Mecca and Kaaba in the Bible !!!

[psychoslice]

I see it as a spiritual pilgrimage, not a literal one which really wouldn't help at all.

 

[Augustus]

We read from "Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World" by Patricia Crone,Michael A. Cook - Page 22 - :

Hehe, methinks you have never read Hagarism, not even pages 21 or 23 (or the rest of p22), correct?

 

[Tumah]

You provided nothing here but pure rejection to clear texts.

The first one ("Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World") is saying: The b'kh of this verse, read bàkà in Samaritan Hebrew, is clear reference to the place we know from the Quran as Bakka.

This is not a valid text.

Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World is a 1977 book about the early history of Islam by the historians Patricia Crone andMichael Cook...
[9 critical reviews later]...
In 1991, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook disavowed the views that they presented in this book.
-Wikipedia​

Just because an author writes it, doesn't make it true. And I already pointed out that the verse doesn't say "b'kh", which isn't even a word in Hebrew. It says "Bo'AXaH". This word is found in four other locations as well. According to your author, there would also need to be four other cities named Bakka in or around Israel (Gen. 10:19, 30, 13:10 and 1 Kings 18:46). Its just not good Hebrew reading.

The second one (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges) is saying: Balsam-trees are said to love dry situations, growing plentifully for example in the arid valley of Mecca; and this is clearly the point of the reference. It does not say: Balsam-trees are growing plentifully in the arid valley; and this is clearly the point of the reference. NO !! It mentioned the arid valley of Mecca and pointed it as the point of the reference. There is no evading this clear text and its meaning. Furthermore, why Mecca and nothing else ?!!! Is Mecca the only dry place on the world ??!!

Why would the Psalmist's point of reference be an example that this book is giving of a dry valley?

I was answering some members here and I brought enough evidence for them. Thats all !!

You didn't bring any evidence actually. What you did, was quote another author without bringing their evidence, on the assumption that they must be right, because you agree with it.

Proper names which start with Capital letter cannot be translated to other languages. For example: Jesus, John, Mark .. etc ... Can you translate these proper names ?!!

Jesus comes from the Aramaic version of Joshua and means "G-d saves".
John comes from the Hebrew version of Johanan and means "G-d favors".
Mark comes from the Latin Martkos and means "consecrated to Mars".

Yes.

Some translators used to twist this proper name (Baca) with (Beki) to avoid its clear meaning.

When two words in Hebrew share a root, they are usually related. So this wouldn't be twisting, this is simply how the language works.

From your link: bakah: to weep, bewail ... You provided a verb but weeping is a noun and it is Beki in Hebrew.

Don't try to twist between verb and a noun, and between a proper name and a noun like some translators did.

Here's the other part of that.

Are you trying again to say that Baca in Psalm 84:6 means Balsam-trees as in 2 Sam. 5:23 ?!!!

Yes. Unlike the Bacca of Mecca, this Baca is spelled exactly the same way as the one in Psalms. It actually makes more sense this way, because if it were a proper name, it shouldn't have put in the "the" prefix. The way its written it says, "valley [of] the Baca". This makes sense if Baca is the name of a tree. its the "valley [of] the baca [trees]." If it were a name of a place it should have said, "valley Baca", the same way it says, "desert Sin", "plains Mamre", etc when referring to names of places.

From the links provided in your quoted sentence above, we read that this Hebrew word means: fountain, spring, well according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

The verse goes as follows in many different translations including King James Version:

Webster's Bible Translation
Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.

American King James Version
Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also fills the pools.

Jubilee Bible 2000
who passing through the valley of Baca, shall make it a well; the rain also shall fill the pools.

King James 2000 Bible
Who passing through the valley of Baca makes it a well; the rain also fills the pools.

These Bible's are not giving the literal translation and from the looks of it, are also copying each other. Young's Bible gives better translations. Not just now but in general.

Those passing through a valley of weeping, A fountain do make it, Blessings also cover the director.

I don't know why Strong adds the word "well" in there immediately after explaining that the word means spring.

 

[Tumah]

Yes PASS through they valley of Baca and dwell in the house of God. Now, let me ask you: What location was this passage pointing if not Jerusalem nor Mecca ?!!

