Bliss Roots Cbd Gummies (Customer...
Food & Drink5 mins ago
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Lal. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The bit about the refs being true I took to be about the descriptions of the Opus Dai building in NY etc. Those may well be accurate, but most of it is to be taken with a pinch of salt. I found it an enjoyable read but I am not going to Scotland, London, Paris etc. to see for myself the pyramids, inscriptions etc! The Opus Dei has a bad reputation but it is very secretive and nowhere does the author state (if I remember correctly) that he has spoken to members or had access to archives etc. So I think the descriptions of the places may well be true but the facts are not. By the way, in the book Robert Langdon is said to be prof. of religious iconology at Harvard; if I had the time I would check whether there actually exists a chair of religious iconology at Harvard...
The authors writes: "The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Louvre pyramid, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpretted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that the theories discussed by these characters have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history. "
That cool that you got that quote from author...
Its not that Im a devout catholic or anything but my friend really believes everything she read, without questioning it... and now she hates the catholic church and is slagging it off to everyone on the basis of this book!
Or maybe its the fact that my friend it really quite stupid/dimm that is upsetting me!!
Thank you both
I for one think that the DaVinci Code is laced with some addictive substances. The girl that sits at the mahagony desk behind me in work came in one morning with suitcases...well travel bags at least... under her eyes and said that the night before she had read it from 9pm until 3am. Then she promptly whips out her personal organiser and declares that she had downloaded the book onto it and starts reading again in work! And to think this woman is on �37,000 per year.
I read the book, much to the dismay of the people at my church. I thought it was great! Some other girls at my church also read it and we tried asking my pastor and other members of our church about some of the topics, but I can't stand it! All they ever say is, "well it was a fictional book." yeah, I know that, but they won't even attempt to discuss it! It bugs me. I think that, even though it is a fictional book, there are true facts in it and people should keep an open mind and not just avoid the topic.
The facts that are easily checked are wrong, e.g. hisdescription of Temple underground station, why they go on the underground at all, landing at Biggin Hill airport, even the length of the driveway at Leigh Teabings mansion (Brown says its 1 mile and in another place that it is half a mile), so with so many easily verifiable facts being wrong, and much sloppy writing, one has to wonder at the rest of the so-called facts he quotes.
The authors of The Holy Blood & Holy Grail - a non-fiction book that investigated the blood line of Jesus - are suing Brown. Anyone that read that book was not surprised by Browns book. (and he uses the names of the books authors as one of his major characters)
Anyway - if you're still interested, there's a lot of info on the mistakes in the book and details of the paintings he refers to at http://www.wineintro.com/forum/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=6 and http://www.lisashea.com/hobbies/art/lastsupper.html
The book's great - a good read - but not all true. The major point is this. The group that Dan Brown bases his theory on - The Priory of Sion - was a well known and very elaborate hoax. Also, my theory on the Last Supper painting is that Da Vinci, as everyone knows, was not... 'fond' of women. He preferred men. He was an artist, and therefore prone to artistic licence. Therefore, it is not a giant leap at all for him to represent Peter, Jesus's right hand man, as a woman - or at least with feminine features. Fascinating subject though. There is a programme on BBC2 this weekend which goes in search of the "truth" of the grail...
1 to 9 of 9
