Monday, September 04, 2006

Why does Alma 7:10 say that Jesus will be born at Jerusalem when Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:1-7 speak of Christ being born in Bethlehem?

Since virtually everyone - children and adults - in Joseph Smith's day knew that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, how could the prophet possibly have erred" The name Jerusalem has to be deliberate. It is, in fact, significant that in this passage Alma did not claim that Jesus would be born in the city of Jerusalem, but "at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers." While it is not found in the Bible even once, the term "land of Jerusalem" occurs over 40 times in the Book of Mormon, while other passages also refer to Jerusalem as a "land" (Alma 7:10; 21:1; 3 Nephi 20:33, 46).

Lehi and Nephi seem to have known the designation of Jerusalem as both a city and the land it governed. Lehi's sons, thinking to pay Laban for the plates of brass, "went down to the land of [their] inheritance" to gather up their wealth (1 Nephi 3:22). They then "went up again" to Jerusalem to meet with Laban (1 Nephi 3:23). He chased them away and, after a time, they returned to "the walls of Jerusalem" (1 Nephi 4:4), and Nephi "crept into the city and went forth towards the house of Laban." From this, it is evident that the "Jerusalem" where Lehi lived had to be other than the city, and therefore somewhere nearby, in the "land of Jerusalem.

"Throughout the Book of Mormon, the terms city and land seem to be interchangeable. There is a city of Nephi and a land of Nephi, a city of Zarahemla and a land of Zarahemla, and so forth. This is especially clear in Alma 50:14, where we read of the construction of a new site: "They called the name of the city, or the land, Nephihah." The pattern followed by the Nephites (and by the Lamanites when they became sedentary) was evidently brought from the Old World. In ancient Israel, the "fenced [walled] cities" were places of refuge for farmers in surrounding villages (see Leviticus 25:31; 1 Samuel 6:18; Ezekiel 38:11). In time of war, the peasants could flee to the protection of the city walls, where arms were stored for defense. This is precisely what we find described in Mosiah 9:14-16.

Biblical cities, like those in the Book of Mormon, controlled nearby land. Hence, we read of "the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land" (Joshua 8:1) and of the city of Hebron, its suburbs, fields and villages (1 Chronicles 6:55-56). In the Bible, cities are sometimes called by the term "land." Tappuah is called a "land" in Joshua 17:8, but a "city" in Joshua 16:8. Jeremiah prophesied that Jerusalem would become "a land not inhabited" (Jeremiah 6:8; cf. 15:5-7). The use of the name Jerusalem to denote both a city and a land is followed, in the Bible, by references to Samaria, the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel.

Old Testament scriptures frequently extend the term Samaria to include surrounding regions or "the cities of Samaria" under the political control of the state (1 Kings 13:32; 2 Kings 17:24, 26; 23:19).Clay tablets written in the fourteenth century B.C. and found in 1887 at el-Amarna in Egypt use the term "land" for Canaanite sites known from the Bible to have been ancient cities. But there is evidence that, even in the Old World, Bethlehem was considered to be part of the "land of Jerusalem."

One of the Amarna texts (EA 290) speaks of "a town in the land of Jerusalem" named BoLai, [problem with diacritics here] which is the Canaanite equivalent of the Hebrew name rendered Beth-lehem in English Bibles. We conclude that Lehi's descendants in the New World followed authentic Old World custom in denominating each land by the principal city in the land. This kind of detail lends evidence to the authenticity and antiquity of the Book of Mormon text.

2 comments:

America Restored said...

sir you are fooled into beliving that the book of mormon is coinciding with the bible. alma 7:10 clearly states "he would be born of mary at jerusalem the land of our fathers" the bible says in mathew that jesus was born in jerusalem. You are trying to argue that bethlehem was considered to be a part of jerusalem. ABSOLUTELY WRONG! read the rest of mathew 2: "King James Version (KJV) Matthew - Chapter 2

Mat 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,


Mat 2:2 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.


Mat 2:3 When Herod the king had heard [these things], he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.


Mat 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.


Mat 2:5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,


Mat 2:6 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.


Mat 2:7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.


Mat 2:8 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.


Mat 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.


Mat 2:10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.


Mat 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.


