Is Islam true?.

[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.].