Customer Reviews

The Holy Bible King James Version: King James Version

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

I have a couple of deluxe-edition Bibles given to me as confirmation gifts that see little use. As a compulsive underliner and annotator, I just can't bring myself to vandalize a leather-bound Bible with gilded parchment pages. This "pulp fiction" production of the King James translation, on the other hand, is just the ticket to guilt-free consumption for those of us who take "active" reading to the extreme. It's cheap, disposable and easily replaceable; it adds very little weight, takes even less space in my book bag. As for the translation, the King James is the only way to go for those of us take literature seriously and prize metaphor as the analog for apprehension of the non-verbal. For "accuracy" of translation, I'm still partial to the Revised Standard (New Revised, if need be) but have yet to find a working man's copy as serviceable as this one. (Warning: the print is quite petite.)

The language is rather lovely, and poetic, although portions of the book do appear to resort to excessive synopsis. The third and fourth chapters, in particular, are guilty of this, with the third being a drab list of rules and regulations presented without elaboration, in a sort of authorial filibuster, and the fourth being a litany of tedious revenge fantasies. Some of the later chapters are quite interesting, and there's a lovely romantic interlude, but the tendency towards authorial filibuster doesn't completely disappear.

Also, the main character is a bit inconsistent, sometimes appearing kind and loving, while other times wrathful and vengeful. This dichotomy could be an interesting plot device, but alas the book never goes into detail about why the disparity exists. We are simply left to wonder at it, or just figure "that's how it is". Frustrating.

The book does suffer a bit from uneven editing, as well. For instance, there's a fascinating tale about a golden bull statue, which is unaccountably buried in between two tedious and nearly identical descriptions of carpentry. What's the deal? I admit that editing such a large work can be trying, but surely such duplication should be easy to avoid!

Overall, though, it's not bad. I am rather disappointed that the publishers chose to bundle the inferior and hackneyed sequel with the groundbreaking and innovative original, however. Really, if the sequel can't stand on its own merits, why include it at all?

A bible is a bible except:

1. The letter size is so tiny (Times Roman 6 or 7 points) that you need a reading glasses. My other bible bought at amazon was in giant letter size, 16 points. So obviously you should check the letter size first before placing an order.


2. In paperback form; the pages are easy to tear.
If you want to buy it for someone else like a convert, I would recommend a more *readable* and durable copy.


3. The delivery time was decent; the book condition was new as in seller's comments.

I decided to go back and read the Bible once again but I don't think that I can continue. It is too confusing. Let me demonstrate:

"In the beginning God Created the heaven and the Earth."

First I have a problem with a couple of terms here; beginning, God, created, heaven and earth.
In the beginning of what?
In the beginning of God? In the beginning of the universe? Is "In the beginning" being suggestive of the implausible notion that there was a time in the evolution of "existence" when there was nothing or when there was nothing but God?
In the beginning before there was an Earth? before there were planets? before the universe that we understand as it exists today formed into what it now is?
I don't see how there could have ever have been a time when there was nothing. The idea that "something" can come from "nothing" is impossible as far as I know.
"Nothing" is defined as that state of non-being or non-existence with no capacity or potential ever to become anything. This is why we call this concept nothing. Nothing is nothing.
If in the beginning there was nothing, then as a consequence there would still be nothing today. But since there is something today "nothing" is merely a term used in language to describe an impossibility or a theoretical explanation. To say that nothing represents something or some possibility is like asking what amount does 0 (zero) represent; or how much is zero. It is nonsense.

In the beginning there was something and we are going to refer to that something as God? Is this what the author is proposing?

God? The presumption is that we all know the definition of this term. I have learned that there are as many definitions of this term as there are individuals who use the word. But I presume that in general the author is suggesting that before there was anything that is now recognized there was a force or entity or power which was somehow responsible for putting into motion and existence all that we understand as existence today. I will let the use of this word slide for the moment and we will pay attention and see if it is more clearly defined as we go on.

Created? I have read many definitions of this word. Some say that the term "created" describes the ability of an existing thing to bring something into existence from "nothing." This as I understand is the definition of this word as is accepted by the entire Christian world and some non-Christians.

To bring something into existence from nothing is by my understanding of these terms not possible. So in my opinion if this is the basis of your explanation of Existence you are premising all that you believe on an impossibility. This I would say is the classic example of building your house on a weak foundation.

I will then presume that what the author is saying is that; In the Beginning (?) God (?) created - naturally produced either from his being as human parents or animals or other living things create a child, an offspring, or another living cell, all of existence - animate and inanimate; or that God (?) (the force, power or whatever) imaginatively formed a new thing from other things that were existing previously. As in the act of invention, or artistic representations or "creation."

The heaven?
That mysterious place talked about by religious mystics and often contrasted with hell - as in my blue heaven of just Molly and me and baby makes three? Or is the author referring to the sky or the atmosphere? Or does the use of this term apply to "the heavens" - interpreted as the Universe. The Universe defined as all that exists.

The Earth is the only seemingly simple term in this sentence. I will presume the author means this planet or sphere as we know, have known and will continue to know it.

