Born At Bethelem Or At Jerusalem?

[Bernard Gui]

Micah 5:8 at least: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/micah/5/8a

Thank you! But these are words of Jesus, not of Nephite prophets.I'm wondering if the Nephites had the words of Micah. If not,they would not known of his prophecy about Bethlehem.Has anyone made a study of Old Testament quotes and allusionsin the BoM?Bernard

I can see your point.However, it was noted in the OP that other cities were mentioned in the B of M, these also were probably unknown to the Nephites, but these were not said to occur at Jerusalem. (Although I will note that these cities are further from Jerusalem than Bethlehem).1 Nephi 10:9 "He should baptize in Bethabary beyond Jordan..."1 Nephi 11:13 "and I beheld the city of Nazareth...and I beheld a virgin..."

Again you miss the point or missed who used those city names.Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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

[...w]ho 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):

Lehi was a contemporary of Jeremiah

This leads me to another thing I have thought about.

Maybe some of you can beat me to the punch.

It has to do with the word "pastor" in a verse inserted

between two Isaiah chapters in the BoM.

It seems out of place, but (correct me please) Isaiah

did not use the word pastor. Jeremiah used it several

times referring to the wickedness of the leaders of the

people. The inserted verse says the same thing.

1 Nephi 21:1

And again: Hearken, O ye house of Israel, all ye that are broken off and are driven out because of the wickedness of the pastors of my people; yea, all ye that are broken off, that are scattered abroad, who are of my people, O house of Israel. Listen, O isles, unto me, and hearken ye people from far; the Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.

Isaiah 49:1

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.

Out of sheer laziness (and Michael Phelps is about to swim his last race...gotta go gotta go) I will simply cut and paste the Jeremiah

entries from the on-line church scripture page.

Jer. 23: 1-2

1 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord.

2 Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not avisited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord.

Jer. 2: 8

8 The priests said not, Where is the Lord? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the bprophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.

Jer. 3: 15

15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Jer. 10: 21

21 For the apastors are become brutish, and have not sought the Lord: therefore they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered.

Jer. 12: 10

10 Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion under foot, they have made my pleasant portion a desolate wilderness.

Jer. 17: 16

16 As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right before thee.

Jer. 22: 22

22 The wind shall eat up all thy pastors, and thy lovers shall go into captivity: surely then shalt thou be ashamed and confounded for all thy wickedness.

I will open a new thread with this.

Bernard

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And if the city was unknown to the Nephites, what good would knowing the correct name do for Alma and those he taught? However, from the scriptures there appears that there was at least an awareness of Jerusalem as the place of their origin and this would make sense to them as a reference point.

THis is exactly the point. It would do the nephites no good if it had been refered to as Bethlehem. It was an unkown city to Alma.

I can see your point.However, it was noted in the OP that other cities were mentioned in the B of M, these also were probably unknown to the Nephites, but these were not said to occur at Jerusalem. (Although I will note that these cities are further from Jerusalem than Bethlehem).1 Nephi 10:9 "He should baptize in Bethabary beyond Jordan..."1 Nephi 11:13 "and I beheld the city of Nazareth...and I beheld a virgin..."

Notice who is writing this. It is Nephi, who lived in Jerusalem. He would have had 1st hand knowledge, and it would have made some sense to him.

[Calm]

THis is exactly the point. It would do the nephites no good if it had been refered to as Bethlehem. It was an unkown city to Alma.

Yes, I do not see why this point continues to be missed by some.

[Scott Lloyd]

Often, when people ask me where I live I will say Seattle because

few people have heard of the little berg in which I live. It saves time

having to explain that it is near Seattle. Also, my grandfather was

born in Poland. Family lore says he was born in Warsaw, but indications

are that he was born in a village outside of Warsaw whose name no

one except Poles can pronounce. Again, for convenience.

