Da Vinci Code

Dan Brown

3/5 Short version: Page-turning fiction that thinks it's non-fiction. Read Cracking Da Vinci's...more

3/5 Short version: Page-turning fiction that thinks it's non-fiction. Read Cracking Da Vinci's Code after it. Long version: I couldn’t put down “The Da Vinci Code”, and I couldn’t stop talking about it to friends, even ones who hadn’t read it, which I’m sure they found annoying. I loved reading it, but I found some things offensive. Books and movies like this worry me because, in the name of “fiction”, writers can slander a real person or organization as much as they want, and audiences believe them. It’s propaganda. Brown’s ideas seem plausible because he effectively sprinkles in occasional facts and has well-educated characters assert that they are speaking the truth. But you wouldn’t study for the bar exam by reading Grisham, so why learn theology from Brown? I did a little research and, let’s just say that it’s ironic that the book’s main theme is a courageous search for truth. It’s completely avoided on the book flaps, but he’s obviously got an agenda On 20/20, he said he was on a mission to bring a religious message, a new way of thinking about the origins of Christianity, to mainstream America. On NBC’s Today Show, he was asked: How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?” “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies – all of that is historical fact.” That’s not “absolutely all” of the book. Those are details, not main ideas. It’s Male Bashing For example, the scene where Langdon refers to a Harvard lecture he gave where women nodded with understanding during his explanation of “finding divinity” during sex while the men giggled immaturely, being “still boys”. His Reasoning Seems Ludicrous The Code says, “Mankind’s use of sex to commune directly with God posed a serious threat to the Catholic power base… for obvious reasons, they had to demonize sex. Other major religions did the same.” I’m sure a lot of people were having sex in order to commune directly with God. ;) He refers to Jesus’ divinity as “The greatest story ever sold.” He claims that “Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity.” p. 124 The world’s most famous anthropologist, Margaret Mead, said, “claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed.” Sociology faculty chairman Steven Goldberg writes: “Theories about a matriarchal society… failed to include a single shred of evidence that (they) had ever existed.” Women in the pagan world were not treated as well as Brown asserts. In all cultures, India, China, Greece, you name it, women were considered property with no rights. In fact, even ancient Roman pagan scholars agree that Christianity was the turning point for the freedom and dignity of women”. For example, Alvin Schmidt, author of “Under the Influence” writes that ‘The influence of Christians helped to abolish China’s practice of binding women feet and India’s suttee: burning a woman to death on the funeral pyre with her dead husband, and to fight the practice of some young girls being raised to be temple prostitutes.’ Brown claims that the New Testament was put together by female-bashers. If so, why would women have a prominent role in it? Why would women saints and martyrs be revered, or even recorded? Mother Mary is prayed to. The resurrection itself is first announced to a woman. In one gospel story, sisters Mary and Martha are hosting Jesus at their home. Mary listens to Him while Martha does the “female” things and He affirms Mary and challenges Martha. Paul declares that both genders have equal standing before God. Meanwhile, Gnostic gospels put women down: The Gospel of Thomas, saying 114, has Jesus saying, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling your males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” Also, in the ritual Heiros Gamos, it doesn’t say how women use sex to gain knowledge, the men do that, she is only a “chalice” in the rite. Brown accuses the Church of Murdering 5,000,000 women as witches The publication “Malleus Maleficarum”, or “The Witch’s Hammer” began the idea and practice of killing witches. Brown refers to “Malleus Maleficarum” as being authored by an official of the Catholic church. Actually, the church reacted to its publication by rejecting the legal procedures suggested by the authors, and censuring them. It was secular courts, not the Church, that relied on “Malleus Maleficarum”. Secular courts, not Church courts, handed down the majority of capital sentences. Those found guilty of witchcraft by the Church were usually given non-lethal penalties, such as excommunication, or fasting on bread and water for a year. Neopagan author Jenny Gibbons wrote an article that states, "Popular writers trumpeted that the Great Hunt was not a mere panic, but a deliberate attempt to exterminate Christianity's rival religion." (This is what Brown means when he refers to the "brutal crusade to 'reeducate' the pagan and feminine-worshipping religions.") Gibbons continues: "Today, we know that there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. When the church was at the height of its power (llth to 14th centuries) very few witches died. Persecutions did not reach epidemic levels until after the Reformation, when the Catholic church had lost its position as Europe's indisputable moral authority." In fact, it was Christian missionaries who encouraged kingdoms and courts to pass laws protecting men and women from charges of witchcraft. These missionaries said such charges were ungrounded, as they did not believe humans possessed the power to do what witches were accused of doing. Also, the fifth century Synod of St. Patrick ruled that “A Christian who believes that there is a… witch, is to be anathematized; whoever lays that reputation upon a living being shall not be received into the Church until he revokes with his own voice the crime that he has committed." And what of the estimates of the number of women killed during the Great Hunt? Brown uses the figure of five million. Most modern estimates suggest perhaps 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, with something between 40,000 and 50,000 executions, of which 20 to 25 percent were men. The issue of Jesus’ divinity being something decided on by a Church Council Code, p. 233 “Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet… but a man nonetheless. A mortal…. Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.” “Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?” “A relatively close one at that… Establishing Christ’s divinity was critical to… the new Vatican power base.” - Jesus called Himself: the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, the Way, the Truth, the Life, said ‘the only way to the Father is through me’, said he could forgive sin, said He would rise from the dead; the gospels say he rose from the dead, He allowed others to call him the Christ, and said He would be the ultimate judge at the end of time. - If He hadn’t really thought He was divine, why not just say so when on trial and avoid an agonizing death? - All martyrs before the fourth century had been dying for the memory of a man? They didn’t already think He was divine? - It got formally voted on because a man named Arius raised the issue by teaching that Jesus was mortal, was declared a heretic by a bishop, moved to Palestine and continued his teaching, sending letters to churches promoting the idea, and kept trying to gain attention until emperor Constantine finally heard about it. Constantine called together over 300 bishops, primarily from the East, (which should have helped Arius’ cause), and had them vote. Brown blatantly lies “Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?” “A relatively close one at that.” The vote was 316 to 2. The Priory of Sion: Brown relies on a 1982 publication, “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”, for his information on the Priory of Sion. Those authors relied on documents provided them by Pierre Plantard, an anti-Semitic Frenchman who spent time in jail for fraud in 1953. Plantard and three other men started a small social club in 1954 called the Priory of Sion, taking the name from a nearby mountain. Their club's "cause" was the call for more low-cost housing in France. The club dissolved in 1957, but Plantard held on to the name. Throughout the 1960s and the 1970s, Plantard created a series of documents "proving" the existence of a bloodline descending from Mary Magdalene, through the kings of France, down to the present day to include Pierre Plantard. He began using the name Plantard de Saint-Clair, saying the Saint-Clairs were direct descendants of the line of Jesus and Mary. In 1993, Plantard's name came up in light of a political scandal involving a close friend of then French president Francois Mitterand. Plantard had, in one of his documented lists of the Priory of Sion, listed Roger-Patrice Pelat as a Grand Master. When called before the court to testify, Plantard, under oath, admitted he had made up the whole Priory scheme. The court ordered a search of Plantard's house, which revealed further documents that proclaimed Plantard to be the true king of France. The judge gave Plantard a stern warning and dismissed him as a harmless crank. The phrase “The winners write the history” Sophie seems surprised by this concept, as if it’s new. Conspiracy theorists love this phrase. It conveniently discounts virtually all historical accounts. Also, as far as Brown’s specific claim against the Church goes, the New Testament was written well before Christians stopped being killed for their faith, so they were hardly winners at the time. (Version I sent out:) Hey ladies. I couldn’t put down “The Da Vinci Code”, and I couldn’t stop talking about it to friends, even ones who hadn’t read it, which I’m sure they found annoying. I loved reading it, but I found some things offensive. I don’t want to talk everyone’s ear off tomorrow, so I’m sending this long-winded e-mail out now instead and I’ll try not to talk too much at the meeting. :) Take it or leave it. Books and movies like this worry me because, in the name of “fiction”, writers can slander a real person or organization as much as they want, and audiences often believe them. It’s propaganda. Brown’s ideas seem