Book of Mormon has wrong Christmas Story

The Prophet

Well-known member
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.”

Notice how Alma how wrong City Jesus was born in when the Bible teaches Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the land of Judea rather than Jerusalem

Alma 7:10

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
 
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.”

Notice how Alma how wrong City Jesus was born in when the Bible teaches Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the land of Judea rather than Jerusalem

Alma 7:10

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
Well I lived in Vista California, a City incorporated and in the County of San Diego...
 
Notice how Alma how wrong City Jesus was born in when the Bible teaches Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the land of Judea rather than Jerusalem
Notice how Alma didn't say Jesus was born in the city of Jerusalem, but at the land of Jerusalem.
 

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.”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.4

Modern revelation given through the Prophet Joseph Smith perpetuates the expression and its ancient meaning. In Doctrine and Covenants 133:24, we read that when the continents are reassembled and again become one land mass, “the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place.”

Several other scriptural cities are also labeled at times as lands. Ammonihah was a city (see Alma 8:6), but it was also a land (see Alma 14:23). The area surrounding the city of Ur was also known as Ur. We read that an idolatrous shrine stood by Potiphar’s Hill, which “was in the land of Ur, of Chaldea.” (Abr. 1:20.) And in Abraham 2:4, we learn that Abraham and his family left “the land of Ur, of the Chaldees” and transferred to the “land” of Haran. The Damascus Rule (also known as the Zadokite Document—part of the Dead Sea Scrolls) twice refers to the “land of Damascus.”5

At Jerusalem. Alma stated that Jesus would be born of Mary not in Jerusalem, but at Jerusalem. Dictionary definitions of at include the words close by and near. Certainly “at Jerusalem” could be interpreted “near Jerusalem.”
:):):) Never says near :):):)
There is another example in the Book of Mormon in which the word at may mean “near.” The record does not say that Lehi and his family lived in Jerusalem, but at Jerusalem: “My father, Lehi, … dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days” (1 Ne. 1:4); “he returned to his own house at Jerusalem” (1 Ne. 1:7.); and “I, Nephi, have … dwelt at Jerusalem” (2 Ne. 25:6). That Lehi and his family may indeed have lived outside of Jerusalem proper is evidenced in the account of the sons’ attempt to secure the brass plates with their abandoned wealth: “We went down to the land of our inheritance, and we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things. And after we had gathered these things together, we went up again unto the house of Laban.” (1 Ne. 3:22–23; italics added.) Lehi could have lived several miles away and still lived at Jerusalem—just as Jesus could be born several miles away in Bethlehem but still be born at Jerusalem.

Joseph Smith, of course, knew well that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. If he had been the author of the Book of Mormon he would have so stated the fact, since any deviation from the well-known setting would certainly draw objection and accusation. However, Joseph Smith was merely translating a geographical note from an ancient writer—a note which in itself is another evidence that the Book of Mormon derives from a Semitic background.

Thus, Alma’s prophetic preview of the setting of the Savior’s birth is not erroneous or contradictory. It is compatible with similar biblical and extra-biblical figures of speech—evidence, in fact, of the passage’s authentic ancie
 
The verse has specific language of "at Jerusalem" and "land". I don't see any specific reference to the "city" of Jerusalem. Sorry. Hope that doesn't bring rain to your parade.
Alma 7:10

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

The Land of Judea,'

Matthew 2

2 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem
 
Alma 7:10

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

The Land of Judea,'

Matthew 2

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

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.
 
So what? The Bible is specific. And more accurate than Joseph Smith was.
I guess you skipped over deberries accurate account and explanation.... I lived in a San Diego County, even thought not in the City... I could easily say I was born at (near) San Diego... lots of folks would not know of Vista a small incorporated City.
 
Last edited:

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.”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.4

Modern revelation given through the Prophet Joseph Smith perpetuates the expression and its ancient meaning. In Doctrine and Covenants 133:24, we read that when the continents are reassembled and again become one land mass, “the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place.”

Several other scriptural cities are also labeled at times as lands. Ammonihah was a city (see Alma 8:6), but it was also a land (see Alma 14:23). The area surrounding the city of Ur was also known as Ur. We read that an idolatrous shrine stood by Potiphar’s Hill, which “was in the land of Ur, of Chaldea.” (Abr. 1:20.) And in Abraham 2:4, we learn that Abraham and his family left “the land of Ur, of the Chaldees” and transferred to the “land” of Haran. The Damascus Rule (also known as the Zadokite Document—part of the Dead Sea Scrolls) twice refers to the “land of Damascus.”5

At Jerusalem. Alma stated that Jesus would be born of Mary not in Jerusalem, but at Jerusalem. Dictionary definitions of at include the words close by and near. Certainly “at Jerusalem” could be interpreted “near Jerusalem.”

