Rogue, I think Peaches is saying that you are coming up with different interpretation of the same passage due to your different worldviews. The writing is sloppy enough that the intent of the writer is open to multiple possible meanings depending on how you look at it (and how you think, I don't doubt).

Would that be right Peaches?

So how can you get a 'correct' meaning when the passage is ambiguous enough to get multiple, equally logical, interpretations?


Now, does anyone take the bible to be 100% accurate, that it should be read and adhered to literally, that every single utterance is totally true and not open to interpretation?

I'd have to say that I can't come close to believing this, for instance the crist resurrection myth.
The bible makes the following statements in detail concerning the day of the supposed resurrection

Mattew states that the boulder sealing the tomb was moved by one angel before the sight of the guards (plural) and two marys.

John states that there was only one Mary who discovered the tomb open (apparently untended) and she met two angels at the tomb later in the day, along with Jesus.

Luke mentions women (plural) finding an open tomb and finding two angels waiting (no other people).

Mark States three women,  2 Marys and Salome, who found an open tomb and one angel waiting (no people)

1 Corinthians skips any details.

These are rather diverse opinions over such a supposedly monumental event, and cannot possibly all be correct.

Not to mention the passage that states insects have only 4 legs. (I'll tell you which one later if you want)


Yeah, Heath, 'dragon' is a pretty specific term that has been used pretty freely in describing monsters from various places. The concept of dragons as we know it is a European phenomenon, though the term has been attached to different types of monsters in different cultures. (Chinese 'dragons' have little in common with the european concept, being more a natural force than a beast.)

Interpretation is a fine and dandy way to say it, but I can back up one verse by other verses. Can Peaches back up what she's saying? Or is it just a feeling?


Equally logical? Please, back up the verses. Logic says you go with is already said. If ythe bible says more about it, logic says go with the meaning already there. Logic does not say if another verse can be read strange, you ignore all the other verses about same subject.

The bible is 100% accurate. But Not all of it's literal. Example, there are parables. Obviously a parable didn't literally happen. The bible is true.


Taken out of context. Finish the verse.


What I don't understand, is you took this from the entire day of events. Not about a minute period, where everything needs to be clear.
Let me give you an example, I work with 4 people, and that day someone is fired. Memorable and has an impact. Would all of us have the same stories? Sure We'd all have the firing, but would we have the same list of people who came down? Human resources, other people walking by, etc? We'd all get the firing down, (like they all have the resurrection), but as each of us see or value other important things, we'd write down only what we saw. What if I went to the photocopy room when human resources came by, I wouldn't even have mention of them in my report. (But does that mean human resources didn't come by if I didn't put it in my report?) When you put it in context of what would happen to you, could easily happen to them.

Is the Bible imperfect?  Absolutely.  Not only is it a translated work.  (I've been a translator, and I can tell you that every translation is off, more so for languages that do not have anything in common.)  Also, God works through Man.  A surgeon is only as good as his scalpel, and, for example, Moses had a speech impediment, there was another prophet who was a farmer (and thus wrote a lot about farming analogies), etc.  But the point is that God won't allow a prophet to teach false doctrines, regardless of the human foibles of that prophet.

Query:  What books of the Bible are not considered holy "scripture?"  I remember it being said that Psalms and Songs of Solomon are not scripture because they were written by Kings, not prophets. Therefore, they do not represent the mouthpiece of God.  I don't know if there were any other ones.

Precisely. However, if I did have the time and/or have the patience to look up through all of these various bibles in this house, I would find a verse to support my statement. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I don't really have the time as of now. Perhaps later.

Also, each writer in the Bible wrote with a specific worldview and agenda in mind relating to "that" time and "that" people.  This is one reason why prophets are needed today to address "this" time and "this" people.

That should be fun. Don't let that word get out. We'll have five million different ones in today's society... all with different perspectives, and all of them will be 'from God'. -_-

Our church has a prophet ordained by God right now.  So when we say that Jesus leads this church, we are saying that he is literally guiding the church through the prophet just as he did with Moses and Abraham and Adam and Noah and Isaiah and the rest.  After all, why should he change those practices and stop having prophets to lead his children?

I read that the LDS thought polygamy was a good thing.(that has changed I believe)
So the question becaomes if a prophet can't teach false doctrines, why did they do that?
I'm going with the bible saying fornication is a sin, and a marriage is between one woman and one man.

The LDS belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman.  However, there come certain exigent times (such as in times of war) where many women will need to cling unto one man, and it is the choice between having a woman grow up alone and childless or being part of a family.  Because the family is so important, in those times, and only if approved through revelation to the prophet, then it will be ordained of God.

The Old Testament approves of plural marriage (which is different from the colloquial term "polygamy" often used by mistake).  Why do people believe in the Old Testament such arrangements can be acceptable but not now?

There are basically two reasons it was instigated in the 19th Century.  (1) The LDS community was being killed off by mobs and by the Extermination Order of Governor Boggs (thus creating the situation where there were many widows with children and women with no other hope of being married), and (2) the Church of Christ had been fully restored on earth.  As such, to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah that "all things" be restored, the Old Testament practice of plural marriage had to restored for a short time.

This reinforces the importance of having a living prophet to be the current mouthpiece of God and guide people depending on the circumstances without sacrificing the principles and morals that lead people to the Kingdom of Heaven.  Times do change and God does not.  Some situations require for special guidance.  Sometimes, as Jesus said, the Ox is in the Mire.

The problem is that God has only one commandment:  "Do what is right."  We have many to help us "do what is right," but what is right in one circumstance is not always right in every circumstance.

The actual practice of plural marriage was a lot more complicated a matter than most people think.  I can discuss more upon request.

(BTW, if there had been no plural marriage in the 19th century LDS religion, I would not exist today.)
This message was last edited by the player at 04:44, Mon 12 July 2004.

Intrestingly enough, the title that the anchient kings were given was "Messiah," which meant 'Annointed One,' because each king was annointed by the people (if that makes sense) That might help some people understand why Jesus is called the Messiah... according to Christianity

Heath, I understand LDS changed its stance on marriage, but the New Testament wasn't exactly wishy washy on it's meaning of marriage.

I think I've heard that before.  If I remember correctly, the prophet would annoint the King.  My church also has very sacred annointings similar to that in the Old Testament (though obviously not used for Kings nowadays).

Of course, the kings were never entitled to speak as a mouthpiece for God as prophets were.  So Samuel was the prophet, not David or Solomon.  Thus, parts of the Old Testament are not considered the "word of God."  (At least, that's my understanding.)

*shrug* They were considered the closest link after priests and prophest, God's military might, I suppose. That's why people didn't understand when Jesus supposedly came along, they expected him to be a military commander, like the kings of old.


I seriously recommend the book "Sohpie's World" I'm not even half through and I've learned so much stuff I never knew, both about philosophy and religion.

I have a lot I want to say in this thread, but i'm tired, so I'll have to stick to quick points for tonight.  First, as to the accuracy of the bible:  Who took joseph from where his brothers imprisoned him, and who was he sold to?

As to whoever pointed out that the prophets were the vioce of Gods as opposed to any other biblical authors (sorry to whoever said it, but I'm seriously tired); you're absolutely right.  The only passages from the Bible that can "safely" be assumed to be valiudated by God are the declarations of the Prophets.  And once Ezra the Sribe made the first Canonized Torah, it was used as a document of interpretation and not the word and law of God.

This is why it is absolutely essential to have a living prophet instead of relying purely on ancient texts which were used for a specific people and a specific time period and context.

As for the insects with four legs comment, I've never heard that before, but the Bible was written by people, so it has some factual inaccuracies, grammatical inaccuracies and the like, not to mention translation inaccuracies and ambiguities.  That's one area where faith would kick in.  It is not by any means perfect or complete.  If we're talking about a perfect being with infinite wisdom, that wisdom is surely not all contained in one ancient tome of only a couple thousand pages recounting the lives of a certain group of people in one area of the world on this planet.

The insects thing is from Leviticus. And it was taken out of context Heath. GHO didn't finish the verse. I've seen that one a couple times.

I see what you're saying, Rogue, and I looked it up.  This appears to be a translation issue from the original idiom.  It appears that the verses are not saying that they have four appendages but rather that they "move like quadraped."  Since locusts move on their back four feet and use their first like claws, this would be a natural assertion for all but a modern day entomologist, and especially for Moses, who probably knew nothing about insects except that they were pests.

Not taken out of context, the whole passage reinforces the statement.
I have argued this one before, how can you make it appear as if it was written accurately.


Leviticus 11: 20 "All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are however some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.
But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest."


all other winged creatures that have four legs this is an obvious reference to insects other than hoppers when taken in context with the above passage.

The best spin you can put on it is that it was written by some git who never looked closely at insects before writing. It also says they have four legs in two different ways "walk on all fours" (explainable as Heath points out) and "have four legs".


Just proof that the bible cannot be taken as being without error.

I'm not actually one who thinks the Bible is without error, but I think you are in error on this point.  To the ancient perspective, the hoppers and locusts were four legged creatures with two "arms" (total=6).  That's how they perceived things and wrote about things.  We have changed the definition and made them into species, but looked at in the perspective in which it was written, what Moses wrote was absolutely true.  It is only those who don't look beyond the words and into the meaning who find fault with it.  By the same token, they might have said that bears have two legs or four legs depending on the cultural perception.

But if you're saying that one shouldn't simply read the Bible and take it at face value, I agree.  It takes study and hard work.
This message was last edited by the player at 06:31, Tue 13 July 2004.