Is Islam true?.

[Sigurd]

All evidence indicates and is constant with the authors writing the books being the apostles, are you going to question second peter? that is usually the NT book that is questioned.

Evidence? I doubt there are any evidence out there that would support claimed author actually wrote the books that bear their names.
Take the gospel of John, since it is on the table anyway. Irenaeus was accused of forging it.
Could be there is a scrap of truth that it is based on something Yochanan actually wrote, but the text as found in today's bible is a processed one, that has gone trough multiple hands before it was presented as holy writ. Consider Revelation... Why does "John" warn that nothing should be added or taken away from this book? Why would he consider it important enough to use valuable space in his text. Or why would the team behind the book put it in? Why ... Because it was already prevalent in the groups that handled such texts.

Original bible can be found,if you want reference I will provide if your interested. It seems this forum needs a bible translation thread. I agree on the new translations checking. trinitarianism, is just a word men have made to describe what the bible teaches. Not a change/new doctrine.

I know this might come as a shock to you.. but there are no originals to be found. You say original greek.. sorry it is a copy of a copy of a... etc. Same with the Hebrew. You can't trust that the oldest manuscript found is anything more than someone's failed attempt at copying an older text which is also a copy of a copy. Christians today are upholding an infallible bible that doesn't really exist.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My reasons for rejecting Islam come from the info in those debates, as well as the post numbers I listed on OP. Here is why your objection fails to muslims, the bible has been corrupted/mistranslated. So we cant trust it claiming jesus is god. That is why one of my argument, that you could not call a "coherent reason". Is to show the muslim, that the koran and Muhammad said the bible was 100% correct in 600 AD. Than pointing out, that the bible was in full 200 years before that, and is the same as the bible we have today. So even if it was mistranslated, Muhammad and koran say its perfect. See why that is a more "coherent reason" to argue against them than yours?. Plus I garentee 100% you cannot point out why my arguments fail that I have made against islam, as you have not even read any.

I've browsed your "arguments - but I don't see the force of them.

Muhammed did not say the was "100% correct", in fact as I'm sure Hax will tell you, he said quite the opposite. In any case, the Bible does not state that Jesus was the Incarnation, which is the core contention between Christians and Muslims.

As I clearly showed, these are two diffident episodes, john 1 happens before matt 4. There are even diffident people involved with these two accounts [Andrew]. In all of john 1 peter is never called.

Andrew is in both - in Matthew Andrew is with his brother Simon Peter - even your NIV shows that.

Also why would the disciples up and follow jesus when he called them? this would not happen unless they already knew him. That is why in matt 4 when peter is called [when he is fishing] he right away follows jesus. He already new him and learned from him etc.

For the same reason the lame got up and walked, he was the Incarnation. His death rattle rent the curtain of the temple, caused and earthquake and blotted out the sun.

I am starting to wonder how much of bible you understand? or are just repeating from what you may have herd. John was one of the twelve original disciples, and one of the three major apostles, peter,john and james. I cant give you all references but look at, mark 9 1-13, 13 1-3, 14.33 3.17. These and many more show john was a original disciple,there from the beginning. Also look at john 21.24.

Nowhere does it show that the "Beloved Disciple" is actually John, he is NEVER named in John, and he has that role only in John.

Count them - the Eleven Apostles go away with Jesus to be instructed in John, but the Beloved Disciple walks off into the sunset and is never heard from again - he may have never died. In any case there are lots of Johns in the New Testament

As I said, you cannot provide one piece of evidence, the bible has been corrupted, the original.

There are no original manuscripts - all copies are corrupt.

The world is Fallen, get over it.

I will ask again, you like to make claims. I wish you would back up claims please. Please provide evidence, I have original hebrew/greek bible. No expert but I know some. I ask questions and am learning all the time.

No, you have the Bible in original languages, edited together from newer manuscripts. Read the Forward to your Bible, the editors should explain it there.

You want evidence? Look up the oldest Hebrew manuscript, it's medieval.

If you are like me and believe god is the real author of the bible, than john certainly did write the gosple john14.26 15.25 16.13

I despise atomisation of Sciptura, but very well.

14.26 references the Holy Spirit, the "advocate" will teach the Apostles everything and remind them of what Christ has said - it doesn't say theywill write these things down. Nor do the following verses

15.25 - this is the tale end of Jesus' bit about the Temple Priests, (18-26) they hate him (and God) because of his good works, he has incited them to wrath and damned their souls to fulfil the prophecy, because they are hateful. Perhaps you meant to reference 26? Here the disciples are called to testify because they have been with Jesus from the beginning, still there is nothing about writing.

16.13 - the Holy Spirit again - he will guide and testify to the Apostles. This still didn't stop Peter from initially disbelieving the Command of God in Act's 10, though, did it.

None of this pertains to the Gospels, which were clearly not written by the disciples themselves.

John is in many ways a counter-intuitive book, and much of the New Testament is about anti-intellectual inspiration and word of mouth, none of the Gospels are about writing. In fact, Jesus never writes anything and people bring messages to him by word of mouth. The only significant writing done is by Pilate, when he hangs a sign above Christ's head as he is Crucified.

The New Testament is about the movement of the Holy Spirit, not a written word. Indeed, the "Word" of God is not the Bible - it is YHWH - "I AM" - which is the sum totality of everything we need to know about God, and can know.

[Hax]

Didn't Jesus speak Aramaic or something?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Didn't Jesus speak Aramaic or something?

But also probably Hebrew and Greek - after all, Pilate didn't bother to learn Aramaic.

[Hax]

Yes, very likely in fact! Most of the people in that particular region probably knew more than one language.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes, very likely in fact! Most of the people in that particular region probably knew more than one language.

It is a known fact that Jesus could get into the best uni's with that kind of background and being multilingual.

[HoreTore]

Yes, very likely in fact! Most of the people in that particular region probably knew more than one language.

People living in areas with multiple tribes usually do, we see it in todays world too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, very likely in fact! Most of the people in that particular region probably knew more than one language.

Yet, shockingly, this fact is not recognised by many modern theologians - who insist that the lingua franca at the time was Aramaic, when it is painfully obvious that Jesus must have known Greek (if not Latin) to converse with so many Roman officials.

