Independent 3rd party analysis confirms JAH's King of kings' Bible

Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,496
Likes
741
#1
A completely independent analysis, done by a third party, has in their own separate approach come to reach the EXACT same conclusion as JAH's interpretation of the Holy Koran as contained in the King of kings' Bible, in that:

1- Makkah/Mecca is never found mentioned anywhere in the Koran
2- that the Kaba was never in Mecca
3- that all of the references to the Kaba (and synonyms) most closely resemble Jerusalem

"....the Ka'Ba as with the other synonymous expressions al-bayt (the house)
(8x), al-bayt al-? Atîq (the old house) (2x), al-bayt al- Harâm (the holy house)
(2x), al-masgid al-Harâm (the holy prayer house) (15x), al-maš? ar al-Harâm (the
holy place of pilgrimage) (1x), this question will be discussed philologically.
As a result, it will be seen that all these terms are most closely related to
Jerusalem...."

No "Mecca" (Makka) and no "Bakka" in the Quran To Sure 48:24 and 3:96 A philological analysis
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/8ud1l9
"The original meaning of Kaaba is something round shaped not cubic we can still
see this in the qarmatian Kaaba and that's logic, it's a temple created for the
purpose of turning around it. The cube meaning is late, and it was even
transported to english and frensh, but we still find some words in arabic
deriving from Kaab and keeping the original round meaning like the "Kaab" of the
feet...

Mecca as a city didn't exist before 700, museums in saudi arabia are empty, they
never found an artifact from the 7th century, they even built huge buildings
around the kaaba, they never found something. No one ever heard or wrote about
this city, an old rock writing in Taif say that the masjid al haram was built in
698, the first time mecca appear in a paper writing is in spain 724. the quraych
tribe is from syria, confirmed with DNA tests, and we have families in syria
with that name. The script used in the area of mecca was the south arabian
script and it was more complete than the nabatean script, if the quran was from
mecca he should have been written in this south arabian script. Mecca as a
center of trade is not possible, the distances in the biography are not right,
Patricia crone say that in the history books, some people traveled from medina
to irak passing by mecca, and that's not logical. The mosques orientations are
wrong, they are not facing mecca, in north africa they're facing parallel, and
the old mosques are facing somewhere in jordan with clear mihrab direction
change even after the supposed death of Mo. Quran verses are speaking about a
different geography than the one we find in mecca, a verse is saying that the
meccans pass by the dead sea day and night.

And philologically, the quran is not speaking about a city, but about a temple,
and since the quran is entirely centered on jerusalem and jewish culture, it's
probably speaking about jerusalem, and the bakka is indeed from the psalms.

Something is not right, last year, archeologists found a new hidden temple in
Petra, i hope they find a quran verse in it, or a direct link.

We also have problems with the night journey verse, it's probably not speaking
about mo but about moses fleeing by the red sea from the army of pharaoh. We
have other problems like the fact that the night journeyhappened in mecca and
the 5 prayers were fixed in mecca, but muslims sarted praying five times a day
only at medina, and in some hadiths, mo saw a winged horse in the doll
collection of aisha, she said that solomon had a winged horse, then mo started
laughing, like if he didn't believe in it.

·
1 year ago
"The first house of God set up for man is the one in Bakka . 81: ie Mecca ], (
set ) for the blessing and guidance for people around the world ( al-'alamun )
".

Syntax: Even an Arabist will notice that something is wrong with the syntax of
this sentence. The predicate of this sentence is the last sentence: "is the one
in Bakka ". This ends the sentence. This is followed by (in the Arabic
accusative) "for the blessing and guidance of the people". Because this addition
is missing the verb that governs this accusative, to Paret has been forced to
the verb ( set ) to repeat in parentheses to justify the following accusative.
Paret does not realize that the actual verb that governs this accusative is just
this lettering " bakka " (allegedly) " in Bakka ".

The Koranic lettering ( rasm ) shows two undefined ciphers and two unique k and
h ( ? Kh ). The final hour is provided with two points, be interpreted as Arabic
feminine ending, what is also at "Bakka ta has wrongly assumed". For the end- h
can also denote the masculine personal suffix, which here refers to " bayt"
(house) in the antecedent. The author therefore proposed the following
conjecture in his abovementioned study (page 336, note 352):

inna awwala baytin wudi'a li-n-nasi la-lladi tayyaka-hu mubarakan wa-hudan
li-l-'alamin

This conjecture restores the syntax of this sentence as follows:

"The first (holy) house created for the people is the one that he has fenced (
fenced ) as a blessed (sanctuary) (and) to guide people ."

