiction; this is real. These things really happened. They were recorded by real people, real disciples of God, which have been accumulated into ..."The Old Testament duplicates the stories of older cultures who passed down these tales from ancient times. The Jews, when they were small nomadic tribes that could not read or write, picked up these stories and eventually put them down on scrolls centuries later, passing the stories off as having happened to their nameless god when they learned how to read and write. We know this because of translating the older cultures literature and writings, who wrote down their culture's religions as well as their neighbors'.
The New Testament was written 3 centuries after most experts think perhaps the historical Jesus lived. It is also written down that MANY men were wandering around claiming to be the son of a god. It is a known phenomenon, called today Jerusalem Syndrome. The Bible was not written by prophets, including especially the New Testament, whose historical creation we actually have quite a bit of information. It was written by a bunch of old men sitting around arguing about what stories to include and what stories to reject. The Jesus you are taught about in church is the one these old men decided to put in the final version of the bible after tossing out other versions of Jesus. It's why there were so many sects - there were hundreds of different versions about Jesus' life. When the old men made their final decision, it started off a few centuries of war and killing and murders. Whole villages were burned down by fellow Christians who were enforcing the official version because the villages refused to accept the final official version.
In addition, many kings decided to rewrite the bible as well (i.e., the King James Version) for different esthetic, political and egotistical reasons. The original New Testament was not in English. It has been updated and translated so many times, and changed by every church revising it for their own beliefs, it is impossible anymore to get a 'clean' version as far as an ordinary person who does not read the original Greek or Arabic versions.
All of this history makes any comment by believers pure imaginary nonsense in regards to the Bible's being an authentic document written in a god's own words! Which words are you promoting? There are only a few thousand of versions of the Bible in 21st century English alone.
This isn't historical fiction. This is the divine Word of God. And the stories that happened were real. You need prayer.
Rachel: "I do NOT permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man. She must be quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
Rachel wrote: "This isn't historical fiction. This is the divine Word of God. And the stories that happened were real. You need prayer."I agree it's not even historical fiction.... let alone the divine word of god, it is a mish mash of plagiarised mythologies. So the Zombie saints wandering the streets of jerusalem real? God commanding invading armies to dash babies heads against rocks real? God commanding the invading armies to keep all the virgin girls as sex slaves real? God's rules about how and who to enslave real?
It's not Historical Fiction, it's real. And I haven't read it cover to cover, I've heard it. All of it.
It seems the number of people reviewing the Bible without having read it is great. If they actually took the time to read it, they may be morally convicted enough to at least stop "bearing false witness". I suggest you check your facts, since Biblical history is confirmed by other sources - such as the Armana letters and Josephus. I also suggest you check the Dead Sea Scrolls - which are a version of the Bible radiocarbon dated to pre-Shakespeare. However, again, you are only pulling from other commentaries on the Bible, since I would like you to give me the page number where you found the quote "through the glass darkly". Most of the books also specifically tell you who wrote them. Granted you probably question if Philo wrote his work. Please stick to reviewing books you have read in their entirety. I doubt you even read one chapter of this one.
message 181:
by
aPriL does feral sometimes
(last edited May 09, 2014 12:45PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Through a glass, darkly (phrase), a Biblical phrase from 1 Corinthians 13:12I read the bible four times.
I'm sure the carbon dating is as accurate as possible, as are the written documents you mention, but all that's proof of is people could write during those centuries and they were hearing stories. Most people think Jesus existed, even atheists. But with the possible exception of Josephus, no one was alive when Jesus was alive who wrote down a Christian document or scroll about Jesus' lifetime. Everything was at least three centuries after his death. Josephus, who was alive then, only wrote down gossip he had heard in Constantinople, I think.
During Jesus' lifetime, there were hundreds of Jews and holy men running around claiming to be the oracles of god. Jesus was a good speaker, as were some of the others. The rest were clearly addled. But self-proclaimed orators were common to the age.
"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:12 I realize your review is about the KJV. However, the KJV is the absolute worst when it comes to translation accuracy and modern day readability. I can read Russian transcripts written in Russian 20 times and not have a clue as to what they are saying even though I might pick out a word here or there. Should I review books written in Russian - probably not. One would think if you understood even the minutest part of the KJV, you would realize that the majority of the Bible is NOT written in first person narrative, but in fact, third person.
