m****a
发帖数: 9485 | 1 http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProblems.shtml#jerus
Alma 7:10 gives a prophecy that Christ would be born "at Jerusalem, which is
the land of our forefathers." Here and in many other passages, Jerusalem is
described as a land, not just a city. Bethlehem is a tiny suburb of
Jerusalem, just 5 miles away from the heart of the city. Not only does
Bethlehem properly fall within the "land of Jerusalem," making the Book of
Mormon correct, but use of that term is surprising evidence of the
authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
First, people in the New World once descended from the Old would know little
about Old World geography. In referring to their place of origin, it would
be surprising if they still retained knowledge of tiny villages and suburbs.
Saying that Christ was born in Jerusalem, to a New World audience long
separated from knowledge of Israel, is no more incorrect that for a
Californian to tell a friend in New York they he is from Los Angeles, when
in fact he may be from Century City or some other "unknown" suburb. The Book
of Mormon is remarkably consistent in avoiding specific references to
geographical details in the Old World apart from the writings of Nephi and
quotations from Old World prophets. Referring to the birthplace of Christ as
the land of Jerusalem makes sense if that passage were written by an
ancient New World prophet. If Joseph Smith had written it, why not just say
Bethlehem? He and every school child of his time knew Christ was born in
Bethlehem. | m****a
发帖数: 9485 | 2 Further, as discussed on a separate page of mine about the land of
Jerusalem, the Book of Mormon accords remarkably well with new information
about ancient Jewish practices in describing the area that included
Bethlehem.
Certainly Joseph Smith knew that Christ was born in Bethlehem - he was
familiar with much of the Bible and surely had heard the story of Christ's
birth numerous times. If he were making the Book of Mormon up, why on earth
would he make such a terrible blunder, placing Christ's birth in Jerusalem?
How could he make such a thoughtless and stupid blunder in the midst of an
otherwise enormously clever fraud? The "blunder" makes no sense if Joseph
Smith were the author - but it is not a blunder at all and makes perfect
sense if he were only translating an authentic ancient document in which the
often-used term "land of Jerusalem" meant more than just the city. The use
of the term "land of Jerusalem" in Alma 7:10 and many other locations is
consistent with usage in the Dead Sea Scrolls and can now be viewed as
powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith
could not possibly have made that up.
In spite of its weakness, the attack on Alma 7:10 seems to be one of the
three or four most common of all arguments against the Book of Mormon. It
ought to be buried once and for all, especially in light of the excellent
article, Jesus' Birthplace and the Phrase "Land of Jerusalem", available on
the FARMS site. Also see "On Alma 7:10 and the Birthplace of Jesus Christ"
by Daniel C. Peterson, Matthew Roper, and William J. Hamblin, FARMS
Preliminary Report, 1995.
Finally, critics ought to realize that if we must condemn the Book of Mormon
for stating that Christ would be born "at Jerusalem, which is the land of
our forefathers," then they must also reject the Bible because it says that
Amaziah "was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David" (2
Kings 14:20), and the city of David is Bethlehem (see Luke 2:4, 1 Samuel 20:
6). As with so many of the arguments used by anti-Mormons against the Book
of Mormon, the attack on Alma 7:10 is:
- based on ignorance or sloppy scholarship,
-would result in a condemnation of the Bible if the same standard were
applied to it, and
- actually strengthens the case for the Book of Mormon when one digs into
the facts. | j*******7
发帖数: 6300 | 3 摩门经的最大问题在于它记载的地点、事件、人物等等都毫无历史根据，没有任何被接
受的考古证据。愣说玛雅人的金字塔是证据简直是天方夜谭。
http://www.chineseapologetics.net/cults/mormon/S_test_BoM.htm
《摩门经》有多可信？
1973年夏天，最著名的新大陆考古学权威之一，Michael Coe ，在《Dialogue: A
Journal of Mormon Thought》写了一篇文章，在概括了《摩门经》的宣称之后，他非
常坦白地说：
现在让我肯定地说，根据我所知道的， 没有一个不是摩门教徒的、曾受训练的、专业
考古学家，能看见有科学根据，叫 人相信上述事情是真的…… 在新大陆的开凿中，没
有、绝对没有任何事物，可以叫一个冷静的《摩门经》观察者相信……是一份历史性的
文件，讲及我们这个半球的早期移民的历史。(pp. 42, 46)
有一些摩门学者开始公开承认，考古学没有为《摩门经》提供有意义的证据。Dee F.
