Let me get this straight, "it may mean a different thing to the reader yet it doesn't lose its essence", that's my paraphrase. Even if I don't dispute the far-fetched possibility of "words inspired by God" or the concept of a personified (possibly humanistic) God, which I often do, that quote alone was contradictory. How do you define "essence"? The moral of the story (or as many claims, recorded history)? The punch-line? While I think it is true that a work of fiction (or recorded history, whatever) is a living word, because it is what the reader make it to be, I couldn't say that the Bible can be so constant in its "essence" despite the different ways of reading/interpreting it. But heck, I am not a Bible scholar, I am not going to try pulling passages and "intentionally misinterpret" them as some may claim. I didn't not invent the fact that Bible passages are often under dispute, and to propagate a discussion on how disputable they are, which often resulted in certain people claiming "you need to read the Bible in its entirety with your heart" or whatnot, is pointless. LOL, word. Yet ZOMG fortune telling and horoscope are but tricks played by pagan gypsies (possibly messengers of Satan or something, isn't that right?)... /sarcasm, no pun intended.