And the Earth was without form, and void;
Oh brother, just when we thought we had one clear term in this sentence, it's gone.
If the earth is without form and void - then there is no earth. If void means empty or containing "nothing" and form means shape, dimension, perimeters and the like then if the earth has no shape or form or dimensions and is composed of "nothing" then it isn't anything. So in the beginning this God created something that the author has named as the earth but describes as a non-entity or in effect nothing.

So in the beginning there was nothing; but God changed the nothing that was there (in place somewhere?) into another nothing that the author has called the earth.

This isn't making any sense but we will continue.

And darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Darkness was upon the face of the deep what? Face? Is face supposed to mean surface. And darkness was upon the surface of the deep.
The deep? The deep ocean? the deep universe? the deep heaven? the deep earth? the deep nothingness? the deep God? Does "the darkness was upon the face of the deep" mean that God was frowning? Darkness was on the face of God?

And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The spirit of God? God has a body and a spirit? His spirit moves? It goes from place to place? It is an entity that is limited by dimensions? It can go from the kitchen to the bedroom? God is a living moving thing with structure and form separate from other things who is capable of moving from place to place? God is an individual entity and not a force or a power or an energy? God is one and individual and distinguishable from other things? God is an existing thing?

Where is He? Is this thing visible? Has it ever been seen? Does God have the capacity to bump into other things?

And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the water. The author means to say that the spirit of God moves upon the surface of the water? Water doesn't have a face.

Where the heck did this water come from anyway? The Earth is void and without form - remember. How does it hold water? The Earth is without form and it is void.

So we have the spirit of an entity that is representative of all that was "in the beginning." This entity is individual and separate and it is moving upon the surface of an empty, formless, dark, dimensionless void that is filled or somehow contains water.

I could go on but I must assume this will not get any better.
I think this is more of a "poetry" book. Poetry doesn't have to make sense.

Ive read many versions of this book.. Its the same story pretty much.
The fairy tales seem a little out there put there fun, the main character of the book is
this "god" who loves everyone yet wants them to fear him by threatening a endless afterlife of horror and fire...Hmmm
The other part to the story is the "son of god" or "jesus".. i got a little lost but its a great tale about him being a cosmic
jewish zombie. The bad part is about the people having such a closed mind!
Anyway i cant seem to find an author who wrote this and thats a little weird,
but if i do id like to read more stories like this!!


Oh one more thing i found out that makes this book very creepy is a cult of people actually believing the fairy tales!!!!!!
The cult being called religion that seems to overtake the earth having the whole world have war over this!!!!
Holy Crap! Thank science that none of this is true!!!!

The Holy Bible is a slyly-written fantasy book which could be fun for people of all ages, if it weren't for several factors:

1. Too much exposition: Unfortunately, the from the beginning, the book gets bogged down in far too much exposition - often to the point of redundancy.

2. Incoherent writing style: The writing style is not at all coherent - portions of the book seem to be written by very different authors. In my opinion, the author may suffer from an advanced form of multiple-personality disorder.

3. Historical inaccuracies: The book is filled with historical inaccuracies to the point that young people might become confused as to the actual nature of history. While this often is common in fantasy books, most books tend to have a fantasy world setting, whereas this book is set on on our own Earth, much like the esteemed Lord of the Rings trilogy (and other related books).

4. Confusing storyline: In some portions of the book, the main character, God, contradicts himself and his own rules - if the book is going to set up rules for its fantasy world, it should probably stick to them. ---SPOILER ALERT--- In the very first chapter, there are two accounts of "creation".

5. Subject matter: This book contains more violence than similar fantasy novels, and includes themes such as rape and incest, which should be considered out of the realm of normal for teens and younger children.

If it weren't for the various problems listed above, this would be a top-notch fantasy book, on-par with CS Lewis's Narnia books or Tolkien's Middle Earth books.

A very good deal, although the print is smaller than I like and I came across the substitution "a" for "an" in front of h words; "an helpmate" is changed to "a helpmate" and so forth. (I suppose it doesn't matter one way or the other but the language flows better the former way and is more traditional. It also makes me wonder what else they might have changed, but oh well.) For those like a bare-bones bible with no extraneous commentary/glossary/etc. (which is the main reason I got it besides price) it's not half bad, although there are better quality King James Version printings out there and unless you're buying bibles in bulk to pass out to people you probably might as well spend the extra eight or nine dollars to get quality.

Pros:
Only one: Price is reasonable.
Cons:
The smallest print of any larger Bible that I have ever seen.
Print too small to read!
The old saying "You get what you pay for!" is so true. Why waste your money on a small print large Bible? Spend a couple more dollars for a larger print Bible.

I picked this up because I heard it advertised as the Gospel, which translates to "good news." It opens up by telling the reader how the human race is doomed because two poorly developed characters ate an apple that a snake told them to eat. That's not good news.

If you are looking for a story filled with powerful characters from warriors and kings to a talking donkey and a parthenogenesis zombie than this is a story for you! The plot keeps you on your toes and I enjoyed this psuedo historic work merged with fantastic mythology that really brings out an aura of mystical feel to reading it. Some parts are abit choppy but other than that it is right up there with Lord of the Rings.