Green曾是杨百翰大学（Brigham Young University）所出版的《University
Archaeological Society Newsletter》的编辑，曾清楚地表示，考古学并没有证明《
摩门经》：
我们第一个需要排除的迷思就是：《摩门经》考古学是实有的。若有人想要研究《摩门
经》考古学，他必须有一大堆资料，但是我们没有。《摩门经》是实有的，人们能研究
它；考古学也是实有，人们能研究。但二者无法相合。至少在现实中，不能相合，因为
没有人知道《摩门经》讲的地方，在今天地志上的哪儿。我们可以研究圣经考古学，因
为我们知道耶路撒冷和耶利哥在哪儿，但我们不知道柴雷罕拉（Zarahemla）和满地富
（Bountiful）[3]，或其他任何地方，在哪儿。第一件似乎应该做的事，就是留意它的
地理，但是，此项工作进行二十年之后，我们仍然是两手空空的。(Dialogue: A
Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)
Thomas Stuart Ferguson是辩卫《摩门经》的重要人物之一。他是New World
Archaeological Foundation的创办人之一，希望以考古学研究证明《摩门经》。摩门
教教会授予这组织好几十万美元，但到最后， Thomas Stuart Ferguson 承认，虽然这
组织对新大陆的考古学有一点贡献，但他所有关于《摩门经》的工作，都是徒劳无功。
事实上，他承认，他浪费了生命中的25年，尝试证明《摩门经》。1975年，Ferguson
写了一篇29页的文章，他说：「我恐怕，直到目前，我必须同意Dee Green 先生。他已
经告诉我们，没有《摩门经》地理。」1976年二月20日，他写信给H.W. Lawrence 先生
和太太，他清楚地说：「……你不可能鉴定《摩门经》中讲的地理在何方——因为它是
虚构的，它永不会符合现实中的地理。」
杨百翰大学的人类学教授，Ray T. Matheny 博士，承认自己无法使新大陆考古学和《
摩门经》一致：
我难于质疑《摩门经》开始的几章［例如，开始的七章讲述李海（Lehi）和他的一家在
耶路撒冷］，但之后就不像是翻译的……所用的术语和语言，解释和描写的办法，都是
十九世纪的文学观念和文化经历，我们可以想像到，就是斯密约瑟（Joseph Smith）和
他的同伴所经历的。为此，从第七章开始，我不愿意称它为翻译，却要称它为字译（
transliteration）。若要将我刚刚讲到的这些文化观念和我所知道的考古学发现相联
，我实在感到困难……
我若像John Carlson这样冷酷，我会这样讲：《摩门经》里的事情，无论如何，不是在
新大陆里发生。我想要在旧大陆找出《摩门经》事件所发生的地点，但它们总是什么都
不能适合。无论是他的学科，还是我的人类学和历史，都似乎找不到这样的地方，无法
合适。 若要把它们和新大陆相提，若不是时代错误，就是时间或地点都不恰当。我想
，我们摩门教徒若要了解这书到底是什么一回事，是非常困难的。 ("Book of Mormon
Archeology," Response by Professor Ray T. Matheny, Sunstone Symposium,
August 25, 1984, typed copy transcribed from a tape-recording, pp. 30-31)
Matheny博士在这座谈会发言之后三年，他写一封信，清楚表示，仍然没有《摩门经》
考古学：
虽然有人愿以考古学证据证明《摩门经》，我认为他们是在未有足够知识之先，仓促讲
话。
我不支持这些书所讲的，包括《The Messiah in Ancient America》或任何其他。我相
信这些作者们发表意见，所根据的证据甚少，也没有交代清楚考古学和《摩门经》的问
题。若有人把此书中的这些话，送到美国自然史博物馆—史密斯森研究中心，我将会感
到万分尴尬……将考古学和［摩门经］经文相连，有非常严重的问题。摩门教作者们所
作的推测，没有增加教会的可信性。 (Letter by Ray T. Matheny, dated Dec. 17,
1987)
没有考古学证据支持《摩门经》所讲的尼腓人曾活在新大陆上；以色列人曾活在圣地却
可有很多证据证明。「以色列人的最早考古学参考文献」是主前1220年埃及王麦伦普塔
赫（Merneptah）的石碑。很多提到以色列人的古代碑文也已经被发现，有些碑文甚至
有圣经中的君王和其他人的名字。新约圣经提到的几个统治者，我们都知道，他们和基
督活在同一个时代。有几百个希伯来碑文，可证明犹太人曾经在圣经时代，活在巴勒斯
坦地。旧约圣经的每本书（至少一部分），除以斯帖记例外， 都在死海古卷中找到。
当我们回来看《摩门经》，我们完全无法找到任何证据，证明尼腓人曾经存在过。 | m****a
发帖数: 9485 | 4 我从前还没加入LDS的时候，对这个问题好奇而深入的了解了一点，结果反倒让我相信
摩门经是神所启示的一个证据了。死海书卷也提到这个称谓，其他资料考古也证实了，
一个只念过几年书的约瑟斯密怎会发明出这个词来呢？
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BM_Jerusalem.shtml |
|
