Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by freedomforall »

answered
Last edited by freedomforall on July 5th, 2010, 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
clarkkent14
LBFOJ
Posts: 1973
Location: Southern Utah
Contact:

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by clarkkent14 »

at: (used to indicate a point or place occupied in space); in, on, or near: to stand at the door; at the bottom of the barrel.

It's an old anti point of attack... Just think of the time period... they would have been 500+ years removed from Jerusalem... it would have only been a place in scriptures, Alma had never actually been there.

Nephi would have been familiar with the land... that's why he was specific about where John baptized... 1 Nephi 10:9 And my father said he should baptize in Bethabara, beyond Jordan; and he also said he should baptize with water; even that he should baptize the Messiah with water.

Do you know where Bethabara is? I sure don't. Did Alma's audience know about Bethlehem? Very doubtful, but Jerusalem would be a familiar city by name only.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by freedomforall »

clarkkent14 wrote:at: (used to indicate a point or place occupied in space); in, on, or near: to stand at the door; at the bottom of the barrel.

It's an old anti point of attack... Just think of the time period... they would have been 500+ years removed from Jerusalem... it would have only been a place in scriptures, Alma had never actually been there.

Nephi would have been familiar with the land... that's why he was specific about where John baptized... 1 Nephi 10:9 And my father said he should baptize in Bethabara, beyond Jordan; and he also said he should baptize with water; even that he should baptize the Messiah with water.

Do you know where Bethabara is? I sure don't. Did Alma's audience know about Bethlehem? Very doubtful, but Jerusalem would be a familiar city by name only.
Good point.

As far as Bethabara is concerned, I read it was near Jericho in the Bible Dictionary. (You probably knew that)

User avatar
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13156

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by Original_Intent »

I don;t think it is a good anti point anyway. Joseph Smith certainly had access to a Bible and if anything the fact that he did NOT just write the biblical version verbatim is more of a proof for the validity of the BoM than not.

User avatar
mattctr
captain of 100
Posts: 903

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by mattctr »

Yesterday, I went to Salt Lake... Well, actually, I went to Murray, if you want to get super specific.
I have a friend who tells people he's from St. George, when he is actually from Leeds. Is he lying? Or is he simply giving the closest city that is "big enough" to be recognized by most people?

Likewise, Jesus was born in the small town of Bethlehem which is in the vicinity of a much larger, more familiar city named Jerusalem, so it would seem reasonable that the small villages and towns around Jerusalem may often be lumped in with or referred to as belonging to or being part of Jerusalem.

User avatar
Wiikwajio

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by Wiikwajio »

freedomfighter wrote:Alma 7:10
10 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.

Matt 2:1
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,
The land was Jerusalem. The city was Bethlehem. Remember. It was no longer the land of Israel. Israel left and became the lost ten tribes. That was Israel. The split in the Kingdom of Israel was over taxes and Judah and Benjamin formed that kingdom that was the land of Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaea

The State is Nevada. The City is Las Vegas. And we don't have three wise men or any virgins. Hey...It's Vegas. What happens here stays here. Unless it is a sexually transmitted disease and then you have to get treated when you get home.
Last edited by Wiikwajio on June 9th, 2010, 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by freedomforall »

answered
Last edited by freedomforall on July 5th, 2010, 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by freedomforall »

Wiikwajio wrote:
freedomfighter wrote:Alma 7:10
10 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.

Matt 2:1
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,
The land was Jerusalem. The city was Bethlehem. Remember. It was no longer the land of Israel. Israel left and became the lost ten tribes. That was Israel. The split in the Kingdom of Israel was over taxes and Judah and Benjamin formed that kingdom that was the land of Jerusalem.

The State is Nevada. The City is Las Vegas. And we don't have three wise men or any virgins. Hey...It's Vegas. What happens here stays here. Unless it is a sexually transmitted disease and then you have to get treated when you get home.
A good point.

believer
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1129

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by believer »

Mary and Joseph had to GO to Bethlehem to be taxed. They didn't live there, but Jesus was born there.


Believer

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by freedomforall »

answered
Last edited by freedomforall on July 5th, 2010, 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by freedomforall »

answered
Last edited by freedomforall on July 5th, 2010, 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wiikwajio

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by Wiikwajio »

freedomfighter wrote:
freedomfighter wrote:Matt 2:1
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
Read this sentence again. If Jesus were born in Bethlehem, then why would the wise men go to Jerusalem instead of Bethlehem?

The indication is that Jesus was really in Jerusalem. Or like someone else stated, Bethlehem was simply a suburb of Jerusalem.

New York, New York

One is the City. One is the State.

Do you know what the United States is?

Is it different from the United States of America?

The answer is yes and no.

User avatar
Wiikwajio

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by Wiikwajio »

believer wrote:Mary and Joseph had to GO to Bethlehem to be taxed. They didn't live there, but Jesus was born there.


Believer
There is a lot of evidence that this them going to be taxed is garbage and made up.

User avatar
Wiikwajio

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by Wiikwajio »

freedomfighter wrote:
Wiikwajio wrote:
freedomfighter wrote:Alma 7:10
10 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.

Matt 2:1
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,
The land was Jerusalem. The city was Bethlehem. Remember. It was no longer the land of Israel. Israel left and became the lost ten tribes. That was Israel. The split in the Kingdom of Israel was over taxes and Judah and Benjamin formed that kingdom that was the land of Jerusalem.

The State is Nevada. The City is Las Vegas. And we don't have three wise men or any virgins. Hey...It's Vegas. What happens here stays here. Unless it is a sexually transmitted disease and then you have to get treated when you get home.
A good point.
'

This is an anti-Mormon attack tactic so I long ago learned the answer. It is well documented in an Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (I think)

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by shadow »

The new Vancouver Temple is actually in Langley :shock:

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by freedomforall »

answered
Last edited by freedomforall on July 5th, 2010, 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3211
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Do the differences in these scriptures matter?

Post by ithink »

I would have the questioner debunk this themselves using a technique that makes them stop and think about it in reverse. Suppose Joseph Smith was a false prophet and he wrote the BOM on his own. If he did, what kind of an idiot would he be to not get the location of Christ's birth correct, or to even obfuscate it a bit? Way to go Joe, causing trouble for yourself! In every situation like this the questioner says, so far without fail on similar questions -- "good point, if he's false, he would have toed the line on everything that is already known or he'd be debunked before he started. The fact there are known "discrepancies" are either a credit to his incredible foresight, or he was just plain translating what was written.

Another case in point is why did he use the phrase "a work of pickets"? I mean, why didn't he use the the fence word for a fence? Reason is, he was translating what he saw, which is not fence, but "a work of pickets", which is actually more accurate. He could have used fence, but if he did, he would have ruined the book. Same goes for any translation of poetry, give them what is there, not necessarily just what it means.

Post Reply