Jesus: Creator or Created? - A Look at the Jehovah's Witnesses

Back by popular demand, we have a post that's again, not a book or movie review. This review is more about a belief system, namely the Jehovah's Witness belief that Jesus was not God because the Bible portrays him as being created. This post was originally part of a discussion for school, but several friends asked that I share it here (you know who you are and you better read this), and so I have. And without further ado (save those four words which were really unnecessary to begin with because I could have just began so that there would have been less ado, four words less as a matter of fact, and then you could have gotten too...oh...yeah.

Jesus: Creator or Created?

The Watchtower tract “Should You Believe in the Trinity” sets forth many arguments that portray Jesus Christ as a mere human who did not proclaim to be God. To the uneducated reader, and even to the fairly well-informed Christian, their arguments sound confident, coherent, and correct. Unfortunately, Jehovah’s Witnesses must misuse, misapply, and misinterpret the Biblical text in order to support their claim.

Of the various arguments set forth in the tract, the most troubling was the Watchtower’s belief that Jesus was created by Jehovah (God). This section is contains many Scriptural references that the Jehovah’s Witnesses use to give weight to the idea that when Jesus was called the “the first-born of all creation” (Col. 1:15 NJB), the implication was that Jesus was literally created first in the order of creation.

If the Watchtower’s argument is correct, then Jesus was not divine, but merely a spirit being like an angel that God sent in human form.

According to the tract Should You Believe in the Trinity?:  

“Jesus had an existence in heaven before coming to the earth. But was it as one of the persons in an almighty, eternal triune Godhead? No, for the Bible plainly states that in his prehuman existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their creation.” (SYBITT)

This post is going to sift through the section “Jesus: A Separate Creation” of Should You Believe in the Trinity? and take a look the various points of evidence that Jehovah’s Witnesses use to bolster the above claim.

First, they do admit to the prehuman existence of Jesus, which makes them different from other groups who deny the divinity of Jesus. They believe that Jesus was more than man, but less than God. To assert that Jesus began to exist they cite verses such as Colossians 1:15, where Jesus is called “the firstborn over all creation” and Revelation 3:14 where is called “the beginning of the creation of God.” (KJV)  In regards to the Revelation passage, they claim that the word translated “beginning,” archē ,  cannot be interpreted as “Beginner.”

--

Colossians 1:15-17

I would like to submit that Jesus’ position as the “firstborn over all creation” does not preclude his divinity. The verses following the fifteenth verse show this, with verse 16 saying “by him all things were created” and verse 17 declaring “He is before all things.” If Jesus was before all and created all, then obviously he is not a part of the “all” that is creation. Jehovah’s Witnesses get around this by reinterpreting the sixteenth and seventeenth verses in their New World Translation of the Bible:

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.” (Colossians 1:16-17, NWT)

Incredibly, the bracketed text appears precisely as such. Unless the NWT translators have a good reason for interpolating the word “other” into the text, this is just a rather obvious attempt to make the Scripture fit their preconceived notions. As I noted in my response to Natasha’s thread, Walter Martin has said that the NWT “translation committee had no known translators with recognized degrees in Hebrew or Greek exegesis or translation.” (KOTC) Therefore, one has little basis to believe that the NWT translators have made a good decision by altering the Biblical text. (Furthermore, why leave the interpolations in brackets if for no other reason than to note the obvious and importance difference?) However, for the sake of argument, let us look at the text. The word translated ”all things” in the NIV and “all [other] things” in the NWT is the Greek word pas. Regarding this word, Strong’s records the meaning as “all, any, every, the whole” (Strong’s). The NAS Exhaustive Concordance lists the number of times the word occurs and how it is translated each time. (Strong’s) Thus on the basis of verse 16 and 17, Jesus cannot have been created.

