Question for Non-Mormons.

[ST:DS9]

http://home.fea.net/~rfisher/izapa/izapa-1.htmlCut and Paste from Jeff Lindsay:

In terms of Book of Mormon evidence, recent scholarship from non-LDS circles suggests that Zedekiah probably did have a son named Mulek, providing a "direct hit" that Joseph Smith could not have fabricated without miraculously good luck. Here is an excerpt from Chapter 40 of Reexploring the Book of Mormon (ed. John Welch, Deseret Book Comp., Salt Lake City, UT, 1992, pp. 142-144), a section based on research primarily by Robert F. Smith, February 1984, and supplemented by Benjamin Urrutia. An excerpt follows:

[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]The first clue of the existence and escape of Mulek, son of Zedekiah, can be found in 2 Kings 25:1-10, which reports that Nebuchadrezzar and "all his host" scattered "all the men" and "all [the king's] army" and burnt "all the houses of Jerusalem," and with "all the army" they destroyed the walls. In the midst of all this, however, 2 Kings 25:7 omits the word all when it reports only that "the sons" of Zedekiah were killed, leaving open the question whether all of his sons were slain. [/size][/font] [font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Biblical scholars have recently had interesting things to say about a person named Malchiah. Jeremiah 38:6 speaks of a "dungeon of Malchiah the son of Hammelech . . . in the court of the prison." But the Hebrew name here, MalkiYahu ben-hamMelek, should be translated "MalkiYahu, son of the king," the Hebrew word melek meaning "king." [/size][/font]

[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Was this MalkiYahu a son of King Zedekiah? Several factors indicate that he was. For one thing, the title "son of the king" was used throughout the ancient Near East to refer to actual sons of kings who served as high officers of imperial administration [Rainey, 1975, pp. 427-432]. The same is certainly true of the Bible, in which kings' sons ran prisons (see 1 Kings 22:26-27; Jeremiah 36:26; 38:6) or performed other official functions (see 2 Kings 15:5; 2 Chronicles 28:7). Moreover, in view of the fact that the name MalkiYahu has been found on two ostraca from Arad (in southern Judah), the late head of the Department of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, Yohanan Aharoni, said that "Malkiyahu is a common name and was even borne by a contemporary son of king Zedekiah" [Aharoni, 1970, p. 22 - emphasis mine]. [/size][/font]

[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]But was this MalkiYahu the same person as Mulek? Study of these names tells us he may very well be. In the case of Baruch, scribe of Jeremiah, for example, the long form of his name, BerekYahu, has been discovered on a seal impression by Nahman Avigad of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem [Avigad, 1979]. The full name has been shortened in Jeremiah's record to Baruch. [/size][/font]

[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]In view of this shortening, as in many other biblical names, there is no reason why a short form such as Mulek might not be possible.... [/size][/font]

[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]A prominent non-Mormon ancient Near Eastern specialist declared recently of the Book of Mormon's naming "Mulek" as a son of Zedekiah, "If Joseph Smith came up with that one, he did pretty good!" He added that the vowels in the name could be accounted for as the Phoenician style of pronunciation. He found himself in general agreement that "MalkiYahu, son of the King" might very well be a son of King Zedekiah, and that the short-form of the name could indeed be Mulek. [/size][/font]

[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]References cited:[size=-2]
Rainey, Anson, "The Prince and the Pauper," Ugarit-Forschungen 7 (1975): 427-432. [/size][/size][/font] [font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1][size=-2]Aharoni, Yohanan. "Three Hebrew Ostraca from Arad," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 197 (Feb. 1970):16-42. [/size][/size][/font]

[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1][size=-2]Avigad, Nahman, "Jerahmeel and Baruch: King's Son and Scribe," Biblical Archeologist 42 (Spring 1979): 114-118. [/size][/size][/font]

​

Curtis Wright's article, "Mulek" in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1991, pp. 469-470), suggests that "Mulek" can readily be derived from "Malkiyahu." Below is an excerpt from Wright, followed by a cautionary note from David Rolph Seely indicating that Wright's case is overstated, and that we the relationship between the two names doesn't actually follow currently known rules for shifts in Hebrew words.

