| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/4/2008 2:53:55 AM | bible is a story written by a bunch of monks a few thousand years ago, other monks then copied it and added what they thought the translation really meant and so on to the present version
nice story, but don't read into it too closely, same goes for the other religious books like koran, recall chatting with some guy who was luckly enough to read a very old koran and said words to the effect that the modern version was nothing like the older ones, full of hate of people not muslims etc....
in all they are stories to read... | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/4/2008 3:25:16 AM | | You only have to have a game of chinese whispers to realise that word of mouth can become distorted very quickly add in a few thousand years of translations and what might have been fact quickly becomes mixed in with alot of fantasy. I am not a religeous person because I think that would make me very narrow minded just go back through history and trace some of the greatest thinkers of our time who have been persecuted because their ideas conflicted with religeous beliefs and still do, take Steven Hawkins as a current example. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/4/2008 5:43:11 AM |
The Book of Enoch.
Ace name that, at least 7 generations of my family have it.....
I feel it would be naieve to think that the Roman Catholic church ( or any other ) are totally transparent and have nothing to hide.
well said. However some have more to hide then others. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/4/2008 7:50:14 AM | | to some the bible is the words of the almighty to some its just stories that are as factious as easops,but looking at it there are some good parts that can be used to live by,but most i think thats really all it is. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/4/2008 9:20:17 AM | | The Holy blood And The Holy Grail Is another book written by Henry Lincoln and Michael Baigeant, oddly enough Dan Brown thinly disguises one of the authors in his book Da Vinci code, which we all know although a work of fiction has a lot of facts within it's pages that are just too coincidental to ignore, all in all a brilliant read, as was it's prequel, soon to have Tom Hanks returning to play the lead on the silver screen. Good for you Dan Brown. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/4/2008 11:15:45 AM | | The salient difference to me would be that the Da Vinci code is a work of pure fiction with only one author while the Bible has many contributors....................................... | |
|
| |
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/8/2008 1:42:38 AM | I can only Thank God I have faith.
It is such a great thing to have...and it really gives me persective over negativeness.
By all means, believe any fictional book there is, any conspiracy theory there is and every malign interpretation there is. By all means, that will be your choice. I do not feel I need to "defend" the Bible...
Personally I chose positiveness, love and faith...all things I am finding as I read the New Testament.
My heart believes it...and that's ways more important than my head. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/8/2008 4:02:17 AM | Jason,
having watched a bloke who was the catholic churches "da vinci code" advisor slag of the film and its assertions etc. on the Heaven and Earth TV programme yesterday morning i just wonder what people think?
i was brought up religious and i still believe there may be a God, but the BIBLE to me is a collection of stories that you need faith to believe. the DA VINCI CODE has some factual basis but is meant as a work of fiction too.
i do not want a religious debate, or to see anyone upset by this subject, but i guess what i am asking is what makes one so righteous and the other so much slander? surely it is interpretation and faith that truly makes the difference?
Good post!!
Dan Brown wrote the story itself as fiction.i.e it didn't really happen. But much of what he uses is fact. His other books are the same. People are up in arms about the Da Vinci code because it challenges most of what is put in the Bible, and the thorny subject of Christ's family. Whether he actually exsisted or not is irrelevant in this context, what is important is it goes against fundamental basis of the Bible. I have read Bloodlines of the Holy Grail by Laurence Gardner too which is just as interesting and less of a novel.
The Bible is a book that is the basis of a squillion different Christian faiths now. It has, and still does act as a base from which us humans have used it as an excuse to commit murder, war, genocide, torture and generally be extremely crappy towards one another.
Anything that undermines that base is going to be percieved as a threat.
The Church cannot prove anything in the Bible, which is why it cannot issue a libel against Dan Brown, if it could, it could.
I also recommend a book called 'In Gods Name' by Davod Yallop. It was writtenmany many years ago, and since the Da Vinci Code has sparked interest in the Church and conspiracies, it has been reprinted. Its about the murder of Pope John Paul 1 by his own people.
And to answer your other point, what makes something true and something slander is simply a difference of opinion. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/8/2008 4:06:05 AM | Rosso
The salient difference to me would be that the Da Vinci code is a work of pure fiction with only one author while the Bible has many contributors.................
Many contributors of fiction? Written and rewritten time and time again to encompass our changing society? 'New' religions being formed and based on a book that without proof is still entirely fiction.
Don't worry, Im the one who is going to hell...you were only watching... ( Billy Connolly)  | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/9/2008 1:11:34 AM | It's interesting to see some many "not religious" experts on the Bible...the only problem would be that they seem to have read the Da Vinci code and all the other conspiracy theories but not the Bible itself...yet, they pontificate....pontificate on a hear say...criticise without knowledge and just repeat someone else's vitriolic analysis and conspiracy theory of that work.