There is another example in the Book of Mormon in which the word at may mean “near.” The record does not say that Lehi and his family lived in Jerusalem, but at Jerusalem: “My father, Lehi, … dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days” (1 Ne. 1:4); “he returned to his own house at Jerusalem” (1 Ne. 1:7.); and “I, Nephi, have … dwelt at Jerusalem” (2 Ne. 25:6). That Lehi and his family may indeed have lived outside of Jerusalem proper is evidenced in the account of the sons’ attempt to secure the brass plates with their abandoned wealth: “We went down to the land of our inheritance, and we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things. And after we had gathered these things together, we went up again unto the house of Laban.” (1 Ne. 3:22–23; italics added.) Lehi could have lived several miles away and still lived at Jerusalem—just as Jesus could be born several miles away in Bethlehem but still be born at Jerusalem.

Joseph Smith, of course, knew well that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. If he had been the author of the Book of Mormon he would have so stated the fact, since any deviation from the well-known setting would certainly draw objection and accusation. However, Joseph Smith was merely translating a geographical note from an ancient writer—a note which in itself is another evidence that the Book of Mormon derives from a Semitic background.

Thus, Alma’s prophetic preview of the setting of the Savior’s birth is not erroneous or contradictory. It is compatible with similar biblical and extra-biblical figures of speech—evidence, in fact, of the passage’s authentic ancient origin.
👍 :p :p👌😁
 
Jerusalem isn't Bethlehem no matter how you try to rationalize it. Huge goof by Smith.

Actually you're a Johnny Come Lately, shall we move on with how did the Book of Mormon come to be... I doubt it.

The town of Bethlehem is in the "land of Jerusalem." In fact, Bethlehem is only 5 miles south of Jerusalem: definitely "in the land," especially from the perspective of Alma, a continent away. Even locals considered Hebron, twenty five miles from Bethlehem, to be in the "land of Jerusalem." This is, in reality, another literary evidence for the Book of Mormon. While a forger would likely overlook this detail and include Bethlehem as the commonly-understood birthplace of Jesus, the ancient authors of the Book of Mormon use an authentic term to describe the Savior's birthplace—thereby providing another point of authenticity for the Book of Mormon.

This is an old criticism that has been dealt with at least as far back as 1842

This is an old criticism that has been dealt with at least as far back as 1842. but continues to pop up now and again.

BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson pointed out the absurdity of this argument:


To suggest that Joseph Smith knew the precise location of Jesus' baptism by John ("in Bethabara, beyond Jordan" (1 Ne. 10:9) but hadn't a clue about the famous town of Christ's birth is so improbable as to be ludicrous. Do the skeptics seriously mean to suggest that the Book of Mormon's Bible-drenched author (or authors) missed one of the most obvious facts about the most popular story in the Bible — something known to every child and Christmas caroler? Do they intend to say that a clever fraud who could write a book displaying so wide an array of subtly authentic Near Eastern and biblical cultural and literary traits as the Book of Mormon does was nonetheless so stupid as to claim, before a Bible-reading public, that Jesus was born in the city of Jerusalem? As one anti-Mormon author has pointed out, "Every schoolboy and schoolgirl knows Christ was born in Bethlehem." [Langfield, 53.] Exactly! It is virtually certain, therefore, that Alma 7:10 was foreign to Joseph Smith's preconceptions. "The land of Jerusalem" is not the sort of thing the Prophet would likely have invented, precisely for the same reason it bothers uninformed critics of the Book of Mormon.
"Objections to the Book of Mormon," Millennial Star
 
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.
The bottom line is that Bethlehem and Jerusalem are specific places and recorded as such in Biblical scripture. Dberrie and LDS "scholars" try to tell us that generalities are ok. Kind of like playing steel tip darts. Well, the area around the bullseye is really the bullseye, even though it may be a "19", "7" or some other number in the triple segment. They are different.

So what do the scriptures say? Let's look.

Matt 2:1

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea

NKJV

Matt 2:3-6

When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.

5 So they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet:

6 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.'"



Luke 2:4

Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,


John 7:42

Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

The Greek preposition transliterated as "en" means this:

NT:1722

en (en); a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively)

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Fixed position. Specific. Not general as you would want it to mean so you can shoehorn it into Smith's huge goof in your Alma scripture.

The Micah prophecy was given and quoted in Matthew 2:3-6.

Now Luke goes a little further and says Jesus was born in the city of David which is called Bethlehem. However, Jerusalem was called the city of David over 40 times in the OT scriptures. What is up with that? Here is a great explanation that aligns itself perfectly with the other Biblical scriptures making Bethlehem the place of Jesus' birth.

Here is the link: https://goodfaithmedia.org/why-luke...rty times in the Old,ever called by that name.

We then go to John's account who specifically narrows down the location of Jesus' birth. No generality here. all the Biblical scriptures say "Bethlehem". Even Herod understood that when he sent the soldiers in to slaughter the innocents a couple of years later.

The Biblical scriptures are consistent. At no time did the prophets or New Testament writers ever say or write that Jesus was born in or at Jerusalem. They all said "Bethlehem". No dancing and shoehorning necessary. Joseph Smith invented that Alma scripture and it is patently wrong.
 
The bottom line is that Bethlehem and Jerusalem are specific places and recorded as such in Biblical scripture. Dberrie and LDS "scholars" try to tell us that generalities are ok. Kind of like playing steel tip darts. Well, the area around the bullseye is really the bullseye, even though it may be a "19", "7" or some other number in the triple segment. They are different.

So what do the scriptures say? Let's look.

Matt 2:1

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea

NKJV

Matt 2:3-6

When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.

5 So they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet:

6 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.'"



Luke 2:4

Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,
Dote on this good buddy...The below is hardly a general statement or poorly researched

Moreover, referring to Jerusalem and its environs as a “land” was a proper geographical usage. For instance, it can be found in the El Amarna tablets in Egypt, which date to the fourteenth century B.C. These tablets were unknown in 1829 and were discovered in Upper Egypt in 1887, well after the Book of Mormon was translated and published. The ancient writer of these texts knew Akkadian and the affairs of the lands around Jerusalem. He referred to “the land of Jerusalem” in language similar to Alma’s. The ancient tablet reads:

“And now as for Jerusalem—Behold this land belongs to the king”
“But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.”6
According to Professor William F. Albright, who translated this text, 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.

“Ancient Bethlehem Seal Unearthed in Jerusalem,” Phys.org, May 23, 2012, online at https://phys.org/news/2012- 05-ancient-bethlehem-unearthed-jerusalem.html (accessed December 6, 2017).
 
Dote on this good buddy...The below is hardly a general statement or poorly researched

Moreover, referring to Jerusalem and its environs as a “land” was a proper geographical usage. For instance, it can be found in the El Amarna tablets in Egypt, which date to the fourteenth century B.C. These tablets were unknown in 1829 and were discovered in Upper Egypt in 1887, well after the Book of Mormon was translated and published. The ancient writer of these texts knew Akkadian and the affairs of the lands around Jerusalem. He referred to “the land of Jerusalem” in language similar to Alma’s. The ancient tablet reads:


According to Professor William F. Albright, who translated this text, 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.

“Ancient Bethlehem Seal Unearthed in Jerusalem,” Phys.org, May 23, 2012, online at https://phys.org/news/2012- 05-ancient-bethlehem-unearthed-jerusalem.html (accessed December 6, 2017).
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.
 
Actually you're a Johnny Come Lately, shall we move on with how did the Book of Mormon come to be... I doubt it.

The town of Bethlehem is in the "land of Jerusalem." In fact, Bethlehem is only 5 miles south of Jerusalem: definitely "in the land," especially from the perspective of Alma, a continent away. Even locals considered Hebron, twenty five miles from Bethlehem, to be in the "land of Jerusalem." This is, in reality, another literary evidence for the Book of Mormon. While a forger would likely overlook this detail and include Bethlehem as the commonly-understood birthplace of Jesus, the ancient authors of the Book of Mormon use an authentic term to describe the Savior's birthplace—thereby providing another point of authenticity for the Book of Mormon.

This is an old criticism that has been dealt with at least as far back as 1842

This is an old criticism that has been dealt with at least as far back as 1842. but continues to pop up now and again.

BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson pointed out the absurdity of this argument:



"Objections to the Book of Mormon," Millennial Star
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.”
 
Back
Top