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

copied from the book, as far as i know this is all he claims as fact....

jonah


FACT:
the priory of sion -a european secret society founded in 1099- is a real organisation.
in 1975 Paris's Biblioteque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo and Leonardo Da Vinci.
the vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic Sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion and a dangerous practice knows as "corporal mortification". Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million World Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in new york city.
all descriptions of artwork, arcitecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.


./.

Those were not the only 'facts' he claimed, but more on that later.

First, as to your list of claimed 'facts' I'm not even sure he got those right.

For example, the claims regarding the Priory of Sion (Prieur

A: Those were not the only 'facts' he claimed, but more on that later.

B: First, as to your list of claimed 'facts' I'm not even sure he got those right.

Re: A, according to my copy Bill, these are the only items listed as "Fact:" and any other claims he made are attributed to characters in the book as part of the story/plot

Re: B, if the only facts (as stated by him in the foreword of the book) are false, then doesn't that make the whole book a work of fiction?

and as far as i'm concerned, -i read the book, didn't particularly like it that much (the sort of book you buy at the airport and leave on the plane when you land)- this debate/thread has as about as much meaning as discussing whether "The Robe" or Spartacus are "historically correct"....


jonah "preferred flowers for algernon" jones


.

IIRC, most 'historical fiction' does not specifically claim to be rooted in fact. Mr. Brown has basically claimed (in interviews, not in the book itself) that only his modern characters are fictional. That is what makes this different. Otherwise all of this would be not worth worrying about.

Of course Algernon was better. Charly was just added fluff for Hollowwood. Algernon a novella; tight, well-paced, socko ending.

BTW ''Father'' de Chardin all but convicted of complicity in Piltdown Man by research of last couple of decades, but no one inside or outside his church seems to care. (Nor do I.) You and Ed's take on Da Vinci is no doubt correct. 2007: ''What Da Vinci?''

Where'd that come from?

In any case, the cover of my copy "A Novel" right there.

In any other case, if one's faith can be shaken so mightily by a few hundred pages of a good but unspectacular work such as this it is most obvious that one's faith was in trouble beforehand.

Dan

I don't even feel all that strongly about the label, because I think it is obvious that it IS fiction. Just about all of it is fiction, disclaimers notwithstanding.

The reference to 'academic style' refers to Mr. Browns avowed purpose of bringing up some theories that he wants people to discuss and analyze for themselves. Certainly it would not be the first time an author has used fiction to start a serious debate. Unfortunately, any such discussion starting from The Da Vinci Code is based on nonsense so it is doomed from the start.

Mostly lifted from Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent,Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. If poeple want get upsert, those are the folks and that is the book to get upset with.

But that's neither here nor there, It's well known that Da Vinci Code is fiction. I haven't read it (yet) but my wife has and found it entertaining, which is really what this is all about, entertainment.

the uproar was almost everywhere, but you somehow missed it. Odd.

movie theaters ect, but the church oh wow but they didnt call to kill brown YET!

I just misinterpreted Mark's rather brief post. But I think that was obvious on reading my comment, so I'm guessing you're just trying to goad me here.

Where is the stupid delete button when you need it?

3? 1) using current time: how old is the earth

2) " how old the universe

3) are you in agreement with 'end of days' time-line

I am trying to decide if I should a buy 6mo or 5 yr cd

I think Voltaire's entire life was quite sad other than the time he and the Marquise were together. His beliefs or more accurately strong rejections of religion, if not God too, seems rooted in some of the worst times of the Catholic Church and it's persecution of Protestants. In fact, two of Voltaire's friends were strong Protestants and both of them died in a horrible fashion at the hands of French authorities acting on urgings from the Catholics. I feel Voltaire's rejection of religion was more a rejection of the Catholicism of his day and he went to an extreme in his anger over Catholic sins.

I don't know how old the Universe, God never said. I don't know how old the earth, it probably had been here for awhile before God shaped it to his current purpose with mankind. As for end of days timeline I will stay with Jesus on that one, " 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Matthew chapter 24.

I believe voltaire was tormented as any 'lone wolf howling in the wilderness'.
the catholic schooling I received focused on the 3 years of HIS public life. HIS teaching of love for all. the old testament was considered more allegory than history.
your explanation of your beliefs are lucid, on point; allowing god to do the damning.
thanks

I believe voltaire was tormented as any 'lone wolf howling in the wilderness'.
the catholic schooling I received focused on the 3 years of HIS public life. HIS teaching of love for all. the old testament was considered more allegory than history.
your explanation of your beliefs are lucid, on point; allowing god to do the damning.
thanks

i just have m views if i offended any one im sorry but its way i see it

Your thread has brought out some good points for all sides I think. I do rather like the idea of disclaimers for works that contain even some elements that cannot be proven, and as said before that can apply to the books I consider holy.

Some people automatically believe a document the more ancient it is. I'm partly in this category as I tend to place credence in archaeological evidence, even without examining such evidence first hand. Not that it would help me to do so, as I'm not trained in that field.

Some people place greater credence in works that have some information that can be verified through other sources, and I'm guilty again, though I must remind myself that these supporting sources were also created by humans.

For my own faith, the holy books were written in the 1970s, so the ancient is true angle cannot be taken. These were based on earlier documents, also written by people claiming divine inspiration, and are also unproven.

These documents in turn, on down the line, are based on earlier and earlier texts, some of which weren't even written in English. So now there is also the dimensions of accuracy in the original translation and debates as to what is the correct way to translate. For example, some of the earliest texts were written in Sumerian. There is no direct translation between Sumerian and English, and many "experts" disagree on how different words should be translated. In fact, there is no direct translation between Sumerian and any other language, and these texts were first translated into Greek and then Latin, before the tranlation to English. As such, can anyone be completely sure of what the original text actually says? There is, a lot of reason to doubt, so again it comes down to a leap of faith.

I've taken that leap, but by no means do you or anyone else have to.

or the New American Standard Version are translated directly from the original source language which is either Hebrew or Greek. They are not based on intermediate translations. We can be fairly certain that what we read is what the original said.

I'm not sure where your Sumerian comes in.

line it changes bible written by man for man

were not passed down orally. They were written by direct participants. One exception to this is the Pentatuech which is thought to have been written by Moses.

your privilege.

You know the old saying about horses and water.

we will agree to disagree

I'm not referring to any version of the Christian Bible, simply because I'm not a Christian. This is not to say that the Bibles are not holy books, I don't mean to insult your beliefs or anyone else's, I'm simply referencing from my own viewpoint. The Bibles aren't holy books to my faith, but they are holy books to other people's faith.