User blog comment:LurkerLordB/Religion in a world without Christianity/@comment-1777104-20120424214749/@comment-1777104-20120425034635

Good points everybody. I find it interesting that Wikipedia now seems to trump Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source. Who'd have thought that would happen?

Lurk, do you have information that would show that Arabia was not an immoral place in the 7th century? It seems a bit odd to think that such a concern would be an indication of bias. The article does point out the contacts on the trade routes as well. Is there anything that would make you think that Muhammad listened to and considered the message of these religions?

I agree that the term Semitic relates to many different people groups -- it is derived from ancient Biblical claims of one of Noah's sons being the progenitor of those people. I used the qualifier "probably" on purpose, leaving open the possibility that claims of descent are mere legend. IMO the Semitic culture has every reason to keep those kinds of records, even in a nomadic society. The assumption that Abram was a myth is a modern one backed mostly, IMO, by theories of men (and women) bent on denying history on philosophical grounds. But then, that is my opinion.

Imagine that, historians debating ancient records creating history to fit their own theories. Sort of like alternate history, huh?