Do you mean Makkah (Mecca) before the Islamic era?. Before Islam came the people of Mecca were not Christians, but Pagans.
In Shaa Allah (God willing) I will try to share some information. But I need time.
Hi, I'm new to this forum and wonder if folks in here could help me out. I would appreciate it if members could provide some information about Mecca from prior to the Christian era, like the kind of historical and archaeological information we have for ancient Arabian towns like Yemen, Madā'in Sālih and Dedan.
Like the kind of information we find on sites like "Ancient Towns in Saudi Arabia" from Wikipedia.
Thanks very much.
Muslim Woman liked this post
Do you mean Makkah (Mecca) before the Islamic era?. Before Islam came the people of Mecca were not Christians, but Pagans.
In Shaa Allah (God willing) I will try to share some information. But I need time.
Muslim Woman liked this post
Not so much right before Islam, but evidence of Mecca from before the 3rd or 4th century AD or so. From a few centuries before Islam. Like the evidence we have for other ancient towns in Saudi Arabia.format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
Do you mean Makkah (Mecca) before the Islamic era?. Before Islam came the people of Mecca were not Christians, but Pagans.
In Shaa Allah (God willing) I will try to share some information. But I need time.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_towns_in_Saudi_Arabia
I found an interesting video about archaeological treasures that found in Saudi Arabia area, but kept in a museum in Barcelona.
Even copy and pasting the video URL I wasn't able to see the video. But if it regards "archaeological treasures" of Arabia in general, there is no shortage of evidence of ancient towns in Saudi Arabia.format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
I am seeking specifically historical and archaeological evidence of Mecca from before the 3rd or 4th century AD or so.
The link in your post took some time before the video appeared. In the meantime I was able to see the video the second time I copied and pasted the link, but that video regards some Arabian artifacts in general. I was looking for that kind of evidence for Mecca. Like we have for ancient Arabian towns.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mada%27in_Saleh
Greetings Johnathan,
You might want to look up under Bakkah. It also refers to Makkah, though perhaps more specifically to the area near the Kaabah. It is referred to in the Qur'an, and also in the Old Testament.
(smile) Anyway, welcome to this Forum. May God Bless you.
Thank you MuslimInshallah and may God bless you too!format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimInshallah
I notice some on the Internet trying to relate the Arabic word "Bakkah" with the ancient Hebrew word "Baca". However in a word search at Blue Letter Bible.com I find Baca is only used 1 time, and in Psalms 84:
Psa 84:6 Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools. 7 They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.
The passage regards Old Testament Jews passing through a valley while on pilgrimage to appear before God "in Zion". So that would be Jews from around the Holy Land on pilgrimage to appear before God at the temple that He had them build on the temple mount in Jerusalem.
were Jews called 'Jews' back then?format_quote Originally Posted by Johnathan
Did Enoch, Noah, Solomon etc. identify themselves as 'Jewish'?
Also was the 'holy land' divided as it is modern times?
Do the modern day Jews have any relations to the original Israelite?
The only purely Semitic population in the world is in Yemen, do you consider Yemenites to be Zionist Jews?
All the best,
Hello again Johnathan,format_quote Originally Posted by Johnathan
(smile) It's not just on the internet. Muslims acknowledge the common roots between the ancient peoples of this area. Though Hebrew and Arabic use different letters, the languages are very close.
Yes, this passage you have referred to in the Bible has been noted by Muslim scholars. From what I have read, they generally feel that this is the same Mekkah/Bekkah (both variants are valid) as mentioned in the Qur'an.
This link talks about it a little. Here is the most pertinent part:
Allah has appointed the Ka`bah to be the dedicated place for the pilgrimage (Hajj), which is one of the five pillars of Islam.
Allah says: “Pilgrimage thereto is a duty people owe to Allah, those who can afford the journey” [Sûrah aal-Imraan: 97].
We know that the Ka`bah was the first House built on Earth for the worship of Allah, since we read in the Qur’ân: “The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka: full of blessing and of guidance for all the worlds” [Sûrah aal-Imraan: 96]
Bakka is an older name for Mecca.