[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Ancient Near Eastern sources affirm that during the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, Mulek's father, Zedekiah, who was deserted by all who escaped, was captured with members of his family and a few courtiers. Nebuchadnezzar slew Zedekiah's sons and courtiers, put his eyes out, and deported him to Babylon (Josephus, Antiquities, 10.8.2). But his daughters, and presumably his wives, stayed at Mizpah until Gedeliah, a former minister with Babylonizing tendencies in Zedekiah's cabinet, was murdered by Ishmael, who then tried to deport the Mizpah colony. When pursued, Ishmael abandoned his captives and fled with eight men to Ammon. The people of Mizpah, including Zedekiah's women, headed for Egypt, fearful of Chaldean reprisals (2 Kgs. 25; Jer. 41- 43). [/size][/font] [font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Mulek might have been away when the city fell; perhaps he eluded his captors at Jericho; the women could have hidden him (as Jehoshiba hid her nephew Joash of the royal line earlier [see 2 Kgs. 11:2-4]); he may even have been unborn, although he probably avoided captivity some other way. But nothing in the Bible or other known sources precludes the possibility of his escape from Jerusalem. [/size][/font]

[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Concerning Mulek's existence, the Bible offers important evidence. Mulek is a nickname derived from melek (Hebrew, king), a diminutive term of endearment meaning "little king." Its longer form occurs in the Bible as Malkiyahu (in English, Malchiah), meaning "Jehovah is king." Malchiah is identified as "the son of Hammelech" in Jeremiah 38:6. But Hammelech is a translator's error, since ben-hammelek means "son of the king" and is not a proper name - a fact confirmed by the Septuagint (LXX Jer. 45:6). A fictive paternity thus obscures the lineage of Malchiah as the actual son of Zedekiah. It is also known that names ending in -yahu (in English, -iah) were common during the late First Temple period, that Zedekiah indeed had a son named Malkiyahu (Aharoni, p. 22), and that the familial forms of yahu-names were shorter than their "full" forms. The study of a seal owned by Jeremiah's scribe shows that his full name was Berekyahu (in English, Berechiah), although the biblical text uses only the shorter Baruch (Avigad). This is consistent with viewing the hypocoristic Mulek as the diminutive of Malkiyahu, since a is often assimilated to o or u in the vocalic structure of most Semitic languages. It is therefore possible that the Mulek of the Book of Mormon is "Malchiah, son of the king" mentioned in Jeremiah 38:6. [/size][/font]

​

The link between these names is treated with healthy skepticism by Dr. David Rolph Seely of BYU in his review of John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: the F.A.R.M.S. Updates in FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 5 (1993), pp. 305-316:

[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1] [A]s the Book of Mormon reveals, Zedekiah had a son named Mulek, who survived the destruction of Jerusalem and his father's death (Omni 1:15-16; Mosiah 25:2; Hel. 6:10; 8:21), and there is a possible reference to him in the Old Testament in the existence of one "Malkiyahu son of the king" (Jer. 38:6). It is quite remarkable that this biblical name of a possible son of Zedekiah shares the same root consonants with Book of Mormon Mulek. And it is certainly possible Mulek comes from or is related to the biblical name Malkiyahu. But this relationship cannot be explained by any known rules or parallels from comparative Semitics. In support of this relationship there are many attested phonological shifts in Semitic languages that cannot be easily explained, but the shift from Malkiyahu to Mulek is only hypothetical at this point since it is not attested in Semitic languages. Until further documentation, it remains as a tantalizing possibility which cannot be proved. (p. 314) [/size][/font]​

While we don't know if "Mulek" actually is derived from "Malkiyahu," the fact that an apparent son of Zedekiah had a name with the same root consonants. However, other possibilities remain open. Scholars now recognize the possibility that someone could be called "son of the king" in the Bible without necessarily being a real biological son. One case is in Jeremiah 36:26, where the king sends Jerahmeel to arrest Jeremiah and his scribe, Baruch. The name Jerahmeel (KJV) is equivalent to Yerahme'el, which appears on an impression on clay seal from ancient Israel which Jewish scholar Jershel Shanks translates as "Belonging to Yerahme'el 'son' of the King" (H. Shanks, Jerusalem: An Archeaological Biography, 1995, pp. 107-108, as cited in the article "was Mulek a 'Blood Son' of King Zedekiah?" in the FARMS publication Insights, Feb. 1999, p.2). Shanks explains that he used quotes around the term "son" because it was not clear whether the term mean a biological son or son in some other sense, such as a royal official unrelated to the king or any male descendent of the royal family. Since King Jehoiakim was only 31 years old at the time referred to Jeremiah 36:26, it is unlikely that he would have had a son old enough to go arrest the prophet Jeremiah.

