Ancient Mecca

[RonJohnson]

Could someone please direct me to some historical record or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca existed prior to the 4th century AD?

 

[Caplets]

Welcome to the forums ,

Here is one article regarding Islāmic/Muslim places e.g Makkah (Mecca), Hijāz, in the from the Bible.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/204341/is-ibraaheems-building-of-the-kabah-mentioned-in-the-bible

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR][TD]Is Ibraaheem’s building of the Ka‘bah mentioned in the Bible? - Islam Question & Answer
...[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

 

[RonJohnson]

Gen 13:18 Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD.

Abraham made his home in Hebron, where Jews, Christians and Muslims still visit his tomb today.

In the book of Genesis 16:7 it says, after mentioning the story of Ibraaheem (Abraham) going in unto Haajar (Hagar) and her becoming pregnant, then Sarai’s [Sarah’s] complaint to Ibraaheem about her:

[Biblical quotations in English are taken from the King James Version (KJV); some place names have been changed, followed by the place name, in brackets, that is mentioned in the KJV. This is done in line with the point the author is making – see below]

And when Sarai [Sarah] dealt hardly [harshly] with her, she fled from her face.

7 And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain [spring] of water in the wilderness, by the fountain [spring] in the way to the Hijaz (Shur).

8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.

…

13 And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?

14 Wherefore the well was called Be’er lahai roi (Well of the Living One Who sees me); behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered.

See how the name of the Hijaz is mentioned, and Hajar’s departure to that place, after which the blessing of the “Well of the Living One Who sees me” is bestowed by Allah, may He be glorified and exalted; this is the Well of Zamzam.

There is a pretty insurmountable geographical difficulty with this presumption. It's about 891 driving miles from Hebron to Mecca today, let alone that Hagar lived over 1,000 years before the incense route was established from Yemen to Israel in about the 6th century BC (the red trail in this map).

https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/_qu2.../05c4804b-cc91-44d4-ba22-88550899dcb5/map.jpg

 

[RonJohnson]

18 Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the Lord.

In Genesis 20:1 it also says:
And Abraham journeyed from thence towards the land of the qiblah (the south country), and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar.

Gerar is right near Beersheba (probably about 15 miles south of Hebron) where Hagar wandered after leaving Abraham's home.

Here's a map
https://www.bing.com/maps?q=locatio...s=n&sk=&cvid=FACF4B83650B49D2B055F238E18EB930

 

[RonJohnson]

3. In Genesis 21:21 it says of Ismaa‘eel (peace be upon him):
[SUP]21 [/SUP]And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.

Paran is north of what is today the Syrian desert. Ishmael was known for his flocks, that need pasture that the Arabian desert could not have offered. Let alone that for Hagar (whom the article seems to suggest lived in Mecca) to fetch Ishmael a wife out of Egypt, would have required her to travel about 800 or 900 miles to Egypt, and then back the 800 to 900 miles.

Here's a map of the location of the wilderness of Paran which makes perfect sense regarding Ishmael's wife coming out of Egypt, as well as being located in the "fertile crescent" where there would have been ample pasture for Ishmael's flocks.

http://www.keyway.ca/gif/paran.gif

Their location further confirmed

Gen 25:18 And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria: and he died in the presence of all his brethren.

Havilah to Shur runs across northern Arabia, and "as thou goest toward Assyria" indicates a bend to the north, which makes perfect sense since that would indicate it is in the fertile crescent.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ent.svg/260px-Map_of_fertile_crescent.svg.png

This is how it appears in the Samaritan Torah (also known as the Samaritan Pentateuch), and in al-Fayyoomi’s translation of the Torah.
Although many passages in the Torah suggest that Paran is in Palestine, Imam al-Qarraafi said in his book al-Ajwibah al-Faakhirah (p. 165): Paran is Makkah, according to the consensus of the People of the Book. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said in al-Jawaab as-Saheeh liman baddala Deen al-Maseeh (5/200):
There is no difference of opinion between the Muslims and the People of the Book concerning the fact that Paran is Makkah.