[total relism]

Evidence? I doubt there are any evidence out there that would support claimed author actually wrote the books that bear their names.
Take the gospel of John, since it is on the table anyway. Irenaeus was accused of forging it.
Could be there is a scrap of truth that it is based on something Yochanan actually wrote, but the text as found in today's bible is a processed one, that has gone trough multiple hands before it was presented as holy writ. Consider Revelation... Why does "John" warn that nothing should be added or taken away from this book? Why would he consider it important enough to use valuable space in his text. Or why would the team behind the book put it in? Why ... Because it was already prevalent in the groups that handled such texts.


I know this might come as a shock to you.. but there are no originals to be found. You say original greek.. sorry it is a copy of a copy of a... etc. Same with the Hebrew. You can't trust that the oldest manuscript found is anything more than someone's failed attempt at copying an older text which is also a copy of a copy. Christians today are upholding an infallible bible that doesn't really exist.

I shall ask for any evidence for your claims, I have asked over and over and over for evidence the bible john/revaluations has been mistranslated or messed with. You have provided none, As I claimed all evidence is that the authors wrote the books they said they did. I suggest watching these videos


Reliability of Scripture – Accuracy of the Old Testament
http://www.josh.org/resources/watch-...ormat=standard

http://www.josh.org/resources/watch-...%20Reliability

The Reliability of the New Testament Text (Dr. James White)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiayuxWwuI


F. F. Bruce makes the following observation: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.”

He also states, “And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt” (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 15).

Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, was one of the foremost experts on ancient manuscripts and their authority. Shortly before his death, he wrote this concerning the New Testament:

“The interval between the dates of original composition (of the New Testament) and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (The Bible and Archaeology, pp. 288-89).


End of revaluations, that is because it is the end of the bible. Last book, last written no more added [Islam,mormaism etc] none taken away. jesus last the end, as jesus said in gospels.

I've browsed your "arguments - but I don't see the force of them.

Muhammed did not say the was "100% correct", in fact as I'm sure Hax will tell you, he said quite the opposite. In any case, the Bible does not state that Jesus was the Incarnation, which is the core contention between Christians and Muslims.



Andrew is in both - in Matthew Andrew is with his brother Simon Peter - even your NIV shows that.



For the same reason the lame got up and walked, he was the Incarnation. His death rattle rent the curtain of the temple, caused and earthquake and blotted out the sun.



Nowhere does it show that the "Beloved Disciple" is actually John, he is NEVER named in John, and he has that role only in John.

Count them - the Eleven Apostles go away with Jesus to be instructed in John, but the Beloved Disciple walks off into the sunset and is never heard from again - he may have never died. In any case there are lots of Johns in the New Testament



There are no original manuscripts - all copies are corrupt.

The world is Fallen, get over it.



No, you have the Bible in original languages, edited together from newer manuscripts. Read the Forward to your Bible, the editors should explain it there.

You want evidence? Look up the oldest Hebrew manuscript, it's medieval.



I despise atomisation of Sciptura, but very well.

14.26 references the Holy Spirit, the "advocate" will teach the Apostles everything and remind them of what Christ has said - it doesn't say theywill write these things down. Nor do the following verses

15.25 - this is the tale end of Jesus' bit about the Temple Priests, (18-26) they hate him (and God) because of his good works, he has incited them to wrath and damned their souls to fulfil the prophecy, because they are hateful. Perhaps you meant to reference 26? Here the disciples are called to testify because they have been with Jesus from the beginning, still there is nothing about writing.

16.13 - the Holy Spirit again - he will guide and testify to the Apostles. This still didn't stop Peter from initially disbelieving the Command of God in Act's 10, though, did it.

None of this pertains to the Gospels, which were clearly not written by the disciples themselves.

John is in many ways a counter-intuitive book, and much of the New Testament is about anti-intellectual inspiration and word of mouth, none of the Gospels are about writing. In fact, Jesus never writes anything and people bring messages to him by word of mouth. The only significant writing done is by Pilate, when he hangs a sign above Christ's head as he is Crucified.

The New Testament is about the movement of the Holy Spirit, not a written word. Indeed, the "Word" of God is not the Bible - it is YHWH - "I AM" - which is the sum totality of everything we need to know about God, and can know.

as I sated before, "Plus I garentee 100%, you cannot point out why my arguments fail that I have made against islam, as you have not even read any."

so my statement proves true. Muhammad and koran both claim to be 100%, and yes Muhammad said bible is 100% true at his time 600ad the bible we have today. But you would know that and the koranic passages they say so, because you have read all my arguments correct? lol. You are showing yourself up here. Hax has not challenged this because he knows it to be true. You here claim bible does not say jesus was the Incarnation, this is clearly false. I would be glad to show so. Are you jahovas witness? please tell me clearly what you believe so I can respond. Yet a few responses later.you say he is below.





NIV is not mine, I never made it up. i use many, what do you use may I ask?. Matt 4 and John 1 as stated are diffident times/places, this is clearly true. Or why peter,get up and follow jesus, someone he knows nothing about? The first john 1 is when andrew goes finds peter and tells him of jesus. Than later in matt 4 they become dipicles of jesus for good. It is clear from reading them in context.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...01&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+4&version=NIV



I would say not a chance, unless the disciples had no choice to follow him, they did. There is no free will as well. I say the sick gut up and walked because they were healed, the disciples followed jesus because of johns testimony john 1 and what they saw/herd from him. Otherwise jesus could tell anyone follow me and they all would, all would follow/believe in him.




What I said was john was original disciple there from beginning. You claimed otherwise. Please reference what you are referring to about john and the 11 disciples.




read first response. But your response proves you cant prove what you claim, that the bible has been corrupted.




I will ask again, you like to make claims. I wish you would back up claims please. Please provide evidence, the bible has not been acuratley translated.




14.26
but they will have perfect knowledge of all things, so when they rite them down, it is without error.


15.25
read john 20 30-31 john did testify about jesus and things he saw from the beginning. That is his gospel. But notice again, john was there from beginning.


