Alma 7:10: Jerusalem or Bethlehem?

[David Bokovoy]

As silly as it may seem, some critics of the Book of Mormon have continued to find fault with the book

[cdowis]

One of the most important tools of apologetics is the dictionary.

I would look up the definition of "at" in the dictionary, paying particular attention to the difference between "in" and "at", and then look at a map. It becomes self-explanatory.

[WalkerW]

In Stories of Jesus' Birth (Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), Edwin Freed questions the birthplace of Bethlehem. It seems that given this tradition laid out by David, the Book of Mormon would still be in the clear even if Bethlehem turned out to be incorrect.

Would that be a fair assumption?

[maklelan]

In Stories of Jesus' Birth (Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), Edwin Freed questions the birthplace of Bethlehem. It seems that given this tradition laid out by David, the Book of Mormon would still be in the clear even if Bethlehem turned out to be incorrect.

Would that be a fair assumption?

A lot of scholars think Nazareth would be the most likely location for his birth.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

This is a rather interesting topic on a Spanish board, with the antis trying to say the Book of Mormon is false because it says in Jerusalem. In Spanish the translation would read in English that Christ would be born in Jerusalem, not at Jerusalem.

I mentioned the Old Testament parts of Jerusalem the city versus Jerusalem the lands. Naturally the antis could not respond and changed the subject and then accused me of not answering their questions. Afterwards they accuse us of perverting our own scriptures.

[David Bokovoy]

One of the most important tools of apologetics is the dictionary.

I would look up the definition of "at" in the dictionary, paying particular attention to the difference between "in" and "at", and then look at a map. It becomes self-explanatory.

Thank you, Cdowis. The fact that the English word "at" means "near or by" shows that the Book of Mormon statement is not incorrect. So you've raised an important point.

I think, however, that for some Bible-believing critics, the question would still remain why a Book of Mormon prophet who knew through inspiration from God that a Messiah would be born, would not have known to link his birth specifically with Bethlehem. I believe the information I cited concerning the biblical tradition associating the Messiah's birth with Jerusalem, the City of David, and the non-LDS scholarly reference connecting Bethlehem with Jerusalem provides a helpful answer for that specific criticism.

Best,

--DB

[David Bokovoy]

In Stories of Jesus' Birth (Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), Edwin Freed questions the birthplace of Bethlehem. It seems that given this tradition laid out by David, the Book of Mormon would still be in the clear even if Bethlehem turned out to be incorrect.

Would that be a fair assumption?

Absolutely. Given Luke's desire to show how Jesus fulfills Old Testament prophecy, it's even possible that Luke misidentified the location of Jesus' birth in order to connect Micah 5:2 with the nativity story. Though a correct argument, that point obviously won't get very far with most Bible-believing Christians. Of course Jesus would have fulfilled this prophecy even if he had been born in Jerusalem and/or Nazareth.

Best,

--DB

[LeSellers]

for some Bible-believing critics, the question would still remain why a Book of Mormon prophet who knew through inspiration from God that a Messiah would be born, would not have known to link his birth specifically with Bethlehem.

Understanding (i.e., that "at [the land of] Jerusalem" included Bethlehem [or even Nazareth, many miles further away]) is not what they're looking for. They want conflict and some basis, however irrational, to attack the Church and Joseph Smith.

Lehi

[Mortal Man]

Given Luke's desire to show how Jesus fulfills Old Testament prophecy, it's even possible that Luke misidentified the location of Jesus' birth in order to connect Micah 5:2 with the nativity story. Though a correct argument, that point obviously won't get very far with most Bible-believing Christians. Of course Jesus would have fulfilled this prophecy even if he had been born in Jerusalem and/or Nazareth.

Bah, humbug, Dude!

[David Bokovoy]

Bah, humbug, Dude!

LOL! I loved your Christmas post, Brother. I even agreed with most of it.

Love ya,

--DB

[krose]

I would look up the definition of "at" in the dictionary, paying particular attention to the difference between "in" and "at", and then look at a map. It becomes self-explanatory.

Assuming, of course, that the purported source language had a similar distinction, and that such a distinction would not have been better translated as "near" or "around" in English.

A quick search for "at" shows that Smith tended to choose that word quite often in this book to indicate location.

Alma 7:3 and 7:5 - "at Zarahemla"

8:6 and 31:6 - "at Melek"

11:4 - "at Jerusalem" again

15:3 and 15:17 - "at Sidom" (also in 15:17 we see "at their sanctuaries")

18:9 - "at the land of Nephi"

20:3 - "at Middoni"

49:10, 11 and 15 - "at the city of Ammonihah"

52:10 - "at the land of Bountiful"

It's interesting that some modern BoM translators have obviously recognized the problem with this particular verse, and have tried to help out by translating the "at" in verse 10 differently than in other verses. In the Japanese translation, they go so far as to render this particular "at" as "no atari de" (in the vicinity of). Yet they translated the other "at" occurrences as simply "de" or "ni" (in).