Religon

Okay, I'll address these individually. (Sura no. 108) "Given this, was it possible for any other than God, that eternal reality and fixed pivot of truth, to predict that matters would unfold in a sense completely opposed to existing circumstances." What do you mean that matters unfolded" completely opposed to existing circumstances"? What circumstances were there that made it unlikely that Muhammad would have children? It was actually very, VERY common for people to have children, so in what sense did this prophecy have to come from God? This prophecy seems to be predicting that something that was VERY common would happen again, unlike the Biblical prophecy of, say, Ezekiel 26:12 that predicts that something that was virtually unheard of would happen. Defeat of the Persian empire: (30:1-6) This is just predicting that "Rome" will "triumph over its enemies". This easily could have been known to man. Unlike most Biblical prophecies such as Daniel 11, this prophecy doesn't even really give a general indication of who, exactly, the Byzantines are triumphing over. Nor, unlike many/most Biblical prophecies, does it include much detail about the triumph. It could be assumed it was talking about the Persians (the Byzantines were getting their tail kicked in the north against the Slavs) but that is just an assumption. De facto, it's just prophecying that the Byzentines will triumph over SOMEBODY in SOMEWAY. To be fair, in the sense that it is super general, it was a correct prediction. But there was nothing about the prophecy that could not have been HANDILY imagined by man. Conquest of Khaybar and Mecca This prophecy was given only a year before Muhammad took Mecca. And actually, the Muslims were in an AWESOME military position at this time. At this point, (A.D. 628) Islam was actually pretty influential, and certainly militarily powerful. (To my knowlege.) To give you an idea, when Muhammad conquered Mecca a year latter, he did so with an army of 10,000 soldiers! That is Lord of the Rings, battle of Helm's Deep size, for all you that care. Furthermore, the reason the Muslims hadn't attacked Mecca yet was largly because of a temporary treaty. It is no secret that they wanted Mecca, and they would have known the treaty would expire eventually (to be fair, I don't know if it was written before or after the prophecy), and they had LORD OF THE RINGS sized armies...a military advisor or expert could definitely have predicted this occurrence I think. Contrast this with many fulfilled Biblical prophecies, such as Jeremiah 31:8, the fulfillment of which really was extraordinarily unlikely! And again, really no detail is given. This prophecy really just says, "We will take the Mosque in Mecca" which given the circumstances, was certainly likely and could have, and in fact should have, been predicted by military advisors. The Final Outcome of Abu Lahab: First of all, I'm not sure your interpretation of this is correct. Maybe there's other text, but the text you mentioned here just says he was an enemy of Islam, not that he always would resist monotheism. Other than that, it says he will die and go to the lake of fire. Most people die, so that prediction is not extraordinary. I am not aware that it has ever been verified that this individual is in the lake of fire (that takes a whole argument about whether the quran is infallible) so that doesn't seem extraordinary either. Even if your interpretation was correct, though, it is not unreasonable to guess that a person who HATED Islam at the time of the prophecy would continue to dislike monotheism. And again, there's a lack of specifics. I am running out of characters, so skipping ahead, "So if islam claims to have for told the future just as well as the Bible has, what reason is there for me to pick one religion over another?" These Islamic prophecies are super general and could have definitely been guessed by man. The Biblical prophecies are much more detailed and include correct predictions that could not have been guessed by man. This is evidenced in Ezekial 26:12, have you come up with a way man could have known this? Or can we agree that this could not have been predicted by man? Do you agree with my analysis of the previous Biblical prophecies you were wondering about? They weren't challenged this round, so I assume it's all been clarified and that we are in happy agreement as to what they mean. To the new prophecies you are investigating, Ezekiel 30:10-11: So, what evidence led you to believe Nebuchadnezzar did not conquer Egypt? To be honest, when I look at it, we really don't have enough evidence to say whether this was fulfilled or not fulfilled. Yes, we have clear record that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt. We also have clear record that Amasis II went to meet him in battle. But after that honestly there's a bit of an awkward blank space in history. I have not been able to find any evidence as to the struggle between Amasis and Nebuchadnezzar. If you have come across archeological evidence that Amasis won the struggle, PLEASE present it! The only thing I can find is that one man named Herodotus, who's credibility has been fiercely questioned I think, thought the years following the war were prosperous. But that's one account, from a source of questionable credibility. Do you have any evidence that Amasis actually won? Ezekiel 29:10-11 Again, there's an awkward blank space in history following Nebuchadnezzar's invasion. Honestly, I find this conspicuous. History is told by the victors, no? Amasis was, really, a new pharaoh who used to be a rebel, and was in an extremely tricky political situation. If he had won against the Great Nebuchadnezzar, I would think that he would have made a big deal about it. Whereas if Nebuchadnezzar won, meh. Another great nation defeated! I've heard a pretty good theory that actually Nebuchadnezzar conquered Egypt, committed genocide, but that the topic became somewhat of a taboo. "No longer will the people of Israel have malicious neighbors...." I do believe this took place shortly after the prophecy under the reign of Cyrus. Again, it does not say there will peace FOREVER (in fact, if you happen to study end time prophecy, that is not true unless we're talking about Israel waaaaaaay off in the future, which it might be.) What makes you think this prophecy is saying Israel's neighbors should be peaceful today? (Your explanation might be totally reasonable.) Exodus 23: 20-33: This isn't actually a prophecy. It says in verse 22, "If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose all who oppose you." This passage is, it seems to me, more of God saying what He will do if he Israelites obey Him. Yes, if the Israelites had done everything God said, you are right that we should have seen all these things taken place. But the Israelites did not do everything He said, which is why they wandered for I think forty years in the desert. "The waters just simply never dried up" Actually they do. There's a lot of instances of this happening, but one of them is the Aral Sea. Here are three verses that I find it unlikely/borderline impossible that man could have predicted of his own knowledge, Ezekial 26:12:, Jeremiah 31:8, and Isaiah 44:28. Does it seem probable that man could have predicted any of these out of their own knowledge? I am running out of characters now :( We have good reason to think the Bible is from God, such as the aforementioned verses. Not so with the Quran. Which of Nye's evidence did you find convincing? I can go through my problems with it if you found it all convincing in the next part. But generally, the logic was bad and it used a TON of faulty assumptions. Actually, most scientists agree Earth was once a "waterworld". I think that was the flood, evolutionists think it was just what early earth looked like. I might be able to elaborate in the next round if you differ here. Thanks!