plausible because he effectively sprinkles in occasional facts and has well-educated characters assert that they are speaking the truth. I'm sure we know we can't study for the bar exam by reading Grisham or learn theology from Brown, but I did a little research and, let’s just say that it’s ironic that the book’s main theme is a courageous search for truth. What I’ve learned is in normal font; the parts in italics are just my opinions. The underlined parts are the various topics I found annoying. It’s completely avoided on the book flaps, but he’s obviously got an agenda. I would have liked a warning. On 20/20, he said he was on a mission to bring a religious message, a new way of thinking about the origins of Christianity, to mainstream America. He tries to make it seem real On NBC’s Today Show, he was asked: How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?” “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies – all of that is historical fact.” That’s not “absolutely all” of the book. Those are details, not main ideas. It’s Male Bashing For example, the scene where Langdon refers to a Harvard lecture he gave where women nodded with understanding during his explanation of “finding divinity” during sex while the men giggled immaturely, being “still boys”. His Reasoning Seems Ludicrous The Code says, “Mankind’s use of sex to commune directly with God posed a serious threat to the Catholic power base… for obvious reasons, they had to demonize sex. Other major religions did the same.” I’m sure a lot of people were having sex in order to commune directly with God. ;) He refers to Jesus’ divinity as “The greatest story ever sold.” He claims that “Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity.” p. 124 The world’s most famous anthropologist, Margaret Mead, said, “claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed.” Sociology faculty chairman Steven Goldberg writes: “Theories about a matriarchal society… failed to include a single shred of evidence that (they) had ever existed.” Women in the pagan world were not treated as well as Brown asserts. In all cultures, India, China, Greece, you name it, women were considered property with no rights. In fact, even ancient Roman pagan scholars agree that Christianity was the turning point for the freedom and dignity of women”. For example, Alvin Schmidt, author of “Under the Influence” writes that ‘The influence of Christians helped to abolish China’s practice of binding women feet and India’s suttee: burning a woman to death on the funeral pyre with her dead husband, and to fight the practice of some young girls being raised to be temple prostitutes.’ Brown claims that the New Testament was put together by female-bashers. If so, why would women have a prominent role in it? Why would women saints and martyrs be revered, or even recorded? Mother Mary is prayed to. The resurrection itself is first announced to a woman. In one gospel story, sisters Mary and Martha are hosting Jesus at their home. Mary listens to Him while Martha does the “female” things and He affirms Mary and challenges Martha. Paul declares that both genders have equal standing before God. Meanwhile, Gnostic gospels put women down: The Gospel of Thomas, saying 114, has Jesus saying, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling your males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” Also, in the ritual Heiros Gamos, it doesn’t say how women use sex to gain knowledge, the men do that, she is only a “chalice” in the rite. Brown accuses the Church of Murdering 5,000,000 women as witches The publication “Malleus Maleficarum”, or “The Witch’s Hammer” began the idea and practice of killing witches. Brown refers to “Malleus Maleficarum” as being authored by an official of the Catholic church. Actually, the church reacted to its publication by rejecting the legal procedures suggested by the authors, and censuring them. It was secular courts, not the Church, that relied on “Malleus Maleficarum”. Secular courts, not Church courts, handed down the majority of capital sentences. Those found guilty of witchcraft by the Church were usually given non-lethal penalties, such as excommunication, or fasting on bread and water for a year. Neopagan author Jenny Gibbons wrote an article that states, "Popular writers trumpeted that the Great Hunt was not a mere panic, but a deliberate attempt to exterminate Christianity's rival religion." (This is what Brown means when he refers to the "brutal crusade to 'reeducate' the pagan and feminine-worshipping religions.") Gibbons continues: "Today, we know that there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. When the church was at the height of its power (llth to 14th centuries) very few witches died. Persecutions did not reach epidemic levels until after the Reformation, when the Catholic church had lost its position as Europe's indisputable moral authority." In fact, it was Christian missionaries who encouraged kingdoms and courts to pass laws protecting men and women from charges of witchcraft. These missionaries said such charges were ungrounded, as they did not believe humans possessed the power to