Mat 2:12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
The wise men went to jerusalem asking of herod where the child shall be born verse 3 says "HE HEARD THESE THINGS AND WAS TROUBLED AND ALL JERUSALEM WITH HIM" keywords: ALL JERUSALEM. He herod at the time in jerusalem calls upon the prohets and demands to know where christ shall be born they say Mat 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.


Mat 2:5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,


Mat 2:6 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.
He then SENDS the wise men to bethlehem to find the christ child. he does not send them to "jerusalem land of our forefathers" why? becasue hes in jerusalem and bethlehem is not nor is ever or has ever considered to be part of jerusalem. DO SOME RESEARCH! bethlehem is refered to as the city of david! it even today is still referred to as the city of david! not jerusalem or jerusalem the land of our forefathers! Just so you know there has always been a distinction bettween the two cities as almost as far back as over 3000 years way before christ was born! dont belive that look at the names of biblical cities, mountains, rivers, sea, anything and youll see the names have remained the same for 3000 years. example: kadesh barnea, jerusalem, nazareth, mt.sainai, jordan river, the dead sea... the list goes on forever bethlehem is included! Ultimately a mormon like yourself as admited cannot find evidence ANYWHERE to support the claims made anywhere in the bible, only the book of mormon! It simply comes down to this the bible says bethlehem, the book of mormon say jerusalem, not both can be true because a man can only be born in one place. so either the bible lies or the book of mormon. History, archeology, anthropology, and the bible say bethlehem. the book of mormon makes a claim history, archeology, anthropology, and the bible reject. Ultimatly the book of mormon is wrong and is deemed as a book of apostates that claims to be biblical truth and clearly isnt. The book of mormon is not gods word, if it was it could not contradict the bible as plainly as Alma 7:10 and mathew 2 clearly do. e-mail me at thebaptistkid@gmail.com if you care to respond.

Wer62 said...

So let me get this straight. Your whole agument against my posting is the following:

1. You believe my article is trying to say the Bethlehem is part of Jerusalem.

2. Bethlehem is also called City of David not Jerusalem or Jerusalem the land of our forefathers

3. Because there has always been a distinction bettween the two cities as almost as far back as over 3000 years way before christ was born!

4. It simply comes down to this the bible says bethlehem, the book of mormon say jerusalem, not both can be true because a man can only be born in one place.

5. So either the bible lies or the book of mormon.

I believe I have summed up all your arguments appropriately. Now lets pick this apart since you did not fully read my article or understand it. I appologize for writting above your comprehention level and will now dumb it down for you.

Point 1: Is Jerusalem in the land of Juda? Yes. Does the Bible make reference to other cities that are in the tribes of Israel and list those cities as "land of [insert city name here]" Yes it does as my original article states. Therefore it is not impossible for the Book of Mormon to state that Jesus Christ was born "in the land of our forefathers" considering they came from Jerusalem. If you look at a map you will find that both Jerusalem and Bethlehem are in close proximity. Both are in the lands of Judah. And if I were half way around the world Jerusalem is more well known than Bethlehem. (since all the BOM descendents are rooted from Jerusalem.) This is done today. I live in a small town in missouri. It is near St. Louis. When someone asks me where I live I say around St. Louis. (in Biblical times it would be "in the land of St. Louis" and not "in St. Louis". Do you now understand the difference?

Point 2. Yep, you are correct Jerusalem is known as the city of David. This is a well known fact. However, your context does not negate my point one above. Since we are speaking of an undetermined area around Jerusalem and not "in Jerusalem" or "in Bethlehem" your argument is lost in the direct meaning of "in the land of" instead of "in the city of". Your argument is disjointed to the context.

Point 3: Again true. There is a distinction for those that lived in the area but what about people that are not living in that area? Again I go back to I live in a small town near St. Louis. If I said I live in Wentzville would you know where immediately to look? No.. but in the lands of Jerusalem everyone knows where that is.

Point 4 is the same disjoined argument. You are trying desparately to link "in the city of" to the "in the land of" and they are two distinct designations. You cannot compare them apples to apples like you are attempting to do since they are not the same designation of area. It is like we live in the Country of the United States, I live in the Land of Missouri, and in the lands of St. Louis specifically in the city of Wentzville.

Now that I have dumbed it down for you do you understand that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon can be true? You can answer yes to this question based again on the percise verbaige of "can be true". I would never ask you to believe it is true unless you do your own research.

On a side note. I converted from the Baptist faith to Mormonism.