The Bible or LOTR?

Spacedog

In general which book is better, the Bible, a fictional book re-written by and edited over several hunded of years in order to provide a moral compas to readers through use of the best metaphorical and literary language, and the most advanced philosphly and and factual knowledge available at the time. The book is much loved, so much so that people choose to believe it to be true in every detail despite direct descrepencies with real life experience and phisical evedence.

Or Lord of the Rings, the trilogy of fantasy books by J.R.R. Tolken. Tolken sets his fictional tale in a world in prepetual conflict between good and evil, with humans somewhere in between. a strong theme of the books are mans desire for power and that it is human nature for man to be corrupted by the alure of power, represented by the ring. this book is also much loved, so much so that people (but not as many) dress as elves and go to new zeland to visit Helms Deep and Rohan.

Purely from an objective literary perspective, which of these two completly fictional works do you think is better and why.

PDN

Spacedog wrote: »

In general which book is better, the Bible, a fictional book re-written by and edited over several hunded of years in order to provide a moral compas to readers through use of the best metaphorical and literary language, and the most advanced philosphly and and factual knowledge available at the time. The book is much loved, so much so that people choose to believe it to be true in every detail despite direct descrepencies with real life experience and phisical evedence.

Or Lord of the Rings, the trilogy of fantasy books by J.R.R. Tolken. Tolken sets his fictional tale in a world in prepetual conflict between good and evil, with humans somewhere in between. a strong theme of the books are mans desire for power and that it is human nature for man to be corrupted by the alure of power, represented by the ring. this book is also much loved, so much so that people (but not as many) dress as elves and go to new zeland to visit Helms Deep and Rohan.

Purely from an objective literary perspective, which of these two completly fictional works do you think is better and why.

You could always hedge your bets and go for the Jerusalem Bible translation since Tolkien was one of the editors and translators.

5uspect

Certainly this guy has made his mind up.

liamw

My vote goes for LOTR... you don't have all those instructions to stone people to death and destroy nations for worshipping other gods

Nodin

Spacedog wrote: »

Purely from an objective literary perspective, which of these two completly fictional works do you think is better and why.

Tried the Bible twice, never got more than a few pages into it. Read the lord of the rings a fair few times. As a result I can't in fairness compare the two.

Flamed Diving

One book provides tips on cooking food with your own faeces and how to clean sperm out of your clothes. The other provides a fantastical (though somewhat drawn out) tale in which good triumphs evil.

robindch

Nodin wrote: »

Tried the Bible twice, never got more than a few pages into it. Read the lord of the rings a fair few times. As a result I can't in fairness compare the two.

It's probably fairer to compare the bible with the The Silmarillion, populated as it is with global death and destruction, angry gods, devils plaguing the place and so on.

And you can get to compare genesis with Tolkien's effort (far more elegant and thoughtful, imho).

robindch

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The other provides a fantastical (though somewhat drawn out) tale in which good triumphs evil.

Assuming you're referring to LOTR I think many Tolkien fans would disagree and point out that the principal theme of most of Tolkien's writing is of the decline of Elvish (aka spiritual) calm, thoughtful passion and the rise of intemperate haste and crudity.

The LOTR didn't finish up at the Gray Havens for nothing and it's much more than just a simple tale of good beats bad.

Morbert

I tried to read the Bible but I couldn't. I got as far as all the begats. Genesis has as much passion and heart as a textbook (probably due to the translation). The OT is better, and I got through more of that. Some of the stories Jesus told were interesting.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

I would have to go with the bible as I never really liked LOTR. I much preferred “The chronicles of Thomas Covenant the unbeliever” which is like LOTR for adults.

Having said that, I would also argue that a reading of the bible is required if anyone wanted to seriously get into anything more than a cursory level in many fields from History to Literature. I have heard it argued for example that much of Shakespeare and Milton loses much of its dimension and at times becomes impenetrable to those who do not have first a biblical grounding of the bible as literature. As a post edit: I see donegalfella said much the same thing just above me.