do what witches were accused of doing. Also, the fifth century Synod of St. Patrick ruled that “A Christian who believes that there is a… witch, is to be anathematized; whoever lays that reputation upon a living being shall not be received into the Church until he revokes with his own voice the crime that he has committed." And what of the estimates of the number of women killed during the Great Hunt? Brown uses the figure of five million. Most modern estimates suggest perhaps 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, with something between 40,000 and 50,000 executions, of which 20 to 25 percent were men. The issue of Jesus’ divinity being something decided on by a Church Council Code, p. 233 “Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet… but a man nonetheless. A mortal…. Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.” “Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?” “A relatively close one at that… Establishing Christ’s divinity was critical to… the new Vatican power base.” - Jesus called Himself: the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, the Way, the Truth, the Life, said ‘the only way to the Father is through me’, said he could forgive sin, said He would rise from the dead; the gospels say he rose from the dead, He allowed others to call him the Christ, and said He would be the ultimate judge at the end of time. - If He hadn’t really thought He was divine, why not just say so when on trial and avoid an agonizing death? - All martyrs before the fourth century had been dying for the memory of a man? They didn’t already think He was divine? - It got formally voted on because a man named Arius raised the issue by teaching that Jesus was mortal, was declared a heretic by a bishop, moved to Palestine and continued his teaching, sending letters to churches promoting the idea, and kept trying to gain attention until emperor Constantine finally heard about it. Constantine called together over 300 bishops, primarily from the East, (which should have helped Arius’ cause), and had them vote. Brown blatantly lies “Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?” “A relatively close one at that.” The vote was 316 to 2. The Priory of Sion: Brown relies on a 1982 publication, “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”, for his information on the Priory of Sion. Those authors relied on documents provided them by Pierre Plantard, an anti-Semitic Frenchman who spent time in jail for fraud in 1953. Plantard and three other men started a small social club in 1954 called the Priory of Sion, taking the name from a nearby mountain. Their club's "cause" was the call for more low-cost housing in France. The club dissolved in 1957, but Plantard held on to the name. Throughout the 1960s and the 1970s, Plantard created a series of documents "proving" the existence of a bloodline descending from Mary Magdalene, through the kings of France, down to the present day to include Pierre Plantard. He began using the name Plantard de Saint-Clair, saying the Saint-Clairs were direct descendants of the line of Jesus and Mary. In 1993, Plantard's name came up in light of a political scandal involving a close friend of then French president Francois Mitterand. Plantard had, in one of his documented lists of the Priory of Sion, listed Roger-Patrice Pelat as a Grand Master. When called before the court to testify, Plantard, under oath, admitted he had made up the whole Priory scheme. The court ordered a search of Plantard's house, which revealed further documents that proclaimed Plantard to be the true king of France. The judge gave Plantard a stern warning and dismissed him as a harmless crank. The phrase “The winners write the history” Sophie seems surprised by this concept, as if it’s new. Conspiracy theorists love this phrase. It conveniently discounts virtually all historical accounts. Also, as far as Brown’s specific claim against the Church goes, the New Testament was written well before Christians stopped being killed for their faith, so they were hardly winners at the time. He refers to his main characters as 'Sophie and Langdon', not 'Sophie and Robert'. I don't know why this bugs me. That's it. :)    hide

Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the...more

Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, 'Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?' . . . His number is 666." - Revelation 13:4,18 Released within weeks of the controversial Da Vinci Code, The Omen, opened in cinemas throughout the world on the 6th day of the 6th month of the 6th year of the 21st century (6.6.06). Apart from its disturbing images, the film has intensified interest in the general interpretation of apocalyptic literature and, more specifically, with symbolism and codes found in the New Testament Book of Revelation. Adopted from an earlier 1976 box-office hit film, The Omen may be the first movie made because of its association with its opening date. In the opening scene of the film, Italian scholars incorrectly interpret prophecies in the Book of Revelation as specific tragedies ranging from 9/11 and the Challenger disaster to the 2004 