Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
You have given no coherent reasons, so far as I can see.

Here's why I reject Islam: It denies the Divinity of Christ - I don't need any other reasons.



In John, Andrew (and then Peter) go to Jesus, in Matthew Jesus calls them to him. This is clear in even in the NIV, there is nothing in Matthew that indicates a prior meeting - and the whole point of the episode is that when Jesus call men come, because he speaks with the voice of God. This is a motif which is repeated throughout the Gospel of Matthew as well as the others, Jesus says "see" and the blind see, he says "walk" and the lame walk.



There's no evidence for this, all we know is that one Gospel records a "Beloved Disciple" and that Gospel is called "According to John", but there are lots of John's in the New Testament, and the Beloved Disciple is never named in the text, though he is apparently not one of the Twelve.


[/B]
You want evidence?

Look up oldest surviving copy of the Gospels, or Paul's letters.

The best evidence though, is theological - an inerrant Bible would be a waste of God's time, because errors would occur as soon as it was copied or read by any human being. In fact, errors would occur as soon as the first Scribe's wand touched the first leave because the scribe would be incapable of interpreting God's perfect word with his flawed intellect.



Wrong - many translations show corruption in meaning, Saint Jerome's Latin Vulgate has this in spades, as do many modern translations - the NRSV tends to neuter gendered language, while the NIV favours modern doctrinal interpretations of issues such as abortion (in the original Hebrew there is no mention of abortion - the KJV was notably relaxed about slavery and all these versions muddy issues of a sexual nature, specially those few passages on sexual misconduct - which are very vague in Greek or Hebrew, but words such as "homosexual" suddenly crop up in translation.

Want to know what the Bible says - learn Hebrew.

Can't be bothered? Then get over yourself and stop saying you have the interpretation.

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.


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. 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.



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.



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



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.


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



Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
Ehm... I think you have engaged too many debaters. The highlighted part must be someone else. I haven't mentioned any gospels in this debate yet.

You say books written by the Apostles. How sure are you that Peter wrote the letters in the NT? How about the gospel of John?
And you keep referring to an original bible, original manuscripts... The original Hebrew and the original Greek. Now.. Do you have access to the original, or know where they might be?

It would be crucial to check them for any discrepancies when a new translation is brought forth.

An example of theology not from the bible... let's see... how about trinitarianism?

Could be very true, given I have this same thread going on three forums. 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. 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.