This understanding is supported by Sura 17: 1 where it is said of the " distant
house of prayer ": alladi bârak-nâ hawla-hu = "whose environment we have blessed
". An alternative verbal form for the chosen letter bi-Bakka follows elsewhere.

Result of the philogical discussion of the expression ( fî batni makka ) " in
the valley bottom of Mecca ":

Arabic batn is Syro-Aramaic karsa again, meaning here: in the midst of [9] .

makka means Syro-Aramaic "melee , physical altercation ".

The discussed passage from Surah 48:24 should therefore be understood as follows:

"He is the one who in the midst of a (physical) conflict has removedtheir hands
from you and your hands from them ..."

If Mecca is not mentioned in the Qur'an after that, it will be clarified in a
next post what may be meant by the Ka'ba , the central sanctuary of Islam.

1 year ago
http://www.imprimatur-trier.de/2012/imp120706.html

...... Consequences of the misreading of bi-Bakka and the misinterpretation of
Makka (Mecca)

Did the in-depth philological analysis suggest that the Koran neither has a
primary place called Bakka [5]yet another modified secondary name Makka (Mecca)
knows, since these putative place names are based on a misreading or
misinterpretation of unrecognized Syro-Aramaic expressions, so can with the
two-time occurring expression "umm al-qurâ" (Sura 6:92 and 42: 7) (literally
"mother of the cities" = supposedly "capital") also not meant Mecca. At the same
time, this leads to the realization that Ka'ba, which has been mentioned twice
in the Quran (Sura 5:95, 97), the central sanctuary of Islam, could not have
been in Mecca. What place and what exactly the Koran with the Ka'Ba as with the
other synonymous expressions al-bayt (the house) (8x), al-bayt al-? Atîq (the
old house) (2x), al-bayt al- Harâm (the holy house) (2x), al-masgid al-Harâm
(the holy prayer house) (15x), al-maš? ar al-Harâm (the holy place of
pilgrimage) (1x), this question will be discussed philologically. As a result,
it will be seen that all these terms are most closely related to Jerusalem."

Their independent conclusion is therefore in alignment with JAH's interpretation of the Holy Koran as it has been published in the King of kings' Bible.

See also: [Battle of the Bibles] by Tony Farrell

http://thewayhomeorfacethefire.net/reviews

The Holy Koran
 





Last edited:

DUSTY

Established
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
221
Likes
163
#2
Thats not a bible. You mislead people by claiming that it is. And it doesn't matter if some third party claims it's wonderful, because it isn't. Islam and Christianity are at odds with each other. They disagree at their very core. Who exactly wrote your King of Kings book? What authority does he have to be able to claim it's accurate? Who exactly is "JAH", and by that I mean his name at birth and not the one he has renamed himself with. Credentials please.
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,496
Likes
741
#3
Thats not a bible. You mislead people by claiming that it is. And it doesn't matter if some third party claims it's wonderful, because it isn't. Islam and Christianity are at odds with each other. They disagree at their very core. Who exactly wrote your King of Kings book? What authority does he have to be able to claim it's accurate? Who exactly is "JAH", and by that I mean his name at birth and not the one he has renamed himself with. Credentials please.
Is that you PioneerSpirit?
 





DUSTY

Established
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
221
Likes
163
#4
Is that you PioneerSpirit?
That's not an answer.

Thats not a bible. You mislead people by claiming that it is. And it doesn't matter if some third party claims it's wonderful, because it isn't. Islam and Christianity are at odds with each other. They disagree at their very core. Who exactly wrote your King of Kings book? What authority does he have to be able to claim it's accurate? Who exactly is "JAH", and by that I mean his name at birth and not the one he has renamed himself with. Credentials please.
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,496
Likes
741
#5
That's not an answer.

Thats not a bible. You mislead people by claiming that it is. And it doesn't matter if some third party claims it's wonderful, because it isn't. Islam and Christianity are at odds with each other. They disagree at their very core. Who exactly wrote your King of Kings book? What authority does he have to be able to claim it's accurate? Who exactly is "JAH", and by that I mean his name at birth and not the one he has renamed himself with. Credentials please.
Goodbye PioneerSpirit aka DUSTY.
Good luck to you.
I really only do wish the best for you, which is why I shared the link with you and talked to you for all this time.
Now it's up to you.
All the best,

bible student
 





DUSTY

Established
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
221
Likes
163
#6
That's not an answer. That's running away.

You claim to have 'THE ONLY TRUTH', therefore your sources are subject to scrutiny.

Who exactly wrote your King of Kings book? What authority does he have to be able to claim it's accurate? Who exactly is "JAH", and by that I mean his name at birth and not the one he has renamed himself with. Credentials please.