tsunami in Malaysia. They are unable to foresee the appearance of the Antichrist who is born on June 6 in Rome and in a Catholic hospital! Meanwhile, priests and nuns working the maternity ward in an Italian hospital convince a U.S. official to trick his wife into accepting another mother’s child. The Diplomat can't bear to tell his wife that the child she just bore didn't survive. A duplicitous Catholic priest suggests that they take home a boy whose mother died in childbirth the very same hour. Accepting the child as their own, the couple names the baby Damien. For the next five years, the couple unwittingly raises the spawn of Satan in place of their own son, who died at birth. Apart from compelling viewers to believe that Damien is the Antichrist because he has the mark (666) of the beast on his body, the movie subtly makes a number of negative statements about Christianity. "There is no devil," a character states, "there is no God. There is only here and now and life." How should the Book of Revelation be interpreted? Who is the beast that is described in the 13th Chapter and what does the number “666” symbolize? This is the $666 dollar question. Ever since the Book of the Revelation was included in the Canon of Holy Scripture there has been speculation about the identity of the Antichrist and the number associated with the beast. The Book of Revelation, or more correctly, the Revelation of Jesus Christ Unto His Servant John, is commonly referred to as the Apocalypse of John. The book’s name (Apocalypse) is derived from the two Greek words that literally mean, "to pull the cover away from.” It is the last canonical text of the New Testament in the Bible and is the only biblical book that is entirely composed of prophetic or symbolic visions, especially of the imminent destruction of the world and the salvation of the righteous. The Apocalypse of John is considered to be one of the most controversial and difficult books of the Bible, and as such, the source of various exotic interpretations. The first-century writer, Papias (c. 60-120), for example, believed that Christ's resurrection had already inaugurated the new millennium. Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165), on the other hand, believed that the church would reign with Christ after his second coming (a view typically referred to as pre-millennialism). As Roman authorities increased their persecution of the church, Christians, like third-century Hippolytus, expected Christ to establish his millennial reign in 496. Still other Christian theologians, like Origen, preferred to interpret Revelation allegorically, rejecting detailed schemas altogether. It is interesting to note that St. John Chrysostom and other 4th Century bishops argued against including this book in the New Testament canon, chiefly because of the difficulties of interpreting it and the danger for abuse. It should not come as a surprise therefore that, although it was included in the official Canon of Scripture, it remains the only book of the New Testament that is not read within the Divine Liturgy of the Greek Orthodox Church. How should the Book of Revelation be interpreted? Who is the beast that is described in the 13th Chapter and what does the number “666” symbolize? Six exegetical methods may be used to interpret the Apocalypse of John as biblical prophecy. The first method that may be used is called the Preterist approach. Preterists believe that the contents of Revelation constitute a prophecy of events that were fulfilled in the 1st century. The Preterist approach generally identifies Jerusalem as the persecutor of the Church. Consequently, Armageddon, the scene of a final battle between the forces of good and evil, prophesied to occur at the end of the world, is interpreted as God's judgment on the Jews, carried out by the Roman army, which is identified as "the beast." The second half of the Apocalypse focuses attention on the persecution of Christians and the fall of the Roman Empire. Preterists assert that the prophecies of Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70, thereby inaugurating God’s Kingdom on earth. The second method used to interpret the Apocalypse of John is referred to as the Futurist approach. Unlike Preterists, Futurists assign the prophecies found in Revelation to some future time, shortly before the second coming. Futurist interpretations generally predict a Great Tribulation, a seven year period of time when believers will experience worldwide persecution and be purified and strengthened by it, and a Rapture, whereby all true Christians are taken from the earth to be spared the "time of wrath" before finally returning to Earth for God's Kingdom. Originally banned by the Catholic Church, the Futurist approach was first proposed by two Catholic writers, Lacunza and Ribera. Hal Lindsey’s books about the "rapture" and the more recent Left Behind novels by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye have done much to popularize this school of thought. The third method used to interpret the Book of Revelation is called the Historicist approach. The historicist view regards apocalyptic prophecy