Devil's Bible

Devil's Bible

Ratings: 6.98/10 from 91 users.

Devil's BibleAt 165 pounds, and allegedly made from the skins of 160 donkeys, the Codex Gigas is the world's largest and most mysterious medieval manuscript.

Filled with satanic images and demonic spells, according to legend, the cursed text sprang from a doomed monk's pact with the Devil.

Now, Nat Geo follows a team of scientists as they embark on an unprecedented quest to unravel the secrets behind the book's darkened pages. Using ultra-violet fluorescence imaging, handwriting analysis and a re-creation of the text, forensic document experts attempt to uncover the cryptic truth behind this ancient Devil's Bible.

The Devil’s Bible is so huge that it requires at least two people to carry it. Once considered the eighth wonder of the world, the Codex Gigas stretches three feet long and weighs a hundred and sixty-five pounds. It is the only book that places the Old and New Testaments alongside violent, holy incantations.

The Codex Gigas contains one full page – right opposite the devil portrait – of a towering Heavenly City. Although no people can be seen in the Heavenly City, it is a symbol of hope and salvation, a contrast to the portrait of the devil on the opposing page.

The Codex Gigas includes mystical medical formulas for anything from treating ailments such as fevers and epilepsy to resolving practical problems such as finding a thief. The book's transfer to Prague in 2008 took a year of planning.

It was insured for $15.1 million during the transfer. The Devil’s Bible has 600 pages, which is 310 parchment leaves, all made from donkey skins.

More great documentaries

93 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Evergrowing

    typical, overly dramatic presentation. Not much about the contents of the book, mostly focussing on a single page, just because there is a devil's image on it... don't waste your time with this. Rather read up on the contents somewhere else

  2. Ajal k varghese

    What is devils worshap motive

  3. JJ

    Either way I wouldn't like this book turning up on my door step.

  4. Korry

    To whom are suspicious or cynical. Those who use cartoons and childhood stories as a crutch or kickstand. Hype, farfetched and dumb Satan lovers to use as leverage.

    As I see the book to be True...Well written and most powerful! For those who have read the number one selling book every year! The Antichrist is here and there's been proof all of the world. Take this with your grain of salt??... there's a company in Sweden not going to say who, but you can look it up.

    They've taken over 400 of their employees and embedded a chip in their forearm. What for?...hmm mm? ?? Well to get access to the building and security doors ie food and coffee! You see instead of carrying a key or fob around in your wallet or on your keychain. Now it's in your wrist! all you gotta do is go to the coffee shop in the building and use your new chip to buy stuff... to get things to move around the building.

    No more keys, no more ID carrying and no more wallets or purses pretty cool huh?...Or is it??.... The Mark Of The Beast?

    Both are here to stay and get literally into you. Both are on its way to your cities. The Antichrist chip I say! It's happening now and soon will all have to make a choice if we already haven't.....Cheers Korry

  5. Marcia Hopper

    Interesting, but just a lot of hype and pretty boring. They really did not uncover anything that exciting. It is much more interesting reading these comments.

  6. Joshua Marks

    Excellent and interesting... some of the history of the manifestations of the mystical occult. The "one monk" conclusion doesn't seem far fetched to me given this assumption of spiritually driven discipline. L. Ron Hubbard of Scientology is listed as the most prolific writer in the Guinness Book of World Records, and of course the content related to scientology is hard to imagine one man compiling, much less the quantity of that content. The "one night" theory is harder to get on board with even when these feats of accomplishment and discipline seem to go hand-in-hand with spiritual mysticism.

    Surprising to me that the book, the Codex Gigas, isn't more widely known culturally and academically (at least I don't recall it coming up in conversations). Very good introduction.

  7. Homepagely

    Just watch it on NatGeo. Fascinating story!

  8. UnderSiege

    The one 'monk' conclusion by so called "handwriting experts" seems quite dubious to me. Not too long back the 'experts' were deceived by "The Hitler's Diaries" and the 'Howard Hughes' ms'/will.

    There are so many questions unaddressed by that investigative duo another book could be written to fill the gaps.

