Jesus Was Born In Bethlehem, Not Jerusalem....duh!

[thesometimesaint]

Too true. By California standards I live a small city few have even heard of. But really we're in a suburb of a suburb of a suburb of Los Angeles.

[phaedrus ut]

The birth narratives of Matthew and Luke include Bethlehem to fulfill the messianic requirements of Micah 5:2.  This is put forth as evidence in Mathew 2:6 and John 7:42.  There is no historical corroboration for the census or the or the slaughter of the innocents. 

 

If you conclude that neither Matthew or Luke are historical you have all other evidence that Jesus was born and raised in Nazareth just like his brothers James, Joses, Judas, and Simon along with his sisters.

[thesometimesaint]

The birth narratives of Matthew and Luke include Bethlehem to fulfill the messianic requirements of Micah 5:2.  This is put forth as evidence in Mathew 2:6 and John 7:42.  There is no historical corroboration for the census or the or the slaughter of the innocents. 

 

If you conclude that neither Matthew or Luke are historical you have all other evidence that Jesus was born and raised in Nazareth just like his brothers James, Joses, Judas, and Simon along with his sisters.

 

Sure. Take out enough history and literally anything is possible. The problem comes in when you must include uncomfortable  history.

[Thinking]

Having never been to Israel, I let Google find Bethlehem for me, and it found the one in Galilee. I stand corrected.

[Thinking]

If Thinking and I are ever on a road trip together, I'll insist on doing the navigating!

 

We might have more fun if I navigate.

[Scott Lloyd]

Having never been to Israel, I let Google find Bethlehem for me, and it found the one in Galilee. I stand corrected.

This adds greater significance to the scriptural phrase "Bethlehem of Judea."

[Scott Lloyd]

We might have more fun if I navigate.

Truth be told, I'm very uncomfortable without a GPS these days.

[Whiskeypete]

This argument is one of the ones in my personal litmus test of what constitutes an anti-mormon. Anyone using such an easily refutable argument is obviously not trying to engage in a serious doctrinal discussion.

See also "Adieu"

[Scott Lloyd]

This argument is one of the ones in my personal litmus test of what constitutes an anti-mormon. Anyone using such an easily refutable argument is obviously not trying to engage in a serious doctrinal discussion.

See also "Adieu"

Or he's apt to believe, like some apparently do, that any argument against Mormonism is a good one regardless of how well it stands up to reason.

[Thinking]

This adds greater significance to the scriptural phrase "Bethlehem of Judea."

 

True.

[phaedrus ut]

Sure. Take out enough history and literally anything is possible. The problem comes in when you must include uncomfortable  history.

 

I'm not sure I follow you here.  Are you saying that removing the infancy narratives from Luke and Matthew is taking out history?

[Buckeye]

Certainly not.

Just one instance where an intended criticism ends up being evidence in our favor.

I love when that happens!

 

Agreed.  This was one of the first positive historical points for the BOM that I learned of and it still remains a good one for me. 

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not sure I follow you here.  Are you saying that removing the infancy narratives from Luke and Matthew is taking out history?

 

Yes. Without historical context Jesus walked around in Utah, from the Jordan river to a big salt lake.

[Wiki Wonka]

Yeah.

 

If anything, I overstated the distance.

 

Traveling six miles south of Salt Lake would put you in South Salt Lake or Murray. A person unacquainted with the area might not even grasp that he had passed the city limits.

 

Edited to add:

 

If Thinking and I are ever on a road trip together, I'll insist on doing the navigating!

 

I've been to Jerusalem, and I took this picture of Bethlehem from Kibbutz Ramat Rachel. It's about five miles away in Palestinian territory.

 

[cdowis]

Boy, I had to dust off my copy of Mormonism Unvailed to find the last time that argument had been used.  Okay, so I'm exaggerating a little, but when was the last time you heard a critic even bring this up (I would put the "adieu criticism" in the same category)?

 

Today antimormons focus more on:

 

BOA translation, failed prophecies, "no archaeological evidence for the BOM",  JS's polygamy,  "Jesus and Satan are brothers", and earning our way to salvation, 4000 corrections in the BOM.

 

Recently someone came up with "Joseph Smith killed two people, he went on a killing spree".  I assume this came from the "Fate of the Prosecutors of Joseph Smith" book.

Edited August 18, 2014 by cdowis

[Scott Lloyd]

Today antimormons focus more on:

 

BOA translation, failed prophecies, "no archaeological evidence for the BOM",  JS's polygamy,  "Jesus and Satan are brothers", and earning our way to salvation, 4000 corrections in the BOM.

 

Recently someone came up with "Joseph Smith killed two people, he went on a killing spree".  I assume this came from the "Fate of the Prosecutors of Joseph Smith" book.

Ah yes. The "Big List" that Jeff Lindsay talked about in Dan Peterson's quotation given at the FairMormon Conference.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've been to Jerusalem, and I took this picture of Bethlehem from Kibbutz Ramat Rachel. It's about five miles away in Palestinian territory.

