Bible misprints
Offline I found this through another forum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata
I'm sure soem of you have seen it before, but it got me thinking. When I was a fundy,how would I have reconciled this with my belief that the bible was the innerant and perfect word of god? I did not allow for human error, mistranslations and other 'moderate' explanations. The bible was without fault to me.
So I'd like to ask theists here something. How do you explain god allowing mistakes that could presumably give people the entirely wrong message? What if a mistake was made that fundamentally changed the salvation story? Why would god just sit by and let his living word, our primary means of understanding him, be messed with?
EDIT - fixed link
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
- Login to post comments
That link says there's no article there. Though I love the misprint you have there.
"Hey check this out, on page 63 it says 'Jebus'" Pope Entourage Member 1
"Its supposed to be Jesus right?" Pope Entourage member 2
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
Actually it would be a very serious misprint if it mentioned Jesus at all on page 63, since that would be in the early part of the Old Testicle.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
That Family Guy bit works on so many levels.
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
I'm in the small but growing minority of Christians who don't actually think that the Bible is the primary means of understanding God. In other words, I think that regular people not only wrote the Bible (and that it is an account of their experiences), but also that regular people have translated it throughout the ages. Translating and interpreting the Bible is tricky even today, so I can't imagine how difficult it was in the Middle Ages or before.
That's not to say that I don't think the Bible is important. I think it is--it's a fascinating book, but I think people often take it the wrong way. I don't read it as a manifesto or "instruction manual from God", I simply read it as a collection of stories and experiences concerning the Judeo-Christian God.
But for people who do take the Bible literally and think that it must be 100% internally and externally affirmative, the answer I usually get is "You just have to have faith that God has the power to preserve his word through time, at least enough to get the basic message of salvation across." I disagree with that, though--my personal salvation experience had nothing to do with the Bible per se, in that I wasn't reading the Romans road or the Gospels and thinking to myself, "Hey, I'd better do this." It was an extraordinarily personal experience--the singular experience which prevents me from leaving Christianity.
That's probably not the answer you were looking for.
You'd be right.Quite honestly, I think it's pretty convient that in a time when bible contradictions and horrors are common knowledge,christians are suddenly backpeddling and insisiting it isn't actually the innerant word of god. Though I have to think that in the unlikely event the bible were proved completly true,christians would immediately turn around and smugly say,'Told you it was perfect.' But religion has to adapt to keep up with tht times, like everything else.Maybe god isn't so constant and unchanging.
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
I can only speak for my own views, man. The Bible isn't going to be proven completely true anyway. You can't get 10 verses into Genesis without running into major problems scientifically, but like I said, I have no problem with that. I don't read the Bible as a science book, or some sort of perfect cosmic instruction manual (though admittedly, I do wax philosophical and linguistic over the Gospel of John on occasion)--for the most part I read it as a collection of writings about God that happened to make it into the final cut.
Beyond that, I don't even think it's the kind of text you can "prove" or "disprove"--it would be like trying to prove or disprove a memoir. It's not a manifesto, and shouldn't be read as such.
The bible starts, "In the beginning ..... " OPPS ...... Ends with Revelations, the Apocalypse .... Gezzzz. All the wisdom in that book , could be written on one small page. Heck, even one sentence ..... "All is One with the Thingy" ......
Atheism Books.