To bring it closer to home for some of us, I live in Sandy, a suburb of Salt Lake City (and, for the past several years, site of the FAIR conferences). But when I travel out of state, I tell people I'm from Salt Lake, because they're much more apt to know where Salt Lake is than Sandy. I do this almost instinctively, not wishing to bog the conversation down in a less-than-interesting geography lesson.

Incidentally, the "Christ born at Jerusalem" and the "adieu" criticisms top my list of the stupidest anti-Mormon arguments in the catalog.

[Bernard Gui]

Not if you use the browser: http://1828.mshaffer.com/ (click on the letter you want to browse in the line of letters below the preface quote, in this case "A")

at:http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/at

Thanks for the tip! This is really handy.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

THis is exactly the point. It would do the nephites no good if it had been refered to as Bethlehem. It was an unkown city to Alma.Notice who is writing this. It is Nephi, who lived in Jerusalem. He would have had 1st hand knowledge, and it would have made some sense to him.

Yes. And as far as I can tell, no later Nephite writers referred to cities in the homeland other than Jerusalem.That would have been a big booboo if Joseph had written the book.Bernard

To bring it closer to home for some of us, I live in Sandy, a suburb of Salt Lake City (and, for the past several years, site of the FAIR conferences). But when I travel out of state, I tell people I'm from Salt Lake, because they're much more apt to know where Salt Lake is than Sandy. I do this almost instinctively, not wishing to bog the conversation down in a less-than-interesting geography lesson.Incidentally, the "Christ born at Jerusalem" and the "adieu" criticisms top my list of the two stupidest anti-Mormon arguments in the catalog.

Agreed. So, are you and I deceitful Mormons because we lie about our home towns?Bernard

[CMZ]

Just chiming in as another person with a similar tale to tell: When I was on my mission in Europe I would tell people I met there that I was from Los Angeles because to tell them the name of the city I actually lived in would've been meaningless to them. And even though I'm roughly 40 miles from LA I still live in what is often called the Greater Los Angeles area.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just chiming in as another person with a similar tale to tell: When I was on my mission in Europe I would tell people I met there that I was from Los Angeles because to tell them the name of the city I actually lived in would've been meaningless to them. And even though I'm roughly 40 miles from LA I still live in what is often called the Greater Los Angeles area.

The analogies are endless.

There's a modern-day equivalent of the "land of Jerusalem" construction. Some years ago, I had business in Chicago and stayed at a hotel in Naperville, Ill., a suburb. I learned that Naperville is part of a greater-urban area that the locals call "Chicagoland." I learned further that some areas of Chicagoland are not even within the state of Illinois. So, a resident of Naperville (or other parts of the surrounding area) could aptly be characterized as living in "the land of Chicago."

[Ron Beron]

What would be even more interesting is to find other Israelites ca. 600 BC referring to the land of Israel as Jerusalem. Any of our resident scholars know anything about this?

While you might be hard pressed to find writings by Israelite in the 7th c. BCE it would be easy to find comparable writings and therefore, thoughts, by other ancients. Almost all ancient people saw their city as a state not necessarily as part of a great sovereignty.

[mnn727]

Saying "At Jerusalem" is no different than people going to Orlando to go to DisneyWorld -- sorry folks, DisneyWorld is not in Orlando - never has been, its not even in Kissimee, its in Reedy Creek township. About the same distance from Orlando as Bethleham is from Jerusalem.

To me "at Jerusalem" is more logical than the BoM saying Bethleham and to me is a proof of the BoM being true -- the Nephites knew about Jerusalem, its where their ancestors came from 500 years prior, no living Nephite knew about Bethleham at the time that statment was made.

[Billy]

Saying "At Jerusalem" is no different than people going to Orlando to go to DisneyWorld -- sorry folks, DisneyWorld is not in Orlando - never has been, its not even in Kissimee, its in Reedy Creek township. About the same distance from Orlando as Bethleham is from Jerusalem.

