Quantcast

Has anyone read The Da Vinci Code ?

AO ;) 2014/02/02 21:32:25
You!
Add Photos & Videos
If you have read it in English, what do you think of its language ?


I saw some readers' reviews, and they state Brown's language as very bad, and that he even doesn't use verb tenses right!

I need to know this before I start with it, since I care of the language more than the content....


Thank you
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Eccles 2014/02/03 07:51:58
    Yes!
    Eccles
    What a load of Bollocks.
    Idiot fodder.
  • davidl 2014/02/03 01:37:56
    None of the above
    davidl
    This isn't exactly fine literature. I watched the movie instead and saved 10+ hours of my life.
  • Phyxe 2014/02/03 00:27:28
    None of the above
    Phyxe
    I only saw the movie, but I like Brown's novels. They are easy to read. He is one of my favorite authors.
  • JanHopkins 2014/02/02 23:09:40
    No! It's language is good
    JanHopkins
    It was a nice smooth read which is all that is important to me.
  • beachbum 2014/02/02 22:43:29
    Yes!
    beachbum
    To be honest, I did read it, but it's been several years since I did. What I remember was that somethings in it did not make sense to me, or I disagreed with it.
  • evangelism_vision 2014/02/02 22:37:45
    Yes!
    evangelism_vision
    The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown, achieved status on the New York Times best seller list for several months after its release in March of 2004. It is the story of the history-changing secret that Jesus was not divine, was married to Mary Magdalene, had children, that the Christian church altered the Bible, that it invented Jesus' divinity as it demonized the sacred-feminine in order to gain power and influence, and that the secret is held by a sect of the Catholic Church that goes to extreme lengths to preserve the secret lest it lose its power and influence.

    The Da Vinci Code takes its title from the artist/inventor Leonardo Da Vinci, the former head of a secret society known as the Priory of Sion who, through the centuries, has been keeping the truth alive. The book mentions The Holy Grail, which is supposed to be Mary Magdalene herself, and attempts to draw the comparison between the traditional view of the Grail as a cup (container) from which Jesus drank at the Last Supper and Mary Magdelene's body as a "container" for life; namely, Jesus' offspring. Therefore, the quest for the Holy Grail is really the quest to kneel at the bones of Mary which have been preserved by the secret society through the centuries.

    The Da Vinci Code is well written and entertaining, but we must...







    &

    &








    The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown, achieved status on the New York Times best seller list for several months after its release in March of 2004. It is the story of the history-changing secret that Jesus was not divine, was married to Mary Magdalene, had children, that the Christian church altered the Bible, that it invented Jesus' divinity as it demonized the sacred-feminine in order to gain power and influence, and that the secret is held by a sect of the Catholic Church that goes to extreme lengths to preserve the secret lest it lose its power and influence.

    The Da Vinci Code takes its title from the artist/inventor Leonardo Da Vinci, the former head of a secret society known as the Priory of Sion who, through the centuries, has been keeping the truth alive. The book mentions The Holy Grail, which is supposed to be Mary Magdalene herself, and attempts to draw the comparison between the traditional view of the Grail as a cup (container) from which Jesus drank at the Last Supper and Mary Magdelene's body as a "container" for life; namely, Jesus' offspring. Therefore, the quest for the Holy Grail is really the quest to kneel at the bones of Mary which have been preserved by the secret society through the centuries.

    The Da Vinci Code is well written and entertaining, but we must take it more seriously than a standard fiction book because the author claims it is accurately researched and based on factual information. If Brown had stated in the introduction of his book that his material was conjecture, fiction, and not meant to be factual, then we'd have no problem with it at all. But no such disclaimer exists. In his acknowledgment page at the beginning of the book, Brown says,

    "For their generous assistance in the research of this book, I would like to acknowledge the Louvre Museum, the French Ministry of Culture, Project Gutenberg, Bibliothque Nationale, the Gnostic Society Library, the Department of Paintings Study and Documentation Service at the Lourvre, Catholic World News, Royal Observatory Greenwich, London Record Society, the Muniment Collection at Westminster Abbey, John Pike and the Federation of American Scientists, and the five members of Opus Dei (three active, two former) who recounted their stories, both positive and negative, regarding their experiences inside Opus Dei."

    From such a listing a person could get the idea that the story presents factual information regarding the Christian Church, Jesus, and the Bible. The truth is that it is poorly researched at best. Unfortunately, far too many people who do not know real history and the real facts to which the book alludes are liable to believe the numerous erroneous theories cited by Brown, which are old errors repeated in non-Christian circles and have no evidence for them.