16.13
as I said, holy spirit leads apostles to writer gospels.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
2 Timothy 3:16


you than claim somehow with ablsoulety no evidence
"None of this pertains to the Gospels, which were clearly not written by the disciples themselves."

the fact is it applies to all NT writings and all apostles writings.


so your claim the bible is untrustworthy is not backed by any evidence in or outside the bible. Nor your claims john was not written by john or that he was not one of original disciples.



you than claim amazingly.
John is in many ways a counter-intuitive book, and much of the New Testament is about anti-intellectual inspiration and word of mouth, none of the Gospels are about writing. In fact,


as I have said over and over to you, please back up with evidence. This thread is not about your baseless opinions on who wrote the gospels, but a thread on Islam. I will be starting a thread on biblical translation later [largely because of you.].

[total relism]

It would be a bigger miracle than the koran [muslim claim] but lets see if we can get on topic.



Talking Ants and Shrinking Humans:An Analysis of Muhammad’s Scientific Blunders
http://www.acts17.net/articles/talkingants.htm



James White: Muhammad's Errors about Jesus
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010...ors-about.html



Who brought revaluations to Muhammad Gabriel or the holy spirit? 2.91 16.104 26.193 53.5 is gabrial the holy spirit? Misunderstanding of luke 1.26

10 reasons Muhammad is not from god http://www.investigateislam.com/engl...x.phpHYPERLINK "http://www.investigateislam.com/english/index.phpHYPERLINK"?


Allah is all knowing yet in 18.22 he is unsure how many people are saved.


some things forbidden in Koran, like many sexual partners and liberal use of wine, are allowed in haven.


allah tells us not to sin.but created us imperfect
If allah is impersonal and does not reveal himself, than how do we know that allah reveled to Muhammad?



why would gods perfect word from haven need to be corrected? 2.110

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I shall ask for any evidence for your claims, I have asked over and over and over for evidence the bible john/revaluations has been mistranslated or messed with. You have provided none, As I claimed all evidence is that the authors wrote the books they said they did. I suggest watching these videos

Going back to Genesis - Joseph is picked up by a caravan of camels, but there were no camels in the Levant at this date.

An anachronism introduced by later writers.

End of revaluations, that is because it is the end of the bible. Last book, last written no more added [Islam,mormaism etc] none taken away. jesus last the end, as jesus said in gospels.

And here you show fundamental ignorance - Revelations is the "last" book of the Bible only because Saint Jerome put it there, and for no other reason. Prior to the formation of the Vulgate there was no commonly agreed sequence for the Books, and prior to the Council of Carthage there was much controversy surrounding the inclusion of Certain Books, including Revelations.

as I sated before, "Plus I garentee 100%, you cannot point out why my arguments fail that I have made against islam, as you have not even read any."

so my statement proves true. Muhammad and koran both claim to be 100%, and yes Muhammad said bible is 100% true at his time 600ad the bible we have today. But you would know that and the koranic passages they say so, because you have read all my arguments correct? lol. You are showing yourself up here. Hax has not challenged this because he knows it to be true.

That is because I have no interest in your views on Islam, or much interest in Islam in general. Being a Christian I do not consider the religion at all relevent unless there's a Muslim horde knocking at my gates, in which case the question become how best to kill them. Thankfully, we are largely past that now.

You here claim bible does not say jesus was the Incarnation, this is clearly false.

That is correct - it says he is the Messiah, the Son of Go, the Lamb of God, the Son of Man, nowhere does it say "He is the Incarnation of God Almighty Himself."

I would be glad to show so. Are you jahovas witness? please tell me clearly what you believe so I can respond. Yet a few responses later.you say he is below.

I said that the Bible does not say he is the Incarnation, not that he Is not.

NIV is not mine, I never made it up. i use many, what do you use may I ask?. Matt 4 and John 1 as stated are diffident times/places, this is clearly true.

There is no evidence that they are separate temporal events, or that both occurred. Matthew presents the meeting by the shore as the first time Peter and Andrew have met Jesus.

Or why peter,get up and follow jesus, someone he knows nothing about?

It's called "Divine Intervention".

The first john 1 is when andrew goes finds peter and tells him of jesus. Than later in matt 4 they become dipicles of jesus for good. It is clear from reading them in context.

Reading them in context means reading them as individual works by individuals who likely never met - the Canonical New Testament is a later invention.

I would say not a chance, unless the disciples had no choice to follow him, they did. There is no free will as well. I say the sick gut up and walked because they were healed, the disciples followed jesus because of johns testimony john 1 and what they saw/herd from him. Otherwise jesus could tell anyone follow me and they all would, all would follow/believe in him.

Give me an example of when Jesus asks someone to do something and they don't do it.

What I said was john was original disciple there from beginning. You claimed otherwise. Please reference what you are referring to about john and the 11 disciples.

Read John 21 - nowhere is the identity of the beloved disciple mentioned, it NEVER happens - read John 20 as well, there is a conscious effort not to name this disciple, but John is named. There is someone who is referred to a beloved of Jesus - and that is Lazarus, but he is not one of the 12 Apostles and so he is not counted as a disciple.

John is not the "original" disciple according to the Gospels, Peter comes first in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

I will ask again, you like to make claims. I wish you would back up claims please. Please provide evidence, the bible has not been acuratley translated.

Easy - translations differ. Jerome's translation was flawed, he uses "Inn" to translate "Upper Room", for example.

14.26
but they will have perfect knowledge of all things, so when they rite them down, it is without error.

Perfect?

Will they have perfect powers of expression? It does not say this, and in any case it does not say they will write anything down.

15.25
read john 20 30-31 john did testify about jesus and things he saw from the beginning. That is his gospel. But notice again, john was there from beginning.

It does not say that the person who wrote John saw these things - it merely says Jesus did things which are not written in John. Indeed, this is an admission that "John" is not a complete account of His life.

16.13
as I said, holy spirit leads apostles to writer gospels.

No - it leads them to testify. Others wrote that testimony down, this we know because they wrote after the Apostles died.

