Of course anyone with any intelligence must see that the bible is the worst book of fiction ever written.
A matter of opinion. I believe that Richard Dawkins, for example, believes that the literary qualities of the King James Bible are considerable...
Some opinions are better than others. Also, it is a matter of fact, not opinion.
Dawkins makes it quite clear to the intelligent reader that the "literary" worth of the King James translation far exceeds that of its worth as a source of historical truth. The phrase "worst book of fiction" clearly is meant to underscore two ideas: one, it is fiction, and two, it is bad because it claims not to be fiction. Well, three ideas. Put the first two ideas together with the fact that this book is so widely read and promoted (is there any other book you expect to find in your hotel drawer?), and suddenly it becomes clear why the wonderful poetry of the KJV translation could be described as "the worst book of fiction ever written". It is not bad because the translation is unpoetic, it is bad because it promotes, in such a stunning literary way, moral lessons, palpable lies, and supernatural offences to Natural Law.
It is bad because it dresses up b-s. It is also bad, I suppose, because it is not even really a book. It is actually a heavily redacted and edited collection of writings that span thousands of years. It is like taking memoirs, poetry, war letters, philosophical inquiries written by people who never knew each other and lived incredibly far apart in history, people from completely different societies, and then putting copies of all those texts made centuries later based on countless transcriptions and with not a single original author contributing, into a loosely edited package, and then calling the result of a translation of all that a coherent book. It is an insult upon intelligence.
reply
share
NewCliches
9 years ago
The phrase "worst book of fiction" clearly is meant to underscore two ideas: one, it is fiction, and two, it is bad because it claims not to be fiction
I would not call that clear. It looked to me as though the author wanted to underscore the idea that it is a work of fiction, that he doesn't like it, and that anyone who presumes to disagree with him on either point is an idiot.
reply
share
Ramnagel
9 years ago
It looked to me as though the author wanted to underscore the idea that it is a work of fiction
Yes.
that he doesn't like it
That is implicit in the use of "worst". Not rocket science, exactly.
anyone who presumes to disagree with him on either point is an idiot
Perhaps they are. Depends on the opinion. If someone believed Americans set foot on the Moon, then anyone who presumes to disagree would be an idiot. So, arguments would have to be made, evidence offered.
He is not wrong because he thinks other people are idiots for disagreeing with him. His opinion's value does not depend upon his own character.
Argue the issue, not the person.
reply
share