"The Da Vinci Code" movie in the DR

[something_of_the_night]

fightingirish...

No one is suggesting Dan Brown is on par with Steinback, Hemmingway, Austen, Garc?a M?rquez or Tolstoy, but why not have a little fun with DVC?

Should we only read the serious literary works? Besides, the Count of MC is considered serious by some folks, yet some of us can see it as just fun.

Isn't it like saying Maurice Ravel and Leonard Cohen should not be enjoyed by the same listener? Or Antony Santos/Aznavour?

Also, while Atticus Finch is a genuine hero, can't you find the same sensibilities on those Grisham characters?

The point is this: We gotta have some fun.

-The Kid
Dominican by birth, vagabundo by choice

 

[fightingirish]

If you must

As I acknowledged, I love me a can of Genny now and again. Cheap thrills are sometimes the best.

But something about Dan Brown irritates me. It's not so much his anti-Catholicism as his ***** poor* anti-Catholicism. He doesnt bother to get basic facts right, facts he could have culled from a 20 second google search.

If he's your cheap thrill, by all means, enjoy it.

 

[MrMike]

The google search took alot longer before Dan Brown came along though.

 

[stormer]

As I acknowledged, I love me a can of Genny now and again. Cheap thrills are sometimes the best.

But something about Dan Brown irritates me. It's not so much his anti-Catholicism as his ***** poor* anti-Catholicism. He doesnt bother to get basic facts right, facts he could have culled from a 20 second google search.

If he's your cheap thrill, by all means, enjoy it.

Keep in mind, his work is a work of FICTION.

 

[stormer]

As I acknowledged, I love me a can of Genny now and again. Cheap thrills are sometimes the best.

But something about Dan Brown irritates me. It's not so much his anti-Catholicism as his ***** poor* anti-Catholicism. He doesnt bother to get basic facts right, facts he could have culled from a 20 second google search.

If he's your cheap thrill, by all means, enjoy it.

oops...double post.

 

[deelt]

Who's looking to Dan Brown for religion? He is only presenting an idea which he stole from somebody else and jazzed it up as in the guise of a mathematical-cryptographic-murder thriller.

With all due respect, the tenet of Christian religion can only be found in the Bible. In my opinion, not even the Catholics, having been born and raised as one, got it right. Any one who takes time to read the bible and compare what it says to what is professed by the church is in for a rude awakening.

D

But something about Dan Brown irritates me. It's not so much his anti-Catholicism as his ***** poor* anti-Catholicism. He doesnt bother to get basic facts right, facts he could have culled from a 20 second google search.

If he's your cheap thrill, by all means, enjoy it.

 

[Texas Bill]

I had a Professor of Theology at Baylor University say in class once that the Bible was a "Beautiful Fairytale". Just think about the stink that raised in a Southern Baptist university.

Texas Bill

 

[deelt]

TX and JD that's the reason why DVC should not be taken to heart. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Even if Goliath was a little bit taller, and not as big as typically portrayed in the David and Goliath tale, the story still proves a point. And that to me is what matters at the end of the day.

 

[something_of_the_night]

What's de dealio, dear deelt?

Because of the type of work you perform, I've become one of your biggest fans here, deelt. But...

Please, give us some credit; we know DVC is fiction. But what about the missing Jesus horses in the Bible?

And when it comes to movies, the only ones that are not fictional are the porn films, with the exception of the fake screams, which are then based on reality. Those of you who don't believe me...

So, dime, deelt. Dime. Dime. What's the dealio with the Jesus horses? Jurassic Park had them, but they are missing from that book.

Please do not consider me an anti-deelt; I really like your posts. You are intelligent, concerned, and strong. But in this age of nanotechnology, Tsunamis, David Blaine, AIDS, carbon-dating, and Darfur, is there room for Santa?

Is there room for Santicl??

-The Kid
I don't care who you are, but all of the above is pretty funny

 

[MrMike]

Please, give us some credit; we know DVC is fiction. But what about the missing Jesus horses in the Bible?

For Jesus Horses please see Job chapter 41

 

[Mirador]

the Leviathan?

 

[MrMike]

Leviathan is a mistranslation, original Hebrew is "Jesus Horse".

 

[Texas Bill]

Jesus, Jessie, Joseph. It depends on which language you're translating from. They all mean the same name.
At least that is my interpretation of the name.

BTW, that Baylor Professor was teaching a class in the "Old Testement".
Had nothing to do with the New.
It was also pointed out that "God's" use of the word "We" was in the context of the use of the "Royal" We and had nothing to do with spiritual triumverate of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" as so many fundamentalists infer.
As for my interpretation, well, it really doesn't matter what I think since I'm not an educated Theologian.

Texas Bill

 

[MrMike]

drifting dangerously off topic...