Is there another house of God in another different location ?!!

What language are you speaking?

Again:
Let's say for example that this valley was another name for Jezreel valley. Someone living in Carmiel would pass through the valley on the way to Jerusalem. That's what the psalm is describing. That people coming from whatever place, are passing through this valley on their way to Jerusalem. The House of G-d is in Jerusalem. The people are in Carmiel (or wherever). And they happen to pass through this valley on the way to get to Jerusalem. The House of G-d is not in the valley, its in Zion (another name for Jerusalem).
This is what the psalm says:
v5 - praises the person who goes to the Temple.
v6 - continues to praise how that person is always thinking about the path he takes to get there
v7- through this valley of Baca which has springs and is blessed with early rains.

The "early rain" here is the word for the first rains in Israel that usually fall in the Jewish months of Tishrei or Cheshvan. Tishrei is the month of the Tabernacles pilgrimage. So we understand that the psalmist is talking about someone who is thinking about his pilgrimage to the Temple for the upcoming holiday of Tabernacles.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

That argument doesn't work seeing as the first Christians were Jews and Christianity started as a branch/sect of the Jewish religion before they ended up growing apart. Just sayin'.

That's a good point but once Christianity started spreading to the Gentiles (and once the New Testament had been translated into Koine Greek) knowledge of Hebrew would have become less & less important among the laity; especially once the clergy began claiming exclusive access to scripture. Christians may not have started out ignorant of Hebrew, but I think it's safe to say they became such over time. I seriously doubt Christian missionaries were going to sit down and teach whole villages of illiterate Saxon peasants who could barely count past ten a completely different language as a backdrop to their services at church.

 

[Tumah]

That's a good point but once Christianity started spreading to the Gentiles (and once the New Testament had been translated into Koine Greek) knowledge of Hebrew would have become less & less important among the laity; especially once the clergy began claiming exclusive access to scripture. Christians may not have started out ignorant of Hebrew, but I think it's safe to say they became such over time. I seriously doubt Christian missionaries were going to sit down and teach whole villages of illiterate Saxon peasants who could barely count past ten a completely different language as a backdrop to their services at church.

Even that is not necessarily true, because who can say that the early Jewish Christians weren't for the most part using the Septuagint, rather that the Hebrew?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Even that is not necessarily true, because who can say that the early Jewish Christians weren't for the most part using the Septuagint, rather that the Hebrew?

Which then leads to wondering how many common Jews in general in that time and place knew Hebrew.

 

[Tumah]

Which then leads to wondering how many common Jews in general in that time and place knew Hebrew.

Of the Hellenized Jews, possibly not many.

 

[Shia Islam]

I must say firstly that I don't have a chance to read everything in this interesting thread.

Then, I would like to say that Islam made it clear that the Ka'aba building in Mecca/Bacca was first built by Adam himself, and then reconstructed by Abraham and Ishmael.

Unlimited historical evidences supported the idea of Bacca or Mecca being the oldest building that is still being used on earth (this does not mean that it has not be rebuilt many times.)

Prophet Muhammad did not build the House in Mecca, Indeed, he was denied entry to the House...

Non-believing Arabs used to have their Idols in Mecca.

The Quran has used the word Bacca, and there are Hadith explaining that the work 'bacca' is derived from the same root of the Arabic verb "baca" بكى, which means "cried".

Finally, @The Tiger of Islam gave great evidences.

And I must say that, as in everywhere, there are some members here who is clearly following their lust and not their mind. I have debated them before and I know them, so I don't want to mention their names or waste my time with them..

Also I HAVE NO PROBLEM with people having other views, and I respect all of those who clearly are after evidences; not those who are after proving their false ideology by any mean, whether it is right or wrong.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I must say firstly that I don't have a chance to read everything in this interesting thread.

Maybe you should read the whole thread first before deciding Tiger of Islam's evidences are so great and you'll see why they're not (assuming you aren't blinded by your own confirmation bias). He's arguing the meanings of words in Hebrew with practising Jews and thinks he knows better than them. Just for starters, he can't distinguish between the Hebrew for journeying through a place and the Hebrew indicating that place being the beginning or end of a journey.