    Beckham360 muses over atheists; 'makes you wonder what their real agenda is'?
    Quite simply, some tangible proof that the 'skygod' is NOT a myth in the same realm as leprechauns, unicorns, witches, trolls, werewolves, and the like. They were all once believed to exist, and thus they must be part of Beckham's fantasy world as

    1. docoman

      Well said mate. I also would like to add, that its not only atheists that would like that, so would many if not most agnostics. Which I consider myself to be one of, to the contrary of what Beckham360 has assumed. I don't know and don't think any human alive has that knowledge, and I reserve my judgment on some form of deity being possible, due to lack of available evidence. I can however, with much confidence, say that every organised religion I have looked into, the deeper I look, the more improbable then impossible they become, due to contradictions in their own scriptures, for starters. Especially every version spawned by the Old and New Testaments / Bible.

      Which in the context of satanism and jbeckham360's assumptions and assertions, makes her 'here to bash religion due to some, 'Satan love' inspired agenda' claim as absurd as her claimed knowledge on Satan pumping certain people.

    2. oQ

      Those who still argue about the existence of God, and by God I mean the GOD that most religious and non religious people agree about, are missing the boat that exist between the two sides.

      Can awareness and/or/ consciousness be the unique dimension on which we exist, physical reality could be a product of an infinite grand awareness/consciousness reality.
      Science is a fascinating engine on which to view oneself for each and everyone of us. There is also a world unified philosophy that sprouts out of the changing scientific approach to life through the generation. It feels to me as if, such sprout is in the making.
      For too long, in my opinion, science has refused to incorporate and promote the research on consciousness because it defined it in the realm of religion or spirituality, un-provable. Then came quantum research and the experiments that changed the reality of particle physic (or should I say unphysic).
      The curtain is being raised for a new scene in the play called Theoretical Science. I welcome the pioneer scientists of such new approach towards reality, those who dare think science can be unreal. As I have listen to thousands of people talk about their reality in my life time, I have come to think that the normal human being would like to answer these questions.
      One of which is: Is matter there?

      It is my opinion that this kind of research can only benefit those who are extremely divided in what being is. I will suggest to Atheits and Theists to leave the argument aside, you'll never win it, not that way.

      "the present is the right
      size to seize
      if amnesia is the inability
      to imagine a future
      be amnesiac
      to be a maniac
      with extreme enthusiasm
      for a fathomless tomorrow
      circumstance are never the way
      we thought they would be
      it was a fallacy in our present mind
      used to create a future"

    3. docoman

      G'day oQ, how's it going mate? I like your poem.

      A theoretical approach to science isn't a new thing. From the wiki page on Theoretical physics, in the History section;

      "Theoretical physics began at least 2,300 years ago, under the Pre-socratic philosophy, and continued by Plato and Aristotle, whose views held sway for a millennium. During the rise of medieval universities, the only acknowledged intellectual disciplines were the seven liberal arts of the Trivium like grammar, logic, and rhetoric and of the Quadrivium like arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. As the concepts of matter, energy, space, time and causality slowly began to acquire the form we know today, other sciences spun off from the rubric of natural philosophy. During the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the concept of experimental science, the counterpoint to theory, began with scholars such as Ibn al-Haytham and Francis Bacon. The modern era of theory began perhaps with the Copernican paradigm shift in astronomy, soon followed by Johannes Kepler's expressions for planetary orbits, which summarized the meticulous observations of Tycho Brahe."

      I recall a line I liked in a doco about Francis Bacon I think it was, where he was frustrated at university, because there was an ongoing debate over how many teeth horses have. For 3 years people sat about arguing about how many teeth, based on this or that reason, no one actually bothered to go count some teeth in the horses mouths. So he helped organise and give us the scientific method of experimenting to test theories.

      Science hasn't touched the realm of spirituality or belief systems, because (as far as I'm aware) they've found nothing quantifiable or testable and repeatable, and so the scientific method can't be applied. Unless we do find something, some 'new field' or new relationship within a current branch or field of study, science will remain not applicable.

      Its like trying to cut air with a knife... its the wrong tool for the job.

      How our minds work, and what we think is or isn't real is another thing. I quite like Derren Brown and some of the shows he has done on how our minds work. There is at least one here on TDF I found interesting, with a religious theme too.

      Personally, here's one problem I have with the idea that we each determine our own reality. (in the way that we each determine what is and isn't real to us)

      The bloke that doesn't know the sniper has him in his crosshairs.. he doesn't know anything about the bullet about to be launched at his head.. it's not his reality.. if he gets hit, he doesn't even hear the shot (bullet travels faster then sound), but even though that's not 'his' reality and has no knowledge of the shot, that doesn't stop the brass and lead tearing into him.. enforcing it's reality onto him.

