mmsen:


Yet when I asked scholars the question, "Was there ever a man called Abraham?" as often as not they were respectful (we can't disprove it) but convinced of the futility of trying to find a flesh-and-blood individual. "Abraham is beyond recovery," said Israel Finkelstein, a biblical archaeologist at Tel Aviv University. Without any proof of the patriarch's existence, the search for a historical Abraham is even more difficult than the search for a historical Jesus.

Another unproven historical figure but when all else fails the religious fall back on faith.

Why can they never say that they do not know?

We believe the evidence of our scriptures, so we know. Our scriptures are right about other things, so we believe them about this matter also, in the same way that we do not set out to prove every mathematical formula in a maths textbook, once we have accepted its worth. We do not ask you to believe, but you cannot ask us to disbelieve. Someone definitely built the Kaaba. We know him to be Abraham through our revelations. You may believe that a series of geological upheavals coincidentally piled stones on top of each other over billions of years to form the Kaaba... your choice. Your belief is as good for you as mine is to me. Or you may say you don't know, while our knowledge is set on a wider base of evidence than sight, smell and hearing. Deduction, reasoning also play a part.

Prayer time. BRB.

Abuamam:


We believe the evidence of our scriptures, so we know. Our scriptures are right about other things, so we believe them about this matter also, in the same way that we do not set out to prove every mathematical formula in a maths textbook, once we have accepted its worth. We do not ask you to believe, but you cannot ask us to disbelieve. Someone definitely built the Kaaba. We know him to be Abraham through our revelations. You may believe that a series of geological upheavals coincidentally piled stones on top of each other over billions of years to form the Kaaba... your choice. Your belief is as good for you as mine is to me. Or you may say you don't know, while our knowledge is set on a wider base of evidence than sight, smell and hearing. Deduction, reasoning also play a part.

Prayer time. BRB.

No one said that the Kaaba was not built by someone but to claim that it was Abraham when there is a lack of evidence of such a character makes no sense.

The Koran is also wrong about a number of things and has been proven dangerous in instances but those cases are oddly ignored. Just as the xtians ignore fallacies within their special book.

Abuamam:


We believe the evidence of our scriptures, so we know. Our scriptures are right about other things, so we believe them about this matter also, in the same way that we do not set out to prove every mathematical formula in a maths textbook, once we have accepted its worth. We do not ask you to believe, but you cannot ask us to disbelieve. Someone definitely built the Kaaba. We know him to be Abraham through our revelations. You may believe that a series of geological upheavals coincidentally piled stones on top of each other over billions of years to form the Kaaba... your choice. Your belief is as good for you as mine is to me. Or you may say you don't know, while our knowledge is set on a wider base of evidence than sight, smell and hearing. Deduction, reasoning also play a part.

Prayer time. BRB.

Now this is the major problem religion causes to the world.

Some say... We believe our Allah instructed us to slay all infidels because our holy book says so

Why can't u see that the problem here is when u base ur knowledge on belief, u are just saying all religions are the way to God... No need for preaching to convert other believers since others can also believe in anything.

frank317:

Now this is the major problem religion causes to the world.
Some say... We believe our Allah instructed us to slay all infidels because our holy book says so
Why can't u see that the problem here is when u base ur knowledge on belief, u are just saying all religions are the way to God... No need for preaching to convert other believers since others can also believe in anything.

Your premise is not correct. The initial belief in the scripture must be predicated on reason, not just blind belief in any book that claims to be scripture. Believing in 'anything' is wrong. I explained what I meant by this comment. If you are given say, an astronomy book, you do not have to build your own array of radio telescopes to ascertain that the book is valid. You are taught the course in school, given reasonable proof of the theories contained therein, and you accept it as truth. When it comes to scripture, we follow the same process. We test those assertions within our power to test. If 100% of all assertions tested come back ok, we accept the scripture as valid. Atheists always want direct sensory proof of 'positives' in all religious matters. If we all followed this trend in all aspects of life, we would be totally ignorant.

mmsen:


No one said that the Kaaba was not built by someone but to claim that it was Abraham when there is a lack of evidence of such a character makes no sense.

