What genre is the Bible?

It's got sci-fi, fantasy, horror, mystery, comedy, and above all else just plain fiction in general.

>>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.

It has prawns in Song of Solomon.

i like to think that 'fiction' is a catch-all for stuff like the bible.

religious... duh... >.<

It's non-fiction because it's all based on historical events though some of it was slightly dramatized

>>6
Perhaps historical fiction.

>>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

Goodness, someone sounds butt-hurt.

children's fiction

>>8
Those all happened but were either misinterpreted (Parting of the sea is likely a mistranslation) or exaggerated (the flood).

>>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

in B4 DICKBUTT

>>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. 

>>14
Vlad likely knew little about Dracula?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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. 

>>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.

Comedy Fiction. obviously

>>20
Exactly, lol. Parody on mesopotamian relegious writings.

this thread is now a masturbation competition for 12 year olds who think they are being 'rebellious'.

3
2
1... GO!

 

>>22
I MASTURBATED AND CAME ON YOUR MOMA'S FACE LOL DO I WIN?!?!?!?!

Dracula in Bram Stoker's story was a Székely. The Székely are a Hungarian speaking people living mostly in Transylvania.

>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.

>>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.

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.

>>27
Your christian butt... I can taste the hurt.

>>27

The way you word your opinion makes you sound like a faggot.

>>28
>>29

Samefag with no good comeback.

>>30
Oh man.

The historical Vlad Tepes was a Vlach or Wallachian. Not hungarian

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.

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?

>>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.

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.

>>36
the Bible should be classified under poetry
Why?

...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. :)

>>35

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".

>>38
Are you trying to reply to >>37? Because you didn't answer the question.