      I tend to think there is one reality, and we each have our individual interpretation of what our senses tell us, our own perspective on it. The gaps we fill with our imaginations.
      I also think whatever we wish to imagine to fill those gaps with is fine, as long as it stays just that. When we organise those imaginations and label them facts, then use that as an excuse to fight, lie and steal from, to control each other, then its not good. I think there are some things we'll never know, with or without science. I like it, it makes the trip more interesting when you don't know whats around the next bend.. :)

    4. oQ

      I write: "The curtain is being raised for a new scene in the play called Theoretical Science"
      You reply: "A theoretical approach to science isn't a new thing".
      I would say a theoretical approach to science is inevitable, always was, that's why I call it a play.
      For those who have known me as az, they would remember that my theme has always been non religious, but then again i would support the phrase "consciousness may be the ground of all being". Meaning that matter may have arose out of consciousness.
      If this was in fact the actuality of our reality, then I see no religious implication in that as it would concern every single being there is.
      You may think it is rubbish, but I invite you to read or listen to some of the scientists who are supporting the possibility of that notion. It is very interesting and not coming from lunatics and the research is growing exponentially.
      Things are good in BC, not my favorite season at the door, but I feel lucky I have a warm apartment, food, money, love.

    5. docoman

      Heyya mate, good to hear you're keeping warm. :) Rainy season just starting to kick in here, summer evening storms. My fish love it, the low pressures with a slightly cooler water change from me sparks off a lot of breeding. Fry everywhere. I have 1 nephew over in Canada still, another is leaving to go back there in a couple days. Skiing time apparently. ;) They love it there, I can see why from their pic's.

      I'm not sure if you've noticed, I've not usually commented on the conversations about consciousness and matter.
      The reason is, I don't know much about it really, so have just listened/read. (Did the same on the numerous philosophy discussions too, for the same reason) (picked one thread and a couple people to learn something from... Antitheist666 and yourself, meditation etc [haven't heard from him in a long time, have you? Hope he's OK]

      I have watched and read just a little, on subjects getting into the same ball-park, like the Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Green, multi-verse etc. And a paper suggested by Achems, by Julian Barbour, about time. Which I find interesting, as well as stretching well past my education, yet followable.

      I've not said I think your ideas are all rubbish mate. Some I like, some I think less probable. Fact is I don't know, I don't think anyone does.
      I can't reconcile us making our own reality with random events that happen to us, unknown beforehand. That sniper example I've thought about before.

      Maybe we're getting confused in the terminology, I don't get your first paragraph? If you mean an old approach using new information, I get what you mean, I think. If you mean a non-scientific way of looking at it, it can't really be called science (as we know it today) can it? Unless we amend the definition of what science is. Theoretical Science isn't new, Einstein was a theoretical physicist, hence my confusion.

    6. oQ

      Cool about your nephews. Yes the ski scene is fabulous in many parts of BC. The small town of Nelson has a nice ski hill, mainly local skiers during the week, thick powder, great condition, little wait. Name is White Water or W2o, tell them to look it up if they are near here. Many people say it's better skiing than the big resorts.

      Haven't heard from Antitheist, one of many who seem to have disappeared along with Waldo.

      I just finished a book by Robert Lanza, Biocentrism ...he says life created the universe instead of the other way around. Seem to me matter is on the chopping block by many new theories including the holographic universe. I find all that stuff very interesting..... and....... it is coming straight from great scientific brains.

      Concerning my first like I can't put the right words to express what I am trying to say.

      I write: "The curtain is being raised for a new scene in the play called Theoretical Science"
      (I have a playful mind and sometimes my s*it doesn't work in English.)
      If Theoretical Science is a play that happens all the time in science, then the curtain of our present generation is opening up on a new scene as in a theatre...and that scene's title is "matter does not really exist". Me, you and millions are sitting in the bleachers watching the scene not knowing exactly how it's going to end.
      There if that is not clear, I would suggest we forget about it completely.

  9. jbeckham360 .

    I love how all these supposedly non believers find their way here to bash God and Religion. Makes you wonder what their real agenda is? Satanist much!!!! You dumb satan lovers will not change any man or woman of Gods view or belief so go away, just go away with that just pumped the neighbors cat look on your face as Satan will soon be pumping you lol.

