| |
Shop
| |  |
|
Best Sellers | | Home De-Coding Da Vinci: The Facts Behind the Fiction of The Da Vinci Code | |
|  | |  | | | De-Coding Da Vinci: The Facts Behind the Fiction of The Da Vinci Code | | | | | | | |
List Price:
| | |
Our Price:
| $9.95 | |
You Save:
| | | Shipping: | Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. | |
*Shipping:
| |
| | | SKU:
| | In Stock | | Availability:
Usually ships in 1 business days | | Only 1 left in stock, order soon! | | |
|
| | Product Promotions | | |
| | Description | De-Coding Da Vinci is a handy, thorough, yet easy-to-read resource that can help readers understand the difference between fact and fiction in the best-selling novel by Dan Brown. De-Coding Da Vinci: The Facts behind the Fiction of The Da Vinci Code addresses the misrepresentation of history, religion and art in The Da Vinci Code. Did Leonardo actually build these codes into his paintings? Was the Priory of Sion a real organization? Is the Holy Grail really, as he says, Mary Magdalene's womb and now her bones, and not the Last Supper cup? Is Opus Dei really what The Da Vinci Code says it is? What was Constantine's true role in early Christianity? Was Jesus human or divine or both? Was He married to Mary Magdalene? Do secret writings not in the Bible really contain truths about Jesus, Mary Magdalene and the sacred feminine? Complete with discussion questions and suggestions for further reading in every chapter, this is the perfect book to accurately answer questions as well as inspire further conversation. It can be used either as a personal resource to expand one's knowledge of the issues raised by The Da Vinci Code or to lead a discussion for a book club, a church group or to discuss with friends who've read the book and have questions that need to be answered. | |
| | Product Details | | Author: | Amy Welborn | | Paperback: | 124 pages | | Publisher: | Our Sunday Visitor | | Publication Date: | 2004-04 | | Language: | English | | ISBN: | 1592761011 | | Package Length: | 7.8 inches | | Package Width: | 5.2 inches | | Package Height: | 0.4 inches | | Package Weight: | 0.15 pounds | | Average Customer Rating: |  based on 73 reviews |
| |
| | Customer Reviews | Average Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
 decoding dan brown's gibberish and with a partially flawed synopsis, unfortunately! Dec 30, 2009
In [Miss?/Mrs.?] Amy Welborn's basically good
book, 'De-coding DaVinci', subtitled 'The facts
behind the fiction of the DaVinci Code', author
Welborn is right on many things; such as: Leo-
nardo DaVinci DID not use his art to communicate
secret knowledge about the 'holy grail.'
Also, It is not true that the Gospels don't tell
the true story of Jesus? Mary Magdalene and Je-
sus WERE NOT married. and finally, Jesus DID Not
designate Mary as the leader of 'his movement' &
not Peter.
Where Amy goes wrong is with more than several
personnel beliefs get interjected into this sy-
nopsis of WHY author Brown, who also wrote the
equally flawed 'Angels and Demons' as a (supp-
osed) expose of Masonry and equally silly Mod-
ern day cults (the movie with Tom Hanks, et, al
is much different from Brown's first draft, hard-
bound Angels and Demons as well)!
Welborn is wrong on the following, which can be
easily proven with proper further research, most
of on the I-net: On page 28 she incorrectly says:
[About the Dead Sea Scrolls]"...(they) don't even
contain Christian texts at all..." Wrong, Miss
Welborn. As the late Revisionist Scholar Dr. Mar-
tin A Larson told the audience at the 8th IHR
Conference in May 1987, the Dead Sea Scrolls
contained almost the entire text of the Old
Testement chapter of prophesy named 'Daniel'.
Today is rests under glass in a Museum in Jor-
dan.