The Koran is also wrong about a number of things and has been proven dangerous in instances but those cases are oddly ignored. Just as the xtians ignore fallacies within their special book.

Let us stay on the Abraham issue. I will still get back to your comment on the wrong places in the Quran; insha Allah.

Let me ask you these questions...

If Abraham did not exist, why did both the Hebrew and the Arab tribes independently invent him as a common ancestor? Remember that many large pre-Islamic tribal families traced their lineage back to him; and if the Arabs were meticulous about anything, it was their lineage. They killed each other relentlessly for family honour. Similarly, the OT seems to have compiled lineages exhaustively. How did they both invent a similar Abraham/ Ibrahim who had sons called Ismail, and Isaac; and whose sons were the fathers of Arabs and Hebrews respectively, along with long chains of children and grandchildren?
Remember that the Jews historicslly referred to the Arabs as Ishmaelites.
Why would the story go so far as to elaborate on Hajjar's journey, her claim over the Zammzam well etc, if it was all totally fictitious? What gain would have been derived?

Abuamam:


Let us stay on the Abraham issue. I will still get back to your comment on the wrong places in the Quran; insha Allah.

Let me ask you these questions...

If Abraham did not exist, why did both the Hebrew and the Arab tribes independently invent him as a common ancestor? Remember that many large pre-Islamic tribal families traced their lineage back to him; and if the Arabs were meticulous about anything, it was their lineage. They killed each other relentlessly for family honour. Similarly, the OT seems to have compiled lineages exhaustively. How did they both invent a similar Abraham/ Ibrahim who had sons called Ismail, and Isaac; and whose sons were the fathers of Arabs and Hebrews respectively, along with long chains of children and grandchildren?
Remember that the Jews historicslly referred to the Arabs as Ishmaelites.
Why would the story go so far as to elaborate on Hajjar's journey, her claim over the Zammzam well etc, if it was all totally fictitious? What gain would have been derived?

There is no evidence to suggest that Arabs created the myth of Abraham independently, he was already in existence courtesy of the Jewish Torah (and most likely oral story telling). There is no proof that both groups formulated the ideas concurrently. Islam is the last of the Abrahamic religions and as such had a lot of written text from which to borrow.

The myth of Jesus was based upon the earlier myths of Mithras and that of Horus. No rational person would claim that the existence of a Horus myth is proof of Jesus. You would still need to establish reliable secondary sources for the myth of Horus. The same is true of Abraham, alas no such sources have been found for such an important figure.

Having a similar story does not make it genuine, especially when there is a significant time lapse between records.

mmsen:


There is no evidence to suggest that Arabs created the myth of Abraham independently, he was already in existence courtesy of the Jewish Torah (and most likely oral story telling). There is no proof that both groups formulated the ideas concurrently. Islam is the last of the Abrahamic religions and as such had a lot of written text from which to borrow from.

The myth of Jesus was based upon the earlier myths of Mithras and that of Horus. No rational person would claim that the existence of a Horus myth is proof of Jesus. You would still need to establish reliable secondary sources for the myth of Horus. The same is true of Abraham, alas no such sources have been found for such an important figure.

Having a similar story does not make it genuine, especially when there is a significant time lapse between records.

The Arabs had these genealogies long before the era of the prophet (saw). You assume that this tracing of lineage started at the time of the prophet (saw). It did not. Had he given himself a fake jewish lineage unknown to the Arabs, they would have destroyed his credibility. The jews on the other hand, arrived in Arabia at most, a couple of hundred years before the prophet (saw). It is illogical to believe that the Jews; a repressed minority and refugres from the 2nd temple destruction; managed to impose fabricated lineages on the proud Arab tribes. Sort of like the few Yorubas in the East forcing the Igbos to trace all their lineages to Oduduwa.