    1. docoman

      I hate how the religious apologists can't use logic or think straight because of their beliefs.
      Guess what jbeckham360, Satanists are believers too! ;) They're pretty much a denomination of the Christians. Satan is a Bible character... all their anti-Christ and Bible references etc. They're just one of the more blatantly and openly wrong doers of the different 'flavors' generated by that particular starting version of deities, the Bible.
      Satan is a fairy tale character too. Every story needs its villain. ;)

      Umm, and by the way, how very 'godlike' of you talking about pumping cats like that..... can you point me to a scripture that says that is a good thing to talk that way? Or gloat over what you believe will be other people's sufferings because of their different beliefs to yours? Or are you just doing the usual religee 'hypocrite thing' as it seems?

    2. jbeckham360 .

      Who said I was apologizing for my Christan beliefs? I use logic everyday and my logic knows who Satan is and what his poser atheist come to forums for. I think its very funny how most scientist will publicly say they do not believe in God but privately will say they believe in a higher power because everything points to that. That is logic for you. God created us in his image so he most definitely has a sense of humor and I am sure has laughed at a quote of Clint Eastwood before. I guess your logic could not figure that out or who I was quoting. I pray for you after I laugh at you because your the only hypocrite here denying who gave you, your soul.

    3. over the edge

      could you show me this "logic" you use to "knows who Satan is and what his poser atheist come to forums for" ? can you give me the proof for the claim that "most scientist will publicly say they do not believe in God but
      privately will say they believe in a higher power because everything
      points to that"? also please prove the "soul" exists and prove who gave it to me? finally please do not tell others to " go away"

    4. docoman

      Ahh, so Clint Eastwood talked like that, so that makes it OK for you to. Which part of the Bible says it's fine if you're quoting trash? Or are you wanting your own, different set of rules now because you're a 'believer'?

      IF your version of 'God' were possible it were true, you'd have to pray for me, have your laugh, then pray for yourself. (which 'He'd' know you didn't mean as you planned to ask for forgiveness after the deed, i.e hypocrite) IF what your Bible says is true, the fact you're mocking and happy that others will be hurt... kinda eliminates your chance to go to heaven yourself. You're mocking a mirror, if your version is correct.

      Believing isn't enough, you have to walk the walk as well.
      Pride. The first sin supposedly wasn't it? ;)

      If you were truly following Jesus' example, you would be apologising.
      But you, like most of your fellow believers, want extra perks with your church membership. You're yet one more example of the hypocrisy most believers think they're entitled to, just because they say they believe, it's ok to not follow 'Christ's example', and quote whomever (Clint Eastwood, lol) and say whatever, all in the name of 'God' mind you...

      'Higher Power' does not automatically mean your version of 'God' either, although you have already eliminated any other version to become Christian (as well as eliminated other versions of Christianity, like Satanists etc). Another skewed thought your beliefs give you.

      I second the questions already asked to you by over the edge, can you show some proper evidence to back anything you've claimed? Or have you just failed to say it's your opinion, not fact?

    5. Darren

      I just had to join up and thank you for the laugh you provided. Yes you should apologise for your christian beliefs, then look up the meaning of apologist. lol
      Your logic knows who satan is? NO, your book of woo woo tells you who satan is. Your logic skills need quite a bit of work. I could put a link or two up to help but I think it would be a wasted effort.
      I can't work out the Clint Eastwood reference?

  10. Kirsty Strobridge

    LOVE, I have watched this like 10 times now!

  11. noosss

    The devil has a diaper on, how sweet!

    1. John Jacquard

      that's a real alcoholic for ya.........

  12. yorksfaith

    i dont like the title, it puts believers off. should be called lonely monk Bible

  13. Lars Jensen

    well ZACK Winters i am sorry to tell you this but the bible is man made.
    and it has change several times over the years, and there is no prof of any god in this world only the illusion made by people that wan't to control others. soo you can live in a lie for your hole life or see the true world, not the lie that you where told as a kind and live in now.
    ps, english is not my first langue, so sorry for any spelling mistakes.

    1. yorksfaith

      so ur a darwin fan i guess. even darwin who spent his life trying to explain where we come from only came up with a theory not fact. and even he said the universe was created not became, a creator hey? sounds like God to me, and carbon dating has been disproven several times with several leading scientists claiming the earth cant possibly be more than 100,000 years old, not enough time for evolution to grow a bogey.

    2. Jon Heim

      lol...any sources for such a ridiculous claim?

    3. enkeleas

      and suddenly silence

    4. Dan Baptist

      Sources please.

