"You know, if you hack, twist, and misquote everything, you can pretty much make it say whatever you want, and that's not really searching for truth."

Well at least we agree on something.

Spelling errors, mistranslations... in the inerrant word of God? How is that possible if you're dealing with a omnipotent all-powerful being?

He also doesn't address more fundamental stuff like why the four gospels give wildly different accounts of different events and different accounts of the allegedly same events.

It's also grating how he uses words like "truth" or "common sense" the same way George W. Bush did.

"Literal vs. Figurative"

Literal: whatever supports my views in the Bible is literal.

Figurative: whatever contradicts my views is figurative and actually agrees with the previous bit once I quote only part of it or purposefully misquote it.

Need I say more?

John 1:1 in Greek:
En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.

Standard translation:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god.

A just as valid translation of those words:
At the start of the reign, the word moved towards the god, and the god became the word.

But it's not like minor errors in translation can change what the Bible says or anything.

Imagine how the world would be if the Bible was about respecting nature and science instead of battles, laws, and tall tales.

I still can't believe these people haven't accidentally burst into flames, trying to draw logical conclusions to their collected edition of little golden books. "If you take the bats out of that list of birds, everything else makes sense!" Exemplar religious thought. These people really aren't trolls?

If you ever want to see a literalist do some jumping jacks, ask them what color cloak Jesus wore to his trial. Matthew says scarlet; Mark and John say purple. They will tear their brains in half trying to explain that the cloak was half-scarlet/half-purple, that it was striped scarlet and purple, that it was a magic cloak that switched colors, or that the crowd took off the scarlet cloak and put on a purple cloak halfway up Golgotha because why not.

Aside from the annoying intro this is basically a dupe.

Are we going to just post every episode of "Wretched?"

So God went to the trouble of inspiring a perfect document with no mistakes that was His flawless message to humankind, but couldn't be bothered to make sure there were no translation errors down the line.

This oversight ensured that 99.9% of the people who have read the Bible over the centuries are reading something less than accurate at best, and completely wrong at worst.

So according to Wretched's own argument, God done goofed.

Most of people's complaints with the bible's contradictions dont relate to any of those things. It's riddled with continuity errors, stupid laws and leave it open to more questions to the answers you were given

Do you have a license to operate that cherry picker?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

That was one of the 1st things I came across after I got home internet :)

Heres just the contradictions..

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

theres 472 listed there

I'm less concerned about the contradictions than the parts that people ignore altogether, about how to treat widows, orphans, immigrants, the poor, and your fellow man in general. Maybe I'm just old, but challenging fundamentalists on the casualties of a battle seems to be missing the point when they're purposely ignoring how God very consistently hates rich people who are dicks.