    On Dan Brown's website (danbrown.com), he provides a list of books used in research for the Da Vinci Code. They are gnostic, new age, and speculative in nature. Here are some of them:

    Rosslyn: Guardians of the Secret of the Holy Grail --Tim Wallace-Murphy & Marilyn Hopkins
    The Woman With The Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail --Margaret Starbird
    The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ --Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince
    The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine --Margaret Starbird
    The Dead Sea Deception --Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh
    Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians --Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy
    When God was a Woman --Merlin Stone

    Beyond the Threshold: A Life in Opus Dei --Maria Del Carmen Tapia
    The Pope's Armada: Unlocking the Secrets of Mysterious and Powerful New Sects in the Church --Gordon Urguhart

    The list reveals Brown's lack of scholarly research since it does not contain competent research material from counter sources. Unfortunately, there is little fact in the book and far too much conjecture. To the untrained, the presentation of Brown's theory can be compelling and misguiding.
    (more)
  • evangel... evangel... 2014/02/02 22:42:34
    evangelism_vision
    Quote: "The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book...more than 80 gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few are chosen for inclusion-- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them... the Bible, as we know it today, was collected by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great." p. 231

    Response:
    This is a very gross error. The Bible is not the product of "countless translation, additions, and revisions." The Bible is translated from copies of original documents, which have been static since before the council of Nicea.

    Response:
    The Bible was not produced at the Council of Nicea by Constantine. The Old Testament documents were collected and known as an inspired work long before the Christian church was ever on the scene. The New Testament documents were written by the eyewitnesses of Jesus' Ministry, or under the direction of those who were. The Christian Church knew which documents were authentic and which were not, with only a few books in dispute.

    At the initial formation of the Christian Church, the C...














































    Quote: "The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book...more than 80 gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few are chosen for inclusion-- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them... the Bible, as we know it today, was collected by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great." p. 231

    Response:
    This is a very gross error. The Bible is not the product of "countless translation, additions, and revisions." The Bible is translated from copies of original documents, which have been static since before the council of Nicea.

    Response:
    The Bible was not produced at the Council of Nicea by Constantine. The Old Testament documents were collected and known as an inspired work long before the Christian church was ever on the scene. The New Testament documents were written by the eyewitnesses of Jesus' Ministry, or under the direction of those who were. The Christian Church knew which documents were authentic and which were not, with only a few books in dispute.

    At the initial formation of the Christian Church, the Christians were under Roman rule and did not have the freedom (due to initial persecution) to produce an "official" Bible. But that did not prevent them from knowing which documents were penned by the apostles themselves and which were spurious forgeries, of which many were in existence and are undoubtedly included in the "80 gospels" that Brown mentions.

    Quote: "With the help of Jesus' trusted uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene secretly traveled to France, then known as Gaul. There she found safe refuge in the Jewish community. It was here in France that she gave birth to a daughter. Her name was Sarah." p. 255

    Response:
    There is no evidence for this whatsoever in history. It is an invention, a fabrication.

    Quote: "...the Piscean ideal believe that man must be told what to do by higher powers because man is incapable of thinking for himself. Hence it has been a time of fervent religion. Now, however, we are entering the age of Aquarius-- the water bearer-- whose ideals claim that man will learn the truth and be able to think for himself." p. 268

    Response:
    Notice the appeal to astrology as truth. This is inherently problematic since astrology is unverifiable, highly subjective, and is full of ambiguous speculations.

    Response:
    It is interesting that Brown inserts pagan ideas and pagan concepts into the dialogue among his characters in an attempt to support the storyline. His comment leaves a person with the impression that religion, in particular Christianity, does not want people to learn the truth or think for themselves. This cannot be further from fact. The Scriptures teach us to learn the facts and to be very responsible in our decisions and to think critically. Brown misrepresents, at the very least, the Christian faith.

    Response:
    Following are scriptures telling us to think, to use our minds.
    "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself," (Luke 10:27)
    "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things," (Phil. 4:8).

    "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect," (Rom. 12:2).
    "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind," (Romans 14:5).