 

Very nice!

 

Did you use a telephoto lens, or is this a fairly true representation of how the distance would appear to the naked eye?

[saemo]

Your comments are welcome.......

 

The Bible says Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

The Book of Mormon says Jerusalem.

 

Based on this discrepancy, critics claim either Joseph Smith was ignorant or the Book of Mormon is false. Is this true?

 

Actually, the text says

 

"...he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers..."

(Alma 7:10)

 

In my opinion, this verse is strong evidence that Joseph Smith was not the author of the Book of Mormon for the reasons I set forth below.

 

1. The Lehites never referred to their homeland as Israel or Judea. Israel is used in terms such as "house of Israel," "my people Israel," "children of Israel," "Holy One of Israel," and in passages quoted from Isaiah. Judea appears only as the name of a  Nephite city.

 

2. Whenever Lehites referred to their place of origin they called it Jerusalem

or the land of Jerusalem. There are over 100 references to their homeland as Jerusalem or the land of Jerusalem. This usage is consistent throughout the Book of Mormon.

 

Some examples of this usage:

 

1 Nephi 1:4 "Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days..."

1 Nephi 10:4 "...600 years from the time that my father left Jerusalem..."

2 Nephi 5:28 "30 years had passed away from the time we left Jerusalem..."

Jacob 7:26 "We being...wanderers, cast out from Jerusalem"

Omni 1:15 "the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem..."

Mosiah 1:6 "From the time that they left Jerusalem until now..."

Alma 3:11 "...those records [the brass plates] which were brought out of the land of Jerusalem..."

3 Nephi 4:11 "...there never was known so great a slaughter among all the people of Lehi since he left Jerusalem.

3 Nephi 5:20 “I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi...[who was] brought out of the land of Jerusalem....”

3 Nephi 16:1 "...I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem..."

Mormon 3:18 "I write...unto you, twelve tribes of Israel, who shall be judged...by the twelve whom Jesus chose...in the land of Jerusalem"

 

3. When referring to geographical Israel or the area around Jerusalem, the Book of Mormon writers always refer to it as "the land of Jerusalem."

 

4. The only Lehite references to a specific city or town in their homeland other

than Jerusalem are made by Nephi, who was familiar with them because

he had lived there. The rest are quotes from Isaiah.

 

1 Nephi 10:9 "He should baptize in Bethabary beyond Jordan..."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02532a.htm

 

1 Nephi 11:13 "and I beheld the city of Nazareth...and I beheld a virgin..."

 

Given the above, it would have been incongruous for Alma to name the

birthplace of the Savior anything other than "at Jerusalem which is the

land of our forefathers." This would be the only location that would be

meaningful to the Lehites 500 years after they left their homeland.

To call the birthplace Bethlehem would have meant nothing to them.

The only way they would have recognized it would be if they had kept

track of the geography of their homeland. The fact that after Nephi they did not make specific reference to place names in Israel shows they did not retain that knowledge.

 

It is reasonable to assume that people moving to a distant land would rapidly loose geographic ties with their homeland and thereafter would refer to it by a generic name. To call them poor geographers misses the point.

 

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. It would be like me telling my children that their Polish great-grandfather came to America from Bydgoszczor or Swietochlowice instead of just Warsaw or Poland. That general reference serves my purposes.

 

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

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

having to explain that it is near Tacoma.

 

Had Joseph Smith invented the Book of Mormon he would have called

the birthplace of Jesus Bethelem, because that is the common-knowledge name. Instead, as I have shown what could be reasonably expected, he calls it "the land of Jerusalem."  Thus, citing what might be an obvious blunder actually suggests he was neither incompetent nor stupid , but that he was translating from an actual historical record.

 

“The land of Jerusalem" is a part of the evidence in the text of the Book of

Mormon that supports the role of Joseph Smith as translator of an

ancient record.

So, you're saying plain and precious truths are removed from the Book of Mormon.

 

 

"Land of Jerusalem" just sound like, to me, someone trying to be all Old Testament-y.

 

I've never once said, to anyone, in my entire life that I live in the Land of Salt Lake City, but now that I think about it, could be a fun one to use next time I'm traveling. Might catch on, like the Land Down-Under.

[saemo]

I've been to Jerusalem, and I took this picture of Bethlehem from Kibbutz Ramat Rachel. It's about five miles away in Palestinian territory.

 

Interesting photo, with the fence. (yikes)  

 

Keep in mind, the Bethlehem of 2000 years ago was a small village, estimated to have 300-1000 inhabitants, not the 22000 of today. Maybe it wasn't so visible from your fine vantage point, back then. Or maybe it was (I dunno).

[Sevenbak]

This is a solid refutation of that old chestnut.

Scott, I agree. The Old Testament itself has roasted that chestnut on the fire completely, as the City of David is none other than Bethlehem.