Another error she has, which of course does not
effect the main thesis of her disertation, is
that: "Jehovah is an artificial name created
less than five hundred years ago." Once again,
it is NOT an artifiicial name created 500 yrs.,
but a translation of hebreaic / aramaic texts
from Old Testement sources. In Daniel, another
Old Testement chapter of the Bible, GOd says,
"My name is Yahweh...", which she does (also)
mention on Page 75. On page 85 she falls into
a trap that has infected REAL Christianity for
the 250 or so yrs. She says, "Jesus was jewish
..." Jesus earthly Mother's bloddline was actu-
ally 'Judean', which has nothing to do with the
phony cult of modern 'judiaism', or "jews'. The-
se imposters are really the descendents of the
Khazars of Europa, a pagan group that converted
to Rabbical Talmudism around 740-741 A.D. She
also 'screws the pooch' by asserting that the
last supper was really a 'passover' meal. Wrong
again. In fact, I have never heard that before!
She calims that the 'Priority of Sion', lead by
a "Plantard", was a "right-wing" anti-semite
(whatever the hell that is...Somebody that hates
cement?!) group that was dedicated to fighting
Representative Gouvernment. Actually Plantard
was a left-wing nut, dedicated to fighting 'Rep-
resentative Gouvernment. There is nothing in
Plantard writings that are 'anti-semetic', which
in Orwellian newspeak is (supposed) to mean, an-
ti-jewish! Plantard was a kook who claimed in a
book very much like Brown's idiotic cultish wri-
tings (read: ramblings) that HE was a 'jewish'
descendent of Christ, Jesus. How does that make
him or his 'movement' or group 'anti-semetic'??
Despite Welborn's well-intended faux paus in here,
it is a very good defence of the (catholic, anyway)
Christian faith and totally refutes Brown's money-
making fictional rantings! Tom Hanks, another money-
grabber should be ashamed! So should Brown!
0 of 1 found the following review helpful:
 re: amy's blog - oh the irony Jul 12, 2008
I just had to comment (her comments are disabled) on the "dialogue" post on how we shouldn't consider the DVC serious dialogue. Funny thing is I just read it as a light read but she is actually the one who has spent years seriously discussing and writing a book about it!!!! Don't mean it in a bad way, but it's pretty ironic!
4 of 16 found the following review helpful:
 "Author" is not spelled "Angry Crusader Who Doesn't Read Too Carefully" Jul 09, 2006
The only part of this book worth listening to is Welborn's advice on the final page to not trust an author with an agenda. Honestly, if there's anyone who's qualified to delve into the more shrouded realms of history, it is not someone as emotionally driven as someone who writes "Up to this point, we've tried really hard to maintain a measured, objective tone in our treatment, but right here the limit has been reached, and we cannot go on" (p.31).
This book viciously attacks the DaVinci Code, using sarcasm, technicalities, and flimsy "gotcha" games to debunk the claims made therein. "Brown says that the Nag Hammadi texts were on 'scrolls'-they most certainly were not. They were codices, an early form of book" (p.27) she tells us. Golly, Ms Welborn, for someone defending the literal translation of a book that claims that the world was created in two distinctly different ways (Genesis 1, 2), you sure are a stickler for semantics.
Also, we pretty much have to take Welborn's word on everything. Very few of her facts are backed up with sources cited, an error that would get any high schooler a C- on their essay. The only book that ever gets an in-text citation is the Bible, and simple logic does not allow someone to use any one source to affirm said source's credibility. No matter what she says, some facts remain unarguable and very telling: the work "pagan" used to simply mean "native", and the pentagram was not a symbol of devil worship. Speaking as somebody who has studied with Jesuit priests I find some of her claims highly dubious or naive, and though I can not empirically claim that many of her accounts are false I daresay she does a poor job of coming off any more credible than the book she condemns.
