This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
“For many years, critics of the Book of Mormon have called attention to a colossal blunder… In Alma 7:10, the plagiarizing, inept author of that document ‘slips,’ and names ‘Jerusalem’ as the birthplace of Jesus Christ, rather than ‘Bethlehem’ — the correct location.”
ChristianCourier.com
Before we consider what “at Jerusalem” means, let’s look at context. Mainstream Christian apologists judge by what’s in the Bible , but Alma 7:10 was written by a prophet on the other side of the world. All he knew about Israel was from what he read in the brass plates, which contained some of the Old Testament books. Why should he be expected to know the name Bethlehem? Well, interestingly, there exists a second example of an ancient prophet in a far-off land talking about Jesus’ birthplace. This other example gives us some idea of what would be practical for Alma to know.
The Same Prophecy?
Missing Prophecies Of Jesus’ Birthplace – The only other case of a prophet prophesying of Jesus’ birthplace that we know of is Micah 5:2. The Book of Micah was not included in the Brass Plates, so the Nephites did not have access to this prophecy. This means Alma did not have a reference for the correct name of the town.
Yet we know there were other prophets prophesying of Jesus’ birthplace, because the wise men came from the east looking for it. The wise men didn’t hear about it from Micah, considering they knew about the star and the star was a detail that Micah did not include. They heard about it from some other prophet. There is a vague reference to the star in Numbers 24:17, but where did they get the idea that the star would accompany the birth of Jesus?
Star Was Sign Of Time, Not Place Of Birth – Why did the wise men go to Jerusalem instead of Bethlehem? Well, people presume it was because that was the capital of the country where the star settled over. As we all see played out in yearly Christmas pageants, the wise men followed the star, right? But this never made sense to me. A star settling over a country? When has that ever happened? Or did the star happen to be due west of wherever the wise men were coming from? I’ve seen all sorts of explanations like bright angels in the sky or comets, but how could the wise men follow a star in the east if they were coming from the eastward direction? How is it possible for a star in the east to lead them to Jerusalem if Jerusalem was westward for them? The star would have been in the west for them, not the east. When I read the text, it sounds pretty clear to me: they were in the east and they saw his star.
“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.”
(Matthew 2:1-2)
The Book of Mormon indicates the Nephites in the American continent saw the star as well, proving that it was way up in the sky and not hovering over a country. The Nephites in the Book fo Mormon prophesied about the star “for a sign at the time of his coming.” Not the location of his coming, but the time of his coming. The star could have been anywhere in the sky, really. It was simply a sign that Jesus was being born.
Wise Men Didn’t Know About Bethlehem – So, there is no indication that the star had anything to do with the location of the birth. How did they know where to go? I think the most likely explanation is that whatever prophecy they had heard a star also gave them the name “Jerusalem” or “Jews.” This would explain why they specifically asked for the “King of the Jews” when they got there. Why didn’t this prophecy name the town of “Bethlehem?” Bethlehem must not have been part of their prophecy, otherwise they would have gone straight there.
The Nephites received a prophecy that it would be “at Jerusalem” and a prophecy about a “star.” So really, the Nephites received the same information that the wise men received.
Jerusalem Was The Land Of Their Forefathers
Most people recognize that it’s splitting hairs whether Jesus was born at Bethlehem or Jerusalem, as they lay only a few miles away from each other. The word at “denotes nearness… direction towards.” Bethlehem is certainly near or towards Jerusalem from the perspective of the American continent. So it was correct to say Jesus would be born “at Jerusalem.” But also, the rest of the verse is talking about the land of their forefathers. It refers to “Jerusalem” as the land or place of their forefathers: “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.” (Alma 7:10)
Critics argue that Jerusalem was a city and not a land encompassing Bethlehem. Alma instead should have said “land of Israel” or “land of Judea,” critics say. Well, I think it’s a little ridiculous to expect a civilization that had been cut off from Israel for hundreds of years to be extra precise about what was technically a city and what was a land. Alma had only the brass plates to go by. It’s like expecting someone who only has only heard of England through a single book to say: “I’m flying into the city of Heathrow” rather than “I’m flying into London.” It’s not like Alma had an almanac (no pun intended) of Israel lying around to look at. The author of 1 Chronicles may have been careful to make clear distinction between Bethlehem and Jerusalem after they both became known as “city of David,” but Alma lived in a much different context than the author of 1 Chronicles. Why should he be so precise? Even if he did know it was Bethlehem, his audience was familiar with the name Jerusalem and not Bethlehem, so it would have added confusion for his audience.
Jerusalem Was A “Land” – But ancient people actually did call Jerusalem a “land.” Defenders of the Book of Mormon have provided instances of Jerusalem being referred to as a “land” that encompasses the city of Bethlehem:
- Pseudo-Jeremiah scroll 4Q385: “…Jeremiah the Prophet before the Lord […w]ho were taken captive from the land of Jerusalem [Eretz Yerushalayim, column 1, line 2]
- Canaanite tablets EA 289, EA 290: “town of Rubutu… land of Rubutu”
- Amarna Letters: “a city of the land of Jerusalem, Bet-Ninib, has been captured.” El Amarna letter #290: “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.”