The countdown for the Messiah was set in Daniel, began at the rebuilding of the Jerusalem wall in Nehemiah/ Ezra, and ended at the time of Jesus - that is why there were many people claiming to be the Messiah at that time. None, however, claimed to be the "Son of God" or God himself as Jesus did in his statement to the Pharisees "I AM."
I find it interesting that you state the people who wrote the Bible didn't have a clue what one another wrote, yet Daniel, Nehemiah/Ezra, and the authors of the New Testament all seemed to be aware of this clock. Again, your "I've read the Bible 4 times." fails to impress me. However, even if you were to switch to a NIV Chronological Bible, which is probably the easiest to understand when reading the Bible as a whole story, I doubt you would still understand it. You decided it was bunk before you even picked it up. Does that mean you should review it beyond saying "I don't get this. It was difficult to read"? Had that been your review of the KJV, I would have wholeheartedly agreed. It's like reading Shakespeare, an author with whom you claim not to be familiar by saying "I HEARD those parts were stolen from Shakespeare."
I find it very interesting that you say Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't alive during Jesus life (all the gospels have been dated to the first century AD). I suppose the Armana letters are only gossip, too? Or the statement carved into a Egyptian tomb that says there was a famine for seven years in Egypt around the time of Joseph? You claim that it doesn't match with other historical accounts and when I point out that there are other historical accounts it does match, you say they are rumors. Well, if you don't believe any historical account is true, why say that it doesn't match them? What would it matter if it did or not?
In short, I stand by my assessment: You have no clue what is written in the Bible or other historical documents, and yet you still felt as if you should review this book and make comparisons to other historical documents.
Whether or not you believe in the truth of the Bible does not change the fact that when looked at as a literary work, it is remarkable if for no other fact than that many men across thousands of years managed to tell the same story, move it forward, and bring it to conclusion.
There sure is a lot of free time put to use in these comments. I wish I had some of it.
Fiction? The Bible isn't fiction. Sure, I maybe be a fifteen year old girl who might know barely anything about life, but yeah, I can tell it isn't fiction. This is completely and utterly true.
Catherine wrote: "Fiction? The Bible isn't fiction. Sure, I maybe be a fifteen year old girl who might know barely anything about life, but yeah, I can tell it isn't fiction. This is completely and utterly true."Got proof or just your opinion?
Nah she wrote on another review unless she is poeing us she is serious.... :)
I have to say that I hate foul language. It ruins conversation. And bad words are so overused that you can hear friends gleefully calling each other profanities as often as enemies. Friends, I do not mean to insult you, but in this case you are wrong to think that the common cuss has not deteriorated to be useless.
It ain't fiction buddy
I've never enjoyed curses myself. I think the second that you say something like that, you lose all credibility. No reason to listen to someone like that. It's funny that Americans have become so used to bad language. Nowdays, you can hear "**** the **** up you ****ing ****er and not bat an eye. Kind of sad.
'The sequal, The Qur'an' brilliant.
Jessica is correct at what she wrote. These other people passing comment on the Bible don't know what they are talking about. The Bible is the true words of God shown by his prophets. People that doubt the Bible are going straight to hell.
"...has a lot of really strong characters, like Jesus... and Onan."That cracked me up. Absolutely hilarious.
Fuck. I actually enjoyed this conversation.You go, guys.
It's not fiction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
McCoy Dalton said: "It's not fiction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"Oh man, if only you'd had a few more exclamation points in there, you might have convinced me. So close.
This is probably the most amusing book review I have ever read. This is my favourite bit: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.
You're brilliant. Thanks for making me laugh!
Kanika said: "Thanks for making me laugh!"You're welcome, glad to hear you liked it.
This review is absolutely savage and the funniest thing I've ever read
Astronomy as a fiction novel, would you?"
The bible is merely a collection of myths (fictions)and I find that the religions who claim to extract doctrine from it actually have very little use for what it actually says as with most religions and their texts.
The myths are mostly stolen/appropriated from older mythologies, ie many had demigod born of a virgin on the winter solstice who faces trevails and decends to the underwold and is subsequently sacrificed, resurrected and ascends to heaven, it is nothing new, and in my opinion the christian version of the myth may be the most pervasive but it is the least well done and is very much a Johnny-come-lately in this particular genre.