Da Vinci Code Actor: Bible Should Have 'Fiction' Disclaimer

no proof to me that its anything but fiction

and would add the disclaimer to all religious books, including those I believe in, but would modify the disclaimer rather than just state that it is a work of fiction.

Disclaimer: This is a work of faith, written by those who believe in its specific tenets. Nothing in this book has been proven to be true. It is up to you; the individual, to decide if you will accept its contents in the absence of any proof.

evidence that its basic history is correct including abundant archeological sites.

You are correct on the history, I should have written that disclaimer to reflect belief alone.

Remove foot from mouth
Wash mouth out
Wash foot
Take more time previewing posts

Okay

to see it written by god?
it was told to you thats all you have for proof.

your beleafs are yours and your right.
but the church is being rediculas actions to call for a law suit etc.

Mark, you need to enroll at a good bible college and take some courses on "Evidences" and maybe you can understand the subject better.

you beleave all you read?
who wrote it man

unless you were there your beleaveing what they tell you.
i tell you something and you say go to bible school.
bible is based on what you were told is true i say its fiction

the reason I suggest a good course on Evidences is you will learn about provenance of various biblical writings, proofs of their antiquity and then the fulfillments of prophecies which statistically and under the laws of probability could not occur by random chance, and many not even by man's deliberate interventions in effort to make them happen over a period of centuries, maybe even millenia if you count the prophecies beginning in day's of Adam. You will learn of the heresies which challenged the Bible on archaelogical grounds and how later the eminent disbelievers were later proven to be liars or ignorant at best as new discoveries proved the truth of the Biblical records. All such add credence to it's Divine authorship across the centuries. And no, I'm not going to present all that to someone in a forum. Take a course.

the people who told you this there.
you beleave what you were told good for you have a beleaf in it its all that says your a beleaver, which is ok just prove its fact not just hersay.

It sounds like you don't believe any history Mark if your criteria is that you had to be there to see it. That's a pretty limited view of history.

invented. What you may have seen are artist conceptions much like the pictures of Jesus.

You weren't there. How do you know any of what you were taught about Washington is true? Anyone can make a sketch or a drawing of an idealized figure. You are relying on teachers, and they weren't there either. Isn't that your argument?

accurate history, and that there is a lot of archeological evidence that supports its accuracy.

It doesn't have to be written by God to contain accurate historical information does it?

think of yourself as an idea man. the publisher's attys
will clear up any problems with your disclaimer.

that anything written in antiquity is fiction?

You won't believe the miraculous elements, but that doesn't mean the basic facts of the story are wrong. Jesus lived and was crucified. He taught certain things.

Josephus tells us that much, and no serious historian would question that.

which is ok but to say its proof of the bible being anything more than hersay is what it is

of the church to act the way it is about this movie.
when passion of the christ( hope thats right) where was the uproar?

I haven't seen Passion of the Christ so I cannot really comment on it other than noting that it supposedly followed the Gospels quite closely. If so, then why would the church create an uproar about it?

The Da Vinci Code is another issue completely. I enjoyed the book as a fast paced murder mystery, and an obvious work of fiction. The problem is that Dan Brown apparently tried to claim that it was more than 'just fiction' when he wrote: "all descriptions of documents and secret rituals are accurate" and then proceeded to have his characters make a variety of absurd historical claims. (I can't find my copy of the book right now, so I can't verify the quote above, but I'm told it is a part of the introduction to the novel. I really don't remember.)

I do not have enough historical expertise to be able to determine which of Mr. Brown's claims about documents and secret rituals were accurate, but many of the claims about church history (eg: Council of Nicea) are laughable. Or rather, they would be if it were not for the fact that they are presented in a manner that implies the books claims were correct. Mr. Brown took a few kernels of truth, dressed them up with a whole lot of distortions and lies and then tried to pretend that he got the history right. Now it is possible that he did not, strictly speaking, mis-represent any of the documents from church history because IIRC most of the really bogus historical claims in the book were not specifically tied to historical documents. Still, it leaves the casual reader with the impression that the novel has considerably greater accuracy than it does.

What Dan Brown said himself (in a more complete statement than quoted above) is:
The">http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html]The Da Vinci Code

didnt see all the temples demany law suits

think the New Testament is anti-semitic, then I guess Gibson's movie is. Let's not forget however, that Jesus is a Jew.

and all works of fiction in my eyes.
if you want to beleave in the bible thats ok.
but it was written by man for man

Except for the tables of stone, everything written was "by man for man" but only if you realize the one inspiring it was God. Think of a secretary taking dictation, although in truth the secretary may be writing and then publishing the dictation, the true author of it is the one who gave it to her. Inspiration is similar, it's a form of spiritual dictation.

your taking a mans word that god wrote those tablets
agin no proof