The crazy christians are up to it again!

[Mike F]

For you irony fans out there, here's a quote from the same guy that was included in a different article:

"You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real," he said. "I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that."

It's almost too much

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Mike F@Mar 17 2005, 03:30 PM
For you irony fans out there, here's a quote from the same guy that was included in a different article:

"You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real," he said. "I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that."

It's almost too much

Hilarious, the quote sounds a whole lot more apt describing the Bible than the Da Vinci Code. At least Brown had the integrity to list his work under 'fiction'.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Abstract@Mar 17 2005, 01:55 PM
I'm a Catholic and i read the book and thought it was entertaining story but nothing more. I do think its perhaps told in a way that easily swayed people may believe it to be the truth from start to finish but people will think that about any book.

I'm pretty sure the debate here is not whether or not Brown is 'telling the truth from start to finish'. He raises interesting and valid historical points when telling his _fictional story_. It is those points that people are paying attention to, not whether or not Sophia is the descendent of French royalty (because, obviously, Sophia doesn't exist).

It should also be pointed out that Brown raises no new points or facts in this book, but relies on fairly well known information. Its the way he puts it together that makes it thought-provoking.

I wouldn't mind learning a bit more about Da Vinci himself in relation to this book, and whether or not he was as 'deviant' in his religion as he is made out to be. Honestly, when it comes to women in the Church, the Code makes perfect sense to me. The organization is so patriarchical its frightening, and it definitely seems that, if God has a plan for us, it probably includes women as more than just a 'rib'.

[kermitology]

Originally posted by Hack&Lube@Mar 17 2005, 05:25 AM
As for the argument about the biblical text arriving here in basically it's precise form, that actually has merit because of the dead sea scrolls which were a bunch of scrolls found preserved in a cave in the 1940s. They were carbon dated to biblical times and compared with modern scripts, they are very much the same.

I'm not surpised.. but how much is translated knowing what more recent scripts say?

[photon]

It depends on what translation you are looking at...

If you are talking about the King James translation, at the time it was made (early 1600's I think) the oldest known Old Testament text (hebrew) was only a few hundred years old, and the oldest known New Testament text (greek) was 600 years old.

Since then there have been many Biblical manuscripts found.. Some of the NT ones date back to within 100 years of the original texts. The mentioned Dead Sea scrolls dated back to as far as 175BC and all together were almost the entire Old Testament.

There's been exhaustive analysis of these old texts against newer texts of the same language and the amount of change is suprisingly small, and mostly limited to spelling errors, style changes in the languages, etc.. There's a ton of info on this out there.

Newer translations try to take newer findings into account and update the translation into modern english. Anyone who's watched a movie with subtitles when they know both languages knows this can be very difficult.

But anyone who seriously studies the Bible makes an effort to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by photon@Mar 17 2005, 05:05 PM
It depends on what translation you are looking at...

If you are talking about the King James translation, at the time it was made (early 1600's I think) the oldest known Old Testament text (hebrew) was only a few hundred years old, and the oldest known New Testament text (greek) was 600 years old.

Since then there have been many Biblical manuscripts found.. Some of the NT ones date back to within 100 years of the original texts. The mentioned Dead Sea scrolls dated back to as far as 175BC and all together were almost the entire Old Testament.

There's been exhaustive analysis of these old texts against newer texts of the same language and the amount of change is suprisingly small, and mostly limited to spelling errors, style changes in the languages, etc.. There's a ton of info on this out there.

Newer translations try to take newer findings into account and update the translation into modern english. Anyone who's watched a movie with subtitles when they know both languages knows this can be very difficult.

But anyone who seriously studies the Bible makes an effort to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek.

Interesting rundown, thanks.

The obvious point here I suppose is that the Da Vinci Code more or less completely deals with the New Testament. The Old doesn't really make an appearance.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Flames89@Mar 16 2005, 08:18 PM
Jebus [sic] Christ!!!

He is exercising his right to free speech and an opinion.

It is not like he issued a death warrant or forbade his parish from reading it under penalty of excommunication or beheading

Lot of molehilling here from the Cardinal to the press.

[RougeUnderoos]

In case anyone is interested this

http://www.historytelevision.ca/tv/shows/t...title_86279.asp

The Real Da Vinci Code show is on tonight. It's two parts but they are airing back to back from 7 - 9. Also at 11 - 1. Channel 45.