That's news to me as one of the "people of the book". Particularly since I can't seem to find any evidence of Mecca having existed prior to the 4th century AD.

But if they say that it is not Makkah, there is nothing strange in that, because they are known for their distortions and fabrications.

I look at it more like a geographical impossibility.

He (may Allah have mercy on him) also said concerning the region around Mount Hira’ in Makkah:

That place is called Faaraan (Paran) to this day. End quote.
‘Abd al-Haqq Vidyarthi (d. 1978 CE) stated in his famous book Muhammad in World Scriptures:
In the Arabic translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch (Torah), which was published in 1851 CE, it says that Paran is located in the Hijaz, as follows:
“And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt” (Genesis 21:21).

This translation remained in circulation for a long time, but when the Muslims alerted the Christian world to this prophecy, and that it constituted testimony to the truth of this Noble Prophet, the translation was changed. End quote

That is still the way it reads in my KJV.

 

[RonJohnson]

4. In the Old Testament, in Psalms 84:5-6, 10, there is mention of the valley of Baca. This passage, in the King James Version (KJV), reads as follows:
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.

So what happens in the next verse where the author put the "......"

7 They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Psalms-Chapter-84/

Zion is the name of the easternmost hill in Jerusalem. The name is used 152 times in the KJV. Jerusalem is the place where God had His people build a temple to Him on the temple mount. Jews and Christians still go on pilgrimmage to the Holy Land to this day.
To suggest this pilgrimmage was to Mecca, would mean that God's people turned their back on the temple He had them build in Jerusalem, to wander 908 miles (by today's roads) to Mecca, to march around the Kaaba, and then return the 908 miles back to Jerusalem. And all while doing this over a thousand years before overland travel was possible between Jerusalem and the area where Mecca was eventually settled.

[SUP]10 [/SUP]For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand (elsewhere).

There is no valley on earth called Baca (or Bakkah) that contains a house of worship and a spring of water (Zamzam), in which one prayer is better than a thousand prayers offered anywhere else, other than Makkah al-Mukarramah.
Baca (Bakkah) is one of the names of Makkah. This name is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an, where Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning)”

“Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for Al-Alameen (the mankind and jinns)”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:96].

But the translators and commentators of the Old Testament distorted the word Baca to buka’ [weeping or crying; the Hebrew cognate denotes the same meaning], even though the meanings of place names should not be translated; rather the name should be transliterated, and even though the meaning of the (original) name has nothing to do with crying or weeping, as a result of their desire to eliminate all references to anything that is proven in the Holy Qur’an, such distortions occurred.

It would seem the difficulty transcends careless claims of "the translators and commentators of the Old Testament distorted the word Baca" (which is still the name used in my KJV), but rather is a very physical, geographical, impossibility.

 

['Abdullah]

 

[RonJohnson]

I already pointed out the geographical impossibility of Abraham ever having been within 1,000 kilometers of where Mecca was eventually settled and that he lived over 1,000 years before overland travel was possible to that area.
I also pointed out how Psalms 84 pins itself geographically "in Zion".
A lot is quoted from al-Bukhari but that was not penned until over a hundred years after Muhammad lived, and was created without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD, yet the author speaks to things that were supposed to have taken place many thousands of years before he penned the book. This seems to pretty convincingly disconnect Islamic "tradition" from historical record.
He quotes Bukhari 3425 which apparently suggests there were 40 years between the building of the Kaaba and Al Masjid Al Aqsa. But the latter was built in 688 AD on the temple mount, that the Jews built on mount Moriah about 3,000 years ago, on which they built their temple to the Lord (that was torn down by the Romans in 70AD). So was Adam supposed to have lived about 3,040 years ago?
When the Quraish built the Kaaba they "ran short of money"?

 

[Ahmed.]

