Peter Kirby

Go to:

http://www.errancywiki.com/

Go ahead, sign up and start adding your favorite errors. Nothing you do can't be fixed up (and at this stage, I will be monitoring it all myself).

Few orders of business:

* Get some trusty people as admins.
* Get stubs up for each Bible chapter and verse. Is there an easy way to do this? I want the text of the ASV and/or KJV as a stub for each verse's page. Then, when citing another verse, standard form is to make it a link.
* Get some rules about Point-of-view and other disputes. I suggest DPOV (dual POV) as policy. That is, each "Error" page is divided into "Pro" and "Con," and you aren't allowed to detract from the side of the position you don't like. You are welcome to answer the argument on the other side of the divide, or to tighten up the arguments on your own side.

Please comment here or on the talk page for the Main_Page of the site.

thanks,
Peter Kirby

Stacey Melissa

Wow, this is a seriously cool idea. I may contribute if I can find some time. :thumbs:

The Defenestrator

Great idea, and I LOVE how the only error posted yet is:

Yeah, that's the one that leaps out at you the most when you read it all right!

Bede

Peter,

What's the point of this? Who cares about errancy?

B

Nero's Boot

Every Christian fundamentalist on the earth, who claims this piece of Bronze Age dogshit is something inerrant and divinely inspired.

--I do believe this wiki is worth doing some research on my own for NB

lpetrich

Nero's Boot, I wouldn't dismiss the Bible as "Bronze Age dogshit", or even "early Iron Age dogshit" (more chronologically correct). Half history half fairy tales, maybe, but "dogshit"?

But you are correct about Xian Fundies being very concerned with the question of errancy; they are determined to believe that the Bible is 100.000000% inerrant, no matter what.

JoeWallack

JW:
Exxxcellent. (Wringing hands together like Montgomery Burns and salivating over progress of Star Errancy Death site). Everything is proceeding according to my Plan.

Peter, I think you're going to be surprised at the lack of interest in this by almost all Christians. An Errancy List is an Offensive weapon and for most Christians would be comparable to putting together a public list of things you don't like about your wife.

The obvious advantage to Skeptics though is that there will be an Organized list of Potential errors and related discussion to Refer to. As you can see at IIDB we periodically have the same type of arguments with lots of repetition and overlapping because of the lack of organized summary.

There are countless Christian sites claiming there are no errors in the Christian Bible and offering "solutions" for every claimed error they are aware of but relatively few Skeptical sites claiming an organized list of documented errors (note to self to check all 1001 Christian sites claiming no Errors for post from Bede asking what the point is of claiming no errors).

We have the Tools and the Talent to develop a convincing list of 1001 Errors in the Christian Bible and demonstrate that it was just a product of its time and not a product out of time. We can do this now because the Christians (to their credit) are letting us. This whole Errancy project got started by Luther's Pope who made the mistake of permitting discussion of why Church Doctrine was correct. Apparently (the) holy spirit was sleeping at the time and didn't warn him that once Men were allowed to discuss Why Church doctrine was correct inevitably they would expand to If Church Doctrine was correct (Luthifer, look out!). Speaking of Luther and his Pope, if you make me an Administrator I want the Admin name "The New Porphyry". Of course this would all be unnecessary if Christianity hadn't burned "Against The Christians" out of history but if Christianity could reinvent Adam we can reinvent the Wheel of Misfortune.

I suggest NRSV and KJV as the Standard texts here and a link to multiple versions. I think NRSV is the best Christian translation and KJV is the worst. This will help illustrate the inferiority of the KJV which many Fundies use.

I think most of the defense against claimed error will be by Skeptics. What I've found on my Errancy sites is that all the well known Apologists will avoid them because they understand that for the most part they will just be helping to publicize potential errors. I think JP Holding though will probably make responses on his site since he considers that his job so we can probably just post his "defenses" here (giving attribution).

Periodically (maybe once every 2 years) at my sites I'll get an amateur Apologist (oxymoron) who's gung holy about "demolishing" all claimed errors. Unfortunately for them though the early errors are mainly "Matthew's" genealogy and the pattern has always been the same. I present them errors in "Matthew's" names and chronology that they've never seen before. They start out assuming that the evidence I present is simply not factual. Their first surprise is that when they research it they discover I have presented the facts. They then assume that they can find perfectly good defenses in commentaries and Apologies and their next surprise is that the defenses generally don't exist or aren't very good. After going through about five or ten of these I never hear from them again and a primary Objective of mine has been accomplished. Identifying errors, albeit small ones, that normally aren't discussed.

In every Revolution there is one Man with a Vision. Be that Son of Man Peter (you've got the Right name for it). Besides, I Am almost positive that you weren't this funny before you met me.



Joseph

WARNING - The Skeptical General has determined that the 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible contains dangerous amounts of Tarivial and Nitpicotine. Skeptics should be advised that using it in order to convince a Fundie to count to ten before murdering an abortion provider because murder is always a sin, could be Hazardous to your credibility.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Steven Carr

Well, NT Wright once claimed that sceptics had never found an error in the NT.

As a professional researcher, it was his job to look for possible errors, of course, but I doubt if he had the time to do that level of research.

Sharon357

I was just at the wikipedia site today, trying to figure out how to get some of the select information located here; on the wikipedia site:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=133308
I'm not familiar with editing / contribution on Wikipedia at all, and I am not such a good writer. But, maybe one of your editors could put this information in, in the future?

I've been trying to get it into other places as well, like Google Answers
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=492669
that have mentioned --or would publish information on this popular lie.

Edited article from thread
Do Rabbits Chew A Cud?
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creati...abbit_cud.html

-------------

On 8/14/2005 4:02:07 PM, B. at snopes.com wrote:
Thanks for the heads up!

- B.

Urban Legends Reference Pages
http://www.snopes.com
-----------------------------------------------

Peter Kirby

Hi Bede,

The point is to provide a public arena where (mis)information that swirls around in this debate can be pinned down and then dissected. That is, to provide a center where all this data can be organized and proofread for accuracy or rationality, by many people, of many persuasions.

The Academy doesn't care, but the public does.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby