[ديديموس]

لو عندي السلطان كنت حرقت كل نسخ هذه الرواية حرقا ونفيت صاحبها إلى جزيرة جاجرا
أي ابداع هذا أن يهان من تسجد له كل ركبة في السماء وعلى الأرض؟!!
بل هي رواية شيطانية ، يزعم صاحبها أن ما بها تاريخ وليس خيال
لقد ثار الناس عليه لأنه يؤكد أنه يستخدم مصادر علمية مؤكده وأن موضوع روايته بزواج المسيح هو حدث لا ريب فيه ، فأي ابداع بعد هذا؟!!
لقد قابلت الكثيرين ممن " يؤمنون " بهذه الرواية وأن المسيح تزوج وأن الأناجيل وضعها رجال الكنيسة في نيقية .... الخ الخ
وآدي اعترافاته
http://www.historyvsthedavincicode.com/fiction.htm
On May 25, 2003, Brown gave an interview on CNN with anchorman Martin Savidge:


Savidge: When we talk about da Vinci and your book, how much is true and how much is fabricated in your storyline?
Brown: 99 percent of it is true. All of the architecture, the art, the secret rituals, the history, all of that is true, the Gnostic gospels. All of that is … all that is fiction, of course, is that there's a Harvard symbologist named Robert Langdon, and all of his action is fictionalized. But the background is all true.


In an ABC TV special around the same time, Brown was asked a similar question;


Interviewer: This is a novel ... If you were writing it as a non-fiction book, would it have been different?

Brown: I don't think it would have. I began the research for The Da Vinci Code as a skeptic. I entirely expected, as I researched the book to disprove this (Jesus/Mary Magdalene/Grail) theory. And after numerous trips to Europe and about two years of research I really became a believer. I decided this theory makes more sense to me than what I learnt as a child.



Several months later, on NBC's The Today Show Brown was pushing the same message:

Matt Lauer: How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?"
Dan Brown: Absolutely all of it.
(Today Show, June 9, 2003)

وآدي جزء من ويكيبديا
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da_vinc..._and_criticism

The book opens with the claim by Dan Brown that "all de******ions of artwork, architecture, documents [...] and secret rituals in this novel are accurate"; but this claim is disputed by many academic scholars in the fields the book discusses . As widely noted in the media, there has been substantial confusion among readers about whether the book is factual.

ايه رأيكم؟؟ ده الراجل بيعترف ان كلامه حقيقي
وتخيلوا ان القارئ الأمريكي نفسه بيصدق الكلام ده ، فما بالكم بالقارئ المصري
اذا كان عبد الكريم ملحد ، فيخلي كلامه لنفسه لمؤاخذه ، مش ناقصين قرف