 

[Flankerl]

Unlimited historical evidences supported the idea of Bacca or Mecca being the oldest building that is still being used on earth

Eagerly awaiting this "unlimited historical evidence".

inb4 quotes from the Quran and how the Jews are liars but that doesn't mean that Muslims don't love them etc

 

[Tumah]

And I must say that, as in everywhere, there are some members here who is clearly following their lust and not their mind.

Their lust for what?

 

[Shia Islam]

Maybe you should read the whole thread first before deciding Tiger of Islam's evidences are so great and you'll see why they're not (assuming you aren't blinded by your own confirmation bias). He's arguing the meanings of words in Hebrew with practising Jews and thinks he knows better than them. Just for starters, he can't distinguish between the Hebrew for journeying through a place and the Hebrew indicating that place being the beginning or end of a journey.

I was so clear and honest that I have not read the whole thread...

Then, although one can't claim that someone's conclusion is 100% correct without examining the whole evidences, with reading some of his posts it can be decided -to a big extent- what kind of researcher is he..

 

[Augustus]

We read from "Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World" by Patricia Crone,Michael A. Cook - Page 22 - :

Source: https://books.google.nl/books?id=Ta...place we know from the quran as bakka&f=false

You're the first Muslim I've ever seen quote from Hagarism to promote its accuracy (although probably because you haven't actually read it).

As some background information, the book contains the following statement in its introduction "This is a book written by infidels for infidels, and it is based on what from any Muslim perspective must appear an inordinate regard for the testimony of infidel sources. Our account is not merely unacceptable; it is also one which any Muslim whose faith is as a grain of mustard seed should find no difficulty in rejecting."

It's basic thesis is that the 'Hagarenes' followed a Northern Arabian form of Messianic Judaism, and Islamic history, including the idea of Mecca as the sacred city (rather than Jerusalem) was a later innovation. The Hijra wasn't from Mecca to Medina, it was from Northern Arabia towards the Promised Land of Israel. Even the word Muslim was a later invention as they called themselves Mahgraye/Muhajorun until long after Muhammad.

As such, it is probably not a text that I would have chosen in support of your claims, but kudos for being so bold.

Anyway, shall we see what else we can read from Hagarism, p21-23?

First thing worth noting is that the chapter itself is called 'Samaritan Calques' (i.e. What 'Hagarenes' borrowed from the Samaritans). Again, that title alone would have put me off quoting it, but each to their own.

"It is here that the abiding structural legacy of Samaritanism to Islam is to be found, despite the complexities induced by a variety of secondary interactions, in the form of a remarkable pair of Hagarene calques.3 The first of these is the Meccan sanctuary. The core of Samaritanism was the rejection of the sanctity of Jerusalem and its replacement by the older Israelite sanctuary of Shechem. This meant that when the Hagarenes in turn disengaged from Jerusalem,4 Shechem could provide a simple and appropriate model for the creation of a sanctuary of their own... These parallels are the more remarkable in that the Meccan sanctuary is clearly only the terminus of a complex development...

In the first place, the location of the Hagarene Shechem in Mecca is demonstrably secondary. The Islamic tradition, of course, leaves us in no doubt that Mecca was the aboriginal Abrahamic sanctuary of the Ishma elites; but there is no lack of evidence to suggest that it was in fact quite some time before the Hagarenes knew whether they were coming or going.6 Negatively, no early source outside the Islamic literary tradition refers to Mecca by name."

Ok, so far so bad. (That quote actually ends on page 22 btw, the page you quoted)

Is there another location Called Baca except Mecca ? Is there another house of God where sparrow found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself except around Kaaba the House of God in Mecca ? Is there another place where pilgrims used to praise God and dwell in his house making it a well of water except Mecca ?!!

Seeing as you view it as authoritative, lets see what page 22-3 of Hagaism has to say about this... (you can see this overlaps with your quote)

"The Koran, on the other hand, does make one reference to Mecca (48:24), and in the context of military operations related to the sanctuary, but it never actually locates the sanctuary there;10 and it refers to an abrogatedqibla which in the context can hardly be identified as Jerusalem (2:138). Positively, the Koran itself tells us the name of the place where the sanctuary actually was: Bakka (3:90). The Islamic tradition is naturally at pains to identify this place with Mecca,11 and none of our sources shed any light on its original location...