Clearly a great base for informed discourse.
Amusing read, really.
There are piles of works, pro and against every religion on the net; I would only suggest to stop reading someone else's reviews of it and read it by yourself. Then, make an informed opinion. Your opinion.
Funny how easy a fashinable opinion is without the hard work of knowledge. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/9/2008 5:38:17 AM | | For those of you interested in some of the theory behind Da Vinci Code, as well as the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail I also advise reading Uriel's Machine, The Second Messiah, and The Hirim Key. The second one gives a really good theory on how the shroud of Turin was created. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/9/2008 5:45:15 AM |
but not the Bible itself...yet, they pontificate....
One does not have to read the bible to know that -
1, Like all the other books mentioned - the bible is just that - a book written by humans, and as such open to lies, embellishment and half truths like ANY book.
2, Like conspiracy theories, the bible is based on the opinions of the author / authors.
3, There is no proof that the events depicted are real - believing in the bible is an act of faith. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:06:18 AM | Brian,
Whereas I would agree on most you said above, the "difference" is in knowledge.
If one wants to criticise anything, that should come from a knowledgeable point of view, right?
Otherwise it's a baseless critic.
But to answer more specifically:
"1, Like all the other books mentioned - the bible is just that - a book written by humans, and as such open to lies, embellishment and half truths like ANY book."
True.
But my point is that if one goes into a pontification without direct knowledge that assertion becomes invalid.
It is not enough nor serious to assume a book (of that kind) etc is a malicious work of fantasy without forming that opinion on actual reading/studying. (hell, there are far, far more seriour scholars about this who spend their lives studying this matter while others simply criticise assuming they look cool just because. Don't you think a work like The Bible warrants serious study before judgement?)
"2, Like conspiracy theories, the bible is based on the opinions of the author / authors."
Again true.
But I'll ask you to consider this: there are 44 known and accepted "Books of" (Mark, Luke etc) and wheread you'll find differences (the ones you rightly highlight by the fact of the many writers) you will also find that the theme is basically always the same in terms of Faith and Doctrine. These books were written by authors with direct experience of the life of Jesus. (His Disciples, Mark, Luke, etc etc)
Now, to compare and offer you a different angle, the Hadiths on the Q'ran were only validated some 200 years AFTER the death of the muslim prophet Mohammed. Those Hadiths are "verbal" traditions (unwritten) typical of the "word of mouth" some here wrongly associate with the Bible.
" 3, There is no proof that the events depicted are real - believing in the bible is an act of faith."
And true again if one wants to look at it that way...but, once again, wouldn't you want to judge by yourself? | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:08:29 AM |
It's interesting to see some many "not religious" experts on the Bible...the only problem would be that they seem to have read the Da Vinci code and all the other conspiracy theories but not the Bible itself...yet, they pontificate....pontificate on a hear say...criticise without knowledge and just repeat someone else's vitriolic analysis and conspiracy theory of that work.
Clearly a great base for informed discourse.
And its great to see you promoting uninformed discourse by your post above, Thanks for that gem. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:11:58 AM | Brian,
, Like all the other books mentioned - the bible is just that - a book written by humans, and as such open to lies, embellishment and half truths like ANY book.
2, Like conspiracy theories, the bible is based on the opinions of the author / authors.
3, There is no proof that the events depicted are real - believing in the bible is an act of faith
You spot on person you. 
One does not need to be an herpatologist to realise snakes bite.
One does not need to be a religious scholar to base an opinion on the Bible. However the OPs original point was what makes something accepted and something slander. No one needs to have read either the Bible or Da Vinci code to make an informed opinion on that. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:17:17 AM | But I'll ask you to consider this: there are 44 known and accepted "Books of" (Mark, Luke etc) and wheread you'll find differences (the ones you rightly highlight by the fact of the many writers) you will also find that the theme is basically always the same in terms of Faith and Doctrine. These books were written by authors with direct experience of the life of Jesus. (His Disciples, Mark, Luke, etc etc)
Accepted by whom? The Church? Which church? Religious scholars??Please do clarify.
You will also find books with multiple authors/contributors. many of whom had the same direct experience with alien life.
You do not have to pour years of study into the Bible to understand it. You can accept the word, if you choose, of those who have studied it. And those words do differ and vary from on persons opinion to another.
I am a scientist, I cannot spend my life researchign what others have done just to check it is right, I have to accept their work is valid and scientific enough to base my own research on. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:57:41 AM | Non refundable.
"One does not need to be a religious scholar to base an opinion on the Bible."
but one needs to at least read it no?
"No one needs to have read either the Bible or Da Vinci code to make an informed opinion on that."
I am sure the author of the Da Vinci code would disagree. Like any author of any work would. You are a scientist; wouldn't you disqualify any opinion on your work that was not based on (at least) reading it?