But we’ve not really even discussed verse fifteen, which began all this with the word “firstborn.” The Greek word here is prōtotokos, from prōtos meaning “foremost” and tiktō meaning “to produce.” Together, it is translated as firstborn or first-begotten. With all due respect to Hannah—I do not think she is wrong—but I do believe that, just as I commented in Christine’s thread, there is a deeper implication here. Therefore, if this verse was speaking of firstborn as a reference to the Sonship of Jesus, then I would reiterate my argument there about the translation and interpretation of monogenes. Instead, I believe what is meant by “firstborn” is something akin to “first in rank” or “preeminent.” The reason this is so closely associated with the word “firstborn” is that, in biblical times, it was normally the firstborn that was the preeminent son. Evidence that the term “firstborn” can carry the meaning of preeminence comes in the Psalms, where David is called “my firstborn” (Psalm 89:27) though he was the youngest of Jesse’s children (1 Samuel 16:11-13). Jesus is preeminent over all creation, because he is the Creator (Colossians 1:16).

As a last point to this verse, even if the Jehovah’s Witnesses will not accept that the interpolation “other” is a bad translation of the Biblical text, they will at least accept that Jesus created “all [other] things.” This, however, runs in contradiction to what the Old Testament says about God in Isaiah 44:24: “I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.” (NIV) Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses translation shows this contradiction: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth.” (NWT)

If the Old Testament claims that the LORD (Yahweh) created and the New Testament claims that Jesus created, then it is obvious that the Bible proclaims the LORDship and deity of Jesus.

--

Revelation 3:14

The problem at hand here in the word archē. This verse declares that Jesus is the “the beginning of the creation of God.” Jehovah’s Witnesses would have us to believe that the word archē means that Jesus must have had a beginning, and was therefore created. However, evidence from Strong’s suggests otherwise. According to Strong’s, while in abstract terms it means “a commencement,” in the concrete it means “chief…magistrate, power, principality…” (Strong’s)I find it quite ironic that while the Jehovah’s Witnesses insist that the word means “beginning,” they themselves translate the word as “government officials and authorities” when it is used in Luke 12:11. It is obvious that this text is not a valid argument against Christ’s deity, but instead supports it by proclaiming him the “the ruler of God's creation” (as per the NIV).

--

Proverbs 8:22-31

Lastly, we consider the claim that the figurative “Wisdom” in Proverbs is a personification of the preincarnate Jesus. Hannah made an excellent point when she noted that “Wisdom” was personified as a female—both in Proverbs and by Jesus in Luke 8. Given the poetic nature of the book of Proverbs, it seems clear that this is a poetic personification and not meant to imply any real individual, let alone Christ. This passage in Proverbs shows that it took wisdom to create the universe, not that this wisdom was Jesus.

--

Thus, every argument given by the Jehovah’s Witnesses to claim that Jesus was created has been shown to actually proclaim Jesus’ is uncreated deity, one in essence with the Father. 

--

KOTC – Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, rev. ed., Ed. by Ravi Zacharias (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003), 93.

NWT – New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm

Strong’s - http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3956.htm (pas) http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/746.htm (archē)

SYBITT – Should You Believe in the Trinity - http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_05.htm

The Sacred Meal - Nora Gallagher

Communion. Even those who understand little about Christianity know of this unique ritual. The Bible tells us the story of the First Communion this way:

“ ²³For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, ²⁴and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." ²⁵In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." ²⁶For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.”

– 1 Cor. 11:23-26.

In her small volume The Sacred Meal, Nora Gallagher outlines her beliefs in exactly what Communion is and what purpose it serves. Unfortunately, after reading this volume, I feel that Gallagher’s beliefs completely miss the true essence of what Communion is. Instead of just saying this and moving on, I want to highlight a few of Gallagher’s misguided beliefs and present to you the true purpose of Communion.

I first ran into an issue when she said that Communion was “all about the body...eating what we call God.” (pg 14) She likens it to the “ingesting of spirit” and compares it to other ancient non-Christian rituals. But the Communion ritual was not for us to take “a bite out of infinity,” which if I interpret her correctly (she’s rather vague here)is about acknowledging God in us. But Jesus told us precisely what Communion was for “in remembrance of me.” Paul elaborated “you proclaim the Lord’s death.” Communion is a time for remembrance and proclamation, personal reflection and celebration. It is a practical ritual made for a forgetful people; Gallagher reduces it to a mystical experience wherein we ingest God in order to become more like Him.