To me "at Jerusalem" is more logical than the BoM saying Bethleham and to me is a proof of the BoM being true -- the Nephites knew about Jerusalem, its where their ancestors came from 500 years prior, no living Nephite knew about Bethleham at the time that statment was made.

I can see your various explanations and can understand the reasoning behind them, but the bottom line is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem not at Jerusalem.

[Rommelator]

but the bottom line is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem not at Jerusalem

You are right, he was. Good thing the Book of Mormon never says he was born at the city of Jerusalem, huh? That would have been a big blunder for Joseph Smith if he got that wrong.

[LeSellers]

I can see your various explanations and can understand the reasoning behind them, but the bottom line is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem not at Jerusalem.

One wonders if you ever think, rather than parroting the anti-Mormon Party line.

Your words "born in Bethlehem, not at Jerusalem" show a distinct lack of discernment. Jesus was born both in Bethlehem and at Jerusalem, as many here have explained. The two are not mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary, they are mutually reinforcing.

Just to recap a bit: the "Jerusalem" to which Alma referred was "the land of our forefathers", and distinctly not the city of the same name. To insist that the prophet meant the opposite of what he said is to admit total stiffneckedness — you'd have made a good Nephite, c. ad 33.

The phrase "at Jerusalem" appear 19 times in the Book of Mormon, and every one of them has the same context: "at Jerusalem" always means the region under the political control (howsoever weak or strong) of the city, but it never refers to the city itself. The phrase "in Jerusalem" appears only thrice, and two of those times are quotations from Isaiah (both in the same verse, BTW). It is only by and in this phrase that Father Lehi (the speaker of the moment) could actually have meant the city of Jerusalem, and even then it's just as likely that he meant the region instead.

Lehi

[Billy]

One wonders if you ever think, rather than parroting the anti-Mormon Party line.

No, I never do.

Your words "born in Bethlehem, not at Jerusalem" show a distinct lack of discernment. Jesus was born both in Bethlehem and at Jerusalem, as many here have explained.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word is AT, is"

[LeSellers]

The phrase "at Jerusalem" appear 19 times in the Book of Mormon, and every one of them has the same context: "at Jerusalem" always means the region under the political control (howsoever weak or strong) of the city, but it never refers to the city itself. The phrase "in Jerusalem" appears only thrice, and two of those times are quotations from Isaiah (both in the same verse, BTW). It is only by and in this phrase that Father Lehi (the speaker of the moment) could actually have meant the city of Jerusalem, and even then it's just as likely that he meant the region instead.

I just did a quick count of other times we read the phrase "at <city name>" in the Book of Mormon. There are eleven instances: Three referring to "Zarahemla", and two each referring to "Melek", "Sidon", "Middoni", and "Ammonihah". Ten of the eleven have the same purpose: to describe the region around the named city: its metro area. The odd one is not obvious, and could easily mean what the others do.

There is also one each saying "at the city of Judea", "at the land Bountiful", and "at the land of Desolation". This last one is interesting because there was no city named "Desolation" until well after the phrase "at the land of Desolation" shows up. So, for this one, the writer could not use the convenience of referring to the political capital as the name of the region.

There are a couple of other interesting uses of "at <noun>". Two are in reference to Nephi's garden (where he prayed and addressed a "multitude"). Both say essentially the same thing, i.e., that there was crowd "at the garden of Nephi". The story gives us more detail: the people were outside his garden, in the street, not within the walls of his garden, which is what your interpretation of "at Jerusalem" would force us to conclude.

The final example is "at Cumorah" when Mormon depicts one of the final battles between the Nephites and the Lamanites. Again, it means "near Cumorah", and nothing else.

Finally, please note that the phrase "at <city name>" appears most frequently in the Book of Alma, and not just because it is the longest book within the Book of Mormon. Alma uses it to refer to battles, which, with two exceptions (and we must use the term "battle very loosely to make these exceptions count), were outside the cities, not within their walls. It is also in this book that the verse under discussion appears. When digging for the meaning of scripture, it is best to examine the same author's use of the phrase in question to arrive at the intended meaning. Alma meant exactly what we have been saying because he said the same thing about other places and the intent there is identical to what he meant in regards to Jesus' birthplace.