"Accepted by whom? The Church? Which church? Religious scholars??Please do clarify."
The Church in the meaning of the many confessions Christianity has (who differs from one another via politics and doctrine rather than faith and interpretation)
Which Church? Google a list of confession and find the answer. Anglican, Pentecostal, Catholic, Lutheran etc etc.
Religious scholars...again, there are aplenty across the ages. All you have to do is research.
"You will also find books with multiple authors/contributors. many of whom had the same direct experience with alien life."
All of which one should read about and form an opinion based on self rather than hear-say. (should one be interested in that field)
"You do not have to pour years of study into the Bible to understand it."
If one is a serious debater about a work of that nature then I am sure one would want to document oneself....still, if one has no inclination and just wants a light conversation about it, it would be quite acceptable to start that conversation with "I have never read it but from my little knowledge of the work I think xyz" but my point here is that nobody started their pontification with an admission of scarce knowledge.
I was not discussing their (legitimate) positions; just what those positions were based upon. I am well prepared to accept one can feel that way about religious texts, all I was pointing out was that an opinuion must be based on knowledge otherwise what validity has it got?
If I expressed an opinion on one of your scentific works; would you accept it? Wouldn't it be pretentious of me to express an opinion on something I have no knowledge about?
"You can accept the word, if you choose, of those who have studied it."
I chose to always make my own mind. I take advice along the way, I read, I make questions but I never just "accept".
"I am a scientist, I cannot spend my life researching what others have done just to check it is right, I have to accept their work is valid and scientific enough to base my own research on."
But on these grounds you risk basing your researches on a wrong platform.
Sure it is by challenging established concepts that science move forward.
Just imagine what would have happened if Galileo Galilei based his researches on the theory that the hearth was flat.
As a scientist you will concede that if science is to work and produce progress, it has to challenge (as well as discover) status quo right?
(I think both you and I have run out of chances to post due to regulation. I was trying to contact you privately on a previous response but you have limitations that excludes me on your profile. I am trying to post this again; if it doesn't work, I will try sending it to Brian and ask him to forward so that you can offer me your reply if you wish) | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/9/2008 8:24:23 AM | I am sure that certain elements of The Da Vinci Code may be based on a certain element of truth. However, due to a lot of contradictory evidence it's difficult to view the work in it's entirety as being anything other than fiction.
The same can be said about the bible. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/9/2008 8:42:26 AM |
I am sure that certain elements of The Da Vinci Code may be based on a certain element of truth. However, due to a lot of contradictory evidence it's difficult to view the work in it's entirety as being anything other than fiction.
The same can be said about the bible.
Fantastic ! Short and to the point. And totally sums it up.
Genius. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/9/2008 8:58:39 AM |
but one needs to at least read it no?
Not if others have read it and you accept their opinion. Hence my comparison to science.
I have actuallyr ead the Bible, both new and old testiment. Hence I have my opinions based firmly on what I know. Howevet this does not exclude me seeking opinions of religious scholars and thelogioans.
I am sure the author of the Da Vinci code would disagree. Like any author of any work would. You are a scientist; wouldn't you disqualify any opinion on your work that was not based on (at least) reading it?
Let me repost my point. The original point was what makes one slander and the other righteous. You can not have read either book to understand why it works how it does. Its know about the content of each book, its about what makes it so. And what makes it is opinion, that is the nitty gritty.
Accepted by whom? The Church? Which church? Religious scholars??Please do clarify."
The Church in the meaning of the many confessions Christianity has (who differs from one another via politics and doctrine rather than faith and interpretation)
Which Church? Google a list of confession and find the answer. Anglican, Pentecostal, Catholic, Lutheran etc etc.
Religious scholars...again, there are aplenty across the ages. All you have to do is research.
So its the Church. Whichever denomination they all hinge ofn the validity of the Bible. So Im sorryt o say to use them to support a point really actually undermines it. The wrotings are 'accepted' by those who most need it to be accepted.
All of which one should read about and form an opinion based on self rather than hear-say. (should one be interested in that field)
Indeed i do agree. However that point was made in reference to you saying that the books had been written by people with direct experience of the life of Jesus. There is no proof that Jesus ever exsisted, int he same way that there is no proof that aliens exist. That was my point. ( PS Im not wishing to offend any ET fans or Christians here!)
But on these grounds you risk basing your researches on a wrong platform.
Sure it is by challenging established concepts that science move forward.
Far from it. There are only so many times you can repeat the same experiment, and get the same result before you have to accept that is what will happen.
I have to accept that when I breath in. there will be an exchsnge of gasses in my bloodstream. It has been seen thousands of times. It may not be right... there maybe air fairies that do the work... but at some point you have to accept something and go from there.
