evidence for religion

"Do we agree that when the Jewish temple of Herod was destroyed in the year 70 AD, several scriptures in their original language were lost?" Just because some were lost doesn't mean they were all lost. "Read [Jeremiah 8:8]." Here we come interpretation of verses again, this verse as many others are is extremely vague and open to interpretation, technically you might be able to understand the verse to say what you did but it is by no means the only interpretation. For example it's not clear who is the speaker and who is being spoken to. You can understand it that the prophet is talking to the evil ones or that the evil ones are talking to the prophet. Neither of these supports your claim. Regarding the 2nd paragraph, I asked regarding the torah, and my opponent brought evidence from the Hebrew bible, but that's not what I asked for. My opponent did not seem to understand why the torahs divine origin is not relevant. The reason is because we are debating whether unchanged text is unique, regardless of whether it's divine or not, no books according to you remain preserved. Regarding the translation "notice that I did not use my own translation, but the translation made by people who understand the text. I don't see where there is a mistranslation anyway." Quite perplexing as my opponent did not actually provide a translation rather an incorrect accusation. My opponent accuses of "" Perhaps he means song of songs 8:1 were it mentions a child nursing from his mothers breasts. Grow up. This is complete lack of conduct to outright lie accusing the scriptures of immorality. Why didn't he quote the verses verbatim because it doesn't say the disgusting things he says they do over there. New International Version (ï¿½1984) If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother's breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me. New International Version (ï¿½1984) I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house--she who has taught me. I would give you spiced wine to drink, the nectar of my pomegranates. Reagarding Mohamed's illiteracy I don't find the evidence convincing at all, and as I pointed out he could have hired a scribe. Regarding the fact that he "had no reason to Wright the book" I already explained in the previous round; power and fame. (Or it's possible that he really believed that he was a prophet and all the rest but just because he believed it doesn't mean it's true. Insane asylums are full of people like that.). Moving on to your argument section: My opponent brings proof from Jeremiah as before I consider this evidence invalid as it is based on a vague verse. It could just as easily be referring to Jesus or a messiah who has not yet come. My opponent doesn't understand why I say that brethren probably don't refer to Mohamed. The reason is simple he isn't even 4th cousins with these Hebrew how could he be called brethren just bec. they had a common great great ect. Grandfather if so everyone could be called brethren if they all descended from Noah. To call Mohamed brethren of the Jews is a big stretch. Regarding my opponent's next point I suggest he reread his link and what I wrote, as I showed that the verse does not exclude an Israelite, my opponent quotes me as saying the opposite. Next my opponent brings evidence from psalms. If anything this verse seems to go against my opponent, I quote pieces of his translation: "He will rule from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the Earth… All kings will bow down to him and all nations will serve him…" Sounds like he will rule the whole world not just a lot. This I don't think was done which means the verse is probably referring to a messiah who has not yet come. Lastly regarding the scientific stuff my opponent wrote nothing rather simply put up a link. I will respond anyway. regarding universe" a plain simple reading of the verse is the understanding of astronomy at that time (ie. sun and moon revolve around the earth.), which science has rejected. The link goes on to interpret the verse fitting with modern science. That's not what the verse says. Next regarding "human". That verse is taken strait out of the bibl genesis 2:7. Next regarding "earth": Anyone can see that clouds bring rain, and wind moves clouds. regarding the last one its similar to the 1st. summary: 1)preservation and no contradiction: My opponent has yet to show that this is so miraculous. 2)mathematical structure of Koran: 3)from old testament: All arguments have been refuted 1 by 1. 4)science: just refuted see above.