We are thus forced by logic (for those who use logic) to recognize that the phrase "at <city name>" does not mean "inside the city", but means "in the area surrounding the city". In the case of Alma 7:10, the prophet tells us explicitly that he means the region near Jerusalem, not the city with that name.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

No, I never do.

Of that I was certain.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word is AT, is"

No, it does not, because, unlike the Prevaricator-in-Chief's assault on common English usage, "at" has no meaning that could be twisted to mean that Alma thought that Jesus would be born in the city of Jerusalem.

See my message #41 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> for a detailed explanation of why you are out of the ball park, not even in left field, on this one.

Lehi

[ebeddoulos]

No, I never do.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word is AT, is"

I shall get out my realy BIG crayons and make a valiant attempt at drawing you a picture:

Latter-day Saints, including Joseph Smith, believe that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem the City of David.

â??But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.â? (Micah 5:2)

â??And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.â? (Luke 2:4-7)

Though the Bible hints at it, what many do not know is that Bethlehem was also part of an area the ancients called the Land of Jerusalem. This Land of Jerusalem included Jerusalem itself as well as other outlying population centers. Jeremiah prophesied that Nebuchadnezzarâ??s army, would fight â??against Jerusalem, and against all the cities thereof.â? (Jeremiah 34:1)

â??The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and all his army, and all the kingdoms of the earth of his dominion, and all the people, fought against Jerusalem, and against all the cities thereof, saying,â? (Jeremiah 34:1)

Bethlehem, being about five miles from Jerusalem, would be one of the â??cities thereof.â?

Though the the Bible merely hints at it, the Book of Mormon fairly broadcasts the concept of the Land of Jerusalem*.

â??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.â? (Alma 7:10)

In the late 1800s, clay tablets with cuniform wtiting were discovered at Tel-Amarna, Egypt. When translated it was discovered that they were official communications between various individuals in Palestine and Egypt. They date to about 1400 b.c.. and are commonly called the Amarna letters or Amarna texts. One of the Amarna texts (EA 290) speaks of â??a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi by nameâ?. About 1400 b.c. or a hundred years before Moses, the ruler of Jerusalem, who was subject to the Pharaoh Amenhotep, wrote a series of communications to Egypt requesting military aid.

â??To the king, my Lord say: Thus Abdu-Heba [King of Jerusalem], thy servant. At the two feet of the King, my lord, seven times and seven times I fall. Behold the deed which Mikilu [King of Gezer] and Shuwardata [King of Hebron] did to the land of the king, my lord! They rushed troops of Gezer, troops of Gath, and troops of Keilah; they took Rabutu, the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the people of Keilah. Let my king hearken to Abu-Heba, thy servant, and let him send archers to recover the royal land for the king! But if there are no archers, the land of the king will pass over to the Apiru people.â? (Amarna Letter EA 290, translated by William Foxwell Albright as cited in Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, â??The Holy Landâ?, New York: Oxford University Press, [2008], pg. 230)

Modern scholarship has identified Bit-Lami as the ancient Canaanite name for Bethlehem. So even before the time of Jeremiah and definitely at the time of Moses, Bethlehem was one of the cities in the land of Jerusalem.

â??Bethlehem (J18) The town is first mentioned in the C14 BC when the king of Jerusalem wrote to his Egyptian overlord asking for archers to help him recover Bit-Lahmi, which had seceded from his jurisdiction, but it really enters history with the figure of David. He was born there (1 Sam. 16) to an Ephathite family who had lived there for many generations (Ruth 1-4).â? (Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, â??The Holy Landâ?, New York: Oxford University Press, [2008], pg. 229)

Following a middle eastern custom as illustrated by the Amarna letters, Alma is saying that Jesus will be born in the â??land of Jerusalemâ? or the area surrounding the city of Jerusalem; not the city of Jerusalem. Maybe the rather simplistic definitions as provided by Webster's first dictionary will help clarify the situation.

