Too Fictionized?

[Monishka Sharma]

I mean, to be very frank, I regard religious texts as fiction, or at least mostly fiction, to begin with. It's interesting to see how others view biblical stories and events, and how they make sense of the stories by filling in the gaps or setting out to create explanations for things. It can be fun to see what others believe or how they perceive the old "canon" texts.

I, too consider old testaments or mythology as fiction and don't really read religious mythology. These stories are hard to believe being logical.

[Thehorselover]

I had this same thought! I like the additions to the bible text/verses by the author for the most part, but some of them were purely fictitious speculation and it was just too much.

[Sam Ibeh]

I do not see it as fiction. At best, I see it as a more contemporary narrative of the Old Testament events.

[Atharva Joshi]

I mean I haven't exactly read the bible but reading this was FAR more interesting so what I'm trying to say is even if it is fictionalised I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

[HeatherEi]

I have started reading this book because I was interested in reading the Old Testament in chronological order, however, I am only a few pages in and I am frustrated with how much is being added to the story that is not in the Bible. I think when translating religious texts, a person must be diligent in staying true to what is written and not make additions to make the story more interesting.

[Wanjugush]

I would say there is some fiction but it doesn't take away from the Bible stories, it fills the gaps.

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I must say, this topic is really interesting since I didn't think to look at it that way. I suppose I was taught in school to think of the bible as historic, but while I was reading the book I only saw the parts the author added as just a way to understand everything better. Having seen this thread, however, I will reconsider everything the author wrote as I can see how it would be considered fiction.

I had this same thought! I like the additions to the bible text/verses by the author for the most part, but some of them were purely fictitious speculation and it was just too much.

I wasn't exactly taught to view the Bible as historic, but I was taught to believe it was true. Even so, I've had my doubts (about specific things in it) over the years. With the addition of "fill-in's," albeit interesting ones, from the author, it just makes me wonder even more about what actually happened in all those 'left out' bits, and there are a LOT of them. I think of what the author added in as fiction because per the Bible we actually don't know what happened, so it is pure speculation on his part. Thank you both for stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I do not see it as fiction. At best, I see it as a more contemporary narrative of the Old Testament events.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I went back and re-read a bit. The author's additions do give it a bit of a "contemporary" feel, but not so much that it doesn't fit. Obviously, I don't think of canon Old Testament as fiction but the additions, in my opinion, are only speculation on the part of the author. It admittedly makes it more interesting and easier to understand, however. Thanks for stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I mean I haven't exactly read the bible but reading this was FAR more interesting so what I'm trying to say is even if it is fictionalised I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

I completely agree that the author has succeeded in making the content more interesting and understandable. The 'problem' is that he's added things in that we have no idea whether or not is what really happened. I also agree that it's not necessarily a bad thing in that, in my opinion at least, none of what the author has added takes away or fundamentally changes the actual canon content of the Old Testament. Thanks for stopping in and sharing your opinion!

[Lisa A Rayburn]

I have started reading this book because I was interested in reading the Old Testament in chronological order, however, I am only a few pages in and I am frustrated with how much is being added to the story that is not in the Bible. I think when translating religious texts, a person must be diligent in staying true to what is written and not make additions to make the story more interesting.

True, but I don't think the author's goal was to translate the text. By 'filling in the holes' he was trying to make it not just more interesting, but also more understandable. My point is/was that neither he nor we have any way of knowing whether what he has inserted is actually what happened. Therefore, to me anyway, it qualifies as fiction. Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

[Manali_DC]

I mean, to be very frank, I regard religious texts as fiction, or at least mostly fiction, to begin with. It's interesting to see how others view biblical stories and events, and how they make sense of the stories by filling in the gaps or setting out to create explanations for things. It can be fun to see what others believe or how they perceive the old "canon" texts.

I feel the same about religious texts- that they are fiction or mostly fiction. However these tales still have a valuable message to impart to millions of people, and it is interesting to see the author trying to fill in the gaps without actually deviating from the original story.

[Prisallen]

I don't think this book is too fictionalized. I appreciate that the author has tried to make the Old Testament stories more understandable using modern wording.

I appreciate that as well. It has (kind of) been done before, putting it in modern language that is. One of the Bibles I had as an undergrad had been 'translated' into modern language. I used it for years because it made it so much easier to understand. This author went the extra step of inserting content to cover the 'holes' in the stories. I can't help but think of those parts as fiction. I appreciate you stopping in and sharing your thoughts!

There are many versions of the Bible. Even the King James version that so many use is just a translation from the original languages that the scrolls were written in. King James decided what to put in and what to leave out. The Catholic Bible has a different number of books from the Protestant one. Who's to say if the translators in his time didn't add their own spin on the stories.

I absolutely agree. It makes you wonder how much of it is still true to the original version of the Bible.

[Wanjugush]

Not too fictionized. I loved how the author filled the gaps between the Bible stories.

[skindrukas]

As a nonbeliever, I don't mind that the author filled in the "gaps" in the stories. It's interesting to experience how other people understand the events. If I was a believer, I'd probably just read the original texts and leave this book aside.

[Inkroverts]

I don't think it's too fictionized. I'm more worried when some writers are afraid of interpreting the Bible wrongly, and then make things vague or/and limit their own creativity.