Reviews

The Holy Bible: King James Version by Anonymous

katiesreadingnow's review against another edition

Go to review page

1.0

0 stars if possible. what a weird fantasy book, not a fan of the chosen one in this fairytale, would prefer less of the all yee must kneel thing, but whatever gets your rocks off i guess.

I also heard rumors that the sequel confirms he was never real!!

zzzazzzy's review against another edition

Go to review page

1.0

Not gay enough

virtualmima's review against another edition

Go to review page

0.5

Like most ancient works of literature, the storytelling is a sloppy and unedited collection of tall tales about questionable historical events, but this really did not have to be such a long read. The entire book should have been trimmed to maybe 200 pages, as the majority of what is written can be omitted without removing anything from the overall storyline. I understand that due to the difficulty required in writing in ancient times it was hard to edit things over, and most writings were first draft material, but the Epic of Gilgamesh was an easy read and Homer's epics weren't so bad either. There was just so much unnecessary info included in the Bible, like lists of ancestors.
The first five books obviously originated in oral tradition, especially Genesis. That's why the story is so convoluted, full of holes and missing details, with some details that sound like they've been passed through word of mouth until removed of any meaning. Several of the stories were stolen from Sumerian folklore as well. About halfway through Exodus to the end of Leviticus was a huge list of laws, most of which are extremely brutal or make absolutely no sense and lack relevance today. A large portion is dedicated to the construction of the temple, which is listed down to the smallest detail. Numbers is just a detailed census-like statement counting things.
The remainder of the Old Testament is filled with tales of God's wrath and the oppression he unleashes upon the world. God is a very brutal character, perhaps the most evil, tyrannous character in the whole novel. Not only is he a narcissistic, powerhungry brute with possessive tendencies and a huge temper problem, but he has absolutely no redeemable qualities about him. After all he created an entire world of people just to worship him and makes extreme demands of them like an abusive husband who clearly wants to be disappointed. It's no wonder that so many of the the minor characters lose faith and disobey him. People don't owe the guy just because he created them out of clay or whatever.
Psalms and Proverbs don't contain the wisdom they're reputed to have. Mostly a bunch of obvious observations, unsolicited advice, and religious fanaticism.
The New Testament was more of a political statement of its time than anything else. The story of Jesus, retold over and over in the first few books, was a criticism of the corruption that was going on among other Jews at the time under the influence of Roman authority. This was continued in Paul's letters.
Revelations showed us the true motive of the Nazarene movement, which was to overthrow the Roman Empire, or at the very least to get them to leave the Jews alone. The whole book was written in code under the wrath of Nero, who notoriously persecuted the Nazarenes. In order to escape the understanding of the Romans, it was written in a manner that only Jews at the time would understand, especially Nazarenes. It was a promise, a call-to-action, to bring forth the fall of Rome, which was already on its decline. The promise was to come "soon", within a few generations. The devil worship and blasphemies spoken of referred to the worship of the Roman emperors and their customs such as orgies, homosexuality, and prostitution that all broke the laws of the Bible. When it said the number of the beast but omitted the name, it was referring to Nero. 666 (or 616) is the sum of Hebrew letters in the name Nero[n] Caesar. The conquests, storms, and earthquakes weren't predictions of geological events; they symbolized the civil unrest and revolution that would be brought upon Rome by the Nazarenes once they'd grow in power. The mission would be to turn the entirety of Rome into a kingdom of God through violent revolution. A couple of centuries later, this became only partially true. When Constantine converted to Christianity, he set Rome up for the reign of Christianity that oppressed Europe throughout the Middle Ages, but this was far from a violent revolution. The symbolic "apocalypse" aka the fall of Rome came not from the Christians but from the Germanic invaders of the north. Christianity, too, lost its message as a mission for the liberation of the Jews and the end of corruption. The Nazarenes hadn't even hoped for anything beyond this. But instead it became a tool for corruption and oppression by the very people they sought to destroy. Instead of burning to the ground, Rome (symbolized by Babylon) became the center of Christianity instead of Jerusalem and Israel, the promised land. Constantine, being a clever politician, managed to put a stop to the rising threat of the Nazarenes by adopting their religion, simultaneously granting his successors a powerful tool to control the masses. And for almost two millennia rulers have followed in his lead, using the failed Nazarene movement to control people who were perfectly ignorant of the origins of the document.
It's absurd that after all these years people are still gullible enough take this book literally, and actually believe it to be of some value. It's hardly even useful as a historical document.