However, the first builder of Ka`bah and its date of construction is a matter of considerable disagreement.
http://en.islamtoday.net/quesshow-15-744.htm
(smile) Muslims believe that Abraham (Ibrahim) had two sons: Isaac (Ishaaq) and Ishmael (Ismail). Ishmael, along with his father, built the Kaaba in Mecca/Becca. It is therefore not unlikely that the descendants of Isaac would have been aware of this valley. Hence it's mention in the Old Testament.
(smile) If you are looking for archeological evidence of the town around the Kaaba, I'm afraid that I'm not an archeologist, and I don't know much about this field. But I hope this little bit helps you.
Thank you for your blessings. May God, the Creator, Help you in your quest for deeper knowledge.
Last edited by Insaanah; 03-10-2015 at 09:03 PM. Reason: Corrected reference for ayaat. Previously stated Surah al Baqarah, correct Surah is Aal Imraan
They were the seed of Abraham, through Isaac, and then his son Jacob who God renamed Israel. The seed of Israel were called Israelites.format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
According to scripture God made the everlasting land covenant with the seed of Abraham's son Isaac.format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
Different sections of the Holy Land were occupied by different tribes of Israel.
biblestudy.org/maps/division-of-promised-land-to-twelve-tribes-israel.html
Certainly they believe they are. Just did a quick google and it would seem DNA genetic testing would confirm it.format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
igenea.com/en/jews
I don't know about Yemeni Jews, but the majority of Jews around the world support the democracy of the Israeli Jewish State.format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
your narrative has nothing to do with reality and isn't Biblicaly nor historically sound besides has much extra verbiage on the side which has nothing to do with the topic which you yourself startedformat_quote Originally Posted by Johnathan
If one researches the Ancient Hebrew laws, the right of decent or
inheritance is based on the eldest son, no matter whom the mother is. If
this is the case, then the land was promised to Ishamel (for he was the
eldest of Abraham's sons) and the Father of Palestinian Arabs. In addition,
modern day Jews from Russia, Poland and most parts of Eastern Europe have NO
genetic link to the ancient Hebrews - they for the most part are decendents
of Khazars, who converted to Judaism in the 7th century (this has been
documented by Jewish scholars, not Arabs). The modern day Palestinians can
claim a more direct link to the Hebrew tribes than the founders of modern day
"Israel." What the Western Press purposely avoids mentioning is the fact
that at the start of the 20th century, less than 5% of the land of Palestine
was Jewish. The modern State of Israel was built on lands illegally taken and
assimilated from Palestinian Christians and Muslims. Also, the Hebrews only
ruled the land of Palestine for a combined 411 years - the Muslims have ruled
the land for 1,500 years. In addition, the land of Canaan (Palestine) had a
history long before the Jewish tribes immigrated to the area..
not sure what 'democracy' has to do with any of this or the 'Jewish State' but I suppose even cannibals can democratically decide to eat sovereign nations
best,
Last edited by جوري; 02-28-2015 at 05:32 PM.
But as you can see, the passage itself says the pilgrimage was to appear before God in Zion. So the very pilgrimage you are suggesting is about Mecca, is about Zion. Mt. Zion is the easternmost hill in Jerusalem, and Zion is used as a synonym for Israel.format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimInshallah
Nor is this just about a name comparison between the ancient Hebrew and the 7th century Arabic.
To suggest that the valley those pilgrims in Psalms 84 passed through was in Mecca, would require that those Old Testament saints turned their backs on the temple that God had them build on the temple mount in Jerusalem, to wander across 1237 kilometers of harsh, barren, undeveloped desert, to pass through a valley in Mecca,on their way to wander the 1237 kilometers back up to Jerusalem to the appear before God at their temple in Zion.
That raises even more questions. Let's start with, why would Abraham abandon his wife Sarah and son Isaac at his home in Hebron, to wander across 1200 kilometers of harsh, barren, undeveloped desert, with his wife Sarah's bondservant Hagar and her son Ishmael?format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimInshallah
I didn't expect anyone in this forum to be an archaeologist. I was just hoping someone could direct me to historical and archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca existed prior to the Christian era. According to what you are suggesting there should be at least a couple thousand years worth of evidence of Mecca from before the 3rd or 4th century AD.format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimInshallah
For example the archaeological record ever increasingly demonstrates the scriptures to be a reliable record of ancient history. Simply web search something like - archaeology confirms bible
Just recently, for instance, they even found what is likely King David's Palace:
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/palace-king-david.html
I was hoping someone in here could share some of the same kind of evidence regarding Mecca.
format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimInshallah
Who had the covenant? Ishmael or Isaac?
The story of Abraham, Ishmael and Hagar (May the mercy and blessings of Allah be on them all) is found in the Bible, much skewed and corrupted from the pure Islamic version. The reason this is so is because the book of Genesis, undoubtedly written by some Jewish Rabbi of the past would certainly be biased in his understanding of history between the two forefathers. There would be in him, whoever he was, the desire to paint his own ancestry, that is the seed of Isaac, in the brightest of colors, whereby either purposely or inadvertently condemning the rival (I.e. Ishmael) as the negative end of the spectrum. In other words, a Jew most certainly wrote Genesis, so Isaac, the father of the Jews and Abraham’s son, is presented in this blessed light, and Ishmael, the father of the Arabs is whereby presented in somewhat dark euphemisms, and foisted on him is the subtle racism and condescending attitude of the author.
This being said, it is evident that my own assumptions are true, because of the many gaps and inconsistencies which are clues left to us by the True and Almighty God in the Biblical account, which point us in the direction of the truth (I.E. of the Islamic version.)
1. Abraham (saas) was told by God that a Great Nation would come from him. (Genesis 12:2-3)
2. Sarah, Abraham’s wife doesn’t bear children at first. (Genesis 16:1)
3. Sarah whereby allowed Abraham to MARRY Hagar (Genesis 16:3) -This defeats the evangelical claim that Ishmael was illegitamite. Hagar conceives Ishmael. (genesis 16:4)
4. Later Sarah has Isaac. (Genesis 21:2)
So far so good. The story here is quite clear. A Prophecy for a great nation was said to come from Abraham. After Sarah seemingly cannot conceive, Hagar becomes Abraham’s second wife and conceives Ishmael. Later Sarah actually does conceive and has Isaac.
Biblical points which hold true to the Islamic perception of Ishmael and the pure lineage of Muhammad (saas):
1. Ishmael was Abraham’s first son. (Genesis 16:4)
2. God said that Hagar’s seed would be multiplied exceedingly. (Genesis 16:10)
3. God said Ishmael was blessed! (Genesis 17:20)
4. Ishmael is clearly called ‘Abraham’s seed’ by God. (Genesis 21:13)
4. God repeats His promise to make Ishmael a great nation FIVE TIMES! (Genesis 15:4) (Genesis 16:10) (Genesis 17:20) (Genesis 21:13) (Genesis 21:18)
From here the Islamic version and the Biblical account part ways. The Muslim holds that it was in fact Ishmael who had the covenant and not Isaac, whereas the bible states the opposite. The Muslim holds that it was Ishmael who was to be sacrificed and not Isaac, and again, the Bible states the opposite. The Muslim version states that both Isaac and Ishmael were pure blameless children of Abraham, both revered, whereas in the Biblical account, Isaac is revered and Ishmael is seen as a mean-spirited outcast. Let us review the shameful and undoubtedly corrupted view of Ishmael in the Bible:
1. Ishmael is called a ‘wild donkey of a man’: (Genesis 16:12)
2. Ishmael and his descendants are going to be known as troublemakers (Genesis 16:12)
3. Ishmael is considered illegitamite (This is a Christian claim which no Bible verse supports.)
4. Ishmael makes fun of Isaac and teases him: (Genesis 21:9)
5. Ishmael and his mother are cast out from Abrahams’ family (Genesis 21:10)
Now let us lay these preposterous and slanderous claims to rest.
Ishmael a wild donkey of a man?
This is where it becomes evident that the prejudice of the author seeps through. The Christian must remember that the Islamic view of the Bible is that it is corrupted, and history attests this, especially that of the Old Testament. God himself attests this in the Old Testament, saying, "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.” (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8) -So it is admitted within the Bible itself, that the Old Testament is corrupted. No independent scholar accepts the preposterous view that the first 5 books of the Bible were written by Moses as evangelicals claim. This indeed would be quite impossible because otherwise Moses refers to himself in the third person and even writes about his own death and the month that follows it.
