evidence for religion

The 1st thing my opponent says regarding the bible being translated and translated back I already said, the Jewish Torah is in the original Hebrew not translated back and forth. Next my opponent says that in the book of Isaiah slight discrepancies have been found between old versions and current ones. Regarding this a common mistake has been made. I just looked back and I thank god for guiding me, I quote myself from the previous round "My challenge to his proof is as follows: There are translated/revised versions of the bible and there is also an original unadulterated Torah which preserves the original text. " The term Torah does not refer to the original testament in its entirety, rather specifically to the 5 books of mosses. I quote Wikipedia : The name Torah also known as the Pentateuch penta- [five] [1] refers to the Five Books of Moses [2] the entirety of Judaism's founding legal and ethical religious texts. [3][4] A "Sefer Torah ("book of Torah") or Torah scroll is a copy of the Torah written on parchment in a formal, traditional manner by a specially trained scribe under strict requirements. The Torah (Hebrew Bible) is the first of three parts of the Tanah, The example you gave was not from one of the 5 books of mosses. My opponent next goes on to say how the Old Testament cannot be the word of god as it has immoral language. 1st and of foremost importance for this debate is, that this is totally 100% irrelevant. Once you mentioned it though I suggest you get a different translation, as I have both the original Hebrew and multiple translations and they do not say what you did. I would continue but for a few reasons, one of which being that it is irrelevant, this is all for now on this topic. "Regarding the uniqueness of not having contradictions, recall I put forth the concept of time challenge which my opponent did not touch. I presume he agrees with my point that time is changing things and it is hard to keep up with it. Surely you can write a book without contradictions, but it depends on the style of the book. If you write a poem, it is metaphorical and free from contradictions in whatever context you put it in. I am dealing with a book like the Qur'an. It is not a poem, but a set of moral guidelines, teachings of wisdom, and so on. For such a book to never be changed, and not even have a single contradiction, proves something about its special origin" It seems my opponent did not respond to my response in the previous round so I will repeat them: In my experience I have seen a great many attempts at using contradictions in scriptural writings to disprove. The problem with this method is they are almost always answerable it's pointless to show "contradictions" in the Quran as even I can probably answer most of them up or explain them away. Therefore I proposed the following solution; you provide a contradiction in the Torah and if I can't ans. I have to bring a contradiction to the Quran. Until this is done I maintain there is not much evidence in it "having no contradictions", as it is not unique. Regarding what my opponent says about me not challenging "time challenge", (aside from not being to the point he is making), is clearly false. I quote myself from the beginning of R2:" You state The Koran is the only preserved religious book. I ask you to prove this, specifically with regard to the original version of the bibl in Hebrew. In addition I seem to remember that at one point there were 7 versions of the Quran until one powerful person decided one was accurate and had the others destroyed, please correct me if I'm wrong about this. I challenge you to bring evidence that the Koran has remained unchanged. To do this you would need to have the original/1st Koran ever written. " Furthermore I should point out I find this evidence quite weak unless it can be shown that many other texts that have been attempted to be preserved have not been properly preserved. Furthermore I do have a problem with almost all the evidence provided so far. It is for the most part practically imposable to verify, the mathematical thing I asked for a source no response am I supposed to just take your word for it or count it myself? No contradictions: how can I verify that? Perfectly preserved: how can I verify that I don't say they are totally invalid but I consider it a major weakness that all the evidence is practically unverifiable. I ask my opponent to keep this in mind and present more verifiable evidence. (While I am at it I remind my opponent that he said in the comment section that he would explain the significance of the numbers it seems this was left out. ) I now move on to my opponent's argument section: "For people in desert lands to produce such an extraordinary book would have required them to be supernatural, which they were not. " What do desert lands have to do with anything? As I am sure you know the Arabs at some points in history were very advanced in mathematics, and literature, medicine ect. "Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was illiterate and could never have managed to write as much as a chapter of the Qur'an with his own hands, let alone write all of it during his life and always be at risk of getting oppressed and killed. " 1st of all no evidence for his illiterateness has been given. 2nd even if he was, it would not be too difficult to get a scribe to write it for him. "His situations in life made it impossible for him to produce the Qur'an. " Please elaborate. "Why would he risk his life forever if he knew that he authored a book claiming to be from God? " Please explain how he risked his life. Regarding the 2nd half the answer is quite simple fame and power. Many many people risk their lives for such reasons. Dare devils, some soldiers, kings, dictators, the starters of religions such as Christianity, ect. In c2 my opponent brings evidence from the Old Testament. Again I bring up the problem of using verses as evidence as they are too open to interpretation. If the verse would say it clearly, fine, but as I will show, it does not. I am not saying the verse can't theoretically be interpreted as my opponent does; all I'm saying is that it isn't necessary so, invalidating it as evidence. The verse states "from amongst their brethren" which would imply a Hebrew. The source you quote says Mohammad was considered "brethren" because he descended from Ishmael, Isaac's brother. Very weak. The link says it can't be referring to an Israelite because of another verse that says there will be no other prophet in Israel as great as mosses, as mosses was the only one to speak "face to face" with the lord. The fallacy with this is that in the 1st verse all it says is that god told mosses I will set up a prophet from amongst their brothers just as you are. It does not say that the prophet will be as great as mosses, it says, he will be a prophet as mosses is, another way of reading it could be he will be he will be from amongst their brethren as you are. Or it could be a combination of both; he will be a prophet from amongst their brethren as you are. So the verse it would seem to me does not exclude jew nor imply Mohammad. Rather it seems more probable that it is referring to one of the Jewish prophets. My opponent goes on to compare the similarities between Mohamed and mosses against the similarities between Jesus and mosses. This as I stated before is really not so relevant as the verse does not say he will be a similar person to mosses rather it just says he will be a prophet as mosses is or an Israelite as mosses is or both. (And regarding that Mohamed is more similar to mosses. 1st I point out you left out a major similarity that Jesus had that Mohamed didn't, that being Jesus was a Jew. Further more you left out all the Jewish prophets mentioned in the Old Testament. ).