Science is about replication and understanding. The science world is always confronting what we dont understand and attempting to understand it.
Just imagine what would have happened if Galileo Galilei based his researches on the theory that the hearth was flat.
Hearths are usually flat... 
(I think both you and I have run out of chances to post due to regulation. I was trying to contact you privately on a previous response but you have limitations that excludes me on your profile. I am trying to post this again; if it doesn't work, I will try sending it to Brian and ask him to forward so that you can offer me your reply if you wish)
Not sure what exclusions....I will check and rectify if i can | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/9/2008 9:09:30 AM |
but one needs to at least read it no?
Not really. One can understand that the bible is a book without reading it.
One can understand from others research that it may or may not be fiction without reading it because there is no proof either way.
We accept a lot of things based on others research.
Just one example.......
I dont need to travel around the globe to confirm it is in fact a globe and not flat. I trust the research already done. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/9/2008 9:19:18 AM | Checked exculsions and I dont know..it could be because you occasionally smoke but I am reluctant to lift that one because I dont want any chaps messaging me with view to dating who do smoke!
Or it could be because you have messaged someone looking for intimate enounter....... er....nuff said! | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/9/2008 10:02:57 AM | Brian, Non Refundable
"Not if others have read it and you accept their opinion"
Which would mean you agree with a theory you have no direct knowledge of and are therefore "partial" without an adequate check andbalance no?
"I have actuallyr ead the Bible, both new and old testiment. Hence I have my opinions based firmly on what I know."
Thank you.
Precisely.
Now, if you re-read my posts accurately you will find that I have reacted to pontifications without knowledge.
You have informed yourself before making a judgement and I do not reject that position at all. It is legittimate. It is borne out of reading and thinking, not just repeating. Now, I ask you to go back and read the many posts: how many of the posters do you think have actually read the works in question? I cannot validate or counter the Da Vinci Code for the simple reason I have not read the book, so I would not offer a comment on it. I was merely pointing out that to criticise something, knowledge of it is needed.
"Let me repost my point."
Sorry, I am not sure I understand it.
"So its the Church. Whichever denomination they all hinge of n the validity of the Bible. So Im sorryt o say to use them to support a point really actually undermines it. The wrotings are 'accepted' by those who most need it to be accepted."
And by the many critics through the ages that have started from a critical view (which is a fair default position) and slowly (thrugh knowledge) accepted the doctrine.
One such example would be that famous scientist (whose name escapes me now) who accepted Islam when visiting the black sea and recognising in it the same theories explained in the Q'ran. (with which I wholehartedly disagree) If you like, I'll make a research for you to tell you his name. (please spare me; I am supposed to be working)
"There is no proof that Jesus ever exsisted"
Well, I prefer to believe it did (exist) and the more I read about it, the more I am convinced. I could offer you many sites where it is actually maintained His existance is proven but that would deprive you of your own tools of research. Maybe if you visited some of the sites you could read, research more (to assess reliability of information) and then possibly form your own opinion? As a scientist, I would expect you had no prejudicial positions, so you could apply that principle in that too.
"The science world is always confronting what we dont understand and attempting to understand it. "
Once again perfect....perfect because what you describe happens through knowledge and improvement on past mistakes.
Like I reminded you before, I am not discussing wether the Bible or the Da Vinci Code is fiction or God-given thruth. I am only discussing the merits of expressing an opinion without any knowledge. We could be discussing cabbage for what that matters, mine is only a critic towards the methodology used in forming an opinion. (expecially if one then debates that opinion)
"Hearths are usually flat... "
:-)
Earth is not though...so are you not happy Galileo did not accept that?
"Not sure what exclusions....I will check and rectify if i can"
The restrictions here are about how many posts one can post and on your profile I guess is because I am an occasional smoker.
Sorry, what makes you imply I have contacted someone for an encounter (or whatever that was)? "nuff said"? Not really, I thought we were having an intelligent debate not a "nuff said" conversation.
Brian
"I dont need to travel around the globe to confirm it is in fact a globe and not flat. I trust the research already done."
Good, so just imagine if you lived before Galileo...and now just imagine what lunacy you would be accepting. | |
|
| DA VINCI CODE or BIBLE fictions or facts.
Posted: 4/9/2008 10:13:50 AM |
"There is no proof that Jesus ever exsisted"
Well, I prefer to believe it did (exist) and the more I read about it, the more I am convinced
I think it's highly likely that there was a chap called Jesus who had a bit of a following. There is quite a lot of evidence to support this. However, there's also a lot of evidence to support the existence of numerous other Messiahs at around the same time. Following a Messiah was quite a fashionable thing to do apparently.
What I fail to understand is what made Jesus any different from the others. Was it just that he happened to win the Galilee heat of Messiah Idol and the prize was to have a book written about him? | |
|
Home
login 