Therefore, if the Islamic view of the Bible is that it is corrupted (Not wrong, but not always right either) then it is very well possible, from this viewpoint that the entire story of Ishmael and Isaac is skewed, handled malisciously from the pen of some overzealous rabbi who could not ignore fully his own prejudice and wishes, but yet also could not ignore fully the facts of history, being that both Ishmael and Isaac were blessed, revered and of highly esteemed moral character. Starting from this point we can see through the authors slanders and see to the truth, and that is that this particular verse, that is the verse of Ishmael being a ‘wild donkey’ of a man is an overly obvious forgery, and opinion of whoever the mildly racist author of this book is. –And his intent is quite clear. He wants to prove that the lineage of the Jews is pure, and that no non-jew could ever partake in the pure lineage of Abraham. This is undoubtedly the authors intention, because he goes to great lengths to ‘prove’ it. Consider the ‘all-to-convenient’ verbiage of Sarah as interjected by the author: “Wherefore she said to Abraham, ‘Cast out this bondwoman and her son: For the son of a bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.’” (21:10).
As to the authors intention to show that the blood and lineage of the Jewish people is untainted, consider the fact that according to the Bible, Abraham and Sarah were brother and Sister! (Genesis 20:12.) This same author is the one who insulted the Prophet Lot by saying he had an incestuous drunken relationship with his two daughters, (Genesis 19:36) And Jacob was married to two sisters at the same time: (Genesis 29:28). The intention is clear, that the author of Genesis is either a pervert obsessed with incest, or he slanders honorable prophets with false stories of Incest in order to show that the blood of Isaac and his descendants (The Jews) is pure. It is for this reason the author feels the need to slander Ishmael and foist on him the false story of being ‘cast out’ of the family of Abraham. –It is also clearly, based on the evidence, a big lie. Ishmael was not a wild donkey of a man, but the author of Genesis sure was!
Ishmael and his descendants will ‘be against all men?’
The Bible says of Ishmael: “…his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” (Genesis 16:12)
In recent times this is probably the most oft-repeated verse against Ishmael and the Muslims used by Christians to prove a plethora of points. All one needs to do is point to the news to see that seemingly Ishmael’s seed truly is ‘against all men’ and ‘all men are against him.’ It is, to them, proof positive that the Bible is the word of God.
But there is a problem with this theory, and that is quite simply that only recently could this be applied. It wasn’t until the decline of the Ottomon Empire in the 1700’s that the Islamic world experienced a regression leading to a downward spiral of corruption, hopelessness, and violence.
One need not point out the fact that the oldest and indeed one of the first colleges on earth was founded by Muslims and is still on the earth today (Al-Azhar.) It is evident that whilst Europe was sunk in the dark ages, the civilized Muslims revived the learning of Aristotle and Plato, who otherwise would have been forgotten. There was a time when Baghdad, for example, was called, ‘The greatest city on earth.’ -And this title was given it by European scholars. Was it because the Arabs of Baghdad were mindless killers against all men? Of course not! It was because they were civilized learners who enjoyed a thriving economy! In fact, it was the Muslims who saved the Christians in their lands from the conquests of invaders, and it was the Turkish Muslims who later protected the Jews who fled persecution from Spain. Was it not the Muslim Salahaddin who granted all Christians in Jerusalem amnesty despite that fact that when Muslims were run out of Jerusalem years earlier the Christians boiled Muslim children alive in pots?
So there is well over a thousand years of the Muslim empire (now known as the Golden age of Islam) in which this whimsical sentence in the Bible was utterly false, and any attempt to apply it to Muslims would be deemed laughable by even the Christians! So what is more logical? To say this verse is true, when it has only been true for the past 100 years at best, which represents not even a glimmer in the existence of Islam, or to say that this is the interjection of some ancient Jew who had, as seen above, his own wicked intentions?
Ishmael is considered illegitimite?
This one I really don’t get. The Bible clearly states that Hagar and Abraham were married. (Genesis 16:3) Abraham is also spoken of in highly respected terms in the Bible? How is it that this highly respected Prophet had a child with a woman whom he was married to, and by the logic of some evangelicals this = illigetamite?