Similarly, it is one thing to know where we stand now morally, socially, ethically, scientifically and even agriculturally as a species. It adds depth to know what we went through on the WAY to getting here. Much of our past, both good and heinously bad, informs much of our future and I recommend the bible among many things as one step along the road of learning about that past.

www.atheist.ie have also been talking of one of their mission statements being a “Read the bible” campaign and I am looking forward to it starting. Anyone who agrees with such a move should be over there signing and joining up ASAP.

fatmammycat

Neither, The Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy.

Teferi

I'm shocked and appalled that on an A+A forum that the answer "I'm such a fan of the fantasy genre that I just couldn't choose between the two" hasn't been said.

GLaDOS

Robin Hobb blows the both out of the water :cool:

robindch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The death, underground conflict and subsequent resurrection and appearance of the demigod Gandalf is probably closer in manner and purpose to that of Jesus, though neither of them match in all respects.

It's probably worth remembering what Tolkien wrote himself in the Foreword about applicability:

JRRT wrote:

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. [...] Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes of views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author. [...]

The country in which I lived in childhood was being shabbily destroyed before I was ten, in days when motor-cars were rare objects (I had never seen one) and men were still building suburban railways. Recently I saw in a paper a picture of the last decrepitude of the once thriving corn-mill beside its pool that long ago seemed to me so important. I never liked the looks of the Young miller, but his father, the Old miller, had a black beard, and he was not named Sandyman.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Flamed Diving

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So your opinion of his opinion carries more weight than his opinion?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Flamed Diving

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah, but that is not what I was addressing. Also, I never finished reading Book I, so I'm in no position to comment. I would object had you said the same of any persons statement.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Mad Hatter

It's quite easy to read allegory into anything, donegalfella - note Reverend Lovejoy's speech on ET in The Simpsons. Tolkein's intent is obviously what mattered here, not what you (or others) see him as trying to say, and he was quite explicit that he had no allegorical intent in the books.

Flamed Diving

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

and he was quite explicit that he had no allegorical intent in the books.

Pff, I'm with donegalfella on this one. What would Tolkien know about his own thoughts? Not as much as DF, that's for sure.

:pac:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Mad Hatter

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What makes you think I haven't encountered him? I have very little time for people who only talk about art.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bougeoir

5uspect wrote: »

Certainly this guy has made his mind up.

Oh that had me cracked up! The King James version yeah, the Bible of the big, fat hairy king who rejected the Catholic Church set up his own new nuttier church so he could divorce his wife, get her decapitated and rape and kill another load of women!!! And the other Christian works are satanic when he's celebrating Hallowe'en which is a pagan event? Gosh talk about hypocrisy! Those Bible-bashers are so entertaining!

PDN

Bougeoir wrote: »

Oh that had me cracked up! The King James version yeah, the Bible of the big, fat hairy king who rejected the Catholic Church set up his own new nuttier church so he could divorce his wife, get her decapitated and rape and kill another load of women!!! And the other Christian works are satanic when he's celebrating Hallowe'en which is a pagan event? Gosh talk about hypocrisy! Those Bible-bashers are so entertaining!

Obviously more entertaining than your history classes at school.

The King James Version was not the Bible of Henry VIII (the clue, amazingly enough, is in the name). Henry died 50 years before the KJV was translated.

Xluna

The Narnia books are better than both of them.

cypharius

I'd prefere people stop knocking one of the greatest books of all time(LOTR) as "A childrens book", the only people who have ever had this opinion that I have met have never read the book, but this is irrelivant.

We should try to remove the opinion that reading the Bible is required to understand litrature, it's a terrible book. It contradicts itself, and it's so called "Morals" are the type of things we could expect from an angry Nazi Teen. It is worth reading to understand how our brains have developed. To this day we(Those of us with an understanding of logic) are still a minority, but years ago, we hardly existed. It is also a usefull tool for arguing with creationists, most of whome have never read it themselves.