For those who say Da Vinci Code is harmless....

Axion said:

The point is the book deliberately leads people astray with a tissue of lies and fabrications.

Click to expand...

Yes it is full of lies and fabrications. It also probably does lead some people astray.

However, that is simply because most people today can't tell the difference opinion, fiction, objective non-fiction, subjective non-fiction etc. etc...

I don't think Dan Brown was deliberate as I think he was trying to get people to think about religion in a different way but I do think that he was a little sloppy...

I mean a google search could have told anyone that Dan Brown had his dates wrong on the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and confused them with Gnostic writings...

If anything, though, maybe it will get people to look up stuff for themselves...

Or maybe not..

stumpjumper said:

I mean a google search could have told anyone that Dan Brown had his dates wrong on the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and confused them with Gnostic writings...

Click to expand...

This is not quite true. It isn't a smart thing to point out an error in something you don't like without checking yourself if it is indeed an error.

I read it, I enjoyed it. It was a NOVEL... and all novels are FICTION. I never saw it as anything else. If someone mistakes any NOVEL for truth, they honestly will believe anything, so telling them the TRUTH after reading it, will surely sway anyone who would find a NOVEL truth.
MBG

KerrMetric said:

This is not quite true. It isn't a smart thing to point out an error in something you don't like without checking yourself if it is indeed an error.

Click to expand...

Ah. The Da Vinci Code dates the Dead Sea Scrolls to the 50's while they were discovered in the 1940's.

Also, he does conflate gnostic writings and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Also, I liked the book. I just don't find it factually correct. If you do I could offer you some reading assignments...

stumpjumper said:

Ah. The Da Vinci Code dates the Dead Sea Scrolls to the 50's while they were discovered in the 1940's..

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the scrolls were dicovered from 1947 through 1956. So when Teabing refers to the 50's date he could very well have been referring to certain scrolls not the very first ones found.

KerrMetric said:

Sorry, but the scrolls were dicovered from 1947 through 1956. So when Teabing refers to the 50's date he could very well have been referring to certain scrolls not the very first ones found.

Click to expand...

Ah, but Kerr. He specifically states they were discovered in the 1950's while that is not true....

Also, that is only one mistake as there are about 20 others.. Take the vote at the Council of Nicaea... Brown states that the vote was "very close" yet there were only two people that agreed with Arius!

Not very close....

Anyway, I like Dan Brown I just think the book was misunderstood...

NBC Today Show June 9, 2003

Matt Lauer: "How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually happened?

Dan Brown: "Absolutely all of it. Obviously, Robert Langdon is fictional, but all the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies - all of that is historical fact."
-------------------------------------------------

Brown takes the remotely "plausible," and then promotes it as "probable."

Example: Chapter 26 - Langdon connects the name of the male god AMOM with the female god Lsis -L'ISA. It is therefore plausible that if Da Vinci named the painting, the name and the smile reflect the secret of the divine union of male and female.

The underlying inference is that this title came from Da Vinci himself. Unfortunately Brown omits to mention that it was not Leonardo who called the painting Mona Lisa, and it remained without a title during his lifetime. If there is a connection of names, it is probable that it came from someone other than Leonardo Da Vinci.

jive said:

they have, its called Cracking Devincis Code. its a documentary thought not a movie. it was ont he sci fi channel just last night. and not only do they do a good job at debunking the fiction he claims fact, but they did a good job of making Dan Brown look like an ass too. he did a good job of it too when they asked him to be apart of the documentary and he declined. he wouldnt even let them use video of his appareances at speakings or shows recorded in the past.

if this book is realy "challaging your faith" you should check out this documentary. seeing as how Him that is in you cant put your mind at ease, i reckon.

Click to expand...

On one of those religious cable channels, [the one that has that lady with too much jewelry, make-up and hair ], I saw a show debunking it. Dan Brown appeared to be quite the plagarist among other things.

