Change Player Size
Watch this video in a new window

Alma 7:10, Jesus born at Jerusalem?

One argument that critics bring up is found in Alma 7:10 which says that Christ would be born "at" Jerusalem. It is a silly argument to make for many reasons. What child didn't sing "Oh Little Town...  
 
Customize

More From: fairldsorg

Loading...

QuickList(0)

Featured Videos

8 ratings
Sign in to rate
350 views
Want to add to Favorites? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to add to Playlists? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to flag a video? Sign In or Sign Up now!

Statistics & Data

Loading...

Video Responses (0)

This video has no Responses. Be the first to Post a Video Response.
Sign in to post a Comment

Text Comments (6)   Options

Loading...
KakkoiGuy1 (2 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
There is no "LAND OF JERUSALEM" EVEN THE JEWS WILL TELL YOU THIS! The only Jerusalem was the CITY OF JERUSALEM and that is what he was trying to say. Jesus was born in BETHLEHEM and People there don't consider that place THE LAND OF JERUSALEM AT ALL! Stop twisting things to fit. The man was just off in his predictions. That's what happens when you are a diviner. You don't get everything correct.
jtstroder (1 year ago) Show Hide
+2
Marked as spam
God is very precise through his prophets (ie. Moses did not get to see the promised land just because he struck the rock instead of speaking to it, c'mon that was close). Why would he have the Prophet Micah hit the nail on the head with Bethlehem but just let Alma get close?
fairldsorg (1 year ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
Perhaps you should watch the video again, that was answered.
jtstroder (1 year ago) Show Hide
+2
Marked as spam
I watched again. I'm not getting it. My question is (I honestly want to know) Why would God have Micah say Bethlehem (Exactly where it happened) but at a later time Alma use "...the Land of Jerusalaem" God is very precise through his prophets.
fairldsorg (1 year ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
Both the "Land of Jerusalem" and "Bethlehem" are the same place. This term of "at Jerusalem" or "Land of Jerusalem" meant in ancient times an area that included Bethlehem. I've posted more examples in the "About this video" section in the upper right portion of this page. Just click on "More Info" to see it.

Also, Micah lived in the area and was familiar with the suburbs of Jerusalem. The Nephites had left Jerusalem some 500 years earlier and were not familiar with the geography of the area
fairldsorg (1 year ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
except for Jerusalem, which was found in their records. So to say the land of Jerusalem would be a more familiar term for them, as opposed to a city that was not as readily known.
I hope that helps.
PattyPryor (1 year ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
look at a map
Urroner (1 year ago) Show Hide
 -1
Marked as spam
Let;t hope that one day we can bid this silly argument adieu brethren.
osmiolos (1 year ago) Show Hide
+3
Marked as spam
I find this argument from our antagonists lacking academic merit and forthrightness!

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.