Frankly, I wonder just how familiar Welborn is with the novel, or even the Bible, for that matter. The way she talks sometimes suggests that Dan Brown was saying, "Jesus ate babies and the pope wants to kill you!" Welborn would do well to remember who the real villain turned out to be in the novel, not to mention the positive things that Brown actually said about the church. "Think about it," Welborn tells us, "If Jesus were nothing more than the gentle teacher of Brown's account, why would any authority bother to execute him?... [Christians] were punished because... they worshiped a God, embodied in Jesus of Nazareth, allegiance to whom prohibited them from honoring Caesar as lord or god" (p.122). Firstly, where in the novel does Brown make the claim that Jesus was not what Christians believe him to be? And second, Jesus was crucified because people were claiming that he was going to lead the Jews in overthrowing their Roman rulers! It's in the friggin' Bible! If you didn't know that, then you have no business calling yourself Christian.
Maybe Brown doesn't have all the facts about what really happened, and maybe Welborn is completely wrong. I don't know, but I'll tell you this: only one of them backed up his work with sources, and only one of them was writing in an angry, defensive frame of mind.
7 of 7 found the following review helpful:
 The Hassidic Code Jul 06, 2006
Suppose Dan Brown had written a "fictional thriller" entitled "The Hassidic Code". In this fictional novel, suppose Dan Brown wrote about the biggest secret in all history: the "fact" that the Holocaust was faked. Suppose Dan Brown wrote about how rich and powerful Jews actually fabricated the entire Holocaust (phony newsreel footage and all) in order to garner global sympathy, and thereby inoculate themselves from criticism as they systematically took over the financial institutions of the world. Just suppose he had written that "fictional thriller".
How do you think the liberal press would react to that book? Do you think Ron Howard would have been vying for the rights to make the movie version? Do you think Tom Hanks would have gone for the leading role? Do you think Dan Brown would have been invited as honored guest onto the talk show circuit? Do you think that folks like the negative reviewers here would have been insisting that Jews have no right to be offended by such a book?
Get real. Anti-Catholicism is obviously the last socially acceptable form of bigotry in America. The proof is that these anti Catholic bigots don't even know they're bigots.
7 of 7 found the following review helpful:
The "It's just a book" defense of Da Vinci May 20, 2006
A reviewer below bashes this book and others like it because it sets out to debunk Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code", which is "just a fiction book!" afterall.
This is an obvious and convenient counter-attack that Dan Brown acolytes are prone to use. Somehow, the fact that "The Da Vinci" code is "just a work of fiction" innoculates it from any questions as to the veracity of the "facts" the novel is supposedly based on.
Well that just doesn't wash - the first page of the novel itself has a page labelled "FACTS", where it lists several things in that category as if they are iron-clad truth, among them the "Priory of Sion" nonsense. This "FACT" page is supposed to set us up for the rest of the book, which is supposed to be a fictional story BASED ON these "FACTS".
Furthermore, Dan Brown himself has claimed in interviews that the Langdon story is, of course, fictional, but that the conspiracy dribble he's looking into in the book are real. They are "FACTS".
It's certainly not fair to try and push your book as being "about facts" and then turn around when criticized and cry out "but it's just a fiction thriller! What's your problem!" That's trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
If the book and its author are telling us that the fictional story is supposed to be hung on a framework of "facts", and these supposed "facts" also attack an entire religion, I think a debate about those "facts" is certainly in order, don't you?
The question shouldn't be "why does the Church care so much about a fiction book?" Instead, it should be, "Why do Dan Brown acolytes find it so threatening that the instution his book attacks with supposed "facts" is now turning the tables and offering a rebuttal?"
What's wrong with pointing out the "facts" in Brown's book are really not supported by actual history?
Does the Church not have a right to defend itself against such smears propagated as "facts" by the book and its author? Is what's good for the goose not good for the gander? Is it okay for an author to snipe at the Church with the "truth" of this story but then run for the cover of "it's just a book!" as soon as the Church hits back?
And finally, if these responses by those who are skeptics of Brown's book help us get closer to the actual TRUTH of the matter, isn't that a GOOD thing?
| |
| |
| |  | |  |
|
Recently Viewed | You may also like ... |
