The Davinci Code Options

[chynagongju]

I just read this, but man. Absolutely amazing book. And everything in there is true. I am blown away by this.

[invasian]

It's in the fiction section for a reason...i find it incredible that people believe the crap that he puts forth in his book and believe it without question...i've even seen someone say that since it is a book, everything in it is true...and it is even more absurd that brown would claim that everything in it is true...not only are there religious falsities, but there are historical facts that he didn't get right...

examples...

1. in the book, he says that the merovingians founded paris...look in any history book or encyclopedia, and you'll find that Paris was occupied by a Gallic tribe until the Romans arrived in 52 BC. The invaders referred to the previous occupants as the Parisii, but called their new city Lutetia, meaning "marshy place". About fifty years later the city had spread to the left bank of the Seine, now known as the Latin Quarter, and had been renamed "Paris"...the merovingians came much later

2. The Jewish tetragramaton YHWH – the sacred name of God – derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Havah...this is what he says...any reputable historian will tell you that Jehovah is actually a 16th century (appeared in the 13th century at the earliest) rendering for the King James Version of the Hebrew YHWH using the vowels for the word “Adonai” or “Lord,” the word which was read by devout Jews whenever they came across God’s name in the text of the Old Testament because they felt the actual name of God was too awesome to be pronounced by human lips

3. he says that the olympic games were in dedication to the goddess Aphrodite...when in fact, they were dedicated to Zeus

these are just 3 examples of simple historical facts that brown couldn't even get right...not to mention the multitude of religious facts that he misinterpreted...it really irks me that people take this book so seriously...nothing that he presented in the book is new...what he based most of his "facts" is what is called gnosticism...and the funny thing is, even gnostics have said that he got their teachings wrong...i read a newspaper review that said "his research is impeccable"...seems like that guy was easily fooled into believing brown's "facts"...normally, i wouldn't even care about this kind of stuff...but brown says it's all "facts," when the truth of the matter is, he's got so many things (even simple things) wrong...

Believe what you will, but don't go read a fictional book and believe everything in it...read from reputable sources and then make a decision.


EDIT: As my friend said, Brown knows that this is a business, and by making it controversial, he will sell his books...he surely has done that...i'm not taking anything away from the storyline...it was an simple enjoyable read...but don't let any of his ideas fool you...

This post has been edited by invasian: Jun 27 2004, 05:23 PM

[Puggles]

I think he said he going to write another one i think.....

[halohalo]

it might be juz fiction but it does make a pretty good and intrsting reading if u ask me

[chynagongju]

Well a lot of it is true. I mean the whole thing with DaVinci's paintings and such. The Mona Lisa, Madonna on the Rocks, The Last Supper--it's actually a girl sitting next to Jesus! Not a guy, like everyone assumes...!! cool eh.

[Jasel]

I have to read the book. My dad has it and my sister said it was really good.

[halohalo]

Well a lot of it is true. I mean the whole thing with DaVinci's paintings and such. The Mona Lisa, Madonna on the Rocks, The Last Supper--it's actually a girl sitting next to Jesus! Not a guy, like everyone assumes...!! cool eh.

actually, I think it was more like a very feminine looking guy:

John isn't the only effeminate-looking male Leonardo rendered.

Whether or not Leonardo was gay, he certainly devoted more attention to male anatomy and beautiful males in general, than he did to female anatomy or females. There are some rather sensuous young men depicted in his notebooks, complete with long, curly tresses and modestly downcast, heavy-lidded eyes. There is one in particular I would invite you to look up, if you are over the age of eighteen. Leonardo's so-called Angel in the Flesh figure has a sweet, feminine face (almost an exact likeness of The Last Supper's John) and a slightly swollen bosom (ditto) across which he is holding some form of drapery. However, if you direct your gaze a tad south of the border, you will note the unmistakable Sign of Manhood. One which seems awfully darn pleased with itself, if you ask me.

http://arthistory.about.com/cs/last_supper/f/john_v_mary.htm

[Jasel]

I always thought that that had to more with the idea of male superiority. I could be wrong though

[KoRn]

my friend believes that da vinci was a necrophile

[redwitch]

Da Vinci code is more academic. I like Angels & Demons better.