1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIts old ? Be serious now.
1. It's old.
Don't you know people often long for what is of the ages, tried, tested, proven as ancient wisdom.
For example - in the United States there was a huge longing for passed down wisdom Eastern cultural style. Sure there was. Movies like Karate Kid expressed this yearning for young people to be helped by ancient wisdom. That's probably because Western families are so broken and messed up.
The way I see it if you say "This is Brand New !!" Some people will say "But it doesn't have the ancient wisdom of the ages."
Then some will say "This now is ancient and established." Some people will respond "That's TOO OLD."
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is a funny post. It's like you want to agree with me so badly, but just can't quite bring yourself to do it.
It isn't a single work, it is multiple works, some of which are historical (though often inaccurate), some are religious, some are allegorical. Now I guess most of those categories could be called 'fiction', but I still wouldn't call it 'a work of fiction'.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI agree with the general meaning of your post. I just don't think it fits quite right. Much of the Bible is fictitious, but that doesn't make it a work of fiction. I think calling it 'a work' is giving over much credit to the council of Nicea or whoever it was that decided what books to put in 'the Bible'. They didn't really add much too it and cant really be credited with creating a 'work'.
This is a funny post. It's like you want to agree with me so badly, but just can't quite bring yourself to do it.
Similarly calling it a 'work of fiction' suggests it was written largely as a novel, when in reality it is more like propaganda (lies dressed up as documentary).
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou're being overly pedantic.
I agree with the general meaning of your post. I just don't think it fits quite right. Much of the Bible is fictitious, but that doesn't make it a work of fiction. I think calling it 'a work' is giving over much credit to the council of Nicea or whoever it was that decided what books to put in 'the Bible'. They didn't really add much too it and cant reall a novel, when in reality it is more like propaganda (lies dressed up as documentary).
Originally posted by SwissGambitYes I am. But its not intended as criticism so much as me wanting to get things sorted out in my own mind. For example, the whole thread assumes the existence of something called 'the Bible'. Yet the Christian Bible is a collection of books. Anything you say about it is not really about the content of individual books, but about the collection as a whole. I am trying to sort out the collection vs individual issue.
You're being overly pedantic.
Lets for example create The Bible 2.0 which includes all the books of the Bible, the Quran, The Origin of Species, and Pythagoras' Theorem.
Would you still have 'reasons to write it off'? Would it still be 'a work of fiction'? What could we say about it as a whole?