2 Kings 14

20 And they brought him on horses: and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Sevenbak

[Okrahomer]

So, you're saying plain and precious truths are removed from the Book of Mormon.

 

 

"Land of Jerusalem" just sound like, to me, someone trying to be all Old Testament-y.

 

I've never once said, to anyone, in my entire life that I live in the Land of Salt Lake City, but now that I think about it, could be a fun one to use next time I'm traveling. Might catch on, like the Land Down-Under.

 

If someone were trying to make it "be all Old Testament-y", why wouldn't he/she utilize options that are actually used--in the Old Testament?  "The City of David", "Ephrath", "Ephratah", "Bethlehem - Judah", "Bethlehem in Judah" or even simple "Bethlehem" all come to mind.  Any of those would be vastly preferable in terms of "choosing" a proper "Old Testament-y" name for the birthplace of the Saviour.  Since "at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers" is not found in the Old Testament, it seems less "Old Testament-y" than any of these other options.

[omni]

On this board actually, but iirc, he was a babe in the woods and we quickly sorted him out.

We haven't had too many just got done with an apologetics class at the local bible college kid show up in a long, long time. Last time I remember was when the GP manual came out and Dr. Streuss and I had such fun....good times...sigh...

It's been interesting to see the change over the years. In the beginning of this board, most of the criticism/challenges can from traditional Christians, now it seems to come from a more secular viewpoint.

You could always tell the guys who had just finished their local "save the Mormons" class because they would often try the machine gun approach and wouldn't last long. There were a few Calvanists posters who seemed to know their stuff pretty well - even if I could never understand the appeal of predestination.

[saemo]

If someone were trying to make it "be all Old Testament-y", why wouldn't he/she utilize options that are actually used--in the Old Testament? "The City of David", "Ephrath", "Ephratah", "Bethlehem - Judah", "Bethlehem in Judah" or even simple "Bethlehem" all come to mind. Any of those would be vastly preferable in terms of "choosing" a proper "Old Testament-y" name for the birthplace of the Saviour. Since "at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers" is not found in the Old Testament, it seems less "Old Testament-y" than any of these other options.

Why not Bethlehem?

But that isn't the argument being made in the OP. The argument is, "Land of Jerusalem" is a term for a land area, and not citing Jerusalem as a city, specifically.

"The Land of Uz" Genesis 10:23

"The Land of Egypt" Leviticus 19:34

"The Land of Shinar" Genesis 10:10

"The Land of Canaan" Genesis 17:8. Which is where Jerusalem and Bethlehem are located. Also called the Land of Israel, the Promised Land. It seems to me, is where ancient descendants of Hebrews would describe it in a general area sort of way. As it is described in Hebrew scripture, which according to the Book of Mormon, they were in possession of, and so would know many place names in the Land of Canaan, Land of Israel, the Promised Land. What place names are named in the Land of Jerusalem? None. When is there ever a Land of Jerusalem named in the Old Testament? Never. But "Land of Jerusalem", uses Old Testament "Land of", which seems to appeal to some as scripture sounding, or Old Testament-y.

But whatever, there are bigger issues with the Book of Mormon than this, and I wouldn't call it on its own, anything of significance.

Edited August 19, 2014 by saemo

[Wiki Wonka]

Very nice!

Did you use a telephoto lens, or is this a fairly true representation of how the distance would appear to the naked eye?

Just a regular pocket digital camera. No zoom.

Our guide was Israeli and he told us that it would be dangerous for him to take us over there. This was right during a time that there was a conflict in Gaza about a soldier that had been taken hostage. About one week after I left rockets began landing in some areas of the country that I had visited.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Wiki Wonka

[Okrahomer]

Why not Bethlehem?

But that isn't the argument being made in the OP. The argument is, "Land of Jerusalem" is a term for a land area, and not citing Jerusalem as a city, specifically.

"The Land of Uz" Genesis 10:23

"The Land of Egypt" Leviticus 19:34

"The Land of Shinar" Genesis 10:10

"The Land of Canaan" Genesis 17:8. Which is where Jerusalem and Bethlehem are located. Also called the Land of Israel, the Promised Land. It seems to me, is where ancient descendants of Hebrews would describe it in a general area sort of way. As it is described in Hebrew scripture, which according to the Book of Mormon, they were in possession of, and so would know many place names in the Land of Canaan, Land of Israel, the Promised Land. What place names are named in the Land of Jerusalem? None. When is there ever a Land of Jerusalem named in the Old Testament? Never. But "Land of Jerusalem", uses Old Testament "Land of", which seems to appeal to some as scripture sounding, or Old Testament-y.

But whatever, there are bigger issues with the Book of Mormon than this, and I wouldn't call it on its own, anything of significance.

Thank you for the additional explanation. I agree that "Land of..." language exists in the Old Testament; nevertheless, "Land of Jerusalem" language does not. Nor does this explain why Joseph would "choose" to use a term that did not exist in his copy of the KJV over any one of the several options that did.