A page later, I found something else I disagreed with. She describes Communion as something “devised cleverly by and for human beings, to help us get in touch with the holy.” (pg 15) But the Bible is clear that Jesus Christ – God incarnate – was the Deviser and originator of the practice of Communion. It was His way of giving a forgetful people a powerful and physical object lesson about the sacrifice He would make.

Flip the page once more to where she calls Christianity, Judaism, and Islam “the three Abrahamic faiths.” (pg 16) While not directly applicable to Communion, I found it offensive to the uniqueness of Christianity to be lumped in with these other two faiths, and I am sure that the leaders of those other faiths would agree.

On another issue not related to Communion, on page 21 she suggests Jesus came to act against the Roman empire and that “The cross stood at the end of a long series of choices.” (pg 22) First, while Jesus’ impeccable moral standard did call out the injustices of the Roman empire, the miracles and compassion of Jesus were meant to show man’s depraved spiritual condition, not its physical one. Second, the Cross was a foreknown conclusion from before the beginning of time. To say otherwise undermines the omniscience and eternality of God. Given such an obvious error, I would assume that this statement – with whatever it was intended to mean – probably wasn’t meant to give this impression, but it does.

There is no ambiguity about another one of Gallagher’s statements though. She has that there is “Too much focus on personal sin…Jesus didn’t spend a lot of time talking about personal conduct.” (pg 30) One wonders if Gallagher has read the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7), Matthew 19 discusses how to handle conflict resolution, and many more examples good be given.

Further on, I dislike the fact that she favorably mentions Marcus Borg on page 37 as Borg denies the bodily Resurrection of Christ (see his book Jesus pg 184). She insinuates that parts of Christianity are mythical on page 55 when she says “The three Abrahamic faiths are intertwined…sharing a nomadic past, myths and stories…” (pg 55)

We finally get back to the subject of Communion (she actually doesn’t speak too much about the subject, choosing instead to intersperse stories about her personal experiences regarding Communion). She says: “The practice of Communion reminds Christians of a meal and many meals shared.” No. Communion is not the reminder of a meal. It is a reminder of Jesus (Do this in remembrance of ME) and His sacrifice.

When we get to page 62, we encounter what I see as the most egregious error in the book. Gallagher is speaking of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15. She completely misses Jesus’ point in His response to the Canaanite woman and concludes that:

“He [Jesus], too, was ‘healed.’ He was opened. He was changed. He was no longer sure of what his job was, what he was meant to do. He met a blind man and was changed by the encounter; he met a woman at a well and Mary Magdalene and a tax collector. The difference between Jesus and us may not merely be degrees of divinity, but also his openness to others and their capacity to bend and awaken his heart.”

This theology is no real theology at all. One of the differences between Jesus and us is degrees of divinity? Jesus was changed? This completely undermines the whole of the Christian message. Jesus knew precisely Who He was. “I and my Father are one.” (John 10:20)”Before Abraham was, I AM.” (John 8:58) Read John 17 and tell me Jesus didn’t know what He was doing. Gallagher’s implication is that Jesus was not divine. First Samuel speaks of God saying “he is not a man, that he should change his mind.” (1 Sam 15:29) Therefore, since Gallagher believes that Jesus “was changed,” she must also believe that He is not God. And if Jesus was just a man, then Christianity crumbles.

I could continue on, but I believe I have covered the major errors in this book, with the most egregious being this last. After this last point of contention, I gave up on this book. I skimmed through the rest of it but only because I felt obligated for this review. I can’t recommend this book at all unless you want to add it to the library shelf marked for heretical books - that’s what I’m doing.

True Beauty and God's Love - Josh Olds

This is going to be an out of the ordinary post for The Christian Critic. This isn't a book review, or a movie review - not even a music review. It's not really even a review at all. If anything it's a review on God (don't worry, He gets 5 stars and 2 big enthusiastic thumbs-up) and what He calls Beautiful in comparison to what the world calls Beautiful.