These were events occurring in lands where almost no one could read or write. The importance of a figure like Abraham was not that outstanding around the 25th century BC. He was probably just a tribal leader called to prophethood, with a village of a few dozens at most. Hardly a personality you would expect to find recorded by ancient historians of that period (actually, there were no historians from that period).

Abuamam:


The Arabs had these genealogies long before the era of the prophet (saw). You assume that this tracing of lineage started at the time of the prophet (saw). It did not. Had he given himself a fake jewish lineage unknown to the Arabs, they would have destroyed his credibility. The jews on the other hand, arrived in Arabia at most, a couple of hundred years before the prophet (saw). It is illogical to believe that the Jews; a repressed minority and refugres from the 2nd temple destruction; managed to impose fabricated lineages on the proud Arab tribes. Sort of like the few Yorubas in the East forcing the Igbos to trace all their lineages to Oduduwa.

These were events occurring in lands where almost no one could read or write. The importance of a figure like Abraham was not that outstanding around the 25th century BC. He was probably just a tribal leader called to prophethood, with a village of a few dozens at most. Hardly a personality you would expect to find recorded by ancient historians of that period (actually, there were no historians from that period).

They wouldn't need to be forced to do anything if their intention was to establish a supreme monotheistic religion. It is more likely that the Arabs sought to attach themselves to greatness than the Jews forcing their ideas upon anybody.

Alas, we have no proof either way. More theories.

And once again we come back to 'faith'.

None of this proves that Abraham built anything.

mmsen:


They wouldn't need to be forced to do anything if their intention was to establish supreme monotheistic religion. It is more likely that the Arabs sought to attach themselves to greatness than the Jews forcing their ideas upon anybody.

There was no thought of establishing a monotheistic religion at the time that pre-Islamic Arabs were narrating their genealogies. And there was nothing great about the Jews. They were a minority number of refugees. The Arabs did not see them as superior in any way.

mmsen:

Alas, we have no proof either way. More theories.

And once again we come back to 'faith'.

None of this proves that Abraham built anything.

There can be no attempt or likelihood of proving that Abraham built the Kaaba to an atheist. You have no book I can quote, and the time period involved permits no source that you will not reject. I would necessarily depend on Muslim narrations, which you would instantly deny.

It does not dismiss the possibility that a man called Ibrahim/ Abraham did build the Kaaba either. At best, you might say that you do not know. I, who believe in the truth of the Quran and hadith, have the belief that he did. To each his belief.

Kind of like those who believe that the American moon landing was all a staged hoax. There is no way to prove it to them; short of taking them to the moon to see the flags.

Goodnight.

Abuamam:


There was no thought of establishing a monotheistic religion at the time that pre-Islamic Arabs were narrating their genealogies. And there was nothing great about the Jews. They were a minority number of refugees. The Arabs did not see them as superior in any way.



There can be no attempt or likelihood of proving that Abraham built the Kaaba to an atheist. You have no book I can quote, and the time period involved permits no source that you will not reject. I would necessarily depend on Muslim narrations, which you would instantly deny.

It does not dismiss the possibility that a man called Ibrahim/ Abraham did build the Kaaba either. At best, you might say that you do not know. I, who believe in the truth of the Quran and hadith, have the belief that he did. To each his belief.

Kind of like those who believe that the American moon landing was all a staged hoax. There is no way to prove it to them; short of taking them to the moon to see the flags.

Goodnight.

The problem with relying on Islamic sources is that you ignore the non-Islamic sources. There were Arabs who were not Muslims and there were people in that region who were not Arabs who would have mentioned the Kaaba in their writings.

mmsen:


The problem with relying on Islamic sources is that you ignore the non-Islamic sources. There were Arabs who were not Muslims and there were people in that region who were not Arabs who would have mentioned the Kaaba in their writings.

That's the whole problem right there. There is a lack of non-Islamic sources, either writing or archaeological, to corroborate the Islamic sources, virtually all of which were written down more than 150 years after the time in question.

My personal belief is that "Islam" was created over a period of a couple of centuries, and was expressly done so by the Arab rulers who wanted to redirect the beliefs of the people in their new empire away from locations in Persia (Zoroastrian religion) and the Byzantine Empire (Christianity) towards a place where they originated from (Arabia), so that they could not only have political credibility but also religious credibility. And so Islam was born, out of a mix of these religions + Judaism so that they could claim to be a continuation of the most ancient religious tradition in the region.

In my view it is similar to Christianity in this regards, as modern Christianity is largely a product of the politics of the late Roman Empire and not the actual life of Jesus himself (if he existed).

onetrack:


That's the whole problem right there. There is a lack of non-Islamic sources, either writing or archaeological, to corroborate the Islamic sources, virtually all of which were written down more than 150 years after the time in question.

My personal belief is that "Islam" was created over a period of a couple of centuries, and was expressly done so by the Arab rulers who wanted to redirect the beliefs of the people in their new empire away from locations in Persia (Zoroastrian religion) and the Byzantine Empire (Christianity) towards a place where they originated from (Arabia), so that they could not only have political credibility but also religious credibility. And so Islam was born, out of a mix of these religions + Judaism so that they could claim to be a continuation of the most ancient religious tradition in the region.

In my view it is similar to Christianity in this regards, as modern Christianity is largely a product of the politics of the late Roman Empire and not the actual life of Jesus himself (if he existed).

What you say makes a lot of sense but some people will refuse to acknowledge that religion has anything to do with power or politics.

onetrack:


That's the whole problem right there. There is a lack of non-Islamic sources, either writing or archaeological, to corroborate the Islamic sources, virtually all of which were written down more than 150 years after the time in question.

My personal belief is that "Islam" was created over a period of a couple of centuries, and was expressly done so by the Arab rulers who wanted to redirect the beliefs of the people in their new empire away from locations in Persia (Zoroastrian religion) and the Byzantine Empire (Christianity) towards a place where they originated from (Arabia), so that they could not only have political credibility but also religious credibility. And so Islam was born, out of a mix of these religions + Judaism so that they could claim to be a continuation of the most ancient religious tradition in the region.

In my view it is similar to Christianity in this regards, as modern Christianity is largely a product of the politics of the late Roman Empire and not the actual life of Jesus himself (if he existed).

Whatever non-Islamic sources exist were still narrated by Muslim historians. Also, the emphasis on written documents is not valid in Islam, since Muslim narrators took pains to collate the names and background of every single narrator in their chain of narrations.

Your post implies very little knowledge of history. Islam was revealed over the lifetime of the prophet (saw) and was a totally radical change away from the religious status quo. The opposition he faced from his own family members and tribal leaders was evidence of this.

Also, if you look at pre-Islamic Arabian structure as compared to Roman Empire, you would realise how far-fetched your idea of Islam being developped over the centuries is. The Arabs had no central command or rulers like the Romans. They were essentially feudal tribes or villages centred around major oases and minor village structures. Many consisted of a few family units banded together for protection and alliances against other tribes. The idea that they came together to create anything is preposterous. Even if we were to agree, for the sake of argument, that they did create the religion, why did they put a relatively poor and unknown person as the head of the new religion? The prophet (saw) was not one of the rulers, even in his provincial town of Mecca. He was neither rich nor prominent; choosing him to be the leader of all Arabs would have been highly improbable. Another notable difference from xtianity is that, unlike Jesus, the historicity of the prophet (saw) is too well established to be in doubt... even from non-Islamic sources, let alone the whole body of hadith and seerah.

There is also the argument that Muslim scholars and historians over 15 centuries, came together with all the Arabs that they had duped imto Islam (because Islamic knowledge has never been restricted to a possibly conniving priestly class, but is openly accessible), and created a hoax of such magnitude, along with Scripture, history, narrations, laws and codes of conduct, all in an age where the whole of Arabia probably had less than a couple of hundred people who could read or write. Come on; how plausible is that.

