Unlike when the Muslim's God was apparently insulted by some cartoons, at least Christians aren't burning down cinemas or rioting against Brown, Howard, Hanks and hollywood co.

This is about entertainment and truth. The Truth of the Bible still stands even though many, including on this post, have "Eyes but cannot see".

True Christians are not fazed by this DaVinci Code issue and many are strengthened by re-visiting the credibility of the New Testament. I, personally, am torn between wanting to explain the DaVinci code fallacies with unbelieving friends, whilst not wanting to be a part of watching and supporting a film with occult sex scenes (If that part of the book is included) and listening to blasphemous ideas.

So, although I can be pleased that some may be prompted to consider the validity of Jesus Christ, other parts of the film are a turn-off.

Good on you Bill for standing up for our faith and truth.

I think the DVC has much potential to both cause harm and intrigue to the Christian faith. One thing that is a positive is that people are beginning to discuss the Christian faith. What is concerning is the way secular humanists have tried, through the DVC, to distort the Bible and its fundamentals.

I might point out to those who think there is no evidence of Biblical truth etc, to read some of the accounts of academics who have tried to find error with the Bible, and have ended up finding no substantial inaccuracy (probably apart from a few specific things being ignored/not detailed enough). Read this site for a start:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23020

Furthermore, what makes the secular humanist/aetheist religion, which it seems so many follow today, any more believable than the Bible and Christianity? At least us Christians have a proven guidebook (the Bible) and a proven leader (Jesus Christ), which is more than any secular humanist/aetheist can claim - who leads the secular humanists/aetheists? - (Marx, Mao, Nietzsche? Who??) and what is your guidebook (Communist Manifesto? what??).

Quite frankly I'd rather put my faith in something more substantial than secular humanism/aethism and that for me is the truth of the Bible and the Christian faith.

As a practising Lutheran (and with a lot of practise I might even make it) I have to concede that belief is a matter of faith. As such as some other contributors have suggested, the facts as to the formation of the bible are sure open to question. What does this prove? Endeavours to spread the "word" to non believers by some sort of rationale debate are doomed to fail. In terms of the DVC the only threat it represents to "true believers" is to threaten their own insecurities.

And what happened to the two bishops (and presumably any others) that would not have voted Constantine's way at the Nicean Council - they were bannished from the Empire. Hardly a fair vote.

As far as truth or non truth, all I have to say is "WELEASE BWIAN!!"

Now Kenny you could make yourself more money than Dan Brown if you were able to find an error in the Bible.

The facts are that people have been trying to for milenia and have not yet suceeded. One very bright lawyer once determed that if he could just prove that someone moved the stone from the tomb, he would disprove the whole thing.

The result was a book called "Who Moved the Stone" - a story as much as anything else of how despite his original motivation, the lawer found it so convincing he became a Chrisitian.

Two Bob

Unfortunately, disproving one thing does not automatically prove another thing is correct, particularly if one is a matter of faith and therefore by definition, cannot be deemed false.

Debating this sort of stuff only provides free publicity for second-rate authors and filmmakers and I can't believe that so many people have been sucked in by it.

Why not spend more time denouncing Harry Potter and the occult inferences those books contain or railing against the myriad other things out there that challenge individual beliefs.

As for the Biblical role of women, wasn't the inclusion of the story of Eve in lieu of the story of Lillith (Adam's "first" wife) an early statement on the subordinate role of females?