This post is a direct response to an ongoing conversation I've been having with a few friends of mine. They've collected some of their thoughts on the love of God at their own blogs, and I would encourage you to check them out. These friends also pointed me to a blog post of a mutual acquaintance, a fellow Dekkie (Ted Dekker fan), on a similar subject. You can check out their individual blog posts by clicking on their name below.

The following isn't a direct response to Karis, Theresa, and Caitlyn, but rather it's an open letter addressed to every Christian girl. It closely speaks to the issues they have raised, and hopefully and cautiously I shall offer my guy opinion on the subject. Girls, this is from my heart to yours.

--

Dear Girls,

This is a letter straight from my heart to yours and I mean everything I say with my whole being. At the core, this is me being broken-hearted over the insecurities that so many Christian girls have and hold on to. 

At times, I might get a little blunt but that’s only because I want you to recognize how seriously I take this. I ain’t trying to hit on you, ain’t trying to flirt, and I’m certainly not trying to portray myself as the perfect guy – this is just me to you, and you can take it however you want.

Some of you struggle with the concept of beauty. The world inundates you with the message you have to look this way, dress this way, eat this way, be this size, be this height, use this makeup…and whatever else goes on in the world of girls that I am admittedly clueless about.

The world will tell you that beauty is all about what’s on the outside and that a hot body’s better than a warm heart. Guys in general (even Christian guys aren’t immune) back up that statement and objectify women in this manner. The world has placed an impossible standard on you, a cookie-cutter mold that the you-shaped individual won’t always (and shouldn’t try) to fit in. And the reason for this is that this is the only way the world understands beauty.

If there is no God, we’re all just pieces of flesh really. Evolution has to make sure the species survives and so our mechanical minds have developed a sense of what’s aesthetically pleasing, and then it’s those people that procreate and survive, allowing the ugly people to eventually just die out. But why do we as Christians live under this concept? Why do we make our physical looks our obsession? Did God really say that you have to fit the mold?

No. He says He created the mold. And not just a stock mold to fit all people in. Just like a potter molding his clay, so God has formed you-His one of a kind masterpiece. The Psalmist said that He created your inmost being, that He knit you together, that He knew your entire life’s story before you ever became to be. And that’s not just your soul—that’s everything. Your height, your weight, the number of hairs on your head, your insecurities, your struggles—everything. He knew it all and called you His masterpiece.

Now we all like to pretend that we know the truth—that true beauty lies within. And maybe we do. Maybe we do know that truth, but just find it hard to accept. It’s hard to shut down the screams of the world. But beauty cannot be extrinsic. You don’t apply a bit of beauty cream—ok, bad analogy—spray on some self-worth, and jump into a pair of skin-tight “feel good about myself”s.

The Christian understands beauty in a way the world cannot. We know that beauty comes from God, and that without Him, we’d have no concept of what was beautiful. I’d also argue that without God we wouldn’t exist at all, but that’s a letter for another audience at another time. The Psalmist calls God “perfect in beauty” (Psalm 50:2) so as author and creator of all things, He’s the creator of beauty too. As a matter of fact when He created you, He created you in His image. You’re the image of He who is perfect in beauty. Granted, sin has changed that perfect reflection so we only see though a glass, dimly.

But this is where the unmerited love of God comes into play. There’s nothing in you to love, you a broken-down depraved sinner. Whatever beauty or self-worth you have comes as a pale reflection of the effaced image of God in you. But God’s love is not stopped just because you don’t look beautiful. He doesn’t see what makes you ugly, He sees your potential—He sees how you can be made beautiful.

And that is why He has pursued you, not because you have anything to offer Him but because He has everything to offer you. And it was with the price of His blood that He made you beautiful. The beautiful image that was marred by sin was washed clean by the blood of Jesus. And just as your relationship with Christ has purified you before God, so it also fosters a heart that emanates beauty and exudes love. In humans, there is no real beauty. The only beauty any of us can have comes directly from being made in the image of the Beautiful God.

When you accepted Christ, you died to yourself. Paul would say that you no longer live, but it is Christ that lives in you. I can only speak for myself, but that’s what I find truly attractive. That when I look at you, I don’t see just a body, I see whatever extent you are allowing Christ to live in you. That’s how I define beauty. Now, I’m going to be honest and say that I’m probably in the minority of guys in the world, but girls, I don’t think you should settle for anyone or anything less. Maybe that’s arrogance on my part. Who you are on the outside is going to change, and I could quote any number of Shakespearian sonnets to back up my claim. But who you are on the inside, your personality—God working through you—is what makes you truly beautiful.

--

Alas! Fair maiden! For thou doth protest

All efforts to acknowledge thine beauteous form.

Alack! Mine soul cannot hold back—I must confess—

Thy beauty shines as brilliantly as lightning in the storm.

Prithee! Open not thy fair lips to disagree

Humility is becoming, but the bell of truth must toll.

Thy inner beauty has spilt over to thine outer so all can see

The purity and beauty of thy soul.

                                                                                                         Verily! Beauty outward delves but deep as skin

              But thine own inward thoughts of thine outward self doth show

                          And taints the beauty of your sparkling soul within,

                     Therefore, I beg thee, dear maiden, no longer let it be so.

               Remove thine lowly thoughts of self and thus purify your soul

                Flawless beauty—in and out—will make thine beauty whole.

Josh Olds

Isolation - Travis Thrasher

Life was supposed to be normal when James Miller got back from his missionary stint in Papua New Guinea. Spiritual oppression over there was heavy and he had been worn thin fighting it. Here they had electricity, air conditioning, and no demonic oppression right? Life would be good.

But his wife Stephanie is not experiencing life as normal. She thinks she's losing her mind. She dreams of blood running down the walls of their room, she awakes from sleepwalking standing over her sleeping son with a knife in her hand, she has a vision of one of her children suffocating. Are these premonitions of what's to come? And does it have anything to do with her repressed childhood?

To get away from all the stress, they move to a missionary's retreat in the mountains of North Carolina. It's a veritable mansion with a dark and secret past. The Miller's son Zachary finds all sorts of secret passageways and hidden rooms, but not everything he finds is exciting. When a snowstorm traps he Millers, they find themselves trapped with a killer intent on destroying the Miller's already fragile faith. They find themselves face to face with a demon in a house or horrors. The only question is, can the Miller's stay alive, both physically and spiritually?

Travis Thrasher gives us something unique in Isolation. It's the pinnacle of Christian horror, able to tell a story of demonic possession and oppression while able to keep the story within the bounds of reality. It reminds me of the novels (and movies) House by Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti and The Shining by Stephen King. In my opinion, Thrasher bests both of these stories. I read this book between 2-6 in the morning one dark and spooky night. It's genuinely scary with a genuinely redemptive message. A great read.

Ends of the Earth (A Bug Man Novel) - Tim Downs

Bug Man is back! Forensic entomologist Nick Polchak returns for his fifth adventure in Ends of the Earth. Building on the Nick’s history in the four previous books, Tim Downs sets the scene of a drug-related murder on a small town organic farm. Polchak is called out to help determine the exact cause of death.

If you’ve read any of the previous Bug Man novels, you know that a certain type of blowfly lays eggs on decaying body tissue—like corpses. Determine the species and the age of the maggot and you can pretty well determine when the corpse met his demise. In this case, Nick finds that the corpse is the husband of Kathryn Severenson, an old friend and former client whose story is told in Shoo Fly Pie, the first Bug Man novel.

When the death appears to be drug-related, Nick enlists the help of Alena Savard, the reclusive and eccentric dog trainer introduced in Less Than Dead. Alena, who once had feelings for Nick, jumps at the chance to renew their relationship. She soon discovers that she is not the only woman from Nick’s past vying for his affections. She finds that Kathryn may have had ulterior motives for requesting that Nick look into her husband’s death. The two of them become friends all while competing for the love of the same man.

Nick finds himself torn between two mysteries. First, who killed Michael Severenson? The journey to the answer leads him deep into a terrorist plot designed to upset the American corn industry. The stakes are high with the fragile economy—and Nick’s life—hanging in the balance. Second, and more frightening for Nick, how does he respond to the women’s romantic advances? Nick struggles to focus on the larger problem of the terrorist plot, while both women struggle to focus on him.

