What is false? What are you disagreeing with me over? You seem to be agreeing with me. May be not. You are admitting that the adjective is NOT "playing" the role of an adjective but that of a noun. That means it is NOT an adjective, though in other sentences it may be used as an adjective. A word is NOT one thing or another, but what it is USED as.
If I say - hammer, then am I talking about an object and using it as a noun, or as a verb.
I hammer with my hammer, has me using both forms in the one sentence.
You keep saying "in nearly every case". You are yet to provide a SINGLE example where this is NOT TRUE!
Now when you change the word, and no longer have it in the same form then you say it has a different usage, well duh!

you have changed it so of course it is different!
Actually it is VERY EASY. Just check every time that form is used as an adjective "playing" as a noun, and you will a 100% record. Change it and then of course it is meaningless. You are demanding that it is changed, yet it is THAT FORM which is the CENTRAL question. In that form does it EVER refer to anywhere but the place in the Temple?
Going back to your example of "the Foolish" there may well have been an initial reason why that group would be called the Foolish, perhaps they were. However they are known as the Foolish irrespective of them DOING anything further which is foolish.
You are yet to provide a SINGLE case where "haqodesh" is used for anywhere other than the place in the Temple, which I have not responded to.
What do you mean unproven? Change a letter in any word in any language and it is NO LONGER the SAME WORD. This is simple, and you can try yourself.
What you seem to want to do is argue that a holy place could become the holy place, which I have agreed with you it can, you then say I contradict myself, but what I note is that it starts as "qodesh maqom - holy place" and would become "haqodesh maqom - the holy place", but we are NOT talking about "qodesh maqom" for here "qodesh - holy" is being used as the adjective of "maqom - place"
What is being considered is the word "haqodesh" without any "maqom - place" or city or other noun in the Hebrew. IOW when "haqodesh" is stated not as an adjective but as a place itself as a noun.
If you want scholarly opinion then go talk to a Hebrew professor. I am presenting you with what scripture says and you have all of scripture to show I am wrong, but you are unable to, because I am not wrong. Even were I to tell you that I was involved in Bible translation and studied Hebrew that would be meaningless. You would want peer reviewed papers etc.
Of course the holy place refers to where God dwells, it is silly to think other wise. Where does the river come from? It comes from God and makes the city glad, therefore these two places are DISTINCT from where God is.
Almost agreement, amazing. Just note it isn't known as "haqodesh" alone.
As this is the ONLY occasion anywhere in the ENTIRE Bible, and as it was NEVER used in the context of a previously invading army, and as Jesus needs to state "an army surrounding Jerusalem" then this would mean it was NOT a concept understood by Jesus' disciples. They definitely never said this - except for you claim about this one verse.
Your driveway is part of your property. Also you are describing actions and not specifying locations.
Your street is not your house, and your city is not your house.
If I came to your city I could NOT say I have arrived at your house, so it is easily proven you are incorrect.
By reaching your property, so you legitimately say that have arrived at my property.
Arriving in Jerusalem does not mean you have come to the temple, I could visit Israel and never go to Jerusalem. It would be true for me to say I have been to Israel but not Jerusalem. Likewise if I visit Jerusalem but never go to the Wailing Wall, then I could say I have been to Jerusalem but not the Wailing Wall.
A Gentile could walk the streets of Jerusalem and not be set upon by a mob of Jews, (in the time of Paul) but if he was thought to have entered the temple then he would be attacked.
There is a CLEAR UNEQUIVOCAL distinction shown throughout scripture of various locales, and we should have INTEGRITY and stick to the distinctions that scripture gives us.
What proof are you expecting? Are you saying it isn't a different letter? Are you arguing that changing a letter in a word does not change it? You are getting desperate here.
Bookmarks