*is also a "blasphemous scientist"* Of course, I'm also a pagan, too, so I'm just screwed on all counts.
Thing is, it isn't the lack of being able to fit within theoriginal parameters which makes it crack. It's the fact that pretty much everything in the book which can be researched in this day and age has been, and has pretty much been disproven by other historians and scientists with no religious axe to grind.
The points about the translations, those have merit. There are many instances within the bible which historians and language experts have realized have been mis-translated - "red sea" versus "reed sea" for one prime example.
Conspiracies and such, however, lack real basis in verifiable - or at least not-already-disproven - fact. Not that I doubt that the roman church doesn't have their fair share of conspiracies, but this? Ain't one of them. At least not as Brown presents in his book.
no subject
Thing is, it isn't the lack of being able to fit within theoriginal parameters which makes it crack. It's the fact that pretty much everything in the book which can be researched in this day and age has been, and has pretty much been disproven by other historians and scientists with no religious axe to grind.
The points about the translations, those have merit. There are many instances within the bible which historians and language experts have realized have been mis-translated - "red sea" versus "reed sea" for one prime example.
Conspiracies and such, however, lack real basis in verifiable - or at least not-already-disproven - fact. Not that I doubt that the roman church doesn't have their fair share of conspiracies, but this? Ain't one of them. At least not as Brown presents in his book.