So, ancient people considered Bethlehem a city within the land of Jerusalem. But ChristianCourier.com refutesthis: “Moreover, when certain passages in the Amarna letters speak of, for example, ‘the land of Shechem,’ such is simply a reference to the ‘land’ in which Shechem was located (Amarna 289.25), and not a confusion of the ‘land’ with the ‘town.’” Yes! That’s the whole point! Alma was talking about the “land of our forefathers,” the land which included the city of Jesus’ birth–Bethlehem. A “land” was a surrounding area under control of a main city, like a district or county today. There are many instances in the Bible of a city being referred to has a land in exactly this fashion:
- “Heshbon and all her cities” – Joshua 13:17
- “Ekron, with her towns and her villages” – Joshua 15:45
- “Megiddo and her towns” – Joshua 17:11
- “Ashdod, with her towns and her villages” – Joshua 15:47
- “Jerusalem and . . . all the cities thereof.” – Jeremiah 34:1
- Joshua 17:8 calls Tappuah is a “land” in, but Joshua 16:8 calls Tappuah a “city”
- Jeremiah 6:8; cf. 15:5-7 says Jerusalem would become “a land not inhabited”
The Book of Mormon likewise speaks of all sorts of “lands” as the general regions around cities of the same name, such as the lands of Zarahemla and Nephi surrounding the cities of Zarahemla and Nephi. Antimormons insist that Alma actually was talking about a city when he said “Jerusalem”, even though he clearly said “land of our forefathers.” Skeptics jump through all kinds of mental gymnastics to make their case, quoting church Sunday School manuals from the 1960’s, but why bother even addressing this nonsense? It’s the typical game skeptics play where they tell us what “Mormons actually believe.”
“Over and over again the Book of Mormon people are reminded to look back to Lehi and Jerusalem. Because of this, it seems perfectly plausible that Alma’s listeners would have understood the phrase land of our forefathers to mean the city of Jerusalem.”
mrm.org
A “land” refers to a city now? Isn’t that exactly the opposite of the entire skeptic narrative–that the city Jerusalem couldn’t possibly be a land? So the narrative contradicts itself. They cite 1 Nephi 3:9: “And I, Nephi, and my brethren took our journey in the wilderness, with our tents, to go up to the land of Jerusalem.” They entered the city of Jerusalem, didn’t they? Doesn’t that mean the Book of Mormon considers Jerusalem a city? Well, obviously to go into the city they had to first go into the land. This journey began from quite a distance from Jerusalem or its environs. 1 Nephi 1:4 states Lehi dwelled “at Jerusalem” but there is no distinction whether this was a land or a city, and there is no reason to assume this sets a precedent where every mention of Jerusalem must refer to either a land or a city. Skeptics are adding unnecessary confusion to a very simple issue. Simply, Alma prophesied of Jesus being baptized in the “land” of his forefathers, a land which encompassed several cities, one of them being Bethlehem. This “land” was known as Jerusalem.
“At” Jerusalem Vs. “In” Jerusalem
“How this idiom is interpreted is very crucial. If it can be determined that at Jerusalem was understood to mean in Jerusalem, then why would Alma’s readers think that the phrase at Jerusalem could mean anything other than the city itself?”
mrm.org
Not really. When someone tells me their plane is landing “in London,” I don’t automatically assume that means they are landing in London airport rather than Heathrow airport, which lies very close to the city of London but is technically its own city. I just assume they mean “in” the greater area of London. So this does nothing to tell us whether “Jerusalem” referred to a land or a city. Alma’s readers didn’t know what Bethlehem was, so why would have they have thought “at Jerusalem” or “in Jerusalem” meant strictly the confines of a city? This is a non-argument.
In fact, “at” and “in” were the same Hebrew word! Birusalem means both “in Jerusalem” and “at Jerusalem”. Ezra 1:2 translates it as “at Jerusalem” and Ezra 1:3 translates the same word as “in Jerusalem.” So it makes no sense to differentiate what Alma ‘actually meant’ at all because it’s all the same word! Joseph Smith apparently translated it as “at Jerusalem” because he knew–as everyone knows–Jesus was born around the area. So we don’t need to split hairs about teaching manuals from 1966 that said “in Jerusalem.”
Other Book of Mormon verses indicate Jerusalem is “at” a land, not a city. In Helaman 16, someone asks, “why will he not show himself unto us as well as unto them who shall be at Jerusalem?” Then in the next verse: “Yea, why will he not show himself in this land as well as in the land of Jerusalem?” This clearly equates “at Jerusalem” with “in the land of Jerusalem.” Same thing. Someone is “at Jerusalem” when they are within the confines of the Jerusalem region which encompasses several small towns, one of them being Bethlehem.
Sounds Authentic – Alright, I think I’m beating a dead horse here. There is no ground for skeptics to stand on. In fact, I would be skeptical if Alma had said “in Bethlehem,” because there isn’t anything for him to get that name from and there is no reason to give that name to people with little knowledge of Israel’s geography. There is clear ancient precedent for Alma to speak of Jerusalem in this way.
Skeptic MormonThink says “I have no particular problem with Alma 7:10,” and in fact it sounds too authentic: “the author of the Book of Mormon may have adopted this pattern in order to enhance its ‘sense of historicity.'” Boy, what a take!
But that didn’t stop MormonThink from including this verse in their list of “unfulfilled prophecies.”
Figures.
See Also: Bethlehem vs. the Land of Jerusalem by Jeff Lindsay