It thus makes sense to scan the map of western Arabia for possible traces of discarded sanctuaries, and a number of places present interesting features in this context. In the Hijaz itself, the evidence is highly unsatisfactory in that it
derives almost entirely from the Islamic tradition. There are nevertheless two places worth noting: Yathrib, to which we shall return,15 and Ta'if. Ta'if presents one suspicious parallelism with Shechem in that both (in contrast to Mecca) are
sanctuaries located in famously green environments; 16 and it is the subject of one suspicious Islamic tradition, to the effect that it had once been a place in Palestine. 17 Further north the quality of the evidence improves, although the
problems still evade neat solution. We now reach an area for which Jewish settlement is well attested in pre-Islamic times, and for which a sacred geography had already been sketched out in the Jewish Targums...

The targumic renderings thus presented the north-west as appropriate terrain for a Hagarene sanctuary; and the connections of Mecca with al-Hijr and the paganism of provincial Arabia suggest that this potentiality may in fact have
been exploited. Such a hypothesis would go well with the prominence of the north-west in the rather meagre Arabian geography of the Koran,24 and would make sense of some anomalous indications in the Islamic tradition that the sanctuary was at one stage located to the north of Medina.25"

I could continue, but I assume that this is sufficient to demonstrate that you just quoted a passage that, far from arguing for the antiquity for the Meccan sanctuary, is actually arguing that Bakka was in Northern Arabia, much closer to Israel, where the Samaritans and the later Hagarenes actually lived and that the Meccan sanctuary was thus a later innovation.

The problem with quoting sources you haven't read, is that sometimes other people have actually read them.

You provided nothing here but pure rejection to clear texts... Give it up is better than stubborness and running around a circle when clear evidence is brought to you. I see clear recognition from you that you are unable to refute this undeniable truth.

Does Hagarism still count as 'clear evidence' now that you are aware it royally pisses on your chips?

If not, why should we trust your evaluation of the other sources you bring to the table?

 

[Tumah]

You're the first Muslim I've ever seen quote from Hagarism to promote its accuracy (although probably because you haven't actually read it).

As some background information, the book contains the following statement in its introduction "This is a book written by infidels for infidels, and it is based on what from any Muslim perspective must appear an inordinate regard for the testimony of infidel sources. Our account is not merely unacceptable; it is also one which any Muslim whose faith is as a grain of mustard seed should find no difficulty in rejecting."

It's basic thesis is that the 'Hagarenes' followed a Northern Arabian form of Messianic Judaism, and Islamic history, including the idea of Mecca as the sacred city (rather than Jerusalem) was a later innovation. The Hijra wasn't from Mecca to Medina, it was from Northern Arabia towards the Promised Land of Israel. Even the word Muslim was a later invention as they called themselves Mahgraye/Muhajorun until long after Muhammad.

As such, it is probably not a text that I would have chosen in support of your claims, but kudos for being so bold.

Anyway, shall we see what else we can read from Hagarism, p21-23?

First thing worth noting is that the chapter itself is called 'Samaritan Calques' (i.e. What 'Hagarenes' borrowed from the Samaritans). Again, that title alone would have put me off quoting it, but each to their own.

"It is here that the abiding structural legacy of Samaritanism to Islam is to be found, despite the complexities induced by a variety of secondary interactions, in the form of a remarkable pair of Hagarene calques.3 The first of these is the Meccan sanctuary. The core of Samaritanism was the rejection of the sanctity of Jerusalem and its replacement by the older Israelite sanctuary of Shechem. This meant that when the Hagarenes in turn disengaged from Jerusalem,4 Shechem could provide a simple and appropriate model for the creation of a sanctuary of their own... These parallels are the more remarkable in that the Meccan sanctuary is clearly only the terminus of a complex development...

In the first place, the location of the Hagarene Shechem in Mecca is demonstrably secondary. The Islamic tradition, of course, leaves us in no doubt that Mecca was the aboriginal Abrahamic sanctuary of the Ishma elites; but there is no lack of evidence to suggest that it was in fact quite some time before the Hagarenes knew whether they were coming or going.6 Negatively, no early source outside the Islamic literary tradition refers to Mecca by name."

Ok, so far so bad. (That quote actually ends on page 22 btw, the page you quoted)



Seeing as you view it as authoritative, lets see what page 22-3 of Hagaism has to say about this... (you can see this overlaps with your quote)

"The Koran, on the other hand, does make one reference to Mecca (48:24), and in the context of military operations related to the sanctuary, but it never actually locates the sanctuary there;10 and it refers to an abrogatedqibla which in the context can hardly be identified as Jerusalem (2:138). Positively, the Koran itself tells us the name of the place where the sanctuary actually was: Bakka (3:90). The Islamic tradition is naturally at pains to identify this place with Mecca,11 and none of our sources shed any light on its original location...

It thus makes sense to scan the map of western Arabia for possible traces of discarded sanctuaries, and a number of places present interesting features in this context. In the Hijaz itself, the evidence is highly unsatisfactory in that it
derives almost entirely from the Islamic tradition. There are nevertheless two places worth noting: Yathrib, to which we shall return,15 and Ta'if. Ta'if presents one suspicious parallelism with Shechem in that both (in contrast to Mecca) are
sanctuaries located in famously green environments; 16 and it is the subject of one suspicious Islamic tradition, to the effect that it had once been a place in Palestine. 17 Further north the quality of the evidence improves, although the
problems still evade neat solution. We now reach an area for which Jewish settlement is well attested in pre-Islamic times, and for which a sacred geography had already been sketched out in the Jewish Targums...

The targumic renderings thus presented the north-west as appropriate terrain for a Hagarene sanctuary; and the connections of Mecca with al-Hijr and the paganism of provincial Arabia suggest that this potentiality may in fact have
been exploited. Such a hypothesis would go well with the prominence of the north-west in the rather meagre Arabian geography of the Koran,24 and would make sense of some anomalous indications in the Islamic tradition that the sanctuary was at one stage located to the north of Medina.25"

I could continue, but I assume that this is sufficient to demonstrate that you just quoted a passage that, far from arguing for the antiquity for the Meccan sanctuary, is actually arguing that Bakka was in Northern Arabia, much closer to Israel, where the Samaritans and the later Hagarenes actually lived and that the Meccan sanctuary was thus a later innovation.

The problem with quoting sources you haven't read, is that sometimes other people have actually read them.




Does Hagarism still count as 'clear evidence' now that you are aware it royally pisses on your chips?

If not, why should we trust your evaluation of the other sources you bring to the table?

Oh my!

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> atleast his not claiming anything about all the written words in the bible
from what weve seen so far
unlike what youve claimed
without giving any stand about your faith in the written scripture
or if we may say
you just thought you could know anything about the bible
but it happends to be your not understanding the very question that
our breathren :smoke: asked you before
:read: (as it is written)

:smoke: so many temple
and not one in the desertb as they say
so what kind of pilgrimage is this
as it is written
:read:
Genesis: 47. 9. And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

So, which is it? Either,

The Bible is corrupted (Because, you know, the Jews changed their scriptures and everything and then the Apostle Paul came and corrupted the Gospel)

OR

The Bible proves Islam? (Because psalm 84 clearly proves that the Jews worshipped at the ka'aba at Mecca and Muhammad is mentioned in the Tnach).

Seriously?

????

AS YOU HAVE SAID FROM ONE OF
YOUR POST BEFORE ABOUT DESERT
:read:

Also another translation is "Valley of Weeping", which is employed by the Douay-Rheims (the best Catholic Bible, 'Vale of Tears'), Young's Literal Translation, the English Revised Version, The American Standard Version and others. The New Jerusalem uses 'Valley of Balsam"; the Jerusalem Bible uses 'Valley of the Weeper' and so on. It is probable, therefore, that this verse is referring to balsam trees on the way to Zion, maybe through Gildead. This would make 100% more sense than Israelite pilgrims travelling through Mecca to go to Zion, which is absurd.