Jesus and Joshua are the same, but I am pretty sure Joseph and and Jessie are different.

I know that the "royal we" is used when the monarch claims to be speaking for God, (or the state, or whatever) hence "we" as in "God and I" but why would God need to claim to be speaking for God?

 

[something_of_the_night]

Okay, I'm really confused now...

How old is Old Test.?

Somebody has been lying to us.

By the way, I watched Leviathan the movie. It was a super-duper giant squid. I think.

 

[El Tigre]

Folks - this is not even remotely close to what the original concept of this thread was. STAY ON TOPIC OR I WILL CLOSE THIS.

You've been warned!

 

[Texas Bill]

Jesus and Joshua are the same, but I am pretty sure Joseph and and Jessie are different.

I know that the "royal we" is used when the monarch claims to be speaking for God, (or the state, or whatever) hence "we" as in "God and I" but why would God need to claim to be speaking for God?

The Royal "WE" is used by monarchs to indicate the collective authority they posess and it was pointed out that "God" was speaking with such authority during His "communications" with the various Prophets of the time.

The discussion at the time was also refrencing the fact that the "King James Version", which has been in use for some 400 years, was translateed by scholors of that Monarch, from the Latin, Greek and Hebrew writings of the time. There have been many discoveries since then that shed new light on the different "Books" that were selected at the time of translation. Some of these writings were discarded for reasons of being incomplete and/or ambiguous (semantic conflicts) in context. Also their dates were unknown and therefore suspect at the time (and now).
The Old Testement, while having dating problems is still a compilation of widely scattered writings with a few exceptions. While the New Testement must be taken on Faith alone since very little of the writings can be proven historically with the exception of the persecution element by the Roman Empire.
I could be wrong in some of my assertions, since it has been over 30 years since I have delved into the subject. Many conflicting facts have come to light in the last 50 years which were not published extensively at the time of my studies.
Any supportable evidence in refutation would be welcome---I'm not an expert by any means and my memory is also sketchy in this regard.

Texas Bill

 

[MrMike]

Sorry Bill, spent so many of my younger years debating theology that I sometimes jump in sarcastically almost out of habit.

Has very little to do with the film being shown in the DR, I am actually surprised it is being shown at all and wonder how long it will be till some politician decides to look pious by trying to get it shut down.

That is if anybody even notices it.

 

[Texas Bill]

Well, Hollywood does liketo take deep subjects and turn them int "Epics". Much like some of Cecile B. DeMille's movies of the 40's and 50's.
Hollywood has done much to educate the US moviegoer in history, politics, ethics and the like. It's much like the "white hat-black hat" scenarios of the Westerns it produced. "Right" always came out on top. The present day thrust seems to be more about "machismo" than anything else. A truly sad commentary on the society of the US.

Texas Bill

 

[macocael]

Ah, biblical studies. I studied atthe Union Theological Seminary while I was at Columbia in the English dept. There is no more fascinating work of literature to study. Its roots are varied and complex, the oldest verse of the Pentateuch is dated at 1500 BC, predating Homer by maybe 600 years or so, "the Song of Miriam" in Exodus. But both the Old and New Testaments were stitched together out of a variety of written and oral texts by priests who tried to impose a certain coherence on these very different traditions. How they did that and what they came up with makes for a very interesting study in politcal and theological thought. Ever wonder why there are two creation stories in Genesis? Or how about God coming down and stopping by Abraham's tent for lunch? Lots to think about in the Bible.

Needless to say Dan Brown's grasp of the material is lacking, but I agree it is just fiction, a certain kind of fiction, which is fun but not too demanding. The real literature is much more interesting and full of the same mystery, suspense and surprises that we expect from literature.

By the way, Texas Bill, you are basically right about the King James Version -- and its power outside the Catholic tradition and the Douay bible is incredible. But did you know that in fact that circle of scholars cribbed most of their translation from a preceding work, done by one guy, I believe, almost word for word? YOu can buy this translation as well (name escapes me at the moment). That period saw a ferment of translation activity due to the fact that so many groups were reinterpreting the bible. There were several competing bibles at the time -- which is why James wanted an official version. All the religious ferment was a threat to the throne. Also, more is verified than just the Roman persecution, which in fact is something of a myth. The Pax Romana allowed for a very liberal amount of cultural and religious freedom in the subjugated states. From the Roman perspective the problem was not religion, it was the guerillas and their charismatic leaders who used the hebrew texts to promote their activities. The real enemies in the New Testament are the pharisees -- the Hebrew priestly caste. They are the ones who come in for the real lashing.

I hope I am not too off topic, and I realize that religion is a touchy topic with some, but this is purely scholarly in perspective so I hope you will all accept it in that spirit.