    Quote: "Admittedly, the concept of sex as a pathway to God was mind-boggling at first. Langdon's Jewish students always looked flabbergasted when he first told them that the early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex. In the temple, no less. Early Jews believed that the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple housed not only God but also his powerful female equal, Shekinah. Men seeking spiritual wholeness came to the temple to visit priestesses--or hierodules-- with whom they made love and experienced the divine through physical union. The Jewish tetragrammaton YHWH -- the sacred name of God -- in fact derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Habraic name for Eve, Havah." p. 309

    Response:
    We know of absolutely no documentation whatsoever supporting the idea that the early Jews considered the Holy of Holies a place where a female deity would dwell. Such an idea is without merit, is ridiculous, and is in direct contradiction to the historic/biblical account for the purpose of the Holy of Holies - to offer blood sacrifices to the Lord. This is such a preposterous idea that we are surprised Mr. Brown inserted it into the story at all -- even knowing it is a fictional book.

    Response:
    Brown makes a very fundamental error in his research regarding the tetragrammaton YHWH. It is not derived from a masculine and feminine set of words. Instead, YHWH is the English four letters that most closely represent the four Hebrew characters that designate the name of God which is derived from the Hebrew verb "to be." "To be" is not feminine in the slightest. It is simply a verb. When God gives his own name in Exodus 3:14 he says, "I AM that I AM." Again, the "I AM" is from the verb "to be," which is where we get YHWH. Brown is completely wrong on this.

    Quote: "The next time you find yourself with a woman, look in your heart and see if you cannot approach sex as a mystical, spiritual act. Challenge yourself to find that spark of divinity that man can only achieve through union with the sacred feminine." p. 310

    Response:
    This is a very subjective statement. Of course, it is just a fictional character giving a fictional opinion. But, the problem is that with the overall context of undermining biblical truth and historical fact, this comment takes on a more distracting meaning as it moves a person to think emotionally instead of using his mind...the very thing Brown, via his characters, accuses the church of not wanting. See point 3 above.

    Response:
    Sex is mystical? Where did Brown get this? Throughout ancient history, when men have been in charge of religious practices, temple prostitution has often arisen as a "privilege" and a "sacrament" of getting in touch with the divine goddess. What makes Brown think that ancient temple prostitution practices and sexual union are somehow true mystical events?

    Quote: "... every faith in the world is based on fabrication. As the definition of faith -- acceptance of that which we imagined to be true, that which we can prove." p. 341

    Response:
    No, this is not true. Christianity is based on fact: the reality of the nation of Israel, archaeological verification, eyewitness accounts recorded in written form regarding the birth of Christ, his ministry, his miracles, his teaching, his death, his burial, and his resurrection. Brown could not be further from the truth. He repeatedly makes logical and unsubstantiated assertions as though they were fact, and then continues to build arguments upon them. This is a fallacious way of trying to establish the point.

    Quote: "Those who truly understand their faiths understand the stories [i.e., Virgin birth of Jesus] are metaphorical." p. 342

    Response:
    This is not true. Christianity is not based on metaphorical stories with hidden meanings. It is based on historical facts, i.e., the actual life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The witnesses recorded what they actually saw and wrote down actual events. Brown's character's assertion is admittedly fictional and completely erroneous.
    (more)
  • none 2014/02/02 22:27:25
    Yes!
    none
    +1
    I read it a few years ago and enjoyed it.
  • lucythetooth 2014/02/02 22:17:44
    Yes!
    lucythetooth
    I've read the book and watched the movie.
  • Luca 2014/02/02 22:16:29
    No! It's language is good
    Luca
    It was very well writtten
  • GreatLakes 2014/02/02 21:56:35
    None of the above
    GreatLakes
    Only saw the movie...
  • Boris Badinov 2014/02/02 21:54:56
    No! It's language is good
    Boris Badinov
    It's ideas are without merit.
  • Phyxe Boris B... 2014/02/03 00:28:53
    Phyxe
    It was stated to be a work of fiction. Although he did extensive research to make it as real as possible.
  • Boris B... Phyxe 2014/02/03 01:26:17
    Boris Badinov
    See MCM.. I was right..!
  • Phyxe Boris B... 2014/02/03 05:21:31 (edited)
    Phyxe
    I have no clue as to what you think you are right about. Fiction is fiction. But much of the facts in that story were true. That is why Brown did so much research about.
  • Boris B... Phyxe 2014/02/03 13:05:19 (edited)
    Boris Badinov
    Yes, much of it came from long time legend and Christian-like cult religion. Almost none of it from Christianity itself. Man, we are really smart...
  • Phyxe Boris B... 2014/02/03 21:44:39
    Phyxe
    That is true. There is nothing that will ever be found that can confirm anything about christianity at all. There is certainly nothing so far that has.
  • Cat 2014/02/02 21:45:05
    None of the above
    Cat
    +1
    no.
    Saw the movie.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/08/21 08:24:26

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals