Page 1 of "Da Vinci Code" Programme

The lies exposed on C4 from 9 to 11.

good bargain

Classic Simpsons on C4 and then... Double Simpsons on Sky One!!!

Now that`s what I call a bargain.

*mr happy*

Rikki

Oooops!
Where is a mod when you need one?!

it is free-to-view and is therefore a bargain
+ it has Baldrick
woop-de-do!

Sue Davies

Quote:
The lies exposed on C4 from 9 to 11.

I know this has been debated a million times, but i would trust the `facts` presented in the Da Vinci Code any day of the week over the so called `Bible`.

Did someone touch my foreskin?

I only caught the last few minutes so I don`t know how he got his conclusions, but to dismiss the book as just badly written is absurd. I only bought it by chance last weekend and I`m halfway through already. I think that the writing is pretty good.

And isn`t Tony Robinson a born again Christian? Hardly likely to be unbiased then in my view. To ask if there is any proof that Mary Magdelene and Jesus had a bloodline and then dismiss it as pure story when the people interviewed admitted that they had none is quite hypocritical. There is no proof that anything written in the Bible is actually true, so where was the balance?

-------------

News Editor and Reviewer
www.dvd.reviewer.co.uk

Go that way, really fast. If something gets in your way, turn...

And those who dance will spin and turn,
And those who wait will wait no more,
And those who talk will hear the words,
And those who see will fade and die,
And those who laugh will surely fall,
And those who know will always feel their backs against the thin wall...

It maybe very well written, but it`s the facts that the author has gotten wrong, The place where Diane and Charles got married is a perfect example of the many inaccuracies in the book.

floyd

And if you survive till 2005, I hope you`re exceedingly thin, For if you are stout you will have to breathe out, While the people around you breathe in.

DVDs For Trade

DVD collection

Quote:
I know this has been debated a million times, but i would trust the `facts` presented in the Da Vinci Code any day of the week over the so called `Bible`.

Erm, it isn`t `so-called` - it is called The Bible. And since the Da Vinci Code is predicated on at least some belief in The Bible, your argument is something of a non-starter I`m afraid.

Quote:
I only caught the last few minutes so I don`t know how he got his conclusions, but to dismiss the book as just badly written is absurd. I only bought it by chance last weekend and I`m halfway through already. I think that the writing is pretty good.

And what little you saw doesn`t seem to have registered properly. He said that it wasn`t particularly well-written, not that it was badly-written. There`s a world of difference.

Quote:
And isn`t Tony Robinson a born again Christian? Hardly likely to be unbiased then in my view. To ask if there is any proof that Mary Magdelene and Jesus had a bloodline and then dismiss it as pure story when the people interviewed admitted that they had none is quite hypocritical. There is no proof that anything written in the Bible is actually true, so where was the balance?

Actually, a lot of what is written in The Bible can be verified. So `no proof that anything ...` is patently inaccurate.

I saw the programme and it reiterated what anyone who can get past the populist paperbacks in a bookshop and look on the shelves for serious scholarship could have told you at any time in the last fifty years. Most of the myths about the grail are based on misinterpretations of texts in the middle ages or later. To give the central argument - the grail legend is based on a medieval work of fiction. Before then there was no mention whatsoever of a grail. But because medieval fiction was often written as if it was imparting a true story told to the author, people with inadequate scholarship have interpreted these tales as being real events. No they`re not. There never was a grail.

As for the Jesus and Mary bloodline, it is very highly unlikely. Those who think that the gnostic gospels are telling some big secret should try reading them (they are readily available in translation). There is no solid proof of any sort of physical relationship unless you are prepared to extrapolate wildly from what is there. And if you say that`s permissable, then you should also accept that an extrapolation to an opposite argument is equally plausible. In short, the whole thing is a non-starter.

This item was edited on Friday, 4th February 2005, 09:04