4 of the Bibles that disagree with the 'Bakkah' translation are Catholic, so it's highly likely that the preferred Catholic reading of this vers is 'valley of weeping' or something similar.

Mecca is not a 'place of springs', it is a desert. Mecca is situated in a very strange place. Had this verse said 'Yathrib' I could have given a slight, slight pause for thought. Mecca is not on any known ancient Israelite pilgrimage routes and why should it be? They pilgrimaged to Zion, their holiest place, in Jerusalem. Why would they wander to an arid desert full of pagans? It makes no sense.

Also I would like to see some proof that Mecca ever even existed in the time of David, or the Sons of Korah, 1,000 years before the birth of the Christ. Also, if the Ka'aba was a holy place of some sort and this psalm was somehow referring to it, why is it mentioned literally no-where else in the scriptures ever? Because the Jews had their own Temple, that's why; they didn't need a scummy black box in the middle of a desert, when they had their own magnificent, Jewish Temple already within a good distance.

Please

... . THEREFORE WE CONCLUDE THAT YOU JUST
DONT ANTICIPATE THAT THE
scummy black box in the middle of a desert, (REMEMBER THAT YOU ALSO SAID THIS THINGS BEFORE FROM YOUR WRITTEN POST)
WAS STANDING ALSO IN THE DESERT ITSELF AS WHAT YOUVE SAID
BUT THEN YOU DISREGARD THE POSSIBILITIES OF HAVING A PILGRIMAGE IN
The days of the years of those muslim people pilgrimage
that happened in the past
although they were not known as muslim during that time
but the possibilies of
the life of their fathers in the days of their pilgrimage
where existed before they were been called as muslims
AND PROBABLY YOULL LEARN THIS SOMEDAY
MEANING
YOU JUST GOT CONFUSED DURING THAT TIME
AND
YOU JUST GOT LOST ON THE VERY REALITY ITSELF
FOR NOT REALIZING YOUR OWN VERY WRITTEN WORDS
DURING THAT TIME ALSO

SO IF WE MAY THEN CLARIFY THIS AGAIN
THAT THE
Mecca or Makkah (Arabic: مكة Makkah) is a city in the Hejaz in Saudi Arabia. It is the capital of that kingdom's Makkah Region. The city islocated 70 km (43 mi) inland from Jeddah in a narrow valley at a .... However, it was also the time each year that disputes would be arbitrated, ... IS IT IMPOSIBLE TO TRAVEL THERE BY IF YOU WERE ALSO FROM THE EAST (WHEN DID THE PEOPLE FROM THE WEST LEARN TO TRAVEL IN THE EAST DURING THAT TIME OF THE OLD COVENANT . . . JUST ASKIN)

HOPE YOU WOULD REALIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF EVERY WRITTEN WORDS LITERALLY (THOUGH WE DONT PUSH UNTO ANYONE HERE TO SEARCH THOSE WORDS THAT WERE SPIRITUALLY SAID)

but because of not being bias
as you claimed that you know the bible
then perharps you could answer this
question
:read:
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF AS A GENTILE
AND STATE YOUR ANSWER FROM
THE (ONLY WRITTEN WORDS IN . . . .. ) BIBLE ITSELF LITERALLY

as they say
Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham:
And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,
And Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa,
Hadar, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah:
These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations.
And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, an hundred and thirty and seven years: and he gave up the spirit and died; and was gathered unto his people.
And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as you go toward Assyria: and he died in the presence of all his brethren

thats why our brethren :smoke: also asked this before
:smoke: so many temple
and not one in the desert
as they say
so what kind of pilgrimage is this
as it is written
:read:
Genesis: 47. 9. And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.
(PERHAPS YOU REALIZE NOW THE IMPORTANCE OF EVERY LITERAL WORDS THAT IS WRITTEN)

by the way
we have been informed to post this message
as it is written carefully check
every detail on it
and kindly correct us if we are wrong
:read:
:smoke: and someone pass through then went unto this temple . ...
as it written
:read:
And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defiles, neither whatsoever works abomination, or makes a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

You are very confused and know nothing about the Bible. You are clearly not worth debating with. I hope you enjoy your delusions.

:ty:



godbless
unto all always

 

[Tumah]

I see it as a spiritual pilgrimage, not a literal one which really wouldn't help at all.

This is probably the true meaning of this part of the psalm. The psalmist is couching the concept of becoming close to G-d in terms of a pilgrimage. A lot of the words here have a secondary meaning, that points to this interpretation. You could pretty much also translate these few verses as saying:

Happy is the man whose strength is in You, [the] paths [to You are] in their hearts
They pass through the depth of weeping (ie. sorrow) [and] they make it into a spring (which gushes upwards and is also associated with joy and salvation Isa. 12:3) and blessings will en-clothe teachers (ie. the one who is teaching this path will be en-clothed in blessings).

 

[Rival]

~;> atleast his not claiming anything about all the written words in the bible
from what weve seen so far
unlike what youve claimed
without giving any stand about your faith in the written scripture
or if we may say
you just thought you could know anything about the bible
but it happends to be your not understanding the very question that
our breathren :smoke: asked you before
:read: (as it is written)



AS YOU HAVE SAID FROM ONE OF
YOUR POST BEFORE ABOUT DESERT
:read:





... . THEREFORE WE CONCLUDE THAT YOU JUST
DONT ANTICIPATE THAT THE
scummy black box in the middle of a desert, (REMEMBER THAT YOU ALSO SAID THIS THINGS BEFORE FROM YOUR WRITTEN POST)
WAS STANDING ALSO IN THE DESERT ITSELF AS WHAT YOUVE SAID
MEANING YOU JUST GOT CONFUSED
AND
YOU JUST GOT LOST ON THE VERY REALITY ITSELF
FOR NOT REALIZING YOUR OWN VERY WRITTEN WORDS
SO IF WE MAY THEN CLARRIFY THIS AGAIN
THAT THE
Mecca or Makkah (Arabic: مكة Makkah) is a city in the Hejaz in Saudi Arabia. It is the capital of that kingdom's Makkah Region. The city islocated 70 km (43 mi) inland from Jeddah in a narrow valley at a .... However, it was also the time each year that disputes would be arbitrated, ...

HOPE YOU WOULD REALIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF EVERY WRITTEN WORDS LITERALLY (THOUGH WE DONT PUSH UNTO ANYONE HERE TO SEARCH THOSE WORDS THAT WERE SPIRITUALLY SAID)

but because of not being bias
as you claimed that you know the bible
then perharps you could answer this
question
:read:
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF AS A GENTILE
AND STATE YOUR ANSWER FROM
THE (ONLY WRITTEN WORDS IN . . . .. ) BIBLE ITSELF LITERALLY

as they say
Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham:
And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,
And Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa,
Hadar, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah:
These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations.
And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, an hundred and thirty and seven years: and he gave up the spirit and died; and was gathered unto his people.
And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as you go toward Assyria: and he died in the presence of all his brethren

thats why our brethren :smoke: also asked this before
:smoke: so many temple
and not one in the desert
as they say
so what kind of pilgrimage is this
as it is written
:read:
Genesis: 47. 9. And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.
(PERHAPS YOU REALIZE NOW THE IMPORTANCE OF EVERY LITERAL WORDS THAT IS WRITTEN)

by the way
we have been informed to post this message
as it is written carefully check
every detail on it
and kindly correct us if we are wrong
:read:
:smoke: and someone pass through then went unto this temple . ...
as it written
:read:
And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defiles, neither whatsoever works abomination, or makes a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.


:ty:



godbless
unto all always


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

My my.

 

[Flankerl]

My my.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You're the first Muslim I've ever seen quote from Hagarism to promote its accuracy (although probably because you haven't actually read it).

As some background information, the book contains the following statement in its introduction "This is a book written by infidels for infidels, and it is based on what from any Muslim perspective must appear an inordinate regard for the testimony of infidel sources. Our account is not merely unacceptable; it is also one which any Muslim whose faith is as a grain of mustard seed should find no difficulty in rejecting."