Of course not! So how can this be deemed an instance with which to judge Ishmael and say he was therefore excluded from the covenant? Based on what we have seen so far, we need not even address the last two biblical accounts of Ishmael teasing Isaac and whereby being cast out, as this is another obvious forgery by the baised author, whoever he was.
The Bible Had Ishmael and Isaac Confused!
The most common question to be asked by the Christian then is, how can the Muslims believe that Ishmael was to be sacrificed and not Isaac, and that Ishmael got the covenant, when the Bible clearly states otherwise? Well, not to beat a dead horse, but the Muslim view of the Bible is that it is corrupted. So automatically, any story which contradicts Islamic teachings we view with skepticism. As seen already, the author of Genesis, where we find the account of Ishmael and Isaac, is also extremely baised. These facts alone are a red flag to the logical thinkers that just to accept this story as 100% authentic as it is presented in the Bible would be a great error.
With that being said, let us examine the story in the Bible again, and show that the author made some grave errors in his writing which proves that Ishmael and Isaac were confused:
The Bible states that Abraham was 99 years old when Ishmael was circumcised. Ishmael was 13 at the time. (Genesis 17:24-27)
Exactly one year later Isaac is born. (Genesis 21:4-5) So if Abraham was 99 when Ishmael was circumcised a year earlier, that would mean when Isaac is born, he is 100 years old, and Ishmael is 14.
Then comes the story of the sacrifice in the Bible: In Genesis 22, God tells Abraham to take ‘Thine ONLY son Isaac…’ -WHAT? Ishmael is 14 at the time? Why does the Bible refer to Isaac as Abrahams ONLY son? Many Christians will say that this is because God here is making it clear that Isaac is the only heir to the covenant, and that is why God refers to Isaac as ‘The ONLY son..’ but God clearly calls Ishmael the seed of Abraham according to Genesis 21:13, so such conclusions are impossible. The only conclusion is that the author of Genesis had Ishmael and Isaac confused.
Consider when Ishmael is cast out with Hagar into the desert in Genesis 21. What are the descriptions of Ishmael? Pay close attention to the following descriptions:
A. Ishmael is tucked under shrubs (Genesis 21:15)
B. He is called a ‘lad’ (Genesis 21:18, 20)
C. Hagar holds Ishmael in ONE HAND (Genesis 21:18)
Clearly the author is referring to an infant. But Ishmael is 14 at the time, how would he be tucked under shrubs and held in one hand of a weak woman who was dying of thirst? Why is he called a lad? Would this not more aptly apply to the infant Isaac who was only a year old and not to Ishmael who is a teenager?
I didn't get that your questions had much to do with the topic of the thread either.format_quote Originally Posted by جوريyour narrative has nothing to do with reality and isn't Biblicaly nor historically sound besides has much extra verbiage on the side which has nothing to do with the topic which you yourself started
I requested that forum members direct me to historical and archaeological evidence that suggests Mecca existed prior to the Christian era.
A forum member suggested that Psalms 84 was about a pilgrimage to Mecca, but as you can see it is a non-starter, both because the passage itself says it was to Zion, as well as the geographical unworkability of such a suggestion. I was replying to their reply, and you were replying to my reply to their reply.
But let's stick with the thread topic. Could you please direct me to any evidence that suggests that Mecca existed prior to about the 3rd or 4th century AD, like the evidence we have of ancient Arabian towns, both to the north and south of Mecca? Or like the historical and archaeological evidence we have for ancient Jerusalem.
There you go
http://vb.tafsir.net/tafsir18585/
can't help if your English sources are lacking..
most 'historical things' are written in retrospect, when was the printing press invented for 'historical books' to be that far back in circulation?
Obviously given the two above posts you can see why most people don't put much stock in the 'bible' as a historical book, given that we don't know who authored it. You've a middle eastern 'God' 'Jesus' and whomever preceded him being written about by western scholars - much is lost in the translation. If you can read the Arabic or get someone to translate it to you, you'd probably have a better understanding of the region.
All the best,
Post #5 in that thread, confirmed the verse I posted, with: "every one of them in Zion appeareth before God".format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
I notice several Islamic "scholars" (Deedat, Naik, Estes, etc.) leave the verse out of the passage that gives the location pin, perhaps banking on their followers not looking the passage up. No shortage of YouTube videos do that too. Here is how it is frequently quoted as they try to make the claim that Baca is Mecca:
"They pass through the Valley of Baca, regarding it as a place of springs, as if the early rain had covered it with blessing..... Better one day in Your courts than a thousand [anywhere else]; I would rather stand at the threshold of God's house than dwell in the tents of the wicked."