"At, pr. in, by, near by, towards" Noah Webster, â??A Compendious Dictionary of the English Languageâ?, Connecticut: Sidneyâ??s Press, [1806] pg. 7) Facsimile Edition, New York, NY: Crown Publishers, Inc., [1970])

There are several other examples of â??the land of Jerusalemâ? in both scripture and the archeological record. The phrase â??Land of Jerusalemâ? is also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A fragment from the caves at Qumran, known as â??Apocryphal Jeremiahâ? speaks of the Jews as being â??â?¦taken captive from the land of Jerusalemâ?¦â?

â??Jeremiah the prophet from before the LORD. [...] they were taken captive from the land of Jerusalem and went [to Babylon ... and when] Nebuzaradan the captain of the bodyguard struck [Jerusa]lem and took all the utensils of the House of God, along with the priests, [the chiefs, and] the sons of Israel and brought them to Babylon, Jeremiah the prophet went [...] the river. And he commanded them, that which they should do in the land of [their] exile. [... And they obeyed] the voice of Jeremiah, the words which God had commanded him [...] they kept the covenant of the God of their fathers in the lan[d] [of their exile ...] which they did, along with their kings, their priests, [...] God, to [...]â? (Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, â??The Dead Sea Scrolls A New Translationâ?, 4Q385, Frag. 16, Col. 1, New York, NY: HarperCollins, [1996], pg. 352)

Gleason L. Archer, professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, makes a similar point in explaining an apparent conflict in the New Testament concerning the site of the account of the â??Legionâ?.

â??As for Gadira (which is the reading in most manuscripts of Matt. 8:28 â?? although Washingtonensis, Family 1, Family 13 of the minuscules, and the Bohairic Coptic attest â??of the Gergesenesâ?), it was located about eight miles southeast of the southern tip of Gennesaret; so it is entirely possible that the political control of this region was centered in Gadara as the capital city. Hence it would be called â??the land of the Gadarenes,â? even though Gadara itself lay south of the Yarmuk River.â? (Gleason L. Archer, â??Encyclopedia of Bible Difficultiesâ?, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, [1982], pg. 325)

So Billy, if you do not like this explanation for "land of Jerusalem" pray tell how you explain the conflicts with the "land of the Gadarenes"?

As illustrated, Alma 7:10 is highly plausible evidence that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be â?? an authentic ancient historical text with roots in the Near East.

In summary, the Book of Mormon does not state that Jesus would be born in the city of Jerusalem, but rather, in the land belonging to or surrounding the city of Jerusalem. This authentic term is internal literary evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Do you get it now?

*Note: For additional Book of Mormon references containing references to the Land of Jerusalem see 1 Nephi heading; 1 Nephi 2:11; 1 Nephi 3:9-10; 1 Nephi 7:2, 7; 1 Nephi 16:35; 1 Nephi 17:14, 20, 22; 1 Nephi 18:24; 2 Nephi 1:1, 3, 9, 30; 2 Nephi 25:11; Jacob 2:25, 31; Omni 1:6; Mosiah 1:11; Mosiah 2:4; Mosiah 7:20; Mosiah 10:12; Alma 3:11; Alma 9:22; Alma 10:3; Alma 22:9; Alma 36:29; Helaman 5:6; Helaman 7:7; Helaman 8:21; 3 Nephi 5:20, 3 Nephi 20:29, 33, 46.

[Log]

Hey, thanks! That actually answered my post in #2. Excellent. The issue should be, to all open observers, completely resolved.

[Adamson2]

I wouldn't say that it is a strong witness for him. I think that he just made a mistake.

Matthew 2

1 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,

2 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.

3 When Herod the king had heard these things, 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 demanded of them where Christ should be born.

5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

Clearly a distinction is made between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, as noted in the first verse where the wise men first came to find out the birthplace of the King of Jews. Herod then called the chief priests together to find out where Christ was to be born, and he was told Bethlehem. The reason that the chief priests knew Christ was to be born in Bethlehem is that it was an OT prophecy, namely Micah 5:2 (quoted below). To say he was to be born in Jerusalem is incorrect, and goes against fulfilled Biblical prophecy.

Micah 5:2 2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Clearly the wise men also thought the had reached the general area when the got to Jerusalem. It is common to name a region after a major area.

If you ask someone from a city near a major city where they are from, you have a good chance of getting the name of the major city instead of the name of the suburb or bedroom community down the highway.

[Billy]

Clearly the wise men also thought the had reached the general area when the got to Jerusalem. It is common to name a region after a major area.

If you ask someone from a city near a major city where they are from, you have a good chance of getting the name of the major city instead of the name of the suburb or bedroom community down the highway.

I would like to give a longer response, but I have to go to work. I work AT home.

I really don't work at my home though, I work 10-20 miles away from my home. I usually say that I work AT home because my friends are more familiar with my home and so I say that I work AT my home, it makes it more clear to them, especially because they are more familiar with it.

If you want to say that Jesus in born in or AT Jerusalem, that is OK by me, as long as you will let me say the God lives AT Kolob.

[Flyonthewall]

I would like to give a longer response, but I have to go to work. I work AT home.

I really don't work at my home though, I work 10-20 miles away from my home. I usually say that I work AT home because my friends are more familiar with my home and so I say that I work AT my home, it makes it more clear to them, especially because they are more familiar with it.

If you want to say that Jesus in born in or AT Jerusalem, that is OK by me, as long as you will let me say the God lives AT Kolob.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I think it is apples and oranges.

First of all, when you say you work at home, you are talking about a specific place within the geographical area you live/work in.

It would be a better example if you went on vacation to a foreign country, and then told your freinds where you went. If you went to, oh say, a little town about 5 - 10 miles outside of Beijing, China, would you tell your freinds you went to, whatever the town's name was, or would you say Beijing? If your freinds have never heard of the little town, or don't know where it is, you would obviously say something to the effect "It's near Beijing".

Secondly, to say "God lives AT Kolob" would be akin to saying the LDS Church headquarters is AT Murray. Although Murray is close to Salt Lake, it is a smaller lesser known city, and not many people would try to identify a large city by a small nearby town.

[LeSellers]

I would like to give a longer response, but I have to go to work. I work AT home.

I really don't work at my home though, I work 10-20 miles away from my home. I usually say that I work AT home because my friends are more familiar with my home and so I say that I work AT my home, it makes it more clear to them, especially because they are more familiar with it.

If you say you work "at home" to keep from confusing your friends, they must not know you very well.

The only way "working at home" makes any sense in this context is if these friends have little or no familiarity with your region, and you are telling them that you do not travel to other places in the course of your work. If this is the case, then you are exactly in the position of Alma who was talking to people who had little-to-no knowledge of Palestine, whose only information on the matter was that it was called "Jerusalem". There is no other designation anywhere in the Book of Mormon for it, except "the land of our (fore)fathers". Nephi explicitly tells us that he didn't pass this information along to them because the people of the land of Jerusalem were wicked.

So, in your example, you have (unwittingly we must presume) buttressed our position.

Lehi

[Doctor Steuss]

What would be even more interesting is to find other Israelites ca. 600 BC referring to the land of Israel as Jerusalem. Any of our resident scholars know anything about this?

As it was a city-state of sorts with a puppet-king in place, I'd be surprised to find that there weren't any references to Israel/Jerusalem as such in that time period.

[Jason]

So, is the claim that Joseph Smith was talented enough to construct an elaborate fantasy novel that has continued to convince people that it is true hundreds of years after its publication, but dumb enough to include an obvious mistake that any one at all familiar with the Christmas story would spot?