|>>|| No. 6507
No. The Da Vinci Code is not historically accurate. The Council Of Nicea did not decide which books would go in the Bible, that was decided a century before by a document called the Muratorian Canon. A fragment of it was found and it had a list of books very similar to the New Testament. Furthermore, a search of what the Church men were saying in the second and third century show that they did not mention any extra books that were then removed by the Council.
Purely from a historical perspective, the Quran is the most valid Abrahamic religious text because it was created late enough to have sources from other societies such as the Byzantine and Persian empire comment on it. It was written within one century whereas the Bible is a mish mash of books spanning over five centuries. A lack of independent scrutiny from other civilisations also make the Bible particularly iffy compared to the Quran as we didn't get the account of the Israelites from the Assyrians for example. This is in stark contrast to Islam which faced the wrath of Saint John of Damascus pretty early on.
Furthermore, the archaeological evidence from the various sites mentioned in the Bible do not add up to the historical account. To be fair though, the Quran mentions flying horses and genies and men who were 12 feet tall, so perhaps it's all hogwash.
To GCHQlad: I have a passing interest in theology, this does not make me a radical nor does this deserve being logged