They censor out the location of the pilgrimage being "before God in Zion" and replace that and the next two verses with "....." instead. Would you call that being honest?
Yet out of the hundreds of millions of sites on the internet, and no shortage of them proselytizing for Islam and even operated by Islamic scholars, doesn't it seem a bit peculiar that the best you could do for evidence was present a site that repeated the Psalms 84 claim, that is debunked by the passage itself? This even in light of some Muslims suggesting that Mecca was supposed to have predated all other towns on earth?
Consider that in light of the wealth of evidence we have for ancient Arabian towns like Mada'in Saleh:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mada%27in_Saleh
The printing press wasn't invented until the 15th century! Before that time scribes made copies. Sometimes on papyrus and some even on animal skins.format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
The dead sea scrolls that were found at Qumran are dated before the Christian era. Let alone that we have over 5300 partial or complete copies of the Gospel, penned in many languages, from prior to 300 AD.
Archaeology isn't all that confirms the scriptures. About 1/4 of the Bible is prophecy, and much of that has been fulfilled. Additionally, the Old Testament accounts of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael that are make perfect geographical sense. Abraham's home in Hebron is just below Jerusalem, and the wilderness of Beersheba where Hagar wandered with Ishmael, is just below Hebron.format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
Yet the counter-scriptural suggestion, that Abraham and Ishmael traveled 1200 kilometers to Mecca, is essentially a demograhpical and geographical impossibility. Particularly considering that the trade route along the Red Sea wasn't established until over a thousand years after Abraham roamed the earth.
The google translator did a good job. That site didn't offer any historical or archaeological evidence of a pre-4th century AD Mecca, that I spotted in a quick scan of it.format_quote Originally Posted by جوري
Glad you said that, hopefully that will take care of the Jewish argument that Jews were in the region at all to cry about what the Muslims allegedly did to Banu Quryzah or banu qyanaqa3..format_quote Originally Posted by Johnathan
sadly and as we've seen from the biblical passages and historical sources I quoted above and the hole you yourself are digging, your history evolves based on interest.
I am curious as to what your 'historical evidence' that Jesus himself at all existed were it not for the bible which can't sustain itself in credibility?
Obviously you've only read the part which was already in English, seeing how you can't gauge the topic with any sort of depth, ---
You'll forgive that I like to kinda cut the crap as am not interested in much else of what you write, firstly seeing that I don't care who converts and who doesn't, secondly if your own interest is to showcase how a self-immolating middle eastern god is the path to salvation using a self-contradicting book written by mysterious folks some hundreds of years later who themselves don't speak the language of said god, then I'd say you probably have a better chance selling us Odin or Thor, for all intents and purposes it would make better sense.
all the best,
Last edited by جوري; 02-28-2015 at 08:44 PM.
Greetings Johnathan,
I was wandering why you were asking this question, then realised that "its [Makkah's] central position in the House of Islam has lead some jaundiced-eye critics of Islam to even doubt its historicity. They say that history of Arabia has no evidence for the existence of Makkah before the advent of Christianity." From this link, which also gives historical evidence: http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/20...istorical.html
You can ask this all you like, but will find many not interested in answering, because it's of no real relevance to us. What is important, is the message of Islam. That God is One, with no partner or son, not 3-in-1, no incarnations. And we invite you to come to that same message that all the Prophets (including Jesus, peace be upon him) preached.
Peace.
Last edited by Insaanah; 03-01-2015 at 09:13 AM. Reason: corrected grammatical error
جوري liked this post
Hello again Johnathan,format_quote Originally Posted by Johnathan
(mildly) No, I did not suggest this. I merely pointed out that there was a reference to Mecca in the old testament. You were asking for proof that Mecca was known in the past. Mecca was also known as Becca in the past. The migration of a "b" to an "m" is linguistically quite common.
So I offered this, in good faith, to help you out.
I think you were misled by your prior convictions.
May God, the Compassionate, Guide you to more openness and clarity.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks