What are differences between the Book of Mormon and the Bible
摩门经和圣经有何不同?
耶穌的家譜
以色列的王 | |||
| 亞伯拉罕 以撒 雅各 猶大 法勒斯 (從他瑪氏) 希斯侖 亞蘭 亞米拿達 拿順 撒門 波阿斯 (從喇合氏) 俄備得 (從路得氏) 耶西 大衛王 | 所羅門 (從烏利亞的妻子) 羅波安 亞比雅 亞撒 約沙法 約蘭 烏西亞 約坦 亞哈斯 希西家 瑪拿西 亞們 約西亞 耶哥尼雅 | 撒拉鐵 所羅巴伯 亞比玉 以利亞敬 亞所 撒督 亞金 以律 以利亞撒 馬但 雅各 約瑟, 就是馬利亞的丈夫 耶穌, 稱為基督 | |
人子 | |||
| 亞當 塞特 以挪士 該南 瑪勒列 雅列 以諾 瑪土撒拉 拉麥 挪亞 閃 亞法撒 該南 沙拉 希伯 法勒 拉吳 西鹿 拿鶴 他拉 | 亞伯拉罕 以撒 雅各 猶大 法勒斯 希斯侖 亞蘭 亞米拿達 拿順 撒門 波阿斯 俄備得 耶西 大衛 | 拿單 瑪達他 買南 米利亞 以利亞敬 約南 約瑟 猶大 西緬 利未 瑪塔 約令 以利以謝 約細 珥 以摩當 哥桑 亞底 麥基 尼利 | 撒拉鐵 所羅巴伯 利撒 約亞拿 猶大 約瑟 西美 瑪他提亞 瑪押 拿該 以斯利 拿鴻 亞摩斯 瑪他提亞 約瑟 雅拿 麥基 利未 瑪塔 希裏 約瑟 耶穌 |
出處; http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/sgosp1_b5.html
出處ˋ:http://www.qian10.net/2015/03/16/10386/
2. 印加文明:
.jpg)
印加國王
.jpg)
3.阿茲特克人:
4.十八世紀的美國原住民:
.jpg)
2. 美洲古印地安人與摩門經中的印地安人(外型比較):Hair(頭髮) One of the issues that many Native American men and boys have faced concerns long hair. For them long hair is not a stylistic concern, but is a religious issue. For many Native Americans having long hair is a symbol of tribal religious traditions which teach that hair is only to be cut when one is in mourning for the death of a close relative. The American government, public schools, and prisons have all forced Indian men to cut their hair in spite of the teachings of their tribal religions.(http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/601)
馬雅文明:
2. 印加文明:
印加國王.jpg)
3.阿茲特克人:
From: http://dol.duowan.com/0709/53429664919
摩爾門經中描述拉曼人剃光他們的頭髮與尼腓人作戰, (是白人想像出來的美洲原住民, 或者是17,18, 19世紀, 美洲原住民見白人的短髮而想出的 "龐克頭髮型"呢? "因為古時的美洲原住民多留長髮, 將長髮綁起來.
所謂的 "Reform Egyptian"改良式的埃及文是下面的象形文字嗎?
出處: http://thesouljunkie.blogspot.tw/p/becoming-soul-junkie.html
出處: http://pixgood.com/ancient-native-american-symbol.html
埃及象形文字
從這裡你是否看到, 約瑟斯密在摩爾門經說, 尼腓是用 "Reform Egyptian"(改良式的埃及文)
美洲印第安人的由來
印第安人是美洲的原住民。當哥倫布在一四九二年十月十二日第一次到達美洲時，印第安人在美洲的總人數，估計已達一千四百萬至四千萬人 (李春輝，1983:15)。
美國有色人種是白人所造成: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6c6thLvieU
馬雅文明起源與歷史
馬雅的歷史大致區分為：前馬雅期到西元四世紀，分佈地區在今天的薩爾瓦多海岸、宏都拉斯及墨西哥南方的恰帕斯州；馬雅古帝國 (317-987) ，影響範圍擴展到整個猶加敦半島並形成城邦制；馬雅新帝國 (987-1697)，此時期出現重要的馬雅中心 (Kattán-Ibarra,1995:26)。西元一千二百年到一千四百五十年馬雅人有一段非常繁榮的時期，統治範圍達猶加敦半島北部且形成小王國，並先後建立了Chichén-Itza及Mayapán兩大城。隨後，由於和其他部族的戰爭，導致馬雅文明在十五世紀遭受摧毀、沒落並落入西班牙人的統治。
阿茲堤克文明
1.起源及歷史
繼馬雅人之後，阿茲堤克人也曾創造了較高的文化。阿茲堤克的起源因缺乏文字史料記載很難考證。但一般認為阿茲堤克是一個比較年輕的印第安部落，屬於Nahua部落集團一支。據說他們最初住在海島上，地點可能是墨西哥西部。
大約從十一世紀中葉開始，阿茲堤克人即逐漸向墨西哥盆地遷移。據說，他們的部族神指示祭司們說，如果在一個地方看見一隻老鷹立在一棵仙人掌上啄食一條蛇 (這就是今天墨西可的國徽)，該處就是他們永久的居留地。十四世紀初，這個部落在酋長率領下，到達墨西哥盆地的Texcoco湖畔。1325年，他們在湖中兩個小島上，建立了後來阿茲堤克著名首都Tenochtitlán (Editorial Ramón Sopena, 1982:89)。
在西班牙殖民者到達之前，阿茲堤克正處於開始由盛而衰的時期。首都Tenochtitlán己經非常繁榮。全城有六萬幢房屋，十萬至三十萬以上的人口。而同時期的倫敦卻大約只有二十萬人口。當時城市供水也很周全，到處有花園、街道寬闊，主要街道通宵都有熊熊燈火照耀 (李春輝,1983:28)。阿茲堤克在1525年為西班牙征服者所消滅。
17世紀美國有很多印第安人的著作, (During the seventeenth century Europeans wrote a number of books about American Indians which both created and perpetuated many of the common stereotypes and misconceptions about Indians. Some of these books were basically fantasies reflecting the author’s beliefs about European fantasies; some were works of propaganda intended to foster a belief in the inherent superiority of European ways; some were sympathetic and empathetic regarding Indians and were based on actual observations. )出處: http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1355
3. The Book of Mormon teaches that black skin is a sign of God’s curse, so that white-skinned people are considered morally and spiritually superior to black skinned people (2 Nephi 5:21). In contrast, the Bible teaches that God "made of one blood all nations of men" (Acts 17:26, KJV), that in Christ distinctions of ethnicity, gender and social class are erased (Galatians 3:28), and that God condemns favoritism (James 2:1).
4. The Book of Mormon teaches that, "it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23; seealso Moroni 10:32). In contrast, the Bible teaches that apart from Christ we are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1,5) and unable to do anything to merit forgiveness and eternal life. Salvation is wholly of grace (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 11:6; Titus 3:5-6), not by grace plus works. Good works are a result, not the basis, of a right relationship with God (Ephesians 2:10).
5. According to the Book of Mormon, about 600 years before Christ, a Nephite prophet predicted that "many plain and precious parts" (1 Nephi 13:26-28) would be removed from the Bible. In contrast, from the Bible it is clear that during His earthly ministry, Jesus himself constantly quoted from the Old Testament Scriptures, and showed full confidence in their completeness and accurate transmission as they had survived down to His time. Jesus declared that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away" (Mark 13:31; see also Matthew 5:18), and promised His disciples who were to pen the New Testament that the Holy Ghost "shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26); Jesus further promised the apostles that they would "bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain" (John 15:16). These promises clearly imply that the fruit of the apostles — the New Testament Scriptures and the Christian church — would endure.
6. According to a Book of Mormon prophecy (Helaman 14:27), at the time of Christ’s crucifixion "darkness should cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days." In contrast, the New Testament gospel accounts declare repeatedly that there was darkness for only three hours while Jesus was on the cross (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44).
An earlier prophecy in 1 Nephi 19:10 implies the three days of darkness will be more than regional in scope for it says this sign will be "unto those who inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel." The darkness then would extend over the ocean to the islands and reach as far as Israel in the Middle East.
Book of Mormon references to the fulfillment of this prophecy, however, use wording that could be understood to mean the three days of darkness was only in the Americas, stating that the three days of darkness would be "over the face of the land." (3 Nephi 8:3ff; 10:9). This appears to be the position of the late Mormon General Authority B. H. Roberts in his book Studies of the Book of Mormon, p. 292). If this is the case, then this would resolve the apparent contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon regarding what happened at the time of Christ's death, for we would have 3 hours of darkness in Israel and 3 days of darkness on the American continents. However, this would make the earlier prophecies of 1 Nephi and Helaman internally contradictory with later BOM references, since their phrasing of "the isles of the sea ... those who are of the house of Israel" and "the whole face of the whole earth" is difficult to understand as merely a localized time of darkness.
7. The Book of Mormon people are said to have observed "all things according to the law of Moses (2 Nephi 5:10; 25:24). However, although they are supposed to have been Hebrews, they were descendents of the tribe of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:17) or Manasseh (Alma 10:3), not the tribe of Levi and family line of Aaron, as the Law of Moses dictates (Numbers 3:10; Exodus 29:9; Numbers 18:1-7), so they would not have had a legitimate priesthood.
8. According to the Book of Mormon, there were many high priests serving at the same time (Mosiah 11:11; Alma 13:9-10; 46:6,38; Helaman 3:25) in the New World, among those it describes as Jewish immigrants from ancient Israel who "kept the law of Moses" (e.g., 2 Nephi 25:10; Jacob 4:5; Jarom 1:5). In contrast, it is clear from the Bible that only one individual at a time occupied the office of high priest under the Old Testament dispensation (see, for example Leviticus 21:10; Matthew 26:3; Hebrews 8:6-7). (The mention in Luke 3:2 of "Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests" is not a real exception -- in Christ’s time Israel was under the domination of the Romans, who intervened to change the high priest at will. That is, this office became a kind of "political football," rather than following the appointment process dictated in the Law of Moses. See John 18:13, which describes Annas as "father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.")
9. The people described in the Book of Mormon operated multiple temples (Alma 16:13; 23:2; 26:29). This violates the dictates of the Old Testament Scriptures on two counts: First, God commanded Israel to build only one temple to reflect that fact that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 12:5,13-14; 16:5-6). Second, the one legitimate temple was to be built in Jerusalem (Zion), the location designated by God (The Old Testament is filled with explicit references to God choosing Jerusalem [Zion] as the place where "His name would dwell" in the temple: for example, 1 Kings 8:44,48; 11:13,32,36; 14:21; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:27; 1 Chronicles 28:4; 2 Chronicles 6:6; 7:12,16; Psalm 78:68-69; Isaiah 18:7.
10. The most common biblical terms used to describe the Old Testament priesthood, temple and appointed feasts, are entirely missing from the Book of Mormon. Here are 10 examples of such biblical terms with their frequencies, that never appear once in the Book of Mormon:
- "laver" (13 times in Bible)
- "incense" (121 times in Bible)
- "ark of the covenant" (48 times in Bible)
- "sons of Aaron" (97 times in Bible)
- "mercy seat" (23 in Bible)
- "day of atonement" (21 times in Bible)
- "feast of tabernacles" (17 times in Bible)
- "passover" (59 times in Bible)
- "house of the LORD" (627 in Bible)
- "Aaron" – this name appears 48 times in the Book of Mormon, but never in reference to the biblical Aaron or the Aaronic priesthood
Conclusion: The contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Bible constitute a most serious obstacle to accepting the Book of Mormon as Latter-day scripture that is supplemental to the Bible. The Bible came first, not the Book of Mormon. And whereas the Bible is organically linked to the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ by extensive surviving manuscript evidence going back as far as A.D. 125-30, the Book of Mormon is wholly lacking in any such evidences of ancient origin. Is it not reasonable, therefore, to make the Bible the standard for judging the Book of Mormon, and not the other way around? If we accept the Bible as our "measuring stick" for spiritual truth, the Book of Mormon must be rejected.
*For further reading regarding infancy and salvation, see the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry's article on the subject. For another resource on this subject and many others, see Millard J. Erickson's Christian Theology, in his section on original sin.
沒有留言:
張貼留言