It may be possible that Mulek's description as a "son" of King Zedekiah in Helaman 6:10 and 8:21, as well as the apparent reference to Malkiyahu (Mulek) king of the son in Jeremiah 38:6, might not refer to a direct biological relationship. If so, the report of the execution of Zedekiah's sons in 2 Kings 25:7 could refer to his "blood sons," and not whatever kind of "son" Mulek was. Further, such a scenario might explain why the Mulekites were so willing to accept unification with the Nephites under the rule of King Mosiah even though they were apparently more numerous than the Nephites. If Mulek did not have a genuine claim to the throne of Judah, it might have been easier for his descendants to accept the rule of the impressive King Mosiah with all the trappings of real kingship (sacred relics like the Liahona, the plates of Nephi and Laban, the sword of Laban, and a high level of literacy and education that was missing among the Mulekites, who came to the New World without written records.)

By the way, The Lachish Letters, dating from Palestine in the 7th century B.C., also raise an intriguing possibility, discussed by Hugh W. Nibley in "Two Shots in the Dark" in Book of Mormon Authorship (Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1982), pp. 103-141. One important aspect of the Lachish Letters involves the apparent use of a little boy, apparently a descendent of Zedekiah, to carry confidential letters. Nibley suggests that this little boy could have been the one that escaped and was named Mulek - "little king" in Hebrew (pp. 117-119). And such a boy could have been a true biological son of the king, or a "son" in another sense.

Regardless of the plural possibilities, one thing is clear: the Book of Mormon account is highly plausible, and offers details consistent with modern scholarship in ways that seem to make Joseph Smith either a miraculously lucky guesser, or a miraculously blessed prophet who translated a genuine ancient record with the power of God.





2004 Update:
Recently, an ancient seal was discovered in Jerusalmen bearing the title, "Malkiyahu the son of the king." This may very well be a seal from the Mulek, the son of King Zedekiah. This is entirely plausible based on what we know of ancient Israel and the information in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Details of this discovery are provided by Jeffrey R. Chadwick, "Has the Seal of Mulek Been Found?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2003, pp. 72-83. Though the entire article should be read carefully to appreciate the possible significance of the find, here are the concluding remarks of Chadwick:

[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]So was Mulek the "Malkiyahu the son of the king" mentioned in Jeremiah 38:6? Nothing in the Bible or the Book of Mormon negates this identification. And the evidence rehearsed above lends significant support to it. The m-l-k basis of both Hebrew names is clear, and the case of Berekhyahu/Baruch demonstrates that there is theoretical precedent for a person being called both Malkiyahu and Mulek--the one a longer, more formal version of the name with a theophoric yahu element [an ending based on an abbreviation of the divine name, YHWH], and the other a shorter form lacking that element but featuring a different vowel vocalization. Malkiyahu/Mulek would not have been killed by the Babylonians before Zedekiah's eyes, as were his brothers (all younger than himself), because as the king's oldest son and heir to the throne, he was likely sent to Egypt by his father well before the fall of Jerusalem and the capture of the royal family. Whether Mulek was sent to Egypt as a royal messenger or ambassador or in an effort to ensure his safety, it is unlikely that he could have taken all of his possessions with him to Egypt. Other men in Judah with the ben hamelek title are known to have possessed multiple stamp seals, and if Malkiyahu/Mulek did also it would have been easy for him to have left one behind. Some 2,570 years or so later, that seal was found by someone digging in Jerusalem and was surreptitiously sold. The stamp seal of "Malkiyahu son of the king" now in the London collection of Shlomo Moussaieff seems to be authentic. In answer to the question posed at the outset of this article--and the significance of this can hardly be overstated--it is quite possible that an archaeological artifact of a Book of Mormon personality has been identified. It appears that the seal of Mulek has been found.[/size][/font]


​

 

[unbound]

The "seal of Mulek" has been found?

How come, when I Google "seal of Mulek", all I get are LDS sites and no scientific research from outside sources? Does anyone see a problem here? This FARMS/FAIR stuff is very thin.

But, I suppose beggars cant be choosers, so the LDS is happy with the data shown herein.

 

[Jason of Wyoming]

oh ya, Pyro, I wouldn't use that term around here. Someone on this forum have said something to the fact that they weren't anti mormon, but were anti-mormonism.

That someone would be me.

 

[Jason of Wyoming]

Malchiah could be Mulek? Yeah...and Mosiah could be Moses. But they're not!

Apparently "close" is close-enough from most Mormons.

They also "almost" have the true gospel. I wonder if that'll be good enough for God?

 

[CrownCaster]

Malchiah could be Mulek? Yeah...and Mosiah could be Moses. But they're not!

Apparently "close" is close-enough from most Mormons.

They also "almost" have the true gospel. I wonder if that'll be good enough for God?

Just one coin. Please, just one coin.

 

[pyro457]

Does anyone here know anything about achiological evidence? Almost always when something historical is found they say that this could be..... or might be.... or could show.... or is evidence for.....(whether its about the Book of Mormon or not). Many people here say that because these terms are in the articles that talk about evidence for the Book of Mormon then it is just made up. But you look in almost every article about some historicle find or document and except in rare cases these terms are just as evident. And these terms will continue to be in articles about historical finds and ect... until we find some way to go back in time to see for ourselves, which I dont see happening any time.

 

[ST:DS9]

Just one coin. Please, just one coin.

http://www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/user/documents/money.html
Money and The Book of Mormon

Compiled By Glen W. Chapman - Sept. 1996
Many critics of the Book of Mormon Bring up the fact that The Book of Mormon in Alma tells of a complicated money system with denomination names where no coins have been found in the ruins. The Old Testament in the Days of Joseph some 1800 years B.C. tells of putting money in sacks of grain. This was long before coinage was utilized. Most Authorities agree that money at that time was a measure of gold or silver kept in small cloth bags that was weighed out with a balance scales. Later small pieces of gold were molded according to weight.

Dr. Joseph Allen in his book Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon (1989) writes concerning the Nephite money system.

MONEY

"The native Mesoamericans traded with cocoa beans, quetzal feathers, and copper figures, and they used a weight-and-measure system that is still utilized today.

On one of our trips in 1989, we were traveling along the Guatemala border toward Guatemala City. Dean Williams, an attorney and a member of the tour group, was reading about the conversion of the lawyer Zeezrom in the Book of Mormon. He was reading in Alma 11 and asked, 'Joe, have they ever found any coins in Mesoamerica? '

I answered, 'Not really. They've found a few copper items, but not coins with which we are familiar.'

Dean said, 'Listen to this,' as he read about the money system during Alma's time: Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value. And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having been established by king Mosiah. (Alma 11:4)

T'hen he said, 'That's not talking about coins; it's talking about weights and measures.'

I said, 'You're right. I know now what that's talking about. When we get to Lake Atitlan in a few days, we'll buy a couple of things they use for weighing purposes.'

When we arrived at Lake Atitlan, some of the group bought sets of the weights that the natives still use today to weigh their produce on a balance scale. These weights consist of four small cups and a small, solid weight, each weighing various amounts, The cups nestle inside one another much like the measuring cups we use in our American kitchens. The small, solid cap fits inside the smallest cup.

The following discussion represents an interesting analysis, as the 'weights and measures' that are still used today are compared to the description of the 'weights and measures' in the Book of Mormon.

Concerning the Nephites' system of money, the Book of Mormon outlines the following- This discussion is not presented as conclusive evidence but rather as an exercise to compare the two systems.

(A) Now the reckoning is thus-a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a strum of gold, and a limnah of gold. (Alma 11:5)

The measurements of the 'weights and measures' follow he same pattern as described in the Book of Mormon:

(B) Now the amount of a seon of gold was twice the value of a senine. (Alma 11:8)

(C') And a strum of gold was twice the value of a seon. (Alma I 1:9) (D) And a limnah of gold was the value of them all. (Alma 11: 10) The above is just a preliminary statement on the type of monetary system used by the Nephites. Nevertheless, Mesoamerica does have a system of weights and measures that appears to predate the Spanish Conquest and that is still used today. And the calibrations are the same. The natives do not today, however, use the "weights and measures" to measure. They use them only to weigh their produce.

We can observe with great interest the manner in which the Book of Mormon describes the monetary system among the Nephites and then observe the manner in which the same calibrations are used by the natives of Guatemala and El Salvador today. "


Dr John L. Sorensen in his book An Ancient American Setting For The Book Of Mormon has additional views. He reports thus:

"The 'money' of Alma 11 is another story, however. It would be nice to say that the problem has been solved, but that is not true. Hugh Nibley has given a sensible introduction to the difficult topic of "What is money?" from a Near Eastern perspective. But the question remains, was money used in Mesoamerica, the land of the Book of Mormon? No reliable data show that minted coins were used anywhere in the pre-Columbian New World, despite rare, puzzling finds of Old World coins. But money need not take the form of coins. It can be any agreed-upon medium in standard units that serves as a public measure of value. Several kinds of money in this sense were known in Mesoamerica. The commonest was the cacao bean, which continued in use at least up to fifty years ago. (People could literary drink up their money then, in the form of cocoa!) The system reported in the Book of Alma followed Israelite practice before the Babylonian Exile in that the money units employed (such as the shekel) were weight units of metal rather than standardized coins. Minted coins apparently came into use in Palestine only after Lehi left there. Certainly the "money" units given in Alma 11 were proportionate weights. The inappropriate term "coinage" in the chapter heading is an error due to nineteenth century editing, not a part of the ancient text. Research has also shown recently that relating measures of grain to values of precious metal, in the manner of Alma 11:4-19, was an Egyptian practice. Whether there was Mesoamerican weighed money we cannot say. No serious study of money usage there has ever been done. As I explain at length in chapter 7, the entire subject of metals in Mesoamerica in Book of Mormon times needs far more research to fill major gaps in our knowledge. South American metallurgy is much better understood than that in Mexico and Guatemala, yet startling finds are turning up even in that "well-known" area. Most recently a burial containing 12,000 pieces of metal "money" (though not coins as such) was found in Ecuador, for the first time confirming that some ancient South Americans had the idea of accumulating a fortune in more or less standard units of metal wealth. Such a startling find in Mesoamerica could change our present limited ideas."

Two Moundbuilder Gold Pieces Found in Burrows Cave (Illinois)

From The Mystery Cave of Many Faces By Russell Burrows and

Fred Rydholm

Stone Token Money of Moundbuilders Found in Kentucky and Tennessee

From Saga America By Barry Fell (1979)

 

[Jason of Wyoming]

Does anyone here know anything about achiological evidence? Almost always when something historical is found they say that this could be..... or might be.... or could show.... or is evidence for.....(whether its about the Book of Mormon or not). Many people here say that because these terms are in the articles that talk about evidence for the Book of Mormon then it is just made up. But you look in almost every article about some historicle find or document and except in rare cases these terms are just as evident. And these terms will continue to be in articles about historical finds and ect... until we find some way to go back in time to see for ourselves, which I dont see happening any time.

Yeah, but almost always you have reputable scholars working on the problem, not just a few mormons with a religious agenda. That's the difference.

 

[ST:DS9]

Yeah, but almost always you have reputable scholars working on the problem, not just a few mormons with a religious agenda. That's the difference.

Who are also scholars and archeologist. These people would not give these probable explanations of some archeological finds if they were not probable to support the Book of Mormon.

 

[unbound]

So now perhaps thier were no coins after all?

Well, while STS9's article may give Mormons a shred of hope to cling onto, it still does not give the discerning individual any evedince that the BoM is true. Here again, instead of a coin or perhaps archaeic steel sword coming to light, we are asked to believe perhaps thier was no such thing after all.

When I ask where is the evidence that people and names of places in the bible existed, I do research and can find writings, names on maps, and even ruins still left in tact for us to see with our own eyes, that yes, these places were and are there, they are not left up to our imagination to substitute for evidence. When I ask the same of the BoM, I get no evidence, only articles like DS9 posted above.

And Mormons wonder why the rest of the world have trouble accepting the BoM at face value. Dont you LDS understand? You are asking people to accept something wherein there is NO evidence! Who would want to build a foundation upon a myth?

 

[CrownCaster]

STS9- You give me nothing to work with. All of these later attempts at justifying and making something false seem somehow real are just sad. One coin, that is all I ask. Your people have never been able to find one and now you want me to believe it just means something entirely different. Hmmmm, maybe the bom is only correct as far as it is "translated correctly?"

 

[pyro457]

Yeah, but almost always you have reputable scholars working on the problem, not just a few mormons with a religious agenda. That's the difference.

The "few Mormons" are reputable scholars working on the problem.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

The "few Mormons" are reputable scholars working on the problem.

pyro, can you name of the non-lds scholors who consider the lds scholors to be reputable?

 

[unbound]

So the only people we have working on this would be the LDS "scholors"?

I wonder why that would be? Perhaps all the other archeaologists and egyptologists have abandoned thier vocation of "logic" simply to persecute the LDS?

FAIR and FARMS have made so much progress, so much evidence has come forth , I just cant fathom why all the other scientific world dont jump on the LDS bandwagon.

 

[Serapha]

I have yet seen any archeology, where there in no written record, not use the words "pluasible" and "could be". I watch a lot of history channel and have heard these types of words used all the time. But it is interesting that the various archeological finds that support the Book Of Mormon have a interpretation that resemble so closely, and there has been more then one and I can't believe it would be just a coinisidence. I don't base my faith on archeological finds. I don't know that the bible is true because of the historical and archeological proof supporting it are there, even historical fiction would have that type of proof to support it.

Hi there!




If you need help understanding the difference between "what is" and "what could be" concerning archaeological supports for the Bible or for the bom, send me a pm.

~serapha~

 

[Serapha]

Does anyone here know anything about achiological evidence?

~serapha~

 

[ST:DS9]

Faith is week if someone believe the Bible to be true because of Archological evidences. Even historical fiction have archeological evidences. I believed in the Bible before I ever knew of what kind of evidences there are. I found the bible to be true the same way I found the Book of Mormon is true, and that was before I meet any mormon, or even heard of the Book of Mormon. You guys are trying to tell me that the Holy Spirit didn't tell me the Bible is true, but that I just needed alkaselzer. Archeological evidences will never tell that the bible is true, it will be the holy spirit that will testify that it is true. As far as I am concerned there is enough evidence to support the Book of Mormon, but those evidence don't matter to me at all. Heck, I haven't even heard most of them until I started to participate in these forums and decided to search on google for these evidences. I don't need "signs" to know something is true, I rely on the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ promised us to determine if something is true.

 

[Serapha]

http://www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/user/documents/money.html
And the calibrations are the same.

Hi there!




source please, that the calibrations of today are the same as the time of the bom.


~serapha`

 

[unbound]

Faith is week if someone believe the Bible to be true because of Archological evidences.

God has left the believer and unbeliever alike proof that the people and places of the bible existed. I see no reason why he would change his method and leave me to accept the BoM on blind faith without these same evidences.

You guys are trying to tell me that the Holy Spirit didn't tell me the Bible is true, but that I just needed alkaselzer.

Do children get the "fuzzies" over Santa Clause? I am sure many parents do,too. but we all know he is fake.

God gave us a mind to use, to prove things such as these. If you want to shun your responsibility and go for the "burning bosom" God may not stand in the way of your wishes.

Why anyone would want to use a spiritual method to prove something carnal is beyond me. The wisdom God gives is not carnal.

Archeological evidences will never tell that the bible is true, it will be the holy spirit that will testify that it is true.

Archeological evidence will only widen the gap between the bible and the BoM. I find peace in the fact that God doesnt require me believe on a story about people who never existed.

I don't need "signs" to know something is true, I rely on the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ promised us to determine if something is true.

Occult practitioners also use "feeling" to justify astral projection and channeling. I hope your "feeling" is from the correct source.

 

[Serapha]

Archeological evidences will never tell that the bible is true, it will be the holy spirit that will testify that it is true. As far as I am concerned there is enough evidence to support the Book of Mormon, but those evidence don't matter to me at all.

Hi there!

Archaeological evidences don't disprove the Word of God... and the fact remains... there are archaeological evidences and more importantly, there are historical evidences to support the Bible whereas there are no historical evidences for the book of mormon either.


~thanks for sharing~