Jerusalem or Bethlehem? Does the Book of Mormon get Christ's birthplace wrong? Ep. 93

The Book of Mormon claims that Christ was born in Jerusalem, “the land of our forefathers.” But wait a minute… wasn’t Christ born in Bethlehem? What’s the deal? Does Latter-day Saint scripture contradict the biblical account here? In this episode, Dave clears up some common questions and misconceptions.

See video transcript here: https://bit.ly/3jDjsj5
Great stuff on this by Book of Mormon Central: https://bit.ly/2D0w9EV
More info on this subject: https://bit.ly/2ZtEB7e
Another source with some helpful info: https://bit.ly/2VBYZBO

Notes:

-If those researching this issue choose to delve into what critics are saying about it, pay attention to what information is left out. For example, I found it very telling that no anti-Latter-day Saint material I researched attempted to refute Amarna Letter #290 as logical support, and only one source lightly brushed over the Dead Sea Scroll mentioned in this video.

-Let’s assume Joseph Smith (or whoever the “fraudulent” author of the Book of Mormon was) intentionally included this “land of…” language throughout the Book of Mormon in order to render the book more believable. This leads to a few important questions: If he did this on purpose, why didn’t he ever point out these details as evidence of the book’s historicity? Or why didn’t he arrange for any of his secret co-conspirators to do so? Doesn’t inaction in that respect sort of defeat the purpose of including such subtle details? Also, where did he learn that this kind of language was used anciently? As critics are quick to point out, “Where is Jerusalem ever described as a ‘land’ in the Scriptures? The expression ‘land of Jerusalem’ never occurs in the sixty-six books of the Bible … Unlike Joseph Smith, the biblical writers did not confuse ‘land’ and ‘city’” (Christian Courier, “The Birthplace of Jesus: Bethlehem or Jerusalem?,” by Wayne Jackson).

-According to Jeff Lindsay, the Book of Mormon uses the exact phrase “land of Jerusalem” (in reference to the Old World) 40 times. I’m not saying it would have been impossible for anyone to glean this kind of language from the Bible (I really haven’t looked into it), I’m simply pointing out how critics often take near-opposite positions on this subject. The irony is hard to overlook. -Though it seems to be a minority of critics who take this position, if anyone does find a good suspect for where Joseph could have taken this information, please let me know so I can add it to my quite lengthy list of books Joseph is said to have secretly had access to, to complete the Book of Mormon. The critic who believes this kind of language was intentionally added to the Book of Mormon seems to suggest The Travels of Marco Polo to be the best candidate to date. The closest relevant passage is in reference to a medieval province in Asia. Why Joseph would have thought to connect this obscure idea with the ancient Near East, I don’t know. Surely the critic is hoping for a more believable source to surface in the future.

SUBSCRIBE:
http://saintsunscripted/subscribe

Follow Us:
Facebook:   / saintsunscripted  
Instagram:   / saintsunscripted  
Website: https://saintsunscripted.com/

Follow the Hosts:
Justin:   / motioncoaster  
Mimi:   / mimi.bascom  
David:   / davidesnell  
Taylor:   / tsyorg  
Samantha:   / sam.iris.yello