What is kabba?
Is it d kabba of kogi state or what?
I just marvel at d foolishness and mad*ness of our muslim brodas who come hear to embarass demselves
islam is a religion of piss
I spit on muhammad(disaster be upon him and his followers) grave
I fart on allahhz fvcking face!

Abuamam:


All that you said above is correct. Muslim sources narrate that after Ibrahim (as) built the Kaaba along with his son Ismail (as); for the worship of a Single, Creator Entity, subsequent tribes and immigrants who moved into the area brought their own gods along with them. These later were installed in the Kaaba and its environs. The worship of the Creator as Allah remained as the Supreme Diety. The new gods were seen as intercessors or 'daughters' of Allah; Who was percieved to be too Mighty to be worshipped or asked for favours directly. The rites of Hajj initiated by Ibrahim and Ismail (as) were incorporated into the god worship. These were;
-The tawaf around the Kaaba; who the pagans knew as the house of Allah.
- The standing at Arafat for seeking Allah's forgiveness. It was narrated that this is where Adam and Hauwa (as) pleaded for Allah's forgiveness after their act of disobedience, and were subsequently forgiven. (No original sin in Islam, but I digress).
- The throwing of stones which were to commemorate the event where Satan appeared to Ibrahim (as) 3 times; to try to dissuade him from proceeding to build the Kaaba at Mecca.
- The sa'y between the 2 hills of asSafa and alMarwa which reminds us of how Hagar, the wife of Ibrahim, sought water for her son after her abandonment in the plains of Mecca.

All these events were well known and the pagan Arabs acknowledged them; long before the advent of the prophet Muhammad (saw).
Upon his re-entry into Mecca, he cleansed the Kaaba and its surroundings of idols and revived the worship of Allah the Supreme Creator alone.

This is what our sources say. Now why do you think they are untrue? Obviously, Ptolemy and other Roman/ Greek sources were not comprehensive and Arabia was never under Roman or Greek rule, so documents from such sources will not be possible. However, I would like to know why Muslim or pre-Islamic Arab historians are not authentic?



Abraham was not a Jew. Not even the jews say he was. The name Jew 'Hebrew: Yehudi' is derived from the fourth son of Abraham's great grandson; Judah (Yehudah), son of Jacob. The laws associated with the Jews were said to be of much later origin... revealed to Moses.
You need to understand the exegesis of the word 'Muslim'. In Islam, it means one who has submitted his will and desires to the laws and dictates of the Almighty. Abraham was one such. So were all the prophets of Islam. Therefore, they are recognised as Muslims (submitters to God) and monotheists.

then how old is Islam? Abraham you mentioned, did he kill other tribes to propagate Islam? Was Abraham a Jew or an Arab?

ProfessorPeter:
then how old is Islam? Abraham you mentioned, did he kill other tribes to propagate Islam? Was Abraham a Jew or an Arab?

None... Following the biblical fable.. Abraham was a sumerian (mesopotamia)

johnydon22:


None... Following the biblical fable.. Abraham was a sumerian (mesopotamia)

Do you have proof? I mean personal proof?

Misogynist2014:
Do you have proof? I mean personal proof?

personal proof asin that is not the bible?

U don't ve records or evidence abt somtin, and ya come here to tell us kabba of kogi was built by Abraham and dat islam said so.
Chai, d koran and hadith re books of confusion
D more dey try to defend d comic books d more fallacies we see
Don't be surprised wen dey move dis topic to d islam section becos dey ve bin defeated
Wen we defeat dem dey either move d topic or delete it
Lol, muhamMAD was a mad pig

ProfessorPeter:
then how old is Islam? Abraham you mentioned, did he kill other tribes to propagate Islam? Was Abraham a Jew or an Arab?

He was neither a Jew nor an Arab.

