You're wrong because you're basing your evidence off a book you believe is true, if I wrote a book and believed it's true, quoted my own evidence from it, doesn't make it true.
Firstly, the Bible is 66 Books, and the last book of the Bible - Revelation - is about future events.
If you have a diary, and write in your diary and I read what you wrote in your diary, why should I believe that what it contains is false?
Or, put it this way, Luke writes his Gospel, addresses it to Theophilus, and says he is writing it so that Theophilus can have certainty regarding the matters in it. What does that tell you his intention was when he wrote the book? Did he indeed intend to write about truth or about fiction?
Now he's the problem with your argument:
"quoted my own evidence from it". There are a multitude of things that are independently corroborated, including places, names, officials, etc; and that evidence tells me that the HISTORY of the text is therefore correct.
Now if you read what I wrote earlier you understand that historians are often the most sceptical creatures in the universe, disbelieving anything they don't have hard evidence for; so even in their critical, sceptical views, all they can say is "this isn't corroborated, there's no physical evidence here, etc"; unlike the Qur'an where historians have actually said "well this is wrong, because the town wasn't in that location" and other such evidence which proves its history is wrong.
I just don't believe the bibles of any religion are true.
And on what basis have you come to that conclusion? Let me tell you something; in the Muslim faith the entire Christian canon - Old Testament and New - is considered divinely inspired scripture along with the Qur'an.
So why is there an Islamic website that attacks both OT and NT scripture
see link? FYI there are other Islamic websites out there that rigorously condemn that site for just that reason. It would be as absurd as a Christian website attacking the Tanakh, which we believe is inspired.
On what basis do you have to come in and say
I'm wrong and that the Bible is
untrue and then claim that because I'm the one who disagrees with YOU the
burden of proof is on me?
Nah. It doesn't work like that. I don't go to you and say "show me physical proof that six million European Jews were killed in the Holocaust or I refuse to believe that's a true account". If we don't have the physical proof of an event that happened a mere 65 years ago, how do you expect to get the same level of evidence for events that happened 2,000 years ago?
There are a number of points that are definitively proven which then in turn prove that other things are also true. Now Luke-Acts is a two-volume unit from the same author to the same person (Theophilus); Luke writes as an historian until midway through Acts and then writes eyewitness accounts. The last event to occur in Acts happened in 62AD. Even if Luke wrote Acts on his deathbed in 84AD it was written within living memory of Christ; John didn't die until some 15-16 years later. Of course Luke didn't write Acts on his deathbed, his greeting clearly displays the fact that he is actively working in ministry. He would definitely have mentioned the death of Paul if it had been after that event, since Paul clearly tells us that Luke was with him in one of his final letters. Paul died c 67AD.
Now, again I will present you this evidence, and you can show me exactly how this is incorrect as you claim...
Jesus' prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem is recorded in Luke 21:20-24. Since the Gospel was written before AD70 when the event occurred it proves the prophecy was true. Now everyone who claims that the Bible is false looks at this passage and says "well that was written after AD70 and Jesus didn't really say that". There are over 6,000 copies of the Greek New Testament text. If it had been "added later" like say Mark 16:9-20 then there should be copies missing the prophecy, but there are not. So your assignment is simple. Prove to me that Luke 21:20-24 is a false prophecy.