    5. keykrazy

      Your comment admits to a misunderstanding about the term "Theory" (as used by scientists rather than folks on TV, etc.) In science, a Theory is used to explain facts that have been observed, and it is only a tentative explanation. (Science does not start with dogma; scientific "fact" will change right along with whatever we happen to observe in nature.) For example: Like Evolution, Gravity is considered as both a "fact" and a Theory by scientists working in that field. The theory of gravity has problems: Isaac Newton's theory of gravity (i.e., the Inverse Square Law) was enough of a theory to get us to the moon, but it does not give accurate results when calculating with very, very large numbers. Einstein's Special and General theories of Relativity helped to further our understanding of Gravity when dealing with very large numbers. (Consider: Gravitational Lensing as observed with black holes, which was not confirmed by observation until much later; i believe it was even after Einstein's death before gravitational lensing was observed in Hubble images.)

      I don't mean to sound condescending or mean, but i simply don't believe your assertion that carbon dating has been dis-proven. (Not that science ever "proves" anything, anyway. Again, science does not begin with assumptions that it cannot deviate from like religion does. Rather, it begins with hypotheses that are later confirmed or denied by what we can observe in nature.) For the time being though, i should point out that carbon dating is usually not used just by itself. Instead, geologists will try to confirm their carbon-dating using other types of dating such as argon-argon (Ar-Ar), iodine-xenon (I-Xe), lanthanum-barium (La-Ba), lead-lead (Pb-Pb), lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf), neon-neon (Ne-Ne), rhenium-osmium (Re-Os), uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He), or uranium-uranium (U-U) methods.

      When you say "sounds like god to me" that implies you have stopped trying to find Truth and rather have fallen back on something akin to "i can't explain it, so God did it".

    6. Stéphane Loyola Sinoque Bélang

      Well said. Great thing about science is that every so often a paradigm shift occurs, and our way of understanding things sometimes drastically changes in accordance with it. I dare say some might take a given paradigm as dogma, as an immutable truth; but whoever does so ceases to be scientific altogether.

    7. Michael Jay Burns

      You would be embarrassed by your ignorance if you were capable of acknowledging it. We are all free to structure our own rules of reality and you have chosen a book of magic. That is your choice. But when you make statements of physical reality (e.g. "the earth cant possibly be more than 100,000 years") based on your magic book all you do is demonstrate the weakness of that way of thinking and your own abysmal ignorance.

  14. deltamary

    Forbidden Knowledge sent this Documentary via e mail today. I had heard of this book many years ago - also the girl king mentioned. I enjoyed this immensley. That picture of the devil was indeed, scary. The picture on the left of the the devil deplicted heaven (not a close up- wish it had been) That showed me that the battle was raging as the scribe copied it. I hate to see such negataive comments. This is a part of history. The battle is getting more intense today and is not to be taken lightly.

  15. Tristan Rentz

    This documentary's crap - typically poor, faulty, inconsistent Nat Geo style

  16. .:LoW:.

    well.. that was a waste of time

  17. Macaya Walker

    The devil bible
    is made out of donkey skin , and its page is made of
    parchment leaves 600 pages
    is alot.

  18. Suzy Funk

    Boring. There should have been more explosions and at least one car chase....

    1. gsjikwblao

      ...and the faster car, that makes it to the beach first, should be driven by a black stripper girl.

  19. Pipu6900

    I was so board & I couldn't wait until it has no substance to it

  20. GarryR1

    Fascinating and Incredible at the same time!

  21. Stephan Verheyen

    Seems like everyone is writing bibles now-a-days

    1. gsjikwblao

      No. We've been "writing" Bibles for the last 2000 years. What we are doing now is understanding the original.

    2. Guest

      No one will ever under stand the bible...we can only over stand it with assumptions.

    3. gsjikwblao

      thank you for your comment.
      But it is you who are making an assumption when you say we can "never understand" the Bible... or anything else. Proof can be made only for things that exist, not things that don't exist. Since it cannot be proven that an understanding of the Bible cannot exist, therefore it follows that an understanding of it remains a possibility. However it is true that your reasoning is supported by thousands of years of stumbling and bumbling and this is very strong "circumstantial evidence" supporting your comment.

      It is significant to note that the Bible itself states that it would one day be understood and this is in clear recognition of the fact, by the Bible itself, that it would not be understood until that day.