Muslims understand Islam to have commenced with Adam, who worshipped the Almighty Creator, and submitted to His Will. All monotheists who submit to the laws and codes set by the Almighty are; by definition; Muslims. Islam means submission to the Will of the Almighty.

mmsen:


No one said that the Kaaba was not built by someone but to claim that it was Abraham when there is a lack of evidence of such a character makes no sense.

The Koran is also wrong about a number of things and has been proven dangerous in instances but those cases are oddly ignored. Just as the xtians ignore fallacies within their special book.

what sort of evidence,theres even no way of scientifically proven Abraham's existence.like Abuamam wrote
"we are talking of a single person over 2000 years ago, at a time when there was no birth/ marriage/ death certificates; and in pure wilderness".the best you can get is from his descendants themselves.obviously they must have had an account of who their own father was.

Abuamam:


Oh! An atheist thread. Good. That should be a refreshing interlude from those close-minded evangelical arguementators. At least atheists pride themselves on the use of reason, rather than cognitive disonance.

Now...

-What is the evidence that the Kaaba was built for Hubal's sake? (as per your final statement).

-What period do you percieve to be that of the 'commencement of Islam? (as per your penultimate statement).

-What do you think will serve as satisfactory 'evidence', that can be reasonably obtained?



Come on. I have told you before. Do not be a disgrace to atheists. Atheists claim to act only on REASON. You said something is a lie without having any proof of its being so. That was an emotional outburst, not a logical premise. Correct yourself please. Only we religious fellows are permitted such attitudes.

In my arguments with Muslims, I usually don't argue on history because it can easily be manipulated, especially by slaves, I duel more and mostly on contradictions and undeniable history, especially those in the Qur'an itself.

Antony Garrard Newton Flew (1923 – 2010) was a British philosopher. He was also
known for the development of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
I would never regard Islam with anything but horror and fear because it is
fundamentally committed to conquering the world for Islam... it is, I think, best
described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab
imperialism. Between the New Testament and the Qur'an there is (as it is
customary to say when making such comparisons) no comparison. Whereas
markets can be found for books on reading the Bible as literature, to read the Qur'an
is a penance rather than a pleasure. There is no order or development in its subject
matter.... The Prophet, though gifted in the arts of persuasion and clearly a
considerable military leader, was both doubtfully literate and certainly ill-informed
about the contents of the Old Testament and about several matters of which God, if
not even the least informed of the Prophet’s contemporaries, must have been
cognizant... one thing I’ll say in this comparison is that, for goodness sake, Jesus is
an enormously attractive charismatic figure, which the Prophet of Islam most
emphatically is not. [12]

johnydon22:


personal proof asin that is not the bible?

After reading the one that must be true and reading that of renown apologists, what flaws did you pick out/establish?

Abuamam:


Oh! An atheist thread. Good. That should be a refreshing interlude from those close-minded evangelical arguementators. At least atheists pride themselves on the use of reason, rather than cognitive discognance

so true,see the 'contribution' of the two "evangelical arguementators" who have commented so far,unfortunate that's the limit of their mental reasoning.

Misogynist2014:
After reading the one that must be true and reading that of renown apologists, what flaws did you pick out/establish?

If i tell you i understand what you are yapping about, then am a fvcking liar.. make your point... which evidence are you talking about.. that abraham is of sumerian descent or what?

Page 2 going to page 3 and still dey ve not answered d OP question, I laff at d foolishness of our islam brodaz
Who built kabba and give facts
Don't tell me islam said dis it said dat
Pls answer d OP question

mujahid1339:
what sort of evidence,theres even no way of scientifically proven Abraham's existence.like Abuamam wrote
"we are talking of a single person over 2000 years ago, at a time when there was no birth/ marriage/ death certificates; and in pure wilderness".the best you can get is from his descendants themselves.obviously they must have had an account of who their own father was.

Pre-Islamic poetry has evidence of Abraham and stories of the Kaaba. Finding online sources is difficult... very little has been translated or put online. This website makes good reading for a history of that period and they have references for the pre-Islamic stories of Abraham. I was not able to get those books in online form.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/arp/arp004.htm#fr_0

Misogynist2014:
In my arguments with Muslims, I usually don't argue on history because it can easily be manipulated, especially by slaves, I duel more and mostly on contradictions and undeniable history, especially those in the Qur'an itself.

Antony Garrard Newton Flew (1923 – 2010) was a British philosopher. He was also
known for the development of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
I would never regard Islam with anything but horror and fear because it is
fundamentally committed to conquering the world for Islam... it is, I think, best
described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab
imperialism. Between the New Testament and the Qur'an there is (as it is
customary to say when making such comparisons) no comparison. Whereas
markets can be found for books on reading the Bible as literature, to read the Qur'an
is a penance rather than a pleasure. There is no order or development in its subject
matter.... The Prophet, though gifted in the arts of persuasion and clearly a
considerable military leader, was both doubtfully literate and certainly ill-informed
about the contents of the Old Testament and about several matters of which God, if
not even the least informed of the Prophet’s contemporaries, must have been
cognizant... one thing I’ll say in this comparison is that, for goodness sake, Jesus is
an enormously attractive charismatic figure, which the Prophet of Islam most
emphatically is not. [12]

I have heard all the contemptible arguments by people who look at Islam in a very cursory way, from as far back as the 19th century. These assertions have no basis in objective reality. They merely served to pretend contempt for Islamic values through misrepresentation and deliberate falsehood.
One reason why I like religious discussions with atheists is that; as oppossed to people of aggressive missionary bent, they purport to look at events from a logical or reasonable viewpoint. If you wish to prove the 'contradictions', and 'falsehoods' in the Quran, by all means open a thread to do so. However, do so using reason and logic based on how Muslims really understand their religion, and not how you believe they understand it; nor using stale viewpoints from ageing philosophers who knew almost nothing about the religion they love to vilify.

johnydon22:


If i tell you i understand what you are yapping about, then am a fvcking liar.. make your point... which evidence are you talking about.. that abraham is of sumerian descent or what?

How can you claim a side is true by reading articles online? What I suggest you try to do is that after reading articles online, try reading the opposition (well known ones), find the weak links and use it for your arguments, instead of swallowing hook line and sinker and then coming out here to spit it out as the absolute.

Misogynist2014:
How can you claim a side is true by reading articles online? What I suggest you try to do is that after reading articles online, try reading the opposition (well known ones), find the weak links and use it for your arguments, instead of swallowing hook line and sinker and then coming out here to spit it out as the absolute.

It seems that you like talking meaningless trash... Can you please show me where i asserted anything to be true here or took any side

I dont even get where you are coming from, please show me a post where i claimed anything to be true and how my analogy was from an online site?

mujahid1339:
what sort of evidence,theres even no way of scientifically proven Abraham's existence.like Abuamam wrote
"we are talking of a single person over 2000 years ago, at a time when there was no birth/ marriage/ death certificates; and in pure wilderness".the best you can get is from his descendants themselves.obviously they must have had an account of who their own father was.

There are books and manuscripts that were written thousands of years ago. None of them have been found to record this Abraham figure.

People look to align themselves with great myths and prestige, just because someone claims to be of Abraham's lineage does not make it so - they too have no proof.

johnydon22:


None... Following the biblical fable.. Abraham was a sumerian (mesopotamia)

This shows you have enough proof that the historical recordings of the Bible is fable, including Abraham himself. Do you have proof?

Misogynist2014:
This shows you have enough proof that the historical recordings of the Bible is fable, including Abraham himself. Do you have proof?

Did you miss the part i said "according to the [size=20]biblical fabel[/size]
so biblical fable now sounds like an online article to you?

biblical means from the bible.. (Now i am beginning to doubt you comprehension ability)