The Wrods of God

After much reading in this forum one thing is slowly becoming clear to me. The followers of god seem to have been blessed with much poorer spelling ability than the unbelievers. Indeed, in many cases the more radical the religious view the more the written word deteriorates. This is just my observation and I know there are exceptions at both ends of the scale. But on average I think I'm right.
What this says about the nature of god I'm not sure. Perhaps (and I know as an atheist this makes me sound like an @rse) the more educated that people are the more likely they are to doubt the existence of a god. After all, before fire was understood there was a fire god, right.
Does this mean that education is bad for god and that widespread education will be the ultimate downfall of religions?
These are tenuous links to make but what the hell.
Drink has been taken.
I have proof read this post several times.
Hope I didn't mis-spell anything.

Originally posted by ShallowBlue
After much reading in this forum one thing is slowly becoming clear to me. The followers of god seem to have been blessed with much poorer spelling ability than the unbelievers. Indeed, in many cases the more radical the religious view the more the written word deteriorates. This is just my observation and I know there are exceptions at both ends of the ...[text shortened]... as been taken.
I have proof read this post several times.
Hope I didn't mis-spell anything.

Too bad you can't edit the title of the post.

"Wrods?"

I'm sure the theists will have a field day with that one.

Originally posted by rwingett
Too bad you can't edit the title of the post.

"Wrods?"

I'm sure the theists will have a field day with that one.

LOL. That was deliberate. Irony is my wrod of the week. 😵

Originally posted by ShallowBlue
After much reading in this forum one thing is slowly becoming clear to me. The followers of god seem to have been blessed with much poorer spelling ability than the unbelievers. Indeed, in many cases the more radical the religious view the more the written word deteriorates. This is just my observation and I know there are exceptions at both ends of the ...[text shortened]... as been taken.
I have proof read this post several times.
Hope I didn't mis-spell anything.

This reminds me of a recent study by an english professor who grammatically corrected the bible. It had about 20,000 errors in it, if I remember properly. So, you see, you have to cut the theists some slack - their god isn't too good at english either. I can imagine his divine report card now;

Name; God
Subject
Geography; very good - especially like the alps and the ffords.
Maths; excellent, has trouble with the concept of zero though.
Biology; good on most fronts. Could have tried harder on human design though.
English; Poor, see me.

Originally posted by ShallowBlue
LOL. That was deliberate. Irony is my wrod of the week. 😵

Lots of irony in guinness as I recall.

Originally posted by ShallowBlue
LOL. That was deliberate. Irony is my wrod of the week. 😵

I cna't beleeve RWing mised thaat.

Originally posted by ShallowBlue
After much reading in this forum one thing is slowly becoming clear to me. The followers of god seem to have been blessed with much poorer spelling ability than the unbelievers. Indeed, in many cases the more radical the religious view the more the written word deteriorates. This is just my observation and I know there are exceptions at both ends of the ...[text shortened]... as been taken.
I have proof read this post several times.
Hope I didn't mis-spell anything.

lmao , I thought the thread was started by RBHill

Originally posted by scottishinnz
This reminds me of a recent study by an english professor who grammatically corrected the bible. It had about 20,000 errors in it, if I remember properly. So, you see, you have to cut the theists some slack - their god isn't too good at english either. I can imagine his divine report card now;

Name; God
Subject
Geography; very good - especially ...[text shortened]... good on most fronts. Could have tried harder on human design though.
English; Poor, see me.

Wow. 20,000 grammatical errors?!

Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Bible wasn't actually written in English, by any chance?

Spare the wrod, eh?

Originally posted by ShallowBlue
LOL. That was deliberate. Irony is my wrod of the week. 😵

Dontcha mean inory?

Originally posted by orfeo
Wow. 20,000 grammatical errors?!

Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Bible wasn't actually written in English, by any chance?

Probably, but there's definately alot of ambiguity in there - or why so many churches?

Anyhoo, it's GODS INFALLABLE WORD. Obviously, whilst his word is infallable, his grammar is not!

Originally posted by dottewell
Spare the wrod, eh?

Your words will become so many wrods to beat you with.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Your words will become so many wrods to beat you with.

Ponce? de Leon?

Originally posted by ShallowBlue
After much reading in this forum one thing is slowly becoming clear to me. The followers of god seem to have been blessed with much poorer spelling ability than the unbelievers.

Sadly you took a very unscientific approach and have thus drawn a conclusion without having sufficient data to be significant. Many of the more vocal Christians on this site are actually creationists and any conclusions you draw about them may only apply to thier particular subset of all Christians. There are other important questions to consider like:
does education with Christianity make you less likely to participate in this forum?
how many of the poor spellers are not natively english speakers?
what are the ages of the people in question?

In the states the majority of scientists are not creationists, but the general population has a fairly high proportion of creationists, so it would imply a relationship between non-creationism and science. However this should be seen as obvious as creationists deny the validity of almost all branches of science.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Probably, but there's definately alot of ambiguity in there - or why so many churches?

Anyhoo, it's GODS INFALLABLE WORD. Obviously, whilst his word is infallable, his grammar is not!

Your spelling isn't infallible either...

My real point is that the so-called 'grammatical errors' probably aren't errors at all! If the rules of English grammar were used, then any idioms of Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Greek or Aramaic would be contrary to those rules.

Also, just because the apostle Paul didn't use the 'perfect' classical Greek of Athenian philosophers doesn't make it wrong. He used the everyday language of the region he came from. Each writer had their own style.

Thirdly, we're talking about a book written over a period of 1,000 years plus (and in three languages). Would you correct me for not using the same grammar as Shakespeare?

And finally... do you think God is some kind of pedant?