You are also twisting what l say, as part of your Argument from Omission, in that l show that Makkah is mentioned in the Qur’an. You then go on to say “but it’s mentioned as a VALLEY which therefore somehow places it in Jerusalem bla bla”, when Makkah is in a valley and the translation of your cited verse often states “Valley” in English. [See your Post 44 and my reply in Post 45]
You then cop out by saying l’m using the Qur’an to prove the Qur’an. It was YOUR argument that brought the Qur’an into it, by saying it / its mention of Makkah was somehow retrofitted into Islam, which invokes an edifice of evidence to the contrary, which you then handwave and call “abstruse”.
Makkah has always been mentioned in the Qur’an, and the earliest manuscripts date back to the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) or the companions of his who ruled immediately after him (see the Birmingham Qur’an manuscript). The Qur’an has always been in Arabic. The Qur’an even mentions that it is in Arabic, in its own verses it mentions the word “Arabic”. Makkah was the city of the Quraysh tribe who were Arabs and also they had a chapter named after them in the Qur’an.
Your revisionist claims are baseless and impossible. To show an impossible thing is impossible is perhaps best done by ignoring the person. I at least tried to reason here.