as spanning the time from the end of the first century until the second coming of Christ. Historicists generally apply the symbols of Revelation to the gradual division and collapse of the Roman Empire, the emergence of a divided Europe in the West and a Muslim empire in the East, and the collapse of the Eastern Empire. Historicist interpretations insist that the Church will expand until it has encompassed the whole world. In the process, however, the church will gradually evolve into an apostate system within which true Christians would be a persecuted minority. The apostate Church, on the other hand, is associated with the symbols of the "Mother of Harlots" and with "Babylon." Unlike Futurists who expect the Antichrist to appear in the last days, Historicists describe an Antichrist political system that will exist for much of history. Consequently, Historicist interpretations tend to be millenarian, emphasizing the literal reign of Christ on earth. Millennialism (or chiliasm), from millennium, which literally means "thousand years", is primarily a belief expressed in some Christian denominations, and literature, that there will be a Golden Age or Paradise on Earth where Christ will reign prior to the final judgment and future eternal state (Revelation 20:1-6). The fourth method used to interpret the Apocalypse of John is called the Spiritual or Esoteric approach. The Spiritual view does not see the Book of Revelation as predicting specific historical events but, rather, visions that describe eternal spiritual truths that find expression throughout history. Spirituals insist that specific and predictive eschatological issues are only found in the last few chapters of the Book of Revelation. The fifth method used to interpret the text of the Apocalypse is the Anglican approach. Anglicans assert that the Book of Revelation is primarily concerned with providing hope to Christians who were and still are being persecuted for their beliefs. The book assures the persecuted that their suffering is not in vain, warning non-Christians of impending judgment. Typical of other Jewish Apocalyptic literature, the Apocalypse uses symbolic imagery to communicate hope to those in the midst of persecution. Consequently, the Anglican method asserts that the events described in Revelation are ordered according to literary, rather than strictly chronological, patterns. The sixth and final method used to interpret the Book of Revelation is the Orthodox approach. Orthodoxy treats the text of Revelation as simultaneously describing contemporaneous and future events. Since Orthodox interpreters of the Apocalypse view contemporaneous events as foreshadowing future occurrences, they reject attempts to predetermine present-day events. Orthodox scholars understand the Book of Revelation as a warning for spiritual and moral preparedness. Months after the September 11th terrorist attacks, a Time/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies in Revelation will come true. Nearly 25 percent believe the Bible predicted the terrorist attacks specifically. While detailed interpretations of its symbols and vision have been applied to historical personalities and events such as the Trade Center bombing, tsunamis, the World Wide Web, the Pope, Adolf Hitler, feminism, or Osama Bin Laden, the Orthodox approach considers the Book of Revelation as an integral component of the Bible, and consequently, not to be used as a mystical cipher for super-historical analysis. The Orthodox approach guards against fundamentalist approaches that misuse the Book of Revelation because it divorces the book from its original context. The Book of Revelation is a circular pastoral letter addressed to the seven churches in the province of Asia at the end of the first century AD. The book or letter was not for private communication but was to be read in public in the midst of the worshipping community. The Book of Revelation is primarily concerned with encouraging the courage and perseverance of the early Christians who were threatened by Roman persecution in what was then perceived to be the end times. How, then, do we answer the $666 question that is posed in the movie, The Omen? Who or what does the number 666 signify? The Hebrew and Greek alphabets do not have separate characters to designate numbers and letters. Since letters are also used as numbers, each letter receives a numerical value. For example, the Hebrew equivalent of the English letter "w" is "vav" or "waw." The numerical value of “vav” is six. This is the reason why some have speculated that the World Wide Web (www) is indeed the “Mark of the Beast” as it may be transliterated into Hebrew as "vav vav vav", or numerically represented as 666. As we have briefly seen, there are methods for interpreting the Book of Revelation. There are also various theories that attempt to decipher the identity of the Antichrist by relating his name to the number 666. One interpretation is simply that 666 represents humankind in general because of the special significance that the number has in the Bible. Six is known as an imperfect number because it is less than seven, the perfect number. The Bible speaks of seven days in the week, seven tongues of flame, seven spiritual gifts. Therefore, the number 666 represents imperfect man, while 777 represents God. In the final analysis, the derogatory statement against Christianity made in The Omen is false and spiritually dangerous. There is a God, there is a devil and, there is more to life than the here and now! In the end, the Orthodox approach would suggest that the number 666 signifies any offense against the name of Jesus Christ. Our eternal destiny relies on the knowledge of this truth!    hide

You know what's in store for you when one of the reviews on the back-cover of a book says "Umberto...more

You know what's in store for you when one of the reviews on the back-cover of a book says "Umberto Eco on Steroids"... Where Eco’s writing is wonderfully original, Mr. Brown gives us quite a pedestrian piece of literature. Personally, I was not expecting anything great- anything more than disposable and forgettable thrills. And I am glad there weren't any surprises. It made my reading of the book much easier over a brain-dead weekend that I wanted to have. First of all, it is not one of the best written books. In fact, at times I wonder if there were two authors who actually did the writing. While this theory might sound as fluffy and badly presented here as most of Brown's theories in the book, I think this argument might have some merit. For, to give Brown his due, some of the facts do come from thorough research and are well presented, and do invite a bit of attention. But then there are times in the book where you wonder if the writer actually took a second look at the text at all, or if the "facts" were even researched... Someone as intelligent in his ability to connect things to "encode" and "decode" as Brown, should have paid attention to basic nuances such as: the fact that the Italians do not call a mobile phone a cell-phone, even when they are talking to an American; or how many times is a Harvard teacher likely to use the expression "shit!" in his conversations. Brown’s attempt at providing a fringe romantic benefit in this thriller is quite feeble, and basic dialogue and character construction, it seems, is also not one of his strong points. The Da Vinci Code is a story of Robert Langdon - a teacher of Symbology at Harvard (a discipline that does not, yet, exist at Harvard!), who has spent his life researching the connection and history of various symbols. He lectures at various Universities, and is at the brink of becoming a celebrity in his own right due to his inspiring insights on the subject. In this book, he ends up helping the daughter of the murdered curator at the Louvre museum in solving a mystery involving the search of, hold your breath, The Holy Grail! From then on, a series of coded messages and clues lead them to the ultimate reality and truth about the Grail. Robert Langdon, it seems, would become the main character of Brown's upcoming books, as he has already featured in one earlier. While it may be far from possible that Langdon goes down in the thriller and suspense history shoulder-to-shoulder with Perry Mason, or Mr. Holmes, he is quite likely to be remembered as one of its kind intellectual cow-boy. In some of the "Codes" the book presents, one cannot help but chuckle out with mild amusement. The Da Vinci code does have a readability factor after all: this book has the ability to make one feel like a true genius. It is understandable to feel like one when one is able to get to the gist of something that a Harvard symbologist and a royal historian struggle with for the next few pages... It adds a wow factor. At times, I wonder, if this is what's making the Da Vinci Code the real hype that it has become... It brings out the Langdon in everyone. Essentially, Brown is not the first one who has written such a book. In fact the person he is pretending to be, albeit on steroids, can perhaps be credited for one of the most brilliant books in this style of writing. Umberto's "Foucault's Pendulum" was perhaps a bit of a code for Brown itself, as he seems heavily inspired by the style of writing, and the book seems to be one of his major sources of research as well. Well to you all, the book is worth picking up. How else would one defend a better point of view? And tell the world that what is being read here is of very little real literature value...   hide

Seventy pages into Dan Brown's surprisingly putdownable potboiler, the inevitably green-eyed,...more

