OnlineBookClub.org

Heatholt wrote: ↑27 Aug 2019, 20:50 For me, the Fictionazation was necessary. This would not be a book I would normally read but the way the author filled in the gaps kept my attention and didn't make me feel like a sunday school lecture.

I agree; he was definitely successful in making the stories much more interesting than a Sunday school lecture/class. That's a great way to look at how he filled in the gaps! Thanks so much for stopping by and commenting!

Ahhh, the old "real truth" versus the author that has taken liberties question. I'd love to say that this author is the first one that has done this throughout history, but literature and religious texts are ripe with examples. I have no problems with it as it makes a difficult topic a lot more accessible that it normally would be.

Scerakor wrote: ↑29 Aug 2019, 11:22 Ahhh, the old "real truth" versus the author that has taken liberties question. I'd love to say that this author is the first one that has done this throughout history, but literature and religious texts are ripe with examples. I have no problems with it as it makes a difficult topic a lot more accessible that it normally would be.

I do agree that the author has stayed true to the meaning of the stories and made them more understandable/accessible for a broader audience. In that sense, the book is a definite win! Thanks for stopping in and commenting!

The Bible has existed for thousands of years. It makes sense that in all those millennia, it's gotten harder and harder to fully understand it. You have not only a language barrier, but even cultural issues, as the stories took place not only in a different country (to most Americans, anyway) but a different time. So I don't think there's any issue, in my opinion, trying to modernize stories a bit to make them more easily digestible. That's not quite what the author did, but by filling in things left out of the original story, it's helping to fill a void picked up by modern (and not-so-modern) readers. That's pretty cool.

Lindsey Klaus wrote: ↑30 Aug 2019, 20:51 The Bible has existed for thousands of years. It makes sense that in all those millennia, it's gotten harder and harder to fully understand it. You have not only a language barrier, but even cultural issues, as the stories took place not only in a different country (to most Americans, anyway) but a different time. So I don't think there's any issue, in my opinion, trying to modernize stories a bit to make them more easily digestible. That's not quite what the author did, but by filling in things left out of the original story, it's helping to fill a void picked up by modern (and not-so-modern) readers. That's pretty cool.

I think that's a wonderful way to look at it!! I hadn't really considered it as helping to fill a void but, as I consider it, that is precisely what he did! Looked at that way, it doesn't really matter whether or not it was a bit fictionalized! Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

Kelyn wrote: ↑31 Aug 2019, 18:05

Lindsey Klaus wrote: ↑30 Aug 2019, 20:51 The Bible has existed for thousands of years. It makes sense that in all those millennia, it's gotten harder and harder to fully understand it. You have not only a language barrier, but even cultural issues, as the stories took place not only in a different country (to most Americans, anyway) but a different time. So I don't think there's any issue, in my opinion, trying to modernize stories a bit to make them more easily digestible. That's not quite what the author did, but by filling in things left out of the original story, it's helping to fill a void picked up by modern (and not-so-modern) readers. That's pretty cool.

I think that's a wonderful way to look at it!! I hadn't really considered it as helping to fill a void but, as I consider it, that is precisely what he did! Looked at that way, it doesn't really matter whether or not it was a bit fictionalized! Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

That was my thought, too! If these stories had taken place in the modern day, I feel that the Bible would've included scenes to explain things a bit more thoroughly. As it is, it came out in a different time and a different culture, so it's hard to fully grasp what's going on for some people. Glad to have stopped by, it's been an interesting discussion.

The subject of whether the Bible is fiction has been debated for centuries and is very contentious. Thanks to the fact that a modern view is applied, we can agree that most people nowadays would respond in the affirmative to that question. In all honesty, it depends on your beliefs. I am in the category of people who think it is not too fictionized.

HansonThoughts wrote: ↑05 Sep 2019, 19:59 The subject of whether the Bible is fiction has been debated for centuries and is very contentious. Thanks to the fact that a modern view is applied, we can agree that most people nowadays would respond in the affirmative to that question. In all honesty, it depends on your beliefs. I am in the category of people who think it is not too fictionized.

I wasn't actually arguing whether or not the Bible itself is fiction. That is entirely another discussion and, as you said, extremely contentious/controversial. The bits I was asking for opinions on was the 'fill-in' material the author used to make the stories 'complete.' I grant he kept the stories true to the Bible, but I was interested in thoughts on the subject. Were the additional bits to be considered fiction, even though they did serve the desired purpose of making the stories more clear? Or did they blend well enough to be considered a 'modern addition' to the original Bible stories? I appreciate your stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

I think the author did his best to contemporize the events for his target audience, while staying true to his reference.

I wouldn't necessarily call it fiction. It's just one more person's take on an old book. There are so many ways to interpret the Bible. Filling in gaps in stories can definitely make for an interesting read, but I never tke anyone's interpretation as truth.

I don't think a retelling of a Bible story can be too fictionised. Most of the stories in the Bible leave a lot to wonder about and for the author to successfully tell the story, he had to insert some form of fiction to grip the reader's interest.

V 1 5 wrote: ↑06 Sep 2019, 18:20 I think the author did his best to contemporize the events for his target audience, while staying true to his reference.

iced_sunshine wrote: ↑07 Sep 2019, 13:23 I don't think a retelling of a Bible story can be too fictionised. Most of the stories in the Bible leave a lot to wonder about and for the author to successfully tell the story, he had to insert some form of fiction to grip the reader's interest.

Granted. Both contemporization and successfully catching (and keeping) the reader's interest were undoubtedly concerns the author had. This would have been in addition to staying true to the original stories, or at least to how they are written in current Bibles. Thank you both for stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

pricklypurple wrote: ↑07 Sep 2019, 08:28 I wouldn't necessarily call it fiction. It's just one more person's take on an old book. There are so many ways to interpret the Bible. Filling in gaps in stories can definitely make for an interesting read, but I never tke anyone's interpretation as truth.

That's an interesting way to look at it, and I agree the Bible has gone through many interpretations/translations. How can we be sure that what we read today is truly what was originally written? But that's a can of worms for another time. Thanks for stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

I feel that it is interesting to see how the gaps are filled in. I found it very easy to follow along and use as a study guide when I read the Bible.

byebye98 wrote: ↑07 Sep 2019, 17:29 I feel that it is interesting to see how the gaps are filled in. I found it very easy to follow along and use as a study guide when I read the Bible.

It was indeed interesting to see what happened to the story as he filled in the blanks. He managed to stay faithful, in most cases, to the 'original' Bible stories, though I did feel like he took some small liberties. His results did make it easy to follow along, though. Thanks for stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!