It drives me nuts when I read a book with a native Spanish speaker character who uses Spanish throughout the book, and the Spanish is totally incorrect.
I know of some editors who can make the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs.
Maybe Han Solo is just a bit cavalier with terminology 
Or George Lucas thought “parsec” was a cool spacey word but had no idea what it meant. It’s impossible to tell if the error lies in the writing, or is a deliberate error to demonstrate ignorance on the part of the character. If it was meant to show Han Solo as a bit of a goof, then it has the same problem as a film in which the director deliberately shoots a scene out of focus for artsy reasons. He might have some artistic point to make, but most of the audience will just blame the projectionist.
In the OP’s case, though, I could easily buy that “statue” is a mere typographical error which wouldn’t get picked up by spell-check software and that a human proofreader could easily overlook it, even if the proofreader knew the correct term was “statute”.
Oooh! Ooh! Let me guess! Traci Harding, right?
Do I get a cookie?
I was thinking more along the lines of Matthew Reilly… :rolleyes:
It would seem we’re really spoiled for choice in the semi-literate author department, eh? 
Aussie Aussie Aussie!
Damn! I misread the thread title, thought it said “…Poor Editing in The Good Book,” and really wanted to see that debate.
Anyway, carry on…
Hey, that’s been known to happen too. Especially when Bibles were hand written by monks. There’s a list of some typos here, near the middle of the page.
The irony of the double-‘http://’ here amuses me, greatly.
This right here is why religion is A Bad Thing. “Basing your whole life” on an ancient book that has been written and rewritten countless times, each time by humans who are far from “infallible” is, well, dumb.
I’m an editor, and I know that no book is infallible.*
- Except The Art of the Cocktail: 100 Classic Cocktail Recipes, obviously.