« Meeting The Real Mary Magdalene | An Interview with Amy Welborn | May 12, 2006 | Main | Archbishop George Niederauer: "How Dark the Con of Dan" »



"even Dan Brown's descriptions of modern-day places are full of errors — a remarkable achievement considering how many maps, travel books, and online information are available."

Isn't spreading lies a sin i your religion? Look at how you say that the descriptions of modern day places are "full of errors" and yet you point to a blog entry that only makes reference to ONE supposed error, an error that one poster said didn't exist ... so, if that poster is right, you are the one who made the mistake.

Susan McIntosh

I thought The Da Vinci Code was one of the worst books ever written. The scam was on the reader. Unbelievable plot, no development of characters and so on and so forth.

Sandra Miesel

Brown's descriptions of the Temple Church and the Rosslyn Chapel are ineed full of errors as anyone can determine for themselves by comparing the book with pictures from these places' own websites. Locations and travel routes in Paris and London are wrong. The size of THE MADONNA OF THE ROCKS is wrong. So is the identity of the group that commissioned it. THE LAST SUPPER is not a fresco. Nobody does brass rubbing with charcoal sticks and no rubbing is allowed in Westminster Abbey. There is no Oxford rowing team but club teams from Oxford have indeed been defeated by Harvard. No passports need to be shown within the EU after the entry inspection. Are these enough easily confirmed facts to make our point?


Sandra Miesel, when you say that something's wrong it's a good practice to say why it's wrong ... don't you think?

Fr. Ryan Humphries

Sandra doesn't assume that the errors she points out need to be substantiated - because they are simple, direct, and clear. A visit to any respectable knowledge base certifies them. It's you Project9 who claims this false sense of "let the people" speak who are the one with the closed mind.

Sandra has expressed a factual response to a book which, like it or not, has led people into factual error and spiritual error. Until you do some legwork, you, quite frankly, don't have the right to criticize.

Sandra did the legwork. She did the reading. She did the research. She knows the ins and outs. You, project9, don't. So that's why she doesn't have to substantiate her claims to you. That's why she doesn't have to explain the whys.

Simply put, her opinion is more valid that yours when it comes to facts. Simple and straight forward. Sorry if it's offensive - but it's a fact.

Sue Sims

Certainly the book is stuffed with errors, but Oxford University does have a rowing eight - they beat Cambridge (yay!) again this year in the Boat Race. Or have I misunderstood Sandra? I haven't read the book (life's too short to clutter it up with rubbish), so I may have.


Ah the "holier than thou" attitude, why am i not surprised? ... but still, i have one question: if there isn't such need to give explanations, why write a book full of them?

not telling

ok i found this little blog area from the home page of the da vinci hoax. one of the things i noticed was that the church claims that Opus Dei does not exist. after i read that i searched for Opus Dei on yahoo and gues what i found? THEIR HOMEPAGE!!! they had a response section where they talk about their refrences in the da vinci code. for crying out loud do you know how many people claimed to be the son of god? THOUSANDS. all of their religions died out but for whatever reason chritianity has become the majority. i dont know how it is still going to tell you the truth. between the hypocrisy regaurding the treatment of homosexuals and your golden rule to the sexist area of the church im amazed it still exsists. im thinking that you need to look at your religion and think about what your teaching.

The comments to this entry are closed.