Is Islam true?.

[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.