I already pointed out the geographical impossibility of Abraham ever having been within 1,000 kilometers of where Mecca was eventually settled and that he lived over 1,000 years before overland travel was possible to that area.
I also pointed out how Psalms 84 pins itself geographically "in Zion".
A lot is quoted from al-Bukhari but that was not penned until over a hundred years after Muhammad lived, and was created without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD, yet the author speaks to things that were supposed to have taken place many thousands of years before he penned the book. This seems to pretty convincingly disconnect Islamic "tradition" from historical record.
He quotes Bukhari 3425 which apparently suggests there were 40 years between the building of the Kaaba and Al Masjid Al Aqsa. But the latter was built in 688 AD on the temple mount, that the Jews built on mount Moriah about 3,000 years ago, on which they built their temple to the Lord (that was torn down by the Romans in 70AD). So was Adam supposed to have lived about 3,040 years ago?
When the Quraish built the Kaaba they "ran short of money"?

Hi Ron

Are you saying its impossible for a man to travel on foot or donkey/horse from Palestine to where Makkah is now?

Bear in mind that ancient people were a lot taller (at least according to our religion so unless there is evidence to the contrary, we cannot really discount that) so even if Prophet Abraham (pbuh) walked, he could reach there in a few months...

Makkah started off with just a tribe settling there so it wouldn't have been that large a city for generations hence early records/arhecgological evidence may not exist other than the reference in the Bible...

 

[RonJohnson]

Hi Ron

Are you saying its impossible for a man to travel on foot or donkey/horse from Palestine to where Makkah is now?

Hi Ahmed. Yes that's what I am saying because there was no overland route until about the 6th century BC, well over 1,000 years after Abraham roamed the earth.

Bear in mind that ancient people were a lot taller (at least according to our religion so unless there is evidence to the contrary, vwe cannot really discount that)

Romans averaged about 5'-4" and I understand that a man had to be about 5'-10" to be a Roman soldier. So not much different than we are today.

so even if Prophet Abraham (pbuh) walked, he could reach there in a few months...

But there was no overland route that Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael could have taken through that deserted, uncharted, untraveled, waterless, foodless Arabian desert wasteland. What would they have had to eat or drink over all those months?

The scriptures tell us that after Hagar and Ishmael were cast out of Abraham's house, she wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. On the map at the link you can see that is about 20 miles to the southwest of Abraham's home in Hebron. Beersheba means "well of seven" because an oath Abraham made (when he bought back a well that he himself had dug, from the person that had stolen it.) There were and are several wells in Beersheba. One that Isaac opened back up as well. 20 miles is perfectly reasonable geographically.
http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/images/FromDanToBeersheba.jpg

Now let's consider the story from a number of Islamic sites
"Abraham took Hagar and her son, Ishmael to a place near the Kabah; he left them under a tree at the site of Zamzam. No one lived in Makkah back then, yet Abraham made them sit there, leaving them with some dates, and a small water-skin. Thereafter he set out towards home."

So if the "well of water" in Beersheba is the well of Zamzam in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. That would mean that between verse 14 when they left Abraham's home and verse 15 when the bottle of water Abraham gave them ran out, rather than wandering around 20 some miles as scripture suggests, Hagar and Ishmael would have had to wander across more than 886 miles of harsh, uncharted, unknown and untraveled waterless desert wasteland, from Hebron to Mecca, over a thousand years before an overland route connected northern Arabia with Yemen in the south.
Then if Abraham wandered with them (contrary to scripture), we are expected to presume that he abandoned his wife Sarah and his son Isaac (in whom God made His covenant) in Hebron, to wander 886 miles with Sarah's bondwoman Hagar, to an uninhabitated desert place (that thousands of years later became Mecca), only to then abandon and Ishmael under a tree, in a place where there were no other inhabitants and thus no farming, pasture, or food except some dates he left them with, and no water except what was in a "small water-skin" he gave them - and thus obviously no chance for survival - and then after abandoning them in that vacant Arabian desert place is supposed to have simply "set out" on his 886 mile wander back home.

Does that seem more reasonable than the historical record we were given through scripture?

Makkah started off with just a tribe settling there so it wouldn't have been that large a city for generations .......

Indeed. From my understanding it was migrants from Yemen that initially settled the area in around the 4th century AD. I continue to keep looking forward for someone to present some evidence to the contrary.