I am actually a little upset at Dan Brown for promoting such a book about Christ. This book's goal is to shake the faith of the Christians. This book is either a test of your faith or it is the work of the devil to strip away your faith. Personally I consider it to be the latter and by all means, I will not read or watch this movie. Dan Brown couldn't have been any lamer. When you picture yourself alone in this world without Christ, and this feeling of insecurity and unsafe starts to creep upon you, then you will know in your heart that this movie is nothing but a big lie....

Please!

When did any work of fiction become "a work of the devil to strip away your faith?" Frankly if the Da Vinci Code destroys anyone's faith it wasn't much of a faith to begin with.

kiwimac said:

Please!

When did any work of fiction become "a work of the devil to strip away your faith?" Frankly if the Da Vinci Code destroys anyone's faith it wasn't much of a faith to begin with.

Click to expand...

uhh when? just now when Da Vinci Code was published.
and yes, it doesn't do any good for people with little faith. But a little faith is enough to turn someone into a full solid Christian. And encountering Da vincci code will not help such person either.

oops accidentally double posted

YourChild said:

This book's goal is to shake the faith of the Christians.

Click to expand...

The books goal is to make money. End of story.

KerrMetric said:

The books goal is to make money. End of story.

Click to expand...

and that too

jgarden said:

NBC Today Show June 9, 2003

Matt Lauer: "How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually happened?

Dan Brown: "Absolutely all of it. Obviously, Robert Langdon is fictional, but all the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies - all of that is historical fact."
-------------------------------------------------

Brown takes the remotely "plausible," and then promotes it as "probable."

Example: Chapter 26 - Langdon connects the name of the male god AMOM with the female god Lsis -L'ISA. It is therefore plausible that if Da Vinci named the painting, the name and the smile reflect the secret of the divine union of male and female.

The underlying inference is that this title came from Da Vinci himself. Unfortunately Brown omits to mention that it was not Leonardo who called the painting Mona Lisa, and it remained without a title during his lifetime. If there is a connection of names, it is probable that it came from someone other than Leonardo Da Vinci.

Click to expand...

The list of things wrong starts with the "holy grail" itself. Since it is a object of fiction, the rest of the theory didn't stand much of a chance.

Time will tell, I guess... But let's not make Dan Brown more important than he should be...

There are thousands of books published each year that make similar claims... Brown's just happened to be popular. I sure do hope that people will check out their facts but maybe not....

I thoroughly enjoyed the book - mainly because I'm a plot-driven reader.

I'm going to watch the movie with some of my religious and secular friends, do a little bit of research, and explain to them about the book in the end of it. I think that's the best way to dispel myths. Rather than avoid it, take it head on.

In some respects if people do believe that this drivel is truly historical fatc then they only have them selves to blame for their ignorance since the truth is out there staring them in the face. I understand that the author has created much of this stir by claiming certain things that he believes without any basis of fact as true, as the truth, but any intelligent person would be able to find out if this is true historically with some research.

That being said we live in an age where research into ideas and actually forming an opinion based on that research is a rare occurance. We would rather have some biased idoit tell us his idea rather than to form an idea of our own any day because it might take us out of our comfort zones. We love to be fed but are not willing to hunt for own food. How sad we have become as a race of people (human race).

Do i blame Dan Brown or his silly book? Nope. Is it harmfull? To the lazy it sure is, but it is them who should be blamed not this guy.

JMHO.

A side note: Copyright laws allow quoting up to 250 words with proper citation. The OP violates the law by quoting an entire 350+ word article. Could this be fixed?

As far as The Da Vinci Code, I think the problem is not with Dan Brown but with the church. I believe we are failing to educate our brethren about where the church came from and who we are. Most Christians know the stories in the Bible, but few really understand all of the history that has occurred between then and now. Without a proper understanding of what the Catholic church has done over the past couple of thousand years (and how and why the protestant churches broke away from the Catholic church) it is easy to be swept up in a story like DVC.

Most Christians simply don't know how we got from Acts 2 to where we are now. And if we don't know the facts, we're likely to believe whatever story we're told. Educated people who know their church history won't be swayed by Dan Brown's storytelling.