It's basic thesis is that the 'Hagarenes' followed a Northern Arabian form of Messianic Judaism, and Islamic history, including the idea of Mecca as the sacred city (rather than Jerusalem) was a later innovation. The Hijra wasn't from Mecca to Medina, it was from Northern Arabia towards the Promised Land of Israel. Even the word Muslim was a later invention as they called themselves Mahgraye/Muhajorun until long after Muhammad.

As such, it is probably not a text that I would have chosen in support of your claims, but kudos for being so bold.

Anyway, shall we see what else we can read from Hagarism, p21-23?

First thing worth noting is that the chapter itself is called 'Samaritan Calques' (i.e. What 'Hagarenes' borrowed from the Samaritans). Again, that title alone would have put me off quoting it, but each to their own.

"It is here that the abiding structural legacy of Samaritanism to Islam is to be found, despite the complexities induced by a variety of secondary interactions, in the form of a remarkable pair of Hagarene calques.3 The first of these is the Meccan sanctuary. The core of Samaritanism was the rejection of the sanctity of Jerusalem and its replacement by the older Israelite sanctuary of Shechem. This meant that when the Hagarenes in turn disengaged from Jerusalem,4 Shechem could provide a simple and appropriate model for the creation of a sanctuary of their own... These parallels are the more remarkable in that the Meccan sanctuary is clearly only the terminus of a complex development...

In the first place, the location of the Hagarene Shechem in Mecca is demonstrably secondary. The Islamic tradition, of course, leaves us in no doubt that Mecca was the aboriginal Abrahamic sanctuary of the Ishma elites; but there is no lack of evidence to suggest that it was in fact quite some time before the Hagarenes knew whether they were coming or going.6 Negatively, no early source outside the Islamic literary tradition refers to Mecca by name."

Ok, so far so bad. (That quote actually ends on page 22 btw, the page you quoted)



Seeing as you view it as authoritative, lets see what page 22-3 of Hagaism has to say about this... (you can see this overlaps with your quote)

"The Koran, on the other hand, does make one reference to Mecca (48:24), and in the context of military operations related to the sanctuary, but it never actually locates the sanctuary there;10 and it refers to an abrogatedqibla which in the context can hardly be identified as Jerusalem (2:138). Positively, the Koran itself tells us the name of the place where the sanctuary actually was: Bakka (3:90). The Islamic tradition is naturally at pains to identify this place with Mecca,11 and none of our sources shed any light on its original location...

It thus makes sense to scan the map of western Arabia for possible traces of discarded sanctuaries, and a number of places present interesting features in this context. In the Hijaz itself, the evidence is highly unsatisfactory in that it
derives almost entirely from the Islamic tradition. There are nevertheless two places worth noting: Yathrib, to which we shall return,15 and Ta'if. Ta'if presents one suspicious parallelism with Shechem in that both (in contrast to Mecca) are
sanctuaries located in famously green environments; 16 and it is the subject of one suspicious Islamic tradition, to the effect that it had once been a place in Palestine. 17 Further north the quality of the evidence improves, although the
problems still evade neat solution. We now reach an area for which Jewish settlement is well attested in pre-Islamic times, and for which a sacred geography had already been sketched out in the Jewish Targums...

The targumic renderings thus presented the north-west as appropriate terrain for a Hagarene sanctuary; and the connections of Mecca with al-Hijr and the paganism of provincial Arabia suggest that this potentiality may in fact have
been exploited. Such a hypothesis would go well with the prominence of the north-west in the rather meagre Arabian geography of the Koran,24 and would make sense of some anomalous indications in the Islamic tradition that the sanctuary was at one stage located to the north of Medina.25"

I could continue, but I assume that this is sufficient to demonstrate that you just quoted a passage that, far from arguing for the antiquity for the Meccan sanctuary, is actually arguing that Bakka was in Northern Arabia, much closer to Israel, where the Samaritans and the later Hagarenes actually lived and that the Meccan sanctuary was thus a later innovation.

The problem with quoting sources you haven't read, is that sometimes other people have actually read them.




Does Hagarism still count as 'clear evidence' now that you are aware it royally pisses on your chips?

If not, why should we trust your evaluation of the other sources you bring to the table?

Colour me impressed. Very well done!!