Will Nick have the courage to face the answer to either mystery? Can he identify and stop the terrorist plot? Can he choose between the two women? The answers will leave the reader breathless, and in the case of the love story, begging for more.

I’ve been a fan of Tim Downs ever since his first Bug Man novel was published. I’ve followed each installment of the story and found myself delighted by the sharp, sarcastic wit of Nick Polchak. This fifth book, if I can use a bug analogy, finally sees Nick Polchak’s metamorphosis from single-minded Bug Man into a human being conflicted by love.  Ends of the Earth successfully ties in previous novels, but not in a way that will leave new readers lost. Rather, they will finish eagerly wanting to know of Nick’s previous adventures.

You can read Ends of the Earth for the suspense of the terrorist plot, for the suspense of the convoluted love triangle, or just for Nick Polchak’s sarcastic sense of humor. But in any case, you should certainly check it out.

Finding Purpose Beyond Our Pain - Paul Meier and David Henderson

Pain. We've all been there. Physical, emotional, or spiritual...we live in a fallen world and thus experience pain. It's almost universally regarded as a negative thing. Pain = Bad, we say. But is it really? Is there a purpose to pain? And if so, what is it? In this book, Drs. Paul Meier and David Henderson explore the concept of pain and discover God's purpose for it.

Meier and Henderson begin with the seven universal struggles of life. Injustice. Rejection. Loneliness. Loss. Discipline. Failure. Death. They're all things we go through, they note, they're absolutely inevitable. How are we supposed to deal with these situations when they arise? And more importantly, why would a GOOD God allow BAD things to happen to GOOD people?

Throughout the book, the two doctors turn on end what we think of when we think of pain. Have you suffered injustice? Well, look at the injustice that Joseph suffered in Gen. 37-50. Sold into slavery by his brothers. Builds himself up to an important position. Loses it all through an unjust attack on his character. Spends years in prison. Builds himself up to an important position. And all of that, so that he could save Egypt - and his family, which would become the nation of Israel - from famine. Joseph would conclude that what man meant for evil, God meant for good.

This is only one example of the Biblical approach these two authors take to discovering the purpose behind pain. Each chapter ends with practical tips on how to find that purpose, even when it is not easy to find. Their conclusion rings true. Pain is our temporary ally who molds and shapes our character, leads us away from danger, and pushes us to the next level of growth. This book provides practical advice on not only how to survive pain but how to grow through pain.

This is an important book that every Christian who has even struggled with the problem of pain should read. In fact, I find it so important, that I have inserted a preview of the book below:

Note: This review is based on a review copy that I was given through Thomas Nelson's book reviewing program.

Buy		Read

Fiction Addict

Most of my readers probably already know this through either my Twitter or Facebook feeds, but I have recently become a reviewer for a big reviewing website called Fiction Addict. I am very excited to be a part of such a great and well-known organization.

However, just because I am moving on to bigger things, as it were, does not mean that the Christian Critic will be abandoned. This may mean that you will not see quite as many posts here, but of course I'll be more than making up for that with reviews for Fiction Addict. Also, since Fiction Addict only reviews fiction (duh) and I also have a non-fiction addiction, you'll still be able to catch my reviews on non-fiction books here, as well as any fiction I read outside of Fiction Addict.


Never heard of Fiction Addict? Well then, you've been missing out on a lot. In their own words:

FictionAddict.com was created for one simple reason: to help you find your next fiction fix. We’re not here to help you kick your fiction addiction, in fact, we’re here to help you embrace it. Call us enablers. Our mission is to provide a quality fiction review site that covers a wide variety of authors and genres. We’re not just book reviewers, we’re writers. We know fiction.
Our team of writers is here to help you find your next read through reviews, author interviews, and coverage of the latest happenings in the publishing world. We recognize your next novel will consume eight hours of your life. We want to help make sure those hours are fiction bliss.
We hope you’ll travel with us on this journey to celebrate the love of stories and the storytellers who wondrously pen them.

Whether it's reviews, contests, interviews, or whatever in the realm of fiction you're addicted to, Fiction Addict is your place to satisfy that craving.