      This is recorded in Mark 4:21-25 but the understanding requires a significant conviction of conscience to engage. Some of us are getting more as it is being taken from others who don't want to be inconvenienced by the little they have. This is referenced in the 24th and 25th verses.

      Also consider the following references to the Bible being one day understood:
      Habakkuk 2:2-3
      Daniel 12:4+10
      The comment you made is reflected in Isaiah 29:11-12. Contrary to this common "assumption" is verse 29:18.

      Yes, because of the way the Bible has been handled by many over the course of its long existence, it is easy to assume that it will never be understood. But when what it is actually talking about happens, then we can understand that what happened was (and is) what the Bible is talking about. This is a causation driven process of natural selection moving the human race from a base-level convicting conscience to one of increased motivation.

    4. Zack Winters

      no, not so. get rid of the religon, and accept jesus as your savior. the bible, you, holy spirit, Jesus and God, real simple, no religion thats man made

    5. yorksfaith

      right on, you shouldnt need anyone but Him. but at same time by getting rid of religion you get rid of any union between us. and Jesus/Yeshua says in Mt that in numbers above 2 of believers praying or congregating He is there. we also wouldnt be able to cling to any of the rights we have, what would you do if they banned reigion, would you deny your beliefs if asked? if so ur denying Christ.

  22. gsjikwblao

    All references to Satan in the Bible are a reference to the processing of information through our five physical senses and the love that flows between our hearts, generating our conviction of conscience is the spirit of God. Thus, the "war in heaven" between Michael and his angels and the dragon and his angles is a reference, in a consistent figurative language,to the opposition between our hearts (a unifying perspective) and our heads (an individual perspective). Since the entire human race's convicting consciences are in a low-lying state of influence in the initial stage of our nature, It is safe to say that the "Devil's Bible" was, along with almost everything else written to date, written by "Satan"
    P.S.- "Angels" in the Bible means "influence". The "angels of God" is a reference to the influence of our conviction of conscience and the "angels of Satan" is a reference to the influence of our mechanical reasoning by which we justify avoiding the inconvenience of our convicting conscience (create belief systems).

    1. Doreen Curry

      Thank you for your post. Quite interesting perspective. I am curious how you came up with the metaphors and synonyms, such as "a reference, in a consistent figurative language..." and "Angels in the Bible means "influence". Do you have resources to which I may turn for additional insight?

    2. gsjikwblao

      Thank you for your comment and question.
      For additional insight, the second best source that I know of is a book called "The Third Measure of Meal" written by frank jakum in 2010. It details the emergence of an interpretation of the Bible that eliminates all the contradiction retained in interpretations that hold the Bible to be an account of physical events that occurred long ago. This contradiction is eliminated by fixing figurative meanings to a handful of key words that are closely related to their conventional definitions, and the Bible itself gives us directly, the first four which leads directly to the others.Inasmuch as there is not a single exception to these figurative meanings being maintained, (the figurative meanings are exclusive) I referred to the figurative language as "consistent".

      However, the book states that without a significant conviction of conscience, one will construct a belief system to facilitate rejection of the understanding and its implications to the status-qo.

      This is why I referred to the book as the "second best " source for additional insight.

  23. Oquendo Jones

    The Devil's Bible?? The term itself is a contradiction. I was hoping it would at least shed some real light on why it was written. This entire documentary seems like nothing more than a giant hoax played on this who participated in it, was well as those who watch it, including myself. What a joke!

  24. Oquendo Jones

    The Devil's Bible?? The term itself is a contradiction. I was hoping it would at least shed some real

  25. Human9000

    Satin is not an angel as mentioned.

    1. 0zyxcba1

      @ Human9000
      Satin is not.

      I'd leave it there! (lol)


    2. Becca Richter

      Satan is an angel. He is a fallen angel. Read Genesis

    3. Alan VanderKnight

      True but that's only if you believe in that kind of stuff :)

    4. Zack Winters

      r u for real

    5. Alan VanderKnight

      Yes why ever wouldn't I be for real? I'm in the twenty first century and don't deal with fairy tale stuff thank you very much.

  26. Gary V

    A fascinating doc, it just goes to show that some people will believe any nonsense.

  27. Caspar William

    this book is bloody cool i wanna be able to full colour print of the scripture. t

  28. Stan Eicher

    This doc is lame. Its too long and rhetorical. The book is pretty cool, though. Calling it "The Devil's Bible" must be a real crowd pleaser. How'd you like to hear that a few dozen times in 47 minutes? I wish I had just gone and read about this thing instead of watching this stupid film, actually. The more I type about it the more annoyed I get.

    1. gsjikwblao

      Did it take 47 minutes to get that bad ? I didn't watch it.

  29. nortonew

    Its possible that the monk would have actually written the book AFTER being walled up in a cell. Some monastics actually chose to live that way. They were called anchorites.

  30. CrazyAtheist

    I always find it amazing how people's perceptions of the devil have changed throughout the ages. The bible's only description of the devil is that of a snake, fast forward 2000+ years, and you get David Grohl in the 'Pick of Destiny'.

  31. chris goris

    wow, this thing is pretty schlockey, interesting that they are handling this thing in a swiss museum without any gloves on. (sigh)

    1. Stan Eicher

      I know, right? As hyped as they are about it, I still kept waiting to find out that it was a fake so they didn't need gloves.

    2. ValhallaSoapCo

      Yes, it makes me crazy! I'm seeing more and more of these docs where the so called "experts" are handling all these artifacts with no regard or respect and NO GLOVES!! What the heck?!

  32. nilsson29

    Hm, not the best made movie i have seen, they mixed up the swedish kings. One of the pictures of Kristinas father is actually her grandfather Karl IX and the picture that said portrait Kristina on a horse is of a lather swedish king Karl XI the son of her cousin

  33. Rachelnico

    interesting...but yea, they don't actually talk about the books content...slightly annoying

  34. immune2stdz

    Nat Geo=Terrible

  35. Kristín Arnórsdóttir

    There's a lot of useless hype in this documentary. The content of it could be summarized without compromising it's real message in just a couple of minutes.

  36. StillRV

    They do mention what is written in the book. It is both the old and new testament (typical bible) as well as more esoteric stuff like exorcism rites.

  37. Intbel

    Shame we're not given much of the content.
    Also, there are two assumptions:
    1. It was written by a man.
    2. It could not have been completed in one night.

  38. Kateye70

    A little light on real information--but an interesting little story nonetheless.

  39. Jay Chytla

    they just repeat the same thing over and over but then then again this documentary isn't about what's inside the book, but who wrote it and was it written by a single person. i want to find a documentary that talks more in detail about its content rather than its author.

    1. antiloops

      you will see when they invent that.. i realise all that doc we only can see a couple of pages its really strange. Or otherwise is better we never know what comes in there, not because something evil but because something we believe was true... anyway all the docs are good docs, we learn always from them.

  40. 0zyxcba1

    I want a copy!

    1. z

      on Amazon they got buy 1 get 1 free

  41. aueg

    unfortunatelly, no mention about the nature of the message writen in the book, this documentary is useless...

  42. RiverAsUsual

    Ok who's up for starting a religion using this as it's basis?

    Grand Master position already baggsied!

    Won't be long before we've got loads of gullible numpties like the other religions!

    Then we can start claiming lands, bombing people and taking money for silly prayers etc. It all makes sense now!


  43. adilrye

    I honestly never heard of this before now :o

  44. John Christopher McDonald

    Damn I posted this on Facebook like 3 days ago and now its on here! Awesome.

  45. Vladimir Petkovic

    This was only made to frighten people and make them more dependable on the Monks and the Church :)... money making,even then!

  46. Sieben Stern

    amazing story of a cloistered monk and self taught illuminator ^^ i'm not a religious person, but one has to admire the dedication and focus needed to create such a thing!

  47. Vladimir Petkovic

    how can such an important book only be insured for 15 mil lol!?

    1. gsjikwblao

      The guy who owns the book didn't have enough money to pay higher insurance premiums and no one else gave enough of a damn to lend it to him.

  48. Vladimir Petkovic

    a prefer the advocate figure..but according to the church then..who could oppose or tell God lets make it a demon lol..pathetic.

  49. Vladimir Petkovic

    what a ridicules "museum" of skulls!?? ugly!

  50. Guest

    Adds more fuel to the religious fairy tales. Amazing what some people believe in.

  51. far

    Documentary based on a childish cartoon picture of the Devil...

    Lots of camp so called experts and academics...

    1. John Christopher McDonald

      Definitely took everything they said with a grain of salt. Cool story of a big m*****f****** book.

  52. Winston Smith

    'You get the cloven hoves"? (in the bible). The devil has large claws for hand and feet more reminiscent of bird or reptiles than anything else.