The Da Vinci Code?

Question

Reading the Da Vinci code does not mean that you are an authority on the subject!

This has been bubbling for a while... lol.

If you want to talk about religious conspiricies then fine, read books like 'the holy blood and the holy grail' and 'the templar revelations', but then again, at about 500 pages each with very little 'plot' i'm not sure people would.

Anyway, the point of this is, Why do people with only 5% of the information (in this case, from a book, which is full of truths, half truths and other made up plot devices) think they are the authority on the 95% they dont know.


PS - For sangreal (sang-real) to holy blood is utter crap, thats a deliberate misinterpretation of the translation.

I'm not saying there are no truths in those books, but you have to read them to cut through the rubbish. Of the same author of 'the templar revelations' there is another great book on how the turin shroud was manufactored possibily by Da Vinci himself.

ok fine, the da vinci code is a work of fiction based on the hard work a research of others.

Then why do people take it so seriously about the deliberate misinterpretations Brown makes.

Answer 1

I just bought a DVD of a National Geographic program on the "Da Vinci Code". It has some good ideas people should see. It was a Frenchman in the 1950's who started this whole fraud. He invented a Priory of Sion and made fake records for it, listing Leonardo da Vinci and Sir Isaac Newton as leaders of it. The authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" used this nonsense and later sued Dan Brown for plagiarism. The Shroud of Turin was made for Geoffroy de Charnay who began using it in faith healing scams in 1355. Carbon-14 tests were done by 3 independent labs in different lands and dated it 1260-1390. It was obviously too early for Da Vinci to've made it and too late for Jesus to've been buried in it. It really gets around to be in the Da Vinci Code nonsense. In 1389, bishops investigated it and told Pope Clement VII what they found, so he forbid Geoffroy to claim it was Jesus' shroud. Da Vinci lived decades later than the first appearance of the Shroud of Turin.

Answer 2

Dan Brown is laughing all the way to the bank. He wrote a book of fiction, very well in my opinion. I am sure he cannot have imagined there would be so much controversy about his book and that he would make so much money. The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, very similar in fact to the Bible which has hundreds of discrepencies. I can never understand how anyone can believe what they read in that as there are totally opposite viewpoints. Don't think for one minute that I'm an atheist, because I'm not, I'm just realistic about what I read.

Answer 3

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction with some facts woven into the story.It does not claim to be factual in any way.
I've tried reading Holy blood,Holy Grail and gave up after the first chapter.

PS sangreal is translated as "royal blood" not holy blood.If you're going to criticize get it right

Answer 4

I often had the temptation to spin a tale out of the whimsical conspiracy theories around the PoS and the Templars et al, and was a bit miffed that Browne beat me to it!! I don't think he's done a bad job - if you treat it as a novel. However, he himself seems to have crossed over to the 'dark side' by claiming on several occasions that it was either all true, or a slightly fictionalised tale masking a great truth. It's made him very rich, of course, but it doesn't say much for his integrity, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence and the ability to apply just a little critical thinking and research can blow huge holes in the whole concept!

Answer 5

You must have been talking to this annoying bloke that I know........... :) seriously though, people aren't rallying behind it en masse as a big reveal of an ancient cover up. Most people I know don't even think it's that good a novel. The first reaction to it by my learned Mother in Law was "Oh look, he's ripped off 'Holy Blood and the Holy Grail'"

Answer 6

What is the difference of one myth over another? You can not disprove the Di Vinci Code as well as the bible. Which one is TRUE! Prove it!
No one can, you will have to take the word over another, and that word was human conceived, not directly from God.
This is your choice and you have to make up your own mind and stop allowing others to do it for you.

Answer 7

The book/film was just a let-down with massive leaps of conjecture and assumption we expect from hollywood.

I've no idea why anyone gave it the time of day.

You are right, if you want to talk about a conspiricy or alternative version, then go and research it, or at least read some decent books and not a work of fiction.

Answer 8

Errrrr nice statement.... now wheres the question?

Nice one... youve added a question... people believe its real the same as they believe anything they see on the Hollywood screen... from braveheart to any war film that the Americans are in the facts are changed for entertainment or to change the truth but people in gereral dont leave the cinema or put their book down and go and research the subject.... so they just believe it.

Answer 9

it was ok. it was better than i thought it would be because of the very negative reviews. however, if you hadn't read the book i don't think you would've understood it. if i had come into the theaters expecting it to be a terrific movie, i would've been disappointed. but since i was expecting it to be bad, it wasn't quite as bad as i thought it would be. but everyone has their own opinions, it is impossible to make a movie that everyone will like.

Answer 10

All the books you've mentioned, beginning with Da Vinci, are works of fiction.

H