Book of Mormon has wrong Christmas Story

[Richard7]

Still an epic fail. I see you didn't refer to the scriptures I quoted, the Greek definition I quoted the entirety as a whole which shows Bethlehem is a specific place quoted by the prophets and Gospel writers as Jesus' birth-- not Jerusalem. The scriptures are specific. Your stuff trying to pigeon hole a singular extra-biblical verse written by Smith to make it seem as if agrees with Biblical scripture.

Keep trying, Ralph.

Well the issue is not me and JS, the issue has been researched and somewhat resolved by serious scholars...
Epic Fail or stubbornness and denial? Keep trying good buddy... its really indeed satisfying to see JS got it right...

Bit-Lahmi “is an almost certain reference to the town of Bethlehem, which thus appear for the first time in history.”7 Some scholars have questioned this identification, but it remains widely accepted by biblical scholars today. Not only does the Amarna text consider Jerusalem to be a “land,” but this text also speaks of Bethlehem (the town where Jesus would later be born) as belonging to the “land of Jerusalem.” Thus, the specific phrasing of Alma’s prophecy stands in excellent ancient company.

 

[Richard7]

What would Alma have to do with the name if the Book of Mormon was God-breathed since God would know the exact city Jesus was being born

Micah 5:2

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[b] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”

Bit-Lahmi “is an almost certain reference to the town of Bethlehem, which thus appear for the first time in history.”7 Some scholars have questioned this identification, but it remains widely accepted by biblical scholars today. Not only does the Amarna text consider Jerusalem to be a “land,” but this text also speaks of Bethlehem (the town where Jesus would later be born) as belonging to the “land of Jerusalem.” Thus, the specific phrasing of Alma’s prophecy stands in excellent ancient company.

 

[organgrinder]

Well the issue is not me and JS, the issue has been researched and somewhat resolved by serious scholars...
Epic Fail or stubbornness and denial? Keep trying good buddy... its really indeed satisfying to see JS got it right...

Bit-Lahmi “is an almost certain reference to the town of Bethlehem, which thus appear for the first time in history.”7 Some scholars have questioned this identification, but it remains widely accepted by biblical scholars today. Not only does the Amarna text consider Jerusalem to be a “land,” but this text also speaks of Bethlehem (the town where Jesus would later be born) as belonging to the “land of Jerusalem.” Thus, the specific phrasing of Alma’s prophecy stands in excellent ancient company.

Joseph didn't get it right. I gave specific biblical scriptures, the meaning of the Hebrew preposition and showed that Bethlehem was a specific place, not a general place in the "land of Jerusalem". The term "land of Jerusalem" is not mentioned in the Biblical scriptures. One Mormon scripture does not trump the numerous biblical scriptures that speak of a specific TOWN in Israel. That fact escapes you.

Smith missed it, too. Epic fail on his part. You are still trying to shoehorn false information derived from a false set of uninspired scriptures to prove that Alma 7:10 is correct.

God's entire biblical scriptures are God breathed. Every word means something. God, through the prophets and apostles, spoke of Bethlehem where Jesus would be born-- not Jerusalem no matter how hard you try to defend that Alma verse. It matters not a whit what alleged scholars believe about "the land of Jerusalem". What matters is what the Biblical scriptures specifically say and mean.

Jerusalem is not Bethlehem. Get a clue, Ralph. If your Book of Mormon was actually inspired by the Holy Spirit, there wouldn't have been such a stupid error. This is why you always compare scripture with scripture. That is basic to studying and understanding God's word. Learn how to actually study.

 

[dberrie2020]

Joseph didn't get it right. I gave specific biblical scriptures, the meaning of the Hebrew preposition and showed that Bethlehem was a specific place, not a general place in the "land of Jerusalem".

Again--what is your evidence Bethlehem was not a town in the land of Jerusalem--in ancient times?

I posted my evidence:

"D. Kelly Ogden, associate director, The Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. Let’s look more closely at Alma’s wording: “He shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.” (Alma 7:10.) Notice two points: first, Jerusalem is referred to as a land rather than as a city. Second, Jesus’ birth would occur at Jerusalem.

The Land of Jerusalem. Towns and villages which surrounded larger demographic or political centers were regarded in ancient times as belonging to those larger centers. For a major city center such as Jerusalem to be called not only a city but also a land was standard practice.

El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times.1 And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem: In this letter is recorded the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.”2 Hebron, almost twenty miles south of Bethlehem, was also considered part of the “land of Jerusalem.”

Note: Bethlehem was about 5 miles from the city of Jerusalem, and part of the "land of Jerusalem". I find the letter above confirms the usage of the term "land of Jerusalem" was had in ancient times. That comports the fact --it is consistent with Book of Mormon usage, and renders the argument one of semantics for the critics here. It neutralizes their argument, IMO.

What else do you have?

 

[organgrinder]

Again--what is your evidence Bethlehem was not a town in the land of Jerusalem--in ancient times?

I posted my evidence:

"D. Kelly Ogden, associate director, The Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. Let’s look more closely at Alma’s wording: “He shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.” (Alma 7:10.) Notice two points: first, Jerusalem is referred to as a land rather than as a city. Second, Jesus’ birth would occur at Jerusalem.

The Land of Jerusalem. Towns and villages which surrounded larger demographic or political centers were regarded in ancient times as belonging to those larger centers. For a major city center such as Jerusalem to be called not only a city but also a land was standard practice.

El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times.1 And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem: In this letter is recorded the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.”2 Hebron, almost twenty miles south of Bethlehem, was also considered part of the “land of Jerusalem.”

Note: Bethlehem was about 5 miles from the city of Jerusalem, and part of the "land of Jerusalem". I find the letter above confirms the usage of the term "land of Jerusalem" was had in ancient times. That comports the fact --it is consistent with Book of Mormon usage, and renders the argument one of semantics for the critics here. It neutralizes their argument, IMO.

What else do you have?

I used scripture to back myself up. Go back and read the posts. Go back and see what the preposition "en" (Greek transliterated) means. Specific place. The words "land of Jerusalem" were never used in the Biblical texts. You grasp for extrabiblical outside sources to shoehorn justifying Alma 7:10. Learn how to do actual Bible study, dberrie. It isn't that difficult. One scripture from your false Book of Mormon does not trump numerous biblical passages SPECIFICALLY naming Bethlehem as the place of Jesus' birth.

Smith made a stupid error and trying to perpetuate that error simply makes you and your Mormon scholars and others look, well........ you figure that out.

Bethlehem was a town in Judea of Israel. Bethlehem is not Jerusalem. End of story.

 

[dberrie2020]

I used scripture to back myself up. Go back and read the posts.

You, nor anyone else--- have done any such thing. You haven't touched the posted evidence, nor are you going to. It does not fit your intentions.

Again--the ancient evidence places Bethlehem in the land of Jerusalem--and that fits the description of the Book of Mormon:

"D. Kelly Ogden, associate director, The Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. Let’s look more closely at Alma’s wording: “He shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.” (Alma 7:10.) Notice two points: first, Jerusalem is referred to as a land rather than as a city. Second, Jesus’ birth would occur at Jerusalem.

The Land of Jerusalem. Towns and villages which surrounded larger demographic or political centers were regarded in ancient times as belonging to those larger centers. For a major city center such as Jerusalem to be called not only a city but also a land was standard practice.

El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times.1 And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem: In this letter is recorded the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.”2 Hebron, almost twenty miles south of Bethlehem, was also considered part of the “land of Jerusalem.”

Care to come out of the denial mode--and deal with the posted evidence?

 

[dberrie2020]

Bethlehem was a town in Judea of Israel.

Bingo! Just as Bethlehem was a town in the land of Jerusalem--as my posted material shows.

That is no different than cobb county being in the land of Atlanta--or Atlanta being in the land of Georgia--or Georgia being in the land of America, or America being in the land of the American continent, etc.

You are grasping at straws.

What else ya got?

 

[shnarkle]

And that plays right into the Book of Mormon claims:

Judaea​

Judaea, also spelled Judea, or Judah, Hebrew Yehudaḥ, the southernmost of the three traditional divisions of ancient Palestine; the other two were Galilee in the north and Samaria in the centre. No clearly marked boundary divided Judaea from Samaria, but the town of Beersheba was traditionally the southernmost limit. The region presents a variety of geographic features, but the real core of Judaea was the upper hill country, known as Har Yehuda (“Hills of Judaea”), extending south from the region of Bethel (at present-day Ramallah) to Beersheba and including the area of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron.

IOW--the land of Judaea included all those cities. Point made.

The same with our geographical arrangements, IE--Atlanta is a land in Georgia, (which may include numerous counties in their jurisdiction)--Georgia is a land in the USA, the USA is a land of the American continent, etc.--all including specific areas of concern.

People in Mexico, Central and South America will make this same observation when it comes to people claiming they live in "America" as if it only refers to those living in the US.

 

[organgrinder]

Bingo! Just as Bethlehem was a town in the land of Jerusalem--as my posted material shows.

That is no different than cobb county being in the land of Atlanta--or Atlanta being in the land of Georgia--or Georgia being in the land of America, or America being in the land of the American continent, etc.

You are grasping at straws.

What else ya got?

I would suggest you are the one grasping at straws, using non-biblical sources to "prove" a BOM position ("Land of jerusalem" that is not mentioned ONCE in the Bible. I showed biblical scriptures detailing a specific place-- Bethlehem-- and not Jerusalem. Do you not understand that the Greek word "en" (transliterated) is a pronoun referring to a specific place or thing?

Evidently not. You want us to believe that a single BOM scripture stating Jerusalem is the place of Jesus' birth. Not one single scripture in the Bible refers to Jerusalem, the land of our fathers to mean Bethlehem. So one single BOM scripture stating Jerusalem trumps the rest of Biblical scriptures stating the place of Jesus' birth is Bethlehem? Evidently that is your position and your church's position.

I have shown by the scriptures and the grammar, in post #18 of this thread that Mormon position is absolutely wrong. Smith failed miserably with his stupid error. Bethlehem is not Jerusalem.

 

[Richard7]

Joseph didn't get it right. I gave specific biblical scriptures, the meaning of the Hebrew preposition and showed that Bethlehem was a specific place, not a general place in the "land of Jerusalem". The term "land of Jerusalem" is not mentioned in the Biblical scriptures. One Mormon scripture does not trump the numerous biblical scriptures that speak of a specific TOWN in Israel. That fact escapes you.

Smith missed it, too. Epic fail on his part. You are still trying to shoehorn false information derived from a false set of uninspired scriptures to prove that Alma 7:10 is correct.

God's entire biblical scriptures are God breathed. Every word means something. God, through the prophets and apostles, spoke of Bethlehem where Jesus would be born-- not Jerusalem no matter how hard you try to defend that Alma verse. It matters not a whit what alleged scholars believe about "the land of Jerusalem". What matters is what the Biblical scriptures specifically say and mean.

Jerusalem is not Bethlehem. Get a clue, Ralph. If your Book of Mormon was actually inspired by the Holy Spirit, there wouldn't have been such a stupid error. This is why you always compare scripture with scripture. That is basic to studying and understanding God's word. Learn how to actually study.

Book of Mormon states ‘…the son of God… shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers’.

El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times.1 And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem: In this letter is recorded the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.”2 Hebron, almost twenty miles south of Bethlehem, was also considered part of the “land of Jerusalem.”3

The Book of Mormon is internally consistent in using the wording “the land of Jerusalem” to refer to the place from which Lehi and his family had left, where the Savior would appear as a mortal, and to which the people of Judah would eventually return.

Why does the Book of Mormon say that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem?

Why does the Book of Mormon say that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem?

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

Now dote on this from the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Now from the Dead Sea Scrolls comes an even more specific occurrence of the phrase “land of Jerusalem” that gives insight into its usage
and meaning—in a text that indirectly links the phrase to the Jerusalem of Lehi’s time.


Oh, do I hear a gnashing of teeth...seems the research being accumulated is proving JS got it right or that The Book of Mormon is more correct then you give it credit for... chuckle. Read on good buddy.

Robert Eisenmann and Michael Wise, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (1993), discuss one document that they have provisionally named “Pseudo-Jeremiah” ( scroll 4Q385). The beginning of the damaged text reads as follows:

. . . Jeremiah the Prophet before the Lord (. . . wh)o were taken captive from the land of Jerusalem (Eretz Yerushalayim, column 1, line 2) (p. 58)

In their discussion of this text, Eisenmann and Wise elaborate on the significance of the phrase “land of Jerusalem,” which they see as an equivalent for Judah (Yehud):

Another interesting reference is to the “land of Jerusalem” in Line 2 of Fragment 1. This greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or ‘Yehud’ (the name of the area on coins from the Persian period) by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs. (p. 57)

So your willing to throw the Dead Sea Scrolls under the bus now? hmm

 

[dberrie2020]

I would suggest you are the one grasping at straws, using non-biblical sources to "prove" a BOM position ("Land of jerusalem" that is not mentioned ONCE in the Bible.

No one has claimed otherwise. The quote in question is found in the Book of Mormon--and there is collaborating evidence to that reference:


"D. Kelly Ogden, associate director, The Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. Let’s look more closely at Alma’s wording: “He shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.” (Alma 7:10.) Notice two points: first, Jerusalem is referred to as a land rather than as a city. Second, Jesus’ birth would occur at Jerusalem.

The Land of Jerusalem. Towns and villages which surrounded larger demographic or political centers were regarded in ancient times as belonging to those larger centers. For a major city center such as Jerusalem to be called not only a city but also a land was standard practice.

El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times.1 And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem: In this letter is recorded the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.”2 Hebron, almost twenty miles south of Bethlehem, was also considered part of the “land of Jerusalem.”

Care to address that?

I showed biblical scriptures detailing a specific place-- Bethlehem-- and not Jerusalem. Do you not understand that the Greek word "en" (transliterated) is a pronoun referring to a specific place or thing?

And the specific place in question was the land of Jerusalem--which Bethlehem is part of--as evidence by the letter of antiquity above.

Care to address that?

Evidently not. You want us to believe that a single BOM scripture stating Jerusalem is the place of Jesus' birth.

The Book of Mormon does not state that. It states it would be "at Jerusalem, as in the "land" of Jerusalem. Bethlehem was part of the land of Jerusalem--and is found "at Jerusalem"--as it is in close proximity to Jerusalem.

Care to address that?

Not one single scripture in the Bible refers to Jerusalem, the land of our fathers to mean Bethlehem.

And? The Biblical text does not go into many details--that does not mean it isn't true.

But the ancient letter I quoted does connect the land of Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

Care to address that?

 

[Richard7]

No one has claimed otherwise. The quote in question is found in the Book of Mormon--and there is collaborating evidence to that reference:


"D. Kelly Ogden, associate director, The Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. Let’s look more closely at Alma’s wording: “He shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.” (Alma 7:10.) Notice two points: first, Jerusalem is referred to as a land rather than as a city. Second, Jesus’ birth would occur at Jerusalem.

The Land of Jerusalem. Towns and villages which surrounded larger demographic or political centers were regarded in ancient times as belonging to those larger centers. For a major city center such as Jerusalem to be called not only a city but also a land was standard practice.

El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times.1 And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem: In this letter is recorded the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.”2 Hebron, almost twenty miles south of Bethlehem, was also considered part of the “land of Jerusalem.”

Care to address that?



And the specific place in question was the land of Jerusalem--which Bethlehem is part of--as evidence by the letter of antiquity above.

Care to address that?



The Book of Mormon does not state that. It states it would be "at Jerusalem, as in the "land" of Jerusalem. Bethlehem was part of the land of Jerusalem--and is found "at Jerusalem"--as it is in close proximity to Jerusalem.

Care to address that?



And? The Biblical text does not go into many details--that does not mean it isn't true.

But the ancient letter I quoted does connect the land of Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

Care to address that?

No with a wave of his hand its nothing but a epic fail... do you really think he studies what you and I post.... Dead Sea Scrolls verify that JS got it right... chuckle.

 

[organgrinder]

Book of Mormon states ‘…the son of God… shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers’.

El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times.1 And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem: In this letter is recorded the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.”2 Hebron, almost twenty miles south of Bethlehem, was also considered part of the “land of Jerusalem.”3

The Book of Mormon is internally consistent in using the wording “the land of Jerusalem” to refer to the place from which Lehi and his family had left, where the Savior would appear as a mortal, and to which the people of Judah would eventually return.

Why does the Book of Mormon say that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem?

Why does the Book of Mormon say that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem?

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

Now dote on this from the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Now from the Dead Sea Scrolls comes an even more specific occurrence of the phrase “land of Jerusalem” that gives insight into its usage
and meaning—in a text that indirectly links the phrase to the Jerusalem of Lehi’s time.


Oh, do I hear a gnashing of teeth...seems the research being accumulated is proving JS got it right or that The Book of Mormon is more correct then you give it credit for... chuckle. Read on good buddy.

Robert Eisenmann and Michael Wise, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (1993), discuss one document that they have provisionally named “Pseudo-Jeremiah” ( scroll 4Q385). The beginning of the damaged text reads as follows:

. . . Jeremiah the Prophet before the Lord (. . . wh)o were taken captive from the land of Jerusalem (Eretz Yerushalayim, column 1, line 2) (p. 58)

In their discussion of this text, Eisenmann and Wise elaborate on the significance of the phrase “land of Jerusalem,” which they see as an equivalent for Judah (Yehud):

Another interesting reference is to the “land of Jerusalem” in Line 2 of Fragment 1. This greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or ‘Yehud’ (the name of the area on coins from the Persian period) by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs. (p. 57)

So your willing to throw the Dead Sea Scrolls under the bus now? hmm

Dead Sea scrolls of "Pseudo-Jerimiah" (that should tell you something and the other stuff you regurgitated are not what biblical scripture says. Evidently the Greek grammar and the biblical references to Bethlehem escape you. Nothing in the biblical scriptures say "land of Jerusalem". That is a problem you Mormons have. Smith failed and made a very stupid error... and you believe it.

 

[organgrinder]

No one has claimed otherwise. The quote in question is found in the Book of Mormon--and there is collaborating evidence to that reference:


"D. Kelly Ogden, associate director, The Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. Let’s look more closely at Alma’s wording: “He shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.” (Alma 7:10.) Notice two points: first, Jerusalem is referred to as a land rather than as a city. Second, Jesus’ birth would occur at Jerusalem.

The Land of Jerusalem. Towns and villages which surrounded larger demographic or political centers were regarded in ancient times as belonging to those larger centers. For a major city center such as Jerusalem to be called not only a city but also a land was standard practice.

El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times.1 And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem: In this letter is recorded the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.”2 Hebron, almost twenty miles south of Bethlehem, was also considered part of the “land of Jerusalem.”

Care to address that?



And the specific place in question was the land of Jerusalem--which Bethlehem is part of--as evidence by the letter of antiquity above.

Care to address that?



The Book of Mormon does not state that. It states it would be "at Jerusalem, as in the "land" of Jerusalem. Bethlehem was part of the land of Jerusalem--and is found "at Jerusalem"--as it is in close proximity to Jerusalem.

Care to address that?



And? The Biblical text does not go into many details--that does not mean it isn't true.

But the ancient letter I quoted does connect the land of Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

Care to address that?

You evidently can't read nor understand. The Biblical scriptures NEVER say "land of Jerusalem. Only Bethlehem, Jerusalem or the City of David (explained in the NT) when referring to the specific cities.

I have already addressed your "close proximity issue using a steel tip dart board an example. A triple on a dart board is in very close proximity to the bullseye. However, it is NOT the bullseye and neither is Jerusalem the same as Bethlehem.

Smith did an epic fail making his stupid error... and you believe it hook line and sinker.

Get a concordance out. Prove to me where "land of Jerusalem exists in the Biblical scriptures. Get the Greek grammar and sho me where "in Bethlehem really means close by or near to Jerusalem. I've already done your homework so go back, read and learn. Prove to me Biblically Bethlehem equals Jerusalem. You utilize a BOM passage that is supposed to trump the biblical scriptures.

I think I am finished with you and Ralph on this topic. Neither of you can comprehend the issue and both of you divert hard to come up with a "possible" meaning that would agree with your Alma verse. Bible reference quoted don't need to have a "possible" meaning. They are clear, for the Holy Spirit made it clear.

 

[Richard7]

You evidently can't read nor understand. The Biblical scriptures NEVER say "land of Jerusalem. Only Bethlehem, Jerusalem or the City of David (explained in the NT) when referring to the specific cities.

I have already addressed your "close proximity issue using a steel tip dart board an example. A triple on a dart board is in very close proximity to the bullseye. However, it is NOT the bullseye and neither is Jerusalem the same as Bethlehem.

Smith did an epic fail making his stupid error... and you believe it hook line and sinker.

Get a concordance out. Prove to me where "land of Jerusalem exists in the Biblical scriptures. Get the Greek grammar and sho me where "in Bethlehem really means close by or near to Jerusalem. I've already done your homework so go back, read and learn. Prove to me Biblically Bethlehem equals Jerusalem. You utilize a BOM passage that is supposed to trump the biblical scriptures.

I think I am finished with you and Ralph on this topic. Neither of you can comprehend the issue and both of you divert hard to come up with a "possible" meaning that would agree with your Alma verse. Bible reference quoted don't need to have a "possible" meaning. They are clear, for the Holy Spirit made it clear.

Yep! gnashing of teeth... chuckle. "Pseudo-Jerimiah" or not, this is a ancient book and its using the vernacular of its time... chuckle.
I bet you're finished, I would run also when faced with facts and evidence that blows your speculations to pieces...

 

[dberrie2020]

You evidently can't read nor understand. The Biblical scriptures NEVER say "land of Jerusalem.

It doesn't say anything about "Trinity" either. That doesn't seem to bother you.

Just so the Bible does not mention "land of Jerusalem" does not mean it wasn't part of the custom of that day.

You still haven't faced, nor engaged-- the evidence which was presented:

"D. Kelly Ogden, associate director, The Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. Let’s look more closely at Alma’s wording: “He shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.” (Alma 7:10.) Notice two points: first, Jerusalem is referred to as a land rather than as a city. Second, Jesus’ birth would occur at Jerusalem.

The Land of Jerusalem. Towns and villages which surrounded larger demographic or political centers were regarded in ancient times as belonging to those larger centers. For a major city center such as Jerusalem to be called not only a city but also a land was standard practice.

El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times.1 And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem: In this letter is recorded the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.”2 Hebron, almost twenty miles south of Bethlehem, was also considered part of the “land of Jerusalem.”

Care to address that?

Only Bethlehem, Jerusalem or the City of David (explained in the NT) when referring to the specific cities.

The Book of Mormon wasn't referring to a specific city--but an area which included Bethlehem--as the ancient letter shows above--and which you thumb your nose at.

Care to engage that?

I have already addressed your "close proximity issue using a steel tip dart board an example. A triple on a dart board is in very close proximity to the bullseye. However, it is NOT the bullseye and neither is Jerusalem the same as Bethlehem.

No one has claimed it was.

Organ--when are you going to engage to actual evidence presented? That's the bullseye. Your speculation, and altering what is actually stated--isn't going to make your point.

 

[Elijah the Tishbite]

It doesn't say anything about "Trinity" either. That doesn't seem to bother you.

Just so the Bible does not mention "land of Jerusalem" does not mean it wasn't part of the custom of that day.

You still haven't faced, nor engaged-- the evidence which was presented:

"D. Kelly Ogden, associate director, The Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. Let’s look more closely at Alma’s wording: “He shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.” (Alma 7:10.) Notice two points: first, Jerusalem is referred to as a land rather than as a city. Second, Jesus’ birth would occur at Jerusalem.

The Land of Jerusalem. Towns and villages which surrounded larger demographic or political centers were regarded in ancient times as belonging to those larger centers. For a major city center such as Jerusalem to be called not only a city but also a land was standard practice.

El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times.1 And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem: In this letter is recorded the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.”2 Hebron, almost twenty miles south of Bethlehem, was also considered part of the “land of Jerusalem.”

Care to address that?



The Book of Mormon wasn't referring to a specific city--but an area which included Bethlehem--as the ancient letter shows above--and which you thumb your nose at.

Care to engage that?



No one has claimed it was.

Organ--when are you going to engage to actual evidence presented? That's the bullseye. Your speculation, and altering what is actually stated--isn't going to make your point.

God is specific ​

Matthew 2

New International Version

2 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem

Micah 5:2

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[b] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”

 

[dberrie2020]

God is specific ​

And so was the letter:

"D. Kelly Ogden, associate director, The Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. Let’s look more closely at Alma’s wording: “He shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.” (Alma 7:10.) Notice two points: first, Jerusalem is referred to as a land rather than as a city. Second, Jesus’ birth would occur at Jerusalem.

The Land of Jerusalem. Towns and villages which surrounded larger demographic or political centers were regarded in ancient times as belonging to those larger centers. For a major city center such as Jerusalem to be called not only a city but also a land was standard practice.

El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times.1 And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem: In this letter is recorded the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.”2 Hebron, almost twenty miles south of Bethlehem, was also considered part of the “land of Jerusalem.”

Care to engage that?

 

[organgrinder]

Lurkers, if you wonder why Dberrie and Ralph (Richard this time around) can't understand scripture, look at the end of post #35. They can't even understand what "I think I am finished with you" means. Both like to post scripture with no context or explanation and prefer extra-biblical information to bolster a false scripture found in their BOM. epic fail by Joseph Smith, Dberrie and Ralph. Keep that in mind as they continue with diversions and inability to actually explain scriptures. Avoid discussing the actual scriptures and grammar and instead focus on a side issue that is non-specific.

When you can't explain scripture you go someplace else and hope nobody notices.

 

[Magdalena]

Lurkers, if you wonder why Dberrie and Ralph (Richard this time around) can't understand scripture, look at the end of post #35. They can't even understand what "I think I am finished with you" means. Both like to post scripture with no context or explanation and prefer extra-biblical information to bolster a false scripture found in their BOM. epic fail by Joseph Smith, Dberrie and Ralph. Keep that in mind as they continue with diversions and inability to actually explain scriptures. Avoid discussing the actual scriptures and grammar and instead focus on a side issue that is non-specific.

When you can't explain scripture you go someplace else and hope nobody notices.

Or start insulting and calling people names.