madison_street_library's review against another edition

Go to review page

reflective tense slow-paced

nwhyte's review against another edition

Go to review page

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2011647.html[return]http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2047769.html[return][return]First off, I don't think I actually would recommend reading the Old Testament (or indeed the Bible) through from start to finish as I did. It wasn't written or compiled to be read in that way, and it doesn't do the text any services to read as if it were a novel, a short story collection, or a book of essays and meditations. I chose this approach because I wanted to feel that I had control of what I was reading, and that I was not missing anything, but if you want to get a fair flavour of it, it's probably better to follow one of the many reading guides available online and elsewhere, which are designed both to showcase the good bits and to keep the reader interested.[return][return]Second, a lot of it is pretty dull, actually. 2 Chronicles in particular comes close to Mark Twain's description of the Book of Mormon, as "choroform in print". Large chunks of the Pentateuch are lists of laws and, even less exciting, census returns. The historical bits have an awful lot of tediously horrible ethnic cleansing and dynastic struggle, leavened by the occasional good bit (the Saul/David/Solomon succession in particular). The prophets are rather indistinguishable in tone of outrage. I recommend finding some way of skipping the dull bits.[return][return]Third, the good bits are indeed good. I've singled out the Book of Job in a previous post; I found the Psalms generally inspiring and uplifting, and I've always been a fan of Ecclesiastes. The narrative histories, which I thought I knew fairly well, still had some surprises for me - in Numbers 12, God smites Moses' sister with leprosy for racism towards Moses' black wife, for instance. There are some fun bits in the prophets - Jonah, and the deuterocanonical addenda to Daniel (Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon). I also rather liked Sirach, aka Ecclesiasticus, which again is deuterocanonical. And 2 Maccabees is a fairly lucid, if brutal, historical note to finish on.[return][return]Fourth, there were indeed a few themes running through the entire OT whose importance I hadn't perhaps fully grasped: the importance of God's endowing his people with the land, the importance of the cult of the Temple, and the trauma of the Babylonian exile (which of course shaped most of the text we have very directly). I'm not saying that these are the only or even the main main themes, but that these are the ones whose importance was enhanced for me by reading through the entire thing.[return][return]As for the New Testament: it falls rather naturally into three sections. The Gospels and Acts are among the most readable narratives in the Bible; the most striking things are that the three synoptic gospels are so very close to each other, leaving John as the outlier, and that Luke's better Greek prose style comes through in almost any translation of his gospel and Acts. I am also struck every time that the Feeding of the Five Thousand is the only miracle other than the Resurrection reported in all four gospels.[return][return]I was much less familiar with the various epistles. They are not as easy to read as the gospels, combining as they do advice on local disputed, personal salutations, declarations about correct practice and belief, and attempts to put words on the ineffable (Hebrews in particular is an attempt at a theological manifesto avant la lettre). I was struck by how hardline Paul is, particularly in the early letters, on the issues that hardliners still stick to today, and also on the question of justification by faith; but there is a significant counterbalance from some of the later letters, especially 1 Peter which seems to be a direct response in some ways. (And the Epistle of Jude seems strangely familiar after 2 Peter ch 2...)[return][return]Finally, Revelation is the most Old Testament-y of the New Testament books. (There is nothing like the letters in the Old Testament, and the gospels and Acts are quite different in style from the OT historical books.) Again, Revelation is an attempt to express in words that which cannot be expressed in words; it is clearly not meant to be taken literally, but as one person's attempt to concretise the underlying truths.

daphself's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

I normally do not review Bibles, but sometimes I come across one that seems as though it may be interesting to see how it was printed and how well it is constructed.

With this one, I found the print to be amazingly easy to read and soft on the eyes. I enjoy having Christ's words in red. It makes for easy referencing.

The thinness of the Bible lends to the onion-like pages of older Bibles where the reader would reverently turn the pages. Instead of the soft, leather or soft, plastic covers that barely protected the book from wear, scratches, or stains, the hardback, cloth-like cover of this one has the ability to keep the contents safer.

The cover itself has a wonderful terry like feel. To me, this is a great book to give to a newer Christian or one who needs larger print.

As always, I am partial to the King James Version and the New King James Version.

***I received this Bible from BookLook Bloggers in exchange of an honest review***

humongousbrain's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

Probably the most influential book in history. The KJV is definitely the most influential English-language book of all time. Genesis and Song of Songs are the best parts.