In or At Jerusalem?

This is one of those little details that many anti-Mormons still cling to, despite it having been explained many times:  the Bible clearly states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke 2, for example).  But in the Book of Mormon, Alma prophesies that "he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers" (Alma 7:10).  Is this a contradiction?  Many claim that it is, but it is not.

The question:
Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible concerning the birthplace of Jesus?



The short answer:
No.  The Book of Mormon says "at Jerusalem . . . the land of our forefathers," not "in Jerusalem, the city of our forefathers."  Bethlehem was close enough to Jerusalem geographically to be considered part of the "land of Jerusalem."

The long answer:
Dr. Kelly Ogden does an excellent job at explaining this subtle difference.  I highly recommend anyone concerned about the supposed discrepancy to read what he has to say here (it begins halfway down the page entitled, Why does the Book of Mormon say that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem?), but I will briefly summarize.

First of all, when a city is referred to as a "land," it includes the surrounding areas as well.  Dr. Ogden gives several examples of this usage from both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and even one from an ancient letter that refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem.  Second, the difference between the word "in" and "at" is small, but significant.  The word "at" can mean "close by" or "near" (this is even the case on Webster and Dictionary.com).  Bethlehem could certainly be considered near Jerusalem (see any map of New Testament Israel).

The wording used in Alma 7:10 is not only both reasonable and accurate, it is also further evidence that the Book of Mormon was translated from an ancient text rather than written by any man in this era of time.  Many more such cases will be revealed to the careful reader who is seeking to learn the truth, rather than trying to find mistakes.