It's got sci-fi, fantasy, horror, mystery, comedy, and above all else just plain fiction in general.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-07 17:57
>>1
>It's got sci-fi, fantasy, horror, mystery, comedy
I highly doubt it's any of those, or any combination of them, kind sir. Bible belongs to no literary genre, because it's not a work of art at all. It is a religious text. A structured collection of fables. A preachy myth, if you must. Philosophy, perhaps.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-07 18:52
It has prawns in Song of Solomon.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-07 23:45
i like to think that 'fiction' is a catch-all for stuff like the bible.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-12 9:39
religious... duh... >.<
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-12 14:05
It's non-fiction because it's all based on historical events though some of it was slightly dramatized
>>6
>historical events though some of it was slightly dramatized
Yeah, like a dude coming back to life, or the sea parting, or a pillar of fire, or the flood, or God existing. Ever so slightly dramatized, but truly historical.
>>8
Those all happened but were either misinterpreted (Parting of the sea is likely a mistranslation) or exaggerated (the flood).
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-15 5:37
>>11
Yep, and "Dracula" is historical fiction. It's just a little bit misinterpreted (Transylvania is a mistranslation) or exaggerated (living for four hundred years.)
>>9
"Butt-hurt"? Maybe someone really is. Perhaps, perhaps.
>>12
Dracula wasn't based on Vlad and he likely knew little about him. Most of the Bible's events have a lot of basis in fact though like I said with the flood, they were exaggerated.
>>15
Stoker likely knew nothing about Vlad, since a lot of the backround was different and even though he was trying to make him sound even more horrifying, he left out the small detail of the couple hundred thousand people Vlad impaled when writing Dracula's biography.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 7:34
>>16
Stoker likely knew everything about Vlad, actually. "Background" wasn't very different, too, you know: he just swapped one Hungarian county for another, goddamn. He didn't talk about impaling, because he never wanted the two characters to be instantly recognized as one and the same, that's true. Not much people even knew about Vlad Tepesh. I guess, his intention was to be slightly more subtle on his character's origins and to perhaps even sparkle some funny debate, which always helps popularity.
Anyway, you claiming that Stoker's Dracula has nothing to do with historical Dracula, while insisting that Bible is certainly based on historical facts, is, if you pardon me, kind of laughable.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 20:13
>>17
He could've found the nickname somewhere in a book and not known about the man. The character was already created before he decided to rename him as Dracula and the ethnicity and general background are all very different from Vlad's.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-18 4:50
>>18
He did a 5-year research prior to writing the novel.
Again, how are ethnicity and background diffeent? Both are magyar, both are Hungarian ruling nobility, both originally lived at the same time period.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-18 21:41
Comedy Fiction. obviously
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-19 4:49
>>20
Exactly, lol. Parody on mesopotamian relegious writings.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-19 10:43
this thread is now a masturbation competition for 12 year olds who think they are being 'rebellious'.
3
2
1... GO!
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-19 13:43
>>22
I MASTURBATED AND CAME ON YOUR MOMA'S FACE LOL DO I WIN?!?!?!?!
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-19 18:38
Dracula in Bram Stoker's story was a Székely. The Székely are a Hungarian speaking people living mostly in Transylvania.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-20 0:52
>14 Silly Jew/Christian, most of the stories do not have a historical basis, rather they are made up events taken from the reality of the time. There is no MAJOR historical basis for Exodus, unless you believe that a man killed an Egyptian, went off to the desert, raised a family, found a burning bush called "God", went back to Egypt, had 10 plagues desend on it, have God almost kill Moses cause he wouldn't circumcise his child, had millions of hebrews be freed, no historical evidence of a mass exodus having took place, wandering the desert for 40 years, Hebrews whining and then getting bitten by flying snakes. If you don't believe that, you'll have a hard time classifying it as "Non-fiction". The bible is actually not slightly dramatizing historical events, but really really exaggerated them.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-20 7:57
>>24
The evil vampyre signed documents as "Dracula", which is exactly how an evil magyar overlord - the one that murdered people for fun and lived at the same time period as the pre-monster Dracula, - signed his documents, though.
How likely could it be that Stoker invented the name, placed it really close to a historical figure with same name and basic character, and also completely missed the historical spook figure with the same name as his monster? Why is his Dracula even magyar at all, then, if not for the warlord? Vampyre (upir, read as oopEEr) folklore is more common in slavic countries, really.
Nay, I guess Stoker really meant Dracula to be the historical prince famously nicknamed the "Son of the Devil" that fictionally turned into a folklore monster after his death.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-20 8:01
I am confused I thought that fiction an non-fiction weren't genres.
Curse you English language and your dictionaries of falsehood!
I can't believe that all this time I thought fiction and non fiction were categories and genres were things like adventure, romance, mystery etc, and me a librarian.
I should be ashamed of myself. I'm going to have to phone up all the libraries in the country today to tell them they have got it wrong too.
Lucky that we have such learn-ed people here as OP and his extensive knowledge of theology, history, science and Draculas.
Imagine if the newspapers had found out that it was a 12 year old boy on an image board specializing in anime had to correct us, golly they would have a field day.
The historical Vlad Tepes was a Vlach or Wallachian. Not hungarian
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-21 17:07
If I make a book and the main character has a similar name to an obscure historical figure's nickname that doesn't mean anything. Also Dracula means son of the dragon.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-21 18:07
Dracula's name might come from Vlad but the character doesn't.
>The name of Stoker's count was originally going to be Count Vampyre, but while doing research, Stoker became intrigued by the word dracul. Dracul is derived from the word draco in the Megleno-Romanian language, meaning devil (originally dragon). There was also a historic figure known as Vlad III Dracula, but whether Stoker based his character on him remains debated and is now considered unlikely.
The nickname/name therefore could be nothing more than coincidence. Why would he take bits and pieces of historical fact to make Dracula seem more evil and yet not put in the small detail of impaling 40,000 people?
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-22 7:26
>>33
"Dracul" was historical Dracula's old man; that's why his son used to call himself "Dracula", which - yea - means "son of the Devil". Dracul is the word for Devil; "dragon" was synonymous with "devil", and in Hungarian language there only was one word for both.
>>32
>Wallachian. Not hungarian
Except Wallachia was a historical (and political) part of Hungary, Anon.
>>34
What are you quoting? Anyway, how come Stoker even found or constructed the word otherwise? He didn't know no hungarian tongue. Now, creativity is ability to properly hide your sources, says Einstein; and while Stoker didn't do enough of THAT kind of creativity to trick everyone, he still seems to have managed to fool some silly gullible people like your person, it seems.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-22 14:52
Actually, the Bible should be classified under poetry like Shakespeare's plays, but often people like to put it in non-fiction or something rather. I say, whatever float's their manicotti.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-22 15:49
>>36 the Bible should be classified under poetry
Why?
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-22 20:38
...cause the bible is meant to be symbolic, not literal. It was meant to be flexible and changable to accomodate the growings of human understanding. ...how can I know such a thing? Well, if you understand human nature, you can understand just about anything if you look hard enough. The bible is a basic guess at an understanding to want for a better life than that of a goat, especially a scapegoat. But, even someone like myself who likes to describe things in technical terms just doesn't do any justice to poetry or screenplays. But who does? Those are the people I would like to know more about, perhaps they can contribute something to my understanding. I need to learn their ways and attempt to perform from their perspective in order to see what it is that they like about their lifestyles. So, yeah, anything that uses a symbol is pretty much poetry, but when it's put together in such as technical like I am stating, it sounds false, instead of appearing obviously false like poetry. That's because the symbology isn't important, it's the message the symbol represents that matters. So, everyone that praises the symbol or SPECIFIC word over the message is an idolator. Funny isn't it? It caught me by suprise too. Especially when I found myself talking and listening in the same way. :)
I don't know Romanian but Hungarian does have a word for dragon and a word for devil. The Hungarian word for dragon is sárkány and the Hungarian word for devil is ördög. Also Wallachia or Havasalföld in Hungarian was never part of the Kingdom of Hungary, Transylvania or Erdély in Hungarian was though until the end of World War I and many Hungarian speaking people live there to this day. Also just because someone lived in land under Hungarian rule doesn't magically make them "ethnically Hungarian".
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-23 3:41
>>38
Are you trying to reply to >>37? Because you didn't answer the question.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-23 4:02
>>39
Well, you seem to be more knowledgeable than me, and everything you contradicted me in seem to be factually correct. I kind of thought Wallachia was Hungary because all Hungarian people I talked to said they were like brothers, and fuck Romania, and stuff.
But did Hungarian language have the words back at the days? Where does the talk about "dracul" meaning both even originate, then? Or, but the way, perhaps it isn't a Hungarian word at all.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-23 4:04
>>40, well, if you know the aspects of symbology vs the hidden message, you might have a chance. If not, best of luck, you'll need it. How many symbols are you surrounded by just within the room that you are in? Letters, numbers, any symbolic representation of a thought or idea, all books are fictional in reality, but once they seep into the mind, they become truth. So, read and read and read the content of >>38 until you finally see it as true, once you do...Congratulations, you have seen through another person's perspective. BTW, FTW, I don't answer questions. I don't have answers, But what are those crazy things that come before '?'? :P*
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-23 5:20
>>42
What has any of this got to do with poetry? Did some bad man convince you that the essence of poetry is symbolism? No, poetry is writing in verse. That's it. The bible has numbered verses as a navigational aid, but that's not the same thing.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-23 13:20
>>42
>But what are those crazy things that come before '?'?
One isn't allowed to post on 4chan unless one is 18. Sadly, you will have to go stop visiting these boards for now, as rules suggest.
enoghe with the vampires, whales, gods, austria-hungry, hungry and romania and all that bull i think that this thread is dead!!! we have goten completely off topic here.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-29 17:15
>>53
In fact, it had been dead and sinking for two days before some idiot posted in it.
>>53 austria-hungry, hungry
Sure, if they named a country "Turkey", why not name one "Hungry"?
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-01 5:24
>>56
A truly Biblical conclusion, masterfully styled after many a fact, well-misunderstood by ancient lunatic hermits.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-01 10:47
The Qur'an is perfect. All the other revelations to man by God have become corrupted and contradict themselves. The Qur'an is compatible with science. The Qur'an teaches peace and tolerance to other religions.
>>58
Yeah, and they recently reported on BBC how islamic scientists already proved how Allah is the only real god with help of Quaran, too. I say, stupid people who can't even tell a true religion from a false one should just be put into a pit and kept there until they die.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-01 15:14
Qur'an can accept universe is 6,000,000 years old. Qur'an can accept evolution.
What I differ with Qur'an on is many Muslims have this attitude about keeping women dressed and covered in public but in private they're marrying like 20 women. I also dislike many Muslims attitude towards polytheistic religions that preach good works.
One's belief on the nature of God(s) should not be important and something to cause wars. What's important is one's virtues and sins.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-01 18:07
At times it seems Islam prohibits too many things, many which don't seem to bring anything evil such as banning cartoons and music regardless of it's content.
That's one of those people that go around evangelizing over the fact that they are an atheist. They are every bit as annoying as a tub-thumping creationist. For famous examples see Dawkins or Pullman.
Most evangelical atheists you'll see on the internet are around 12 because when they grow up a bit they start to question why they are putting so much effort into something that, being atheists, they shouldn't really give that much of a shit about and go off and do something more enjoyable to them.
God created the world and the first man Adam who I'm supposedly related to. Adam eats a forbidden fruit which somehow "damned" humanity even though they had nothing to do with Adam's decision. A couple thousand years later and after millions of lives who never had a chance of going to heaven God sends his son to insult Judaism and to die on a cross to "undamn" humanity, but in order for it to take effect you have to "accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour".
What a ridiculous religion.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-04 12:17
The Christian Story
God created the world and the first man Adam who I'm supposedly related to. Adam eats a forbidden fruit which somehow "damned" humanity even though they had nothing to do with Adam's decision. A couple thousand years later and after millions of lives who never had a chance of going to heaven God sends his son to insult Judaism and to die on a cross to "undamn" humanity, but in order for it to take effect you have to "accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour".
What a ridiculous religion.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-04 15:36
>>76 >>77
It's so damn ridiculous you even chose to tell it twice, Anon.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-06 12:13
The Atheist Story
There was was big load of nothing that supposedly decided to clump together one day. This clump of non-existent matter "somehow" broke the laws of thermo-dynamics in that energy can neither be created or destroyed and exploded. After the explosion all the universe came into being. A couple of billion years later after millions of lives who toiled under the oppressive yoke of believing in oppressive and outdated theories like being nice to people or treating other people as you would yourself, OP came along and wowed the masses of people reading the 4chan text bored /book/ (a total of 5 people) with his stunning insight and supreme cleverness at the tender age of 12.
What a ridiculous religion.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-06 12:14
The Atheist Story
There was was big load of nothing that supposedly decided to clump together one day. This clump of non-existent matter "somehow" broke the laws of thermo-dynamics in that energy can neither be created or destroyed and exploded. After the explosion all the universe came into being. A couple of billion years later after millions of lives who toiled under the oppressive yoke of believing in oppressive and outdated theories like being nice to people or treating other people as you would yourself, OP came along and wowed the masses of people reading the 4chan text bored /book/ (a total of 5 people) with his stunning insight and supreme cleverness at the tender age of 12.
OK so if atheism is not a religious belief then what is it?
A rejection of conventional theological belief in favour of the belief that there are no gods is still a religious belief, just because there is no regular worship or praying doesn't mean that it's not.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-10 14:49
>>89
Not even all kinds of belief are religious. Now, atheism is not believing in that there are no gods, but, rather, not believing in anything at all until it is scientifically proven or disproven.
Religious belief is by definition illogical, and if you don't know that, then you're a one shitty christian, because it's not once openly stated in the Bible. Atheists just choose to not believe anything nobody's ever seen just because somebody tels them to.
But now, what the fuck, I'm arguing with a motherfucking religious person, WTF am I even thinking?..
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-10 16:38
>>90 Now, atheism is not believing in that there are no gods, but, rather, not believing in anything at all until it is scientifically proven or disproven.
You're mixing it up with scientific skepticism or something. Atheism is non-believing in any diety. Most atheists probably base their beliefs on what has been scientifically proven (because the alternative is insane), but it's technically not required to fit the definition.
>Religious belief is by definition illogical, and if you don't know that, then you're a one shitty christian, because it's not once openly stated in the Bible.
I'd not trust your source of information on that again if I were you, try reading the book of Job, the fact that religion and life is illogical and would take someone or something of infinite intelligence to under stand is the whole point of that story.
Also, to my the best of knowledge I have never fucked my mother and I am agnostic.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-11 10:01
>>92
Arguing about religion and fucking your own mother are generally the same kind of offence, you evildoer.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-13 4:11
>>80
There are things science finds hard or perhaps impossible to explain, like the "first cause" of the universe you mention, but inventing a God answers NONE of these difficult questions. Adding God into the mix only invokes the question "how did God break all of science's laws and come into being?" and we are back at the original problem.
At the end we have a double combo of fail for the God hypothesis:
1. no proof he exists
2. no reason he needs to exist
atheism is not believing in that there are no gods, but, rather, not believing in anything at all until it is scientifically proven or disproven.
Fail. "Atheism" comes from "theos", meaning god, and the prefix "a-", meaning "no", "without" or "none".
It is the belief that there are no gods. And this belief is just as scientifically unfounded as the belief that there is a god.
If you want your beliefs to be scientifically valid so bad, go with apatheism or agnosticism.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-13 5:05
>>89
>>just because there is no regular worship or praying doesn't mean that it's not.
Actually those are exactly the things that make something a religious belief rather than a belief.
Believing 2 + 2 = 4 is not religion.
Believing we landed on the moon is not religion.
Believing in the supernatural is not religion.
Praying and worshipping to a supernatural being IS a religion. (Unless nobody else worships your God, in which case you will be labelled insane.)
Since atheists don't do the latter, atheism is not a religion.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-13 5:16
>>95
That's not what atheists believe in practice. 99% of atheists believe "a God almost certainly doesn't exist" not that "there is certainly no God". They put the existence of God in the same category as believing we are in the Matrix, or that there is a China teapot orbiting the earth, too small for any telescope on earth to see (Bertrand Russel's famous example).
I'm sure you don't believe we are in the Matrix, but would you call yourself "agnostic" about it? It would be silly to do so, which is why atheists don't call themselves agnostics. Agnostics are people who think there is a decent chance God exists, and a decent chance he doesn't.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-13 5:25
>>95
Atheism isn't "believing there is no God", you assclown, it is "not believing in a God" because there is no proof or reason behind actual existence of such a pointless being. Origins of religions are pretty simple and for a man of any kind of intelligence there really is no need to believe there is some high-up father or cosmic monster out there just because a weird fuck in silly clothes and a bunch of insane women say so; rather, on the contrary: it's better not to believe ANYTHING these kind of people say.
>>109
"Religion easily—has the best bullshit story of all time. Think about it. Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man...living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money."
>>111
Yes, that kind of subject matter got old fast.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-15 14:11
>>110
And that's why religion should be abolished. Stalin was somewhat successfully at it, and now Russia has the most atheists.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-15 15:06
>>114
The world should be run by wise teenagers with navel piercings.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-15 19:10
>>115
No, they should be killed too. You completely misunderstood my comment.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-16 5:34
>>116
Stalin was a tremendous faggot, and communism was made really religious-like in his time, him being the prophet, Marx the messiah and Lenin the Jesus. Nothing good about it, nothing, really.
I believe it would fall under non fiction no matter my opinion on the actual validity of the text. The intentions of the writers were for it to be taken as historical fact, so that is its genre.
The Bible does not belong in any of those categories (Sci-fi, Fantasy, etc...). It is a historical fiction, it truly happened. Not trolling or anything, I'm just a religious man.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-21 15:24
it's fantasy
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-11 1:03
Its non-fiction. Not that I believe everything it says, but whoever wrote the books of the bible probably did. It was probably what the authors seriously believed at the time.
>>155
Thanks for the etymology. What was the purpose of your post? The contemporary use of the word Scripture refers to a literary genre consisting of "written material" that is sacred or fundamental to a religion. Any religion.
Sounds like you need to do a little more reading. You seem to be missing the forest for the trees in a few different ways.
Were you offended because I answered the question?
Do you disagree?
Or are you just another asshole?
Ahem.
If texts are important based on how sacred they're considered, more of us should be reading The Upanishads and Rig Veda, or spend time reading different Sutras.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 14:05
Read the Qur'an and the Bhagavad Gita. And the Book of Mormon