....hence early records/arhecgological evidence may not exist other than the reference in the Bible...

There is no reference to Mecca in the Bible as I demonstrated earlier in the thread.
In all of my searching I find no archaeological evidence of Mecca.
But do you understand what you are saying? That there is no evidence whatsoever, that a town that is supposed to have been founded by Adam building the kaaba - that would make it the oldest town on earth - has no archaeological or historical record.

Put another way, that would be like someone suggesting that there is no historical or archaeological record of Jerusalem ever having existed, prior to the 4th century AD! A patently ridiculous idea with, I believe, over a million artifacts just on display. Yet for Mecca, as you yourself seem to indicate, there are none.

 

[RonJohnson]

Hi Ron

Are you saying its impossible for a man to travel on foot or donkey/horse from Palestine to where Makkah is now?

Hi Ahmed. Yes that's what I am saying, because there was no overland route until about the 6th century BC, well over 1,000 years after Abraham roamed the earth. Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael would have had to travel across 885 miles of unexplored, untraveled, uncharted, barren, foodless, waterless, desert wasteland. And then Abraham travel the 885 miles back to Hebron again alone.

 

[Ahmed.]

Hi Ahmed. Yes that's what I am saying, because there was no overland route until about the 6th century BC, well over 1,000 years after Abraham roamed the earth. Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael would have had to travel across 885 miles of unexplored, untraveled, uncharted, barren, foodless, waterless, desert wasteland. And then Abraham travel the 885 miles back to Hebron again alone.

There doesn't need to be any Roads, as the Arabs used to just travel through the desert in those days just like nomads do now. Even in Prophet Muhammad's time they used to do long distance caravan trading while riding through deserts

As I said, many thousands of years ago man used to be taller (Adam pbuh was 90 feet tall and man has been getting shorter till Prophet MuhaMad's (saw) time) so it's possible Abraham could have been 10-15 feet tall, so he would have been able to traverse long distances with those long legs in much quicker time:

https://www.islamicboard.com/education-issues/134354310-height-humans.html#post3019518

He took food and water with him, and he was a Prophet of God so he would have had full trust in God that God will see to his sustenance needs so survival food and water wouldn't have been a problem

Even in last century, a great Islamic Scholar travelled on foot from the Mauritania desert to the pilgrimage in Makkah:

After studying at the school of his father, he decided to perform the Hajj pilgrimage and at the age of nineteen, set out to Mecca from Mauritania for a trip that would total three years. He traveled by foot crossing Mali, Niger, Chad, and the Sudan and then by boat to Yemen where he then made his way to Mecca, spending time along the way teaching in many areas.

http://malikifiqhqa.com/uncategorized/shaykh-murabit-al-hajj/

 

[Ahmed.]

Hi Ahmed. Yes that's what I am saying because there was no overland route until about the 6th century BC, well over 1,000 years after Abraham roamed the earth.



Romans averaged about 5'-4" and I understand that a man had to be about 5'-10" to be a Roman soldier. So not much different than we are today.



But there was no overland route that Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael could have taken through that deserted, uncharted, untraveled, waterless, foodless Arabian desert wasteland. What would they have had to eat or drink over all those months?

The scriptures tell us that after Hagar and Ishmael were cast out of Abraham's house, she wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. On the map at the link you can see that is about 20 miles to the southwest of Abraham's home in Hebron. Beersheba means "well of seven" because an oath Abraham made (when he bought back a well that he himself had dug, from the person that had stolen it.) There were and are several wells in Beersheba. One that Isaac opened back up as well. 20 miles is perfectly reasonable geographically.
http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/images/FromDanToBeersheba.jpg

Now let's consider the story from a number of Islamic sites
"Abraham took Hagar and her son, Ishmael to a place near the Kabah; he left them under a tree at the site of Zamzam. No one lived in Makkah back then, yet Abraham made them sit there, leaving them with some dates, and a small water-skin. Thereafter he set out towards home."

So if the "well of water" in Beersheba is the well of Zamzam in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. That would mean that between verse 14 when they left Abraham's home and verse 15 when the bottle of water Abraham gave them ran out, rather than wandering around 20 some miles as scripture suggests, Hagar and Ishmael would have had to wander across more than 886 miles of harsh, uncharted, unknown and untraveled waterless desert wasteland, from Hebron to Mecca, over a thousand years before an overland route connected northern Arabia with Yemen in the south.
Then if Abraham wandered with them (contrary to scripture), we are expected to presume that he abandoned his wife Sarah and his son Isaac (in whom God made His covenant) in Hebron, to wander 886 miles with Sarah's bondwoman Hagar, to an uninhabitated desert place (that thousands of years later became Mecca), only to then abandon and Ishmael under a tree, in a place where there were no other inhabitants and thus no farming, pasture, or food except some dates he left them with, and no water except what was in a "small water-skin" he gave them - and thus obviously no chance for survival - and then after abandoning them in that vacant Arabian desert place is supposed to have simply "set out" on his 886 mile wander back home.

Does that seem more reasonable than the historical record we were given through scripture?



Indeed. From my understanding it was migrants from Yemen that initially settled the area in around the 4th century AD. I continue to keep looking forward for someone to present some evidence to the contrary.



There is no reference to Mecca in the Bible as I demonstrated earlier in the thread.
In all of my searching I find no archaeological evidence of Mecca.
But do you understand what you are saying? That there is no evidence whatsoever, that a town that is supposed to have been founded by Adam building the kaaba - that would make it the oldest town on earth - has no archaeological or historical record.

Put another way, that would be like someone suggesting that there is no historical or archaeological record of Jerusalem ever having existed, prior to the 4th century AD! A patently ridiculous idea with, I believe, over a million artifacts just on display. Yet for Mecca, as you yourself seem to indicate, there are none.

There wouldn't be any tangible evidence from around that time so all we have is the story from Islamic scriptures. the biblical accounts aren't really trustworthy either as Bible is proven to be distorted. And Islamic accounts are credible.

As we've seen a journey from Palestine to Makkah is possible on foot or donkey/horse and Allah would have provided His beloved servants with enough food and water along the way (from oasis' and desert creatures)

Yes a journey from Palestine to Makkah and back is very long, tiring and arduous, but Prophets of God are known to undergo a lot of self sacrifice and hardship for God far better and easier then the average man and this journey wouldn't have been an exception.

There didn't need to be an established route to follow, as God used to communicate to Prophets, thus Abraham (pbuh) had the best navigation possible - God's instructions!

 

[RonJohnson]

There doesn't need to be any Roads, as the Arabs used to just travel through the desert in those days just like nomads do now.

That couldn’t be more incorrect. Now they have towns for trade and purchasing food, and wells for water. There was none of that in Abraham’s day. That’s why spices had to travel by ship. Medina/Yathrib wasn’t even established until about 6 BC, over a thousand years after Abraham lived.

Even in Prophet Muhammad's time they used to do long distance caravan trading while riding through deserts

Even in Muhammad’s day? Muhammad lived about 2500 years after Abraham, or about 1200 years after the spice route was established.

As I said, many thousands of years ago man used to be taller (Adam pbuh was 90 feet tall and man has been getting shorter till Prophet MuhaMad's (saw) time) so it's possible Abraham could have been 10-15 feet tall, so he would have been able to traverse long distances with those long legs in much quicker time:

https://www.islamicboard.com/education-issues/134354310-height-humans.html#post3019518

“Otzi” the “iceman” whose remains were found in ice, lived about 5300 years ago. That’s double the age that Abraham would be today, and you can see from the picture his corpse doesn’t look particularly tall. The link you offered put him at about 5'-3"
https://allthatsinteresting.com/otzi-the-iceman

.....took food and water with him, and he was a Prophet of God so he would have had full trust in God that God will see to his sustenance needs so survival food and water wouldn't have been a problem....

Survival would have been the whole problem. Let alone the distance.
Can’t you see that you call the scriptures “corrupt”, even though they illustrate a perfectly plausible account of Hagar wandering about 20 miles in Beersheba. While you are stuck with Hagar and Ishmael traveling 866 miles across untraveled, uncharted, harsh barren desert wasteland before the water in her waterskin ran out.

in last century, a great Islamic Scholar travelled on foot from the Mauritania desert to the pilgrimage in Makkah:

After studying at the school of his father, he decided to perform the Hajj pilgrimage and at the age of nineteen, set out to Mecca from Mauritania for a trip that would total three years. He traveled by foot crossing Mali, Niger, Chad, and the Sudan and then by boat to Yemen where he then made his way to Mecca, spending time along the way teaching in many areas.

http://malikifiqhqa.com/uncategorized/shaykh-murabit-al-hajj/

That was only a hundred years ago, and as you point out even by Muhammad’s day - 1400 years ago - there were enough wells and towns to make traveling north to south in Arabia commonplace. Indeed the trip was possible by the 6th century BC. But that was still over 1,000 years after Abraham lived.

 

[RonJohnson]

QUOTE=Ahmed.;3019866]There wouldn't be any tangible evidence from around that time so all we have is the story from Islamic scriptures. the biblical accounts aren't really trustworthy either as Bible is proven to be distorted.

Archaeological evidence ever increasingly confirms the scriptures as a reliable historical record of ancient history. For example it appears King David’s palace was discovered recently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV8Q9aOSFk0
Let alone that many of the places we are discussing exist today. Do a Bing search - well of Beersheba - for example. That’s the well that Abraham dug and made the oath over.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=well+...s=n&sk=&cvid=F928C3C3BA90439D95E3162205B52D10

Abraham’s tomb still exists in Hebron where Jews, Christians and Muslims visit.

And Islamic accounts are credible. As we've seen a journey from Palestine to Makkah is possible on foot or donkey/horse and Allah would have provided His beloved servants with enough food and water along the way (from oasis' and desert creatures)

Yes a journey from Palestine to Makkah and back is very long, tiring and arduous, but Prophets of God are known to undergo a lot of self sacrifice and hardship for God far better and easier then the average man and this journey wouldn't have been an exception.

There didn't need to be an established route to follow, as God used to communicate to Prophets, thus Abraham (pbuh) had the best navigation possible - God's instructions!

The Islamic account offers an 866 mile journey before running out of water in the waterskin.
https://islamzpeace.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/the-well-of-zamzam/
The Biblical account offers a 20 mile wandering in Beersheba before running out of water.
http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/images/FromDanToBeersheba.jpg

 

[RonJohnson]

It would be most appreciated if admin could fix the quote tags in post #5 (as the attribution is backwards) and in post #6 adding the / to the last tag. I shouldn't have that trouble going forward, now that I have a little posting experience. Thank you!

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Ahmed.;

thus Abraham (pbuh) had the best navigation possible - God's instructions!

That is all you need to know; if you have faith in your own scriptures.

the biblical accounts aren't really trustworthy either as Bible is proven to be distorted.

I understand that I am a guest on an Islamic forum, and you are making statements that I am not allowed to respond to, so no comment!

In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God'

Eric

 

[Ahmed.]

Greetings and peace be with you Ahmed.;



That is all you need to know; if you have faith in your own scriptures.



I understand that I am a guest on an Islamic forum, and you are making statements that I am not allowed to respond to, so no comment!

In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God'

Eric

Hi Eric, ofcourse you're allowed to respond. It's only 'missionary' posts that are not allowed, I. E, if your doing a post just as an invitation to convert to your religion, however you can 'defend' your religion all you like if you believe we're portraying it wrongly so feel free to do so

God indeed is the best guide, but 'feeling' God is guiding you is not enough as feelings can be deceptive so the guidance has to make sense and be in accordance with the clear evidences

 

[RonJohnson]

God indeed is the best guide, but 'feeling' God is guiding you is not enough as feelings can be deceptive so the guidance has to make sense and be in accordance with the clear evidences

Indeed. Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
I have a couple more replies to you waiting for moderation.

 

['Abdullah]