All Scripture is God-breathed

and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
2 Timothy 3:16

1. This refers to the Hebrew Scripture, as that was all the Scripture Paul knew.

2. It does not say the Scripture is infallible, merely that it is useful​, one use for the contradictions and mistakes in scripture is to teach that God's word cannot be accurately expressed by living men.

you than claim somehow with ablsoulety no evidence
"None of this pertains to the Gospels, which were clearly not written by the disciples themselves."

The Gospels are flawed - they cannot be the direct product of the Divine.

the fact is it applies to all NT writings and all apostles writings.

Paul was writing before the Gospels were written down, so it cannot refer to them, nor can it refer to the Epistles because Paul clearly did not see himself as a transmitter of Divine Will of a Prophet - his writings make clear that he saw himself as a fallen and flawed creature held up only by the Grace of God.

so your claim the bible is untrustworthy is not backed by any evidence in or outside the bible. Nor your claims john was not written by john or that he was not one of original disciples.

Yes it is, but you are willfully blind to it.

Some light reading to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels

you than claim amazingly.

John is in many ways a counter-intuitive book, and much of the New Testament is about anti-intellectual inspiration and word of mouth, none of the Gospels are about writing. In fact,

Jesus talks - he doesn't write.

as I have said over and over to you, please back up with evidence. This thread is not about your baseless opinions on who wrote the gospels, but a thread on Islam. I will be starting a thread on biblical translation later [largely because of you.].

I have provided exegesis and scholarly opinion on the origin of the Gospels - nobody else here is in any doubt about the evidence I have presented.

As it is said, the heretic often feels persecuted, ignores reason, sees himself as inerrant and believes only he has access to the Truth.

This is a disorder of either the mind or the soul.

[Sigurd]

This is a disorder of either the mind or the soul.

Or a professional internet troll... I fear we are being tolled.
The logic behind. "See, it says on the title page here that this is the writing of John - ERGO this is the writing of John" is just mind boggling backwards. Let's use the thing we are trying to prove as the final proof and conclusion. Ever heard of Petitio Principii?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Or a professional internet troll... I fear we are being tolled.
The logic behind. "See, it says on the title page here that this is the writing of John - ERGO this is the writing of John" is just mind boggling backwards. Let's use the thing we are trying to prove as the final proof and conclusion. Ever heard of Petitio Principii?

Maybe - but this guy is really an example of why people started burning Protestants at the stake - he just can't be reasoned with.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Or a professional internet troll... I fear we are being tolled.

At last.....they see.

[Kadagar_AV]

One step up from a bot.

Still not capable of any sort of two way communication of course, but can react to simpler phrases and refer from a pre-set list of answers.

[total relism]

Going back to Genesis - Joseph is picked up by a caravan of camels, but there were no camels in the Levant at this date.

An anachronism introduced by later writers.



And here you show fundamental ignorance - Revelations is the "last" book of the Bible only because Saint Jerome put it there, and for no other reason. Prior to the formation of the Vulgate there was no commonly agreed sequence for the Books, and prior to the Council of Carthage there was much controversy surrounding the inclusion of Certain Books, including Revelations.



That is because I have no interest in your views on Islam, or much interest in Islam in general. Being a Christian I do not consider the religion at all relevent unless there's a Muslim horde knocking at my gates, in which case the question become how best to kill them. Thankfully, we are largely past that now.



That is correct - it says he is the Messiah, the Son of Go, the Lamb of God, the Son of Man, nowhere does it say "He is the Incarnation of God Almighty Himself."


[/B]
I said that the Bible does not say he is the Incarnation, not that he Is not.



There is no evidence that they are separate temporal events, or that both occurred. Matthew presents the meeting by the shore as the first time Peter and Andrew have met Jesus.



It's called "Divine Intervention".



Reading them in context means reading them as individual works by individuals who likely never met - the Canonical New Testament is a later invention.



Give me an example of when Jesus asks someone to do something and they don't do it.



Read John 21 - nowhere is the identity of the beloved disciple mentioned, it NEVER happens - read John 20 as well, there is a conscious effort not to name this disciple, but John is named. There is someone who is referred to a beloved of Jesus - and that is Lazarus, but he is not one of the 12 Apostles and so he is not counted as a disciple.

John is not the "original" disciple according to the Gospels, Peter comes first in Matthew, Mark and Luke.



Easy - translations differ. Jerome's translation was flawed, he uses "Inn" to translate "Upper Room", for example.



Perfect?

Will they have perfect powers of expression? It does not say this, and in any case it does not say they will write anything down.



It does not say that the person who wrote John saw these things - it merely says Jesus did things which are not written in John. Indeed, this is an admission that "John" is not a complete account of His life.



No - it leads them to testify. Others wrote that testimony down, this we know because they wrote after the Apostles died.



1. This refers to the Hebrew Scripture, as that was all the Scripture Paul knew.

2. It does not say the Scripture is infallible, merely that it is useful​, one use for the contradictions and mistakes in scripture is to teach that God's word cannot be accurately expressed by living men.



The Gospels are flawed - they cannot be the direct product of the Divine.



Paul was writing before the Gospels were written down, so it cannot refer to them, nor can it refer to the Epistles because Paul clearly did not see himself as a transmitter of Divine Will of a Prophet - his writings make clear that he saw himself as a fallen and flawed creature held up only by the Grace of God.



Yes it is, but you are willfully blind to it.

Some light reading to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels

[B]

Jesus talks - he doesn't write.



I have provided exegesis and scholarly opinion on the origin of the Gospels - nobody else here is in any doubt about the evidence I have presented.

As it is said, the heretic often feels persecuted, ignores reason, sees himself as inerrant and believes only he has access to the Truth.

This is a disorder of either the mind or the soul.

How desperate can you get? I ask for evidence of you claim john was not written by john, or nt not by the apostles and you say there were no camels at the time of Abraham?. Give me evidence of lions in isreal, we know they lived there, give me evidence. You wont find it. In archaeology absence of evidence is not evidence against. But here you go anyways.


The almost unanimous opinion of Biblical scholars is that mention of domesticated camels in the Patriarchal narratives (Gn 12:16; 24:10; 30:43) constitutes an anachronism. Camels, they say, were not domesticated until late in the second millennium BC, centuries after the Patriarchs were supposed to have lived. Even the great William F. Albright, well known for his support of the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives, concluded that references to camel domestication in the book of Genesis were incorrect (1964: 153, n. 2).

Recent discoveries, however, have shown that this dismissal is unwarranted. Excavations in eastern Arabia, an area once believed to be a cultural backwater unworthy of archaeological investigation, have turned up evidence that camels were first domesticated by Semites before the time of Abraham. Much of this evidence has been examined by M. C. A. MacDonald of the Oriental Faculty at the University of Oxford and an epigraphist specializing in ancient North Arabian and Aramaic inscriptions. He wrote:

Recent research has suggested that domestication of the camel took place in southeastern Arabia some time in the third millennium [BC]. Originally, it was probably bred for its milk, hair, leather, and meat, but it cannot have been long before its usefulness as a beast of burden became apparent (1995: 1357).


for more
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...l.aspx#Article



your ignorance of bible not mine. As the books are, revaluation was last written book by any apostle, by john around 95 AD. Last in theology [future jesus second coming] It is last in everyway. I dont care were it is placed in bible [it just happens to be last were it fits.]




So you admit to lying and claiming to have read my posts, that is what I wanted to point out. Perhaps not kill, but learn there religion and discus.? such as i try to. Also if your christian why do you lie so much?.


5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen
Romans 9.5
#1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us
john 1.1,18
God[a] was manifested in the flesh,
######Justified in the Spirit,
######Seen by angels,
######Preached among the Gentiles,
######Believed on in the world,
######Received up in glory.
1 timothy 3.16
he is called Emmanuel [god with us] matt 1.23
Luke 4.2 Jesus is being tempted by the devil, 4 9-11 Jesus reply 4.12
Just a few of the passages that could be cited.




so were do you get the idea from?



There is no evidence to suggest they are the same account, and much to say they are not. You are creating this, not the bible. Read side by side its clear.




That what you call would be against the bible, as god could control people to do what he wants. But he wants all to be saved, yet many are not. Well here is just one example
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.
matt 23.37



I read them as god breathed as they claim to be, reading them side by side or together still, no contradiction you hoped for.



I have read I dont know what your argument is, john the disciple , author of the gospel of john is a original [not first] disciple, one of the twelve. As i pointed out with many passages.




and? I never said every translation ever made is 100%. I said provide evidence today's bible has been mistranslated and the original has been mistranslated. Were does it effect doctrine? as far as I am aware inn and upper room come can both be translated from same word.




but the claim is when they write down they have this knowledge. This is clear from bible.



I was referring to other john passage showing he was a original disciple.
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.




circular reasoning, with no evidence to back up at all.




1] peter refers to pauls letters as scriture, paul refers to luke as scripture.
2] God-breathed is what we were looking for, god is the author. problem being you cant show one contradiction.



By all means show evidence why.


agreed, but has nothing to do with the claims in john and others that the holy spirit led them to write down what god wanted, as paul said.

19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
1 peter 19-21

"not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
1 Corinthians 2:13

In this verse Paul says, "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."
1 Corinthians 14:37


When Paul speaks as an apostle of Jesus Christ to the churches it is "Christ that speaketh" in him (2 Cor. 13:3).

Paul did not learn his gospel at the feet of men but rather received it "through revelations of Jesus Christ," Gal. 1:12, some of which were "exceeding great" (2 Cor. 12:7).

my friend,you need to leave Jehovah witness and come to the truth.



I will respond to wiki last response below.


and?



I love this the most of all your responses so i will bold.
"I have provided exegesis and scholarly opinion on the origin of the Gospels - nobody else here is in any doubt about the evidence I have presented.
As it is said, the heretic often feels persecuted, ignores reason, sees himself as inerrant and believes only he has access to the Truth.
This is a disorder of either the mind or the soul."


So to support your claims with "scholarly opinion". You posted a wiki article. I have posted from actual 4 scholars with references that disagree with your wiki article. You claim wiki is "scholarly". can you show me in one debate on the translation of the bible, were a scholar quotes or refers to wiki? Yet you will see them refer to my quotes I posted and video references. I have asked from beginning for actual evidence of how the bible has been corrupted, you have provided nothing but your baseless opinion and baseless opinions on wiki with no evidence to support any of them. I can find you biblical scholars that say the bible talks about and saw aliens in Ezekiel, or that the bible teaches evolution. You can find liberal scholars that will claim anything you can imagine. I want evidence,not baseless claims. Do you truly believe I have not herd all the "theories" about how the gospels were written? I have watched hours of debate on subject. The problem is when you start with a worldview that demands the bible to be false, apostles to not have written books, than you must come up with some evolutionary process of how the bible was written/rewritten over time. because we know jesus was not really god, he did not really do miracles, he did not really rise from the dead. So these must be stories that grew over time, or invented to trick people into following there new religion etc etc. For example, the book of matt must have been written after 70 ad because it predicts the temple to fall, and since prophecy does not happen, we know matt was written after 70 ad. I dont care about people bias against god/divine author/bible miracles etc. I care about facts, what facts do you have the gospels were not written by the original apostles or Paul?. I highly suggest you watch some debates on the subject, with a conservative scholar there to defend the bible. As the quote I wrote before said, if these were secular documents, no one would question the authority of them, but because they talk of a man, who did miracles,claimed to be god, rose from dead, they must be imaginative written after events, not a eye witness account. If you watch my link with james white, this is why he asked Bart Ehrman [who attacks bible translation more than any] in the debate, does the bible misquote jesus, what has more evidence in all history to its authenticity than the NT, he replied nothing does.


historians have no trouble accepting :
There are two generally reliable accounts of Hannibal (247–183 BC ) crossing the Alps in 218 BC to attack Rome. Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek historian, chronicled Hannibal’s invasion at least 50 years after the actual event.7 Livy (c. 59 BC – AD 17), a Roman historian, wrote of Hannibal’s invasion about 190 years after the actual event


Another famous event in history was Julius Caesar (100–44 BC) crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC without disbanding his army.9 Suetonius (c. 69/75 – after 130), a Roman historian, wrote his historical account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon at least 110 years after the event,10 and it is considered to be generally reliable. In addition, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great, written by Arrian and Plutarch, were written over 400 years after his death.11 And these biographies are considered to be generally trustworthy.


F. F. Bruce makes the following observation: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.”

He also states, “And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt” (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 15).

[total relism]

Or a professional internet troll... I fear we are being tolled.
The logic behind. "See, it says on the title page here that this is the writing of John - ERGO this is the writing of John" is just mind boggling backwards. Let's use the thing we are trying to prove as the final proof and conclusion. Ever heard of Petitio Principii?

Great you recognized circular reasoning. You should see it clear and over and over in Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla post.

However a good historian, you begin with what the books say, eternal evidence and what other at time after agree who wrote john. Do you have any reason/evidence to reject his authorship? The NT has more support than any ancient writing by far, yet we dont doubt who wrote other books from time period. Reasons being in the last post I gave read below.



So to support your claims with "scholarly opinion". You posted a wiki article. I have posted from actual 4 scholars with references that disagree with your wiki article. You claim wiki is "scholarly". can you show me in one debate on the translation of the bible, were a scholar quotes or refers to wiki? Yet you will see them refer to my quotes I posted and video references. I have asked from beginning for actual evidence of how the bible has been corrupted, you have provided nothing but your baseless opinion and baseless opinions on wiki with no evidence to support any of them. I can find you biblical scholars that say the bible talks about and saw aliens in Ezekiel, or that the bible teaches evolution. You can find liberal scholars that will claim anything you can imagine. I want evidence,not baseless claims. Do you truly believe I have not herd all the "theories" about how the gospels were written? I have watched hours of debate on subject. The problem is when you start with a worldview that demands the bible to be false, apostles to not have written books, than you must come up with some evolutionary process of how the bible was written/rewritten over time. because we know jesus was not really god, he did not really do miracles, he did not really rise from the dead. So these must be stories that grew over time, or invented to trick people into following there new religion etc etc. For example, the book of matt must have been written after 70 ad because it predicts the temple to fall, and since prophecy does not happen, we know matt was written after 70 ad. I dont care about people bias against god/divine author/bible miracles etc. I care about facts, what facts do you have the gospels were not written by the original apostles or Paul?. I highly suggest you watch some debates on the subject, with a conservative scholar there to defend the bible. As the quote I wrote before said, if these were secular documents, no one would question the authority of them, but because they talk of a man, who did miracles,claimed to be god, rose from dead, they must be imaginative written after events, not a eye witness account. If you watch my link with james white, this is why he asked Bart Ehrman [who attacks bible translation more than any] in the debate, does the bible misquote jesus, what has more evidence in all history to its authenticity than the NT, he replied nothing does.


historians have no trouble accepting :
There are two generally reliable accounts of Hannibal (247–183 BC ) crossing the Alps in 218 BC to attack Rome. Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek historian, chronicled Hannibal’s invasion at least 50 years after the actual event.7 Livy (c. 59 BC – AD 17), a Roman historian, wrote of Hannibal’s invasion about 190 years after the actual event


Another famous event in history was Julius Caesar (100–44 BC) crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC without disbanding his army.9 Suetonius (c. 69/75 – after 130), a Roman historian, wrote his historical account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon at least 110 years after the event,10 and it is considered to be generally reliable. In addition, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great, written by Arrian and Plutarch, were written over 400 years after his death.11 And these biographies are considered to be generally trustworthy.


F. F. Bruce makes the following observation: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.”

He also states, “And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt” (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 15).

Maybe - but this guy is really an example of why people started burning Protestants at the stake - he just can't be reasoned with.

I believe i can, please tell me what you think has been shown that i should accept? what evidence has been given to support something I dont accept.

One step up from a bot.

Still not capable of any sort of two way communication of course, but can react to simpler phrases and refer from a pre-set list of answers.

especially when they only offer the above.

ad hominem
attack on person not argument

[total relism]

To get maybe back on topic

scary a bit, how Muslims view those that leave the faith, debate among Muslims.

http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5322


Ibn Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever changes his (Islamic) religion, kill him.” Al-Bukhary (number 6922)

Abd-Allah ibn Masood said: The Messenger of Allah said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, except in one of three cases: a soul (in case of murder); a married person who commits adultery; and one who leaves his religion and separates from the main body of Muslims.” Sahih Al Bukhary number 6484 and Sahih Muslim number 1676

[total relism]

New debate

Sami Zaatari vs. David Wood: The Message of Jesus and Muhammad
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Totum Realism, In Nomine Dei Patri, Filiae et Spiritus Sancti, te maledicto!*

*Total Realism, I curse you in the Name of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost!

Now - let us look at the calling of the first Disciples again.

We shall begin John:

The sequence begins at 1.35 and ends at 51 - sequence goes like this:

35. John stand with his disciples

36. John sees Jesus

37. John's disciples hear him exclaim and decide to follow IHC

38. IHC confronts them, they ask where he is staying.

39. They go with Jesus, they stay with him that afternoon.

40. One is Simon's brother, Andrew

41. He proclaims the Messiah to his brother, Simon.

42. He takes Simon to IHC and IHC declares him a rock.

43. The next day Jesus decides to go to Galilee. There he finds Philip, he tells Philip to follow him.

44. Philip is from the same city as Andre and Peter, Bethsaida.

45-51 Nathanael is called and Jesus proclaims he will do great signs.

This is clearly the callings of the first disciples, crucially, Peter and Andrew are in the city during the day, and so far as we can see they follow Jesus immediately Jesus goes to Galilee the next day and implication is that he takes Andrew and Peter with him, because he next calls Philip. The key point is that they are not already in Galilee - and if they had day jobs they have given them up.

Now, lets compare that to the (older) account in Matthew:

The relevant part is Matthew 4.12-22

12. John is arrested - IHC goes to Galilee.

13. Specifically, he settles in Capernaum

14-16. The prophecy is fulfilled.