Seventy pages into Dan Brown's surprisingly putdownable potboiler, the inevitably green-eyed, French-accented code cracker Sophie Neveu sighs, "This is not American television, Mr Langdon." Oh, Sophie, if only that were true. You know a book owes too much to the screen when an albino assassin appears on the very first page, and rather than taking the time to construct an original variant on the intelligent-action-man hero you're simply instructed to think of Harrison Ford - in tweed. This is a movie, pure and simple: a thinly plotted, strongly visual, mildly entertaining Hollywood chase movie about cardboard characters (replete with sappy childhood flashbacks) and with enough Opus Dei-bashing to make it a fast-acting antidote to "The Passion of the Christ." Crammed full of supposedly arcane revelations about mathematics, religion, symbolism and art - most of which read like verbatim downloads from Google - the "intellectual" content won't be dazzling or new (forget accurate) to anyone even slightly inquisitive about these topics. Worse, it's presented with a juvenile fascination for "connections" that would embarrass the most seasoned New Age charlatan. It all moves at a cracking pace, of course, and has enough scope and colour to hold your rapt attention for a few winter nights, and enough Catholic conspiracy theory to warm the heart of an atheist. But it's so devoid of literary merit, so apparently committed to the squandering of every opportunity to do anything interesting with the material - rather than just ape the narrative grammar of cinema - that it truly beggars belief. The characters are just names on the page, huge swathes of deadpan "I'm glad you asked"-style exposition pad out the clunky plot shifts, and because it's all so closely modeled on the rhythms of Hollywood nothing ever comes as a surprise - not a word, not an image, not a moment. This is post-literate prose at its direst, plugging directly into pre-fabricated scenarios, characters and images, absolving the reader of the need to imagine anything - which is why it's such a famously easy read. This is reality as a simulacrum of television, a copy of a copy, and about as convincing. It's an odd stylistic choice in a novel which takes as its theme the notion that great art depicts truths which evil empires would suppress. If you want to read the kind of novel this purports to be, get yourself a copy of Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" or, better yet, "Foucault's Pendulum". If those don't grab you, at the very least try Donna Tartt's "The Secret History" - nothing to do with the Grail, but it's certainly more deserving of the "intelligent thriller" label than this. Is there really nothing better to be said for "The Da Vinci Code", as novel? Sadly, I'm with Harrison - I mean Robert: "Langdon considered it a moment, then groaned." (p.93)    hide

I am the sort, I should tell you, who will read a much-publicized book just to see what all the...more

I am the sort, I should tell you, who will read a much-publicized book just to see what all the fuss is about, and that's why I picked up this novel. Having put it down just minutes ago... honestly, I'm still not sure what all the fuss is about. A murder in the Louvre museum draws Robert Langdon, an American professor of symbology, is drawn into a desperate race to either find or protect incredible secrets hidden for millennia. Langdon and the victim's granddaughter, cryptographer Sophie Neveu, are forced to unlock last-minute clues left by the dying man, which in turn point them to other clues, which in turn point them to OTHER clues, and so on and so on. The good first -- Brown crafts an easy read, a quick page-turner that presents a lot of interesting facts and theory regarding the Holy Grail, the ancient Church and all the mystery and symbols that surround it. The ending is also fairly satisfying -- not quite what one expects, but in character with the rest of the book. However, much of Brown's structure is infuriating. This book, by necessity, is packed with exposition... I can deal with exposition, but Brown frequently lapses into long passages that feel like he's writing a textbook instead of a novel -- dry explanations of the meanings behind symbols or words that feel as though they were lifted from an encyclopedia. Even worse are passages where he has characters flash back to previous occasions where the delivered these dry passages to other people who aren't even in the book. Brown even, on occasion, lapses into one of these tangents that has NOTHING to do with the plot, but just seemed interesting at the time. Worse than that, however, is the way Brown crafts his mysteries. This is a book full of one mystery, one puzzle, one riddle after another -- which is all well and good. The problem is, Brown cheats his readers. The fun of reading a mystery is to give the readers and the characters the clues together, then racing to see if you can solve it before the characters in the book. Brown, on multiple occasions, deliberately withholds information from the reader (for example, the last two lines of a four-line verse) until the character themselves crack the code, then goes back and gives the readers all the clues as he explains how they stumbled upon the solution. He does this over and over again, frequently following it by commenting on how clever the characters are to have solved his mystery or, alternately, how clever the man who created the puzzle in the first place was to do so. It's not a terrible book, and in fact has a lot of the elements I like about a good old-fashioned treasure hunt story, but in the end, I feel that Brown's writing leaves a lot to be desired. I can't help but think this is a case where a book became a huge hit because of the controversy, not because of the quality.    hide