Christians believe that in the original form the Bible was without error but now it does since it has been translated and copied for thousands of years. I see no problem with believing that but why did not God fix the errors.
Not all Christians. Remember, we have had a checkered past.
Starting with Orthodoxy, then the schism and the Catholic denomination, which then splits into the Lutheran and protestant denominations, which now are splitting into reformist groups and etc.
Each new denomination tends to add and subtract from what has gone before. I would caution you therefore, not to take one denomination as the spokesperson for the religion... the same with Islam or the Jewish faith.
==========
For instance, I would be very hesitant to claim the Bible as the be-all-end-all answer key. Whereas I would imagine many of the protestant groups would gladly hold it up as the sole source of truth.
In answer to the question, I would humbly suggest that God has no reason to fix the errors, the Truth is there, the translations are out there, the history is out there.
Only about 30% of the world's pop is Christian so 70% will burn forever, it is random chance that you ended up with the family/religion you did.
Again, I would believe the answer would depend upon whom you ask.
The God I believe in has once before sent his son into hell to save those who had not heard the word. Perhaps he will do the same at the end times.
Certainly, those who have not heard will not be automatically cast down as they are in the Quaran: blinded by Allah and destined to hell. Further, Orthodoxy does not prescribe to once-saved-always-saved, and so it’s only reasonable to allow morality and not gilt-crosses to be the key to heaven; more hope for those who never hear of christianity.
What about a virus, it will become immune to the medicine after several generations. Natural selection.
I know it's old, but I thoroughly enjoyed Isaac Assimov's explanation of the primordial sea and the formation of life therein. Granted, I found him making inexplicable leaps from non-life to life, and I believe my issues were based on (one of ) the current creationist arguments (?) against evolution.
It is not so much directed at natural selection, it accepts that as given; but instead focus' on the limited amount of selection that can take place before a positive mutation is required to expand the gene pool.
Ergo, a Jack Russell Terrier may become a Mastif, but will never become a cow without a positive mutation. The problem arises with the lack of positive mutations.