17. IHC begins to preach (over a period of time, not just on a day).

18. Jesus sees Peter and Andrew at work (anybody who knows about lake-fishermen knows they'd have to work every day to survive, so this is clearly different to them being disciples of John. We know Peter was a disciple of John in John because like Andrew he was waiting for IHC.

19. IHC calls them to follow.

20. They immidiately do.

21. IHC sees James and John - so if John's Gospel claims "John" was there from the beginning, he is not the same John who is one of the 12.

22. They follow him also.

The differences are striking - principally, the difference is that John presents a coherent narrative, where the first two disciples come to Jesus and follow him of their own volition into Galilee whereas in Matthew Jesus flees to Galilee after John is captured by the Temple, he then begins to preach and there he finds Peter and Andrew together at work. There is not enough time for John to fit within the narrative of Matthew, because in John 2. Jesus already has his disciples with him when he goes to the Wedding, but he has not yet begun to preach, while in Matthew he has begun to preach and wander through Galilee before he calls any of his disciples.

The fact that Peter is being called to be IHC's disciple in John 1 is made very clear in the latter part of that chapter by the way Philip and then Nathanael are called - and even if you support the "two callings" argument you can't account for the discrepancy over whether Jesus already has disciples when he begins to preach.

So, one of the Gospels is wrong and John is the most likely culprit because it is later and because it presents Peter, by then the Crucified head of the Church (we know Peter is dead by the time John is written because it tells us so) as a more proactive figure who is already waiting for IHC's arrival, rather than as a passive fisherman, a simple man from a simple background called to great work.

[Kadagar_AV]

Wrote stuff.

I'm not sure that's very convincing. Care to back it up with a film title? Pretty much any DVD release will do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not sure that's very convincing. Care to back it up with a film title? Pretty much any DVD release will do.

I promise I'll get to that thread on how Norse Paganism is awesome - stop bugging me man!

[The Stranger]

blabla

passion of the christ.

(this total relism guy must be horrible if even Kadagar cant stand him :O)

[Kadagar_AV]

I promise I'll get to that thread on how Norse Paganism is awesome - stop bugging me man!

The Christian God supposedly fight evil. Odin fight frost giants.

I don't see any frost giants around.

[Fragony]

passion of the christ.

(this total relism guy must be horrible if even Kadagar cant stand him :O)

But the Swedish ski instructor is such a ball of charm

[total relism]

Totum Realism, In Nomine Dei Patri, Filiae et Spiritus Sancti, te maledicto!*

*Total Realism, I curse you in the Name of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost!

Now - let us look at the calling of the first Disciples again.

We shall begin John:

The sequence begins at 1.35 and ends at 51 - sequence goes like this:

35. John stand with his disciples

36. John sees Jesus

37. John's disciples hear him exclaim and decide to follow IHC

38. IHC confronts them, they ask where he is staying.

39. They go with Jesus, they stay with him that afternoon.

40. One is Simon's brother, Andrew

41. He proclaims the Messiah to his brother, Simon.

42. He takes Simon to IHC and IHC declares him a rock.

43. The next day Jesus decides to go to Galilee. There he finds Philip, he tells Philip to follow him.

44. Philip is from the same city as Andre and Peter, Bethsaida.

45-51 Nathanael is called and Jesus proclaims he will do great signs.

This is clearly the callings of the first disciples, crucially, Peter and Andrew are in the city during the day, and so far as we can see they follow Jesus immediately Jesus goes to Galilee the next day and implication is that he takes Andrew and Peter with him, because he next calls Philip. The key point is that they are not already in Galilee - and if they had day jobs they have given them up.

Now, lets compare that to the (older) account in Matthew:

The relevant part is Matthew 4.12-22

12. John is arrested - IHC goes to Galilee.

13. Specifically, he settles in Capernaum

14-16. The prophecy is fulfilled.

17. IHC begins to preach (over a period of time, not just on a day).

18. Jesus sees Peter and Andrew at work (anybody who knows about lake-fishermen knows they'd have to work every day to survive, so this is clearly different to them being disciples of John. We know Peter was a disciple of John in John because like Andrew he was waiting for IHC.

19. IHC calls them to follow.

20. They immidiately do.

21. IHC sees James and John - so if John's Gospel claims "John" was there from the beginning, he is not the same John who is one of the 12.

22. They follow him also.

The differences are striking - principally, the difference is that John presents a coherent narrative, where the first two disciples come to Jesus and follow him of their own volition into Galilee whereas in Matthew Jesus flees to Galilee after John is captured by the Temple, he then begins to preach and there he finds Peter and Andrew together at work. There is not enough time for John to fit within the narrative of Matthew, because in John 2. Jesus already has his disciples with him when he goes to the Wedding, but he has not yet begun to preach, while in Matthew he has begun to preach and wander through Galilee before he calls any of his disciples.

The fact that Peter is being called to be IHC's disciple in John 1 is made very clear in the latter part of that chapter by the way Philip and then Nathanael are called - and even if you support the "two callings" argument you can't account for the discrepancy over whether Jesus already has disciples when he begins to preach.

So, one of the Gospels is wrong and John is the most likely culprit because it is later and because it presents Peter, by then the Crucified head of the Church (we know Peter is dead by the time John is written because it tells us so) as a more proactive figure who is already waiting for IHC's arrival, rather than as a passive fisherman, a simple man from a simple background called to great work.

I disagree for the reasons I stated before, I shall again.
John 1
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+1&version=NIV
matt 4
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+4&version=NIV

Notice it never says peter follows jesus, just that andrew and another disciple andrew with jesus. Than andrew goes and gets peter by himself in v 41 brings him to jesus, all jesus says to peter is you will be called Cephas. It says nothing of him following jesus as a disciple,nothing of him fishing etc Plus you would have to explain why the disciples [peter] just up and followed jesus in matt when fishing, if they had no prior knowledge of him. He becomes disciple later fully in matt 4. As far as being a fisherman, he was and a disciple of Jesus the same time. Just as paul who did more than any disciple worked full time. You were not paid to follow a teacher [jesus] you had to work. The disciples worked the entire time.

Or it could just be, that they were already disciples from john 1 [I dont agree] and did not levee fishing/business until matt 4.

1. The Beginning of Christ’s Public Ministry
a. Jesus baptized in the Jordan (Mark 1:9-11, Matt 3:13-17, Luke 3:21-23)
b. Christ Tempted in the Wilderness (Mark1:12-13, Matt 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-13)
c. John the Baptist testifies of Christ (John 1:19-34)
d. Calling of the first Disciples (John 1:35-51)
e. First Miracle at Cana (John 2:1-11)
f. First cleansing of the Temple (John 2:13-22)
g. Meeting with Nicodemus (John 2:23-3:21)
h. Christ leaves Judea (Mark 1:14, Matt 4:12, John 4:1-4, Luke 3:19-20; 4:14)
i. Jesus goes to Jacob’s Well in Samaria and in Sychar (John 4:5-42)
j. Christ goes to Galilee (John 4:43-45)

2. The Galilean Ministry
a. Healing in Cana (John 4:46-54)
b. First rejection at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-31)
c. New home in Capernaum (Matt 4:13-16)
d. Christ calls four fishers of men (Mark 1:16-20, Matt 4:18-22, Luke 5:1-11)



here is a site I found that agrees with me
The reason for the disparities in these stories is not because they are contradictory (as Paul Carson alleged in his 1995 article, “New Testament Contradictions”), but because John is describing a totally separate incident from the one the synoptists describe. John places Andrew, Peter, and the unnamed disciple (who very likely was John himself; see McGarvey, n.d., p. 109) in Judea (cf. John 1:19,28), whereas the synoptists describe an event that took place in Galilee (Matthew 4:18; Mark 1:16; Luke 5:1). What’s more, the call for Peter, Andrew, James, and John to become “fishers of men” (i.e., apostles) in the synoptics is absent in John 1. As Luther noted: “John’s theme is not the calling of the apostles into office; it is there congenial association with Christ” (as quoted in Morris, 1995, p. 136). In John, “[t]he disciples of John [the Baptizer—EL] recognize the Messiah and spontaneously attach themselves to him” (Morris, p. 136). In the synoptics, the disciples clearly were called to begin a life of service as apostles (Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17; Luke 5:10). At least two other differences in these accounts are evident: (1) In John 1, Andrew is with an unnamed disciple, not Peter (whom he later finds and informs that he had “found” the Messiah), whereas in the synoptics, Peter and Andrew are called together; (2) James and John are called together in the synoptics, whereas in John 1, James is nowhere mentioned, while John is likely the unnamed disciple (John 1:37).

The skeptic’s charge that John contradicts Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ calling of the apostles is unwarranted. John actually referred to a different circumstance altogether. John records Peter and Andrew’s first meeting with the Christ. The synoptists, however, testify of a later meeting, when Jesus called them at the Sea of Galilee to become “fishers of men.” Once again, the problem is not with the Bible writers, but with the Bible critic.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...=6&article=513


here is more in depth response
http://www.answering-islam.org/Respo...les_chrono.htm


My friend, I have shown all your claims false, I wish to offer you a 1v1 debate on a topic such as we discus here. This thread is on islam. Would you be willing to debate me 1v1? what topic would you like?.

[HoreTore]

What on earth is this fascination with "1v1 debate"....?

[total relism]

What on earth is this fascination with "1v1 debate"....?

I dont now, I love them. I can focus 100% on topic of debate, and only have one person to respond to. Also it gives a clear answer to who is correct, as on forums with many posters, you often dont get to see responses right after what is said/claimed. There is nowhere to run in other words. I do so often, I can no longer get anyone on twcenter forums to debate 1v1 with me. So I need to come here or other places lol. Mosley just to keep on one topic, every atheist/liberal wants to post there internet reasons why they object to bible every time i make a thread [even on Islam] so I have to respond to much off topic. Also getting a constant poster off topic such as here, to debate 1v1. Than hopefully the thread can get back on topic.

[Kadagar_AV]

I dont now, I love them. I can focus 100% on topic of debate, and only have one person to respond to. Also it gives a clear answer to who is correct, as on forums with many posters, you often dont get to see responses right after what is said/claimed. There is nowhere to run in other words. I do so often, I can no longer get anyone on twcenter forums to debate 1v1 with me. So I need to come here or other places lol. Mosley just to keep on one topic, every atheist/liberal wants to post there internet reasons why they object to bible every time i make a thread [even on Islam] so I have to respond to much off topic. Also getting a constant poster off topic such as here, to debate 1v1. Than hopefully the thread can get back on topic.

Do you argue in the same way when you 1v1?

IE, no thinking of your own, no listening in to the other person, and a bombardment of questionable sources?

You have only been here a short while, and you have already on at least two separate occasions mixed up who you are addressing and why! This, if anything, made it completely obvious to me that you purely are interested in using these boards to get HEARD, but you have no interest what so ever to learn anything about the world or the people that inhibit it.

I for one find such a person uninteresting to debate with.

[HoreTore]

I dont now, I love them. I can focus 100% on topic of debate, and only have one person to respond to. Also it gives a clear answer to who is correct, as on forums with many posters, you often dont get to see responses right after what is said/claimed. There is nowhere to run in other words. I do so often, I can no longer get anyone on twcenter forums to debate 1v1 with me. So I need to come here or other places lol. Mosley just to keep on one topic, every atheist/liberal wants to post there internet reasons why they object to bible every time i make a thread [even on Islam] so I have to respond to much off topic. Also getting a constant poster off topic such as here, to debate 1v1. Than hopefully the thread can get back on topic.

The bolded sentence is contradictory.

In order to establish "who is correct", one cannot simply rely on two individuals. The more people you include, the closer you can get to "correct".

If you meant to say "who can post the most convincing argument", then you would be correct. But in that case, getting close to the truth is irrelevant, and it's no more than a pissing contest. While pissing contests can be fun to watch, I certainly hope this forum does not devolve into it. We need more meaningful discussions here, not measurements of the posters e-penises.

As for derailing, that's a cherished feature of this forum(see the israel-turned-viking-thread). It has its upsides and its downsides, and is really just something you need to adopt to. It will happen, learn ways to focus your attention on the topics you find interesting. It really isn't very hard.