From "Steve Cohen" <torah_shalom@h...> Sun Oct  3 09:08:44 1999
Return-Path: <owner-nazarene@n...>
Delivered-To: listsaver-of-nazarene@f...
Received: (qmail 32173 invoked by uid 7770); 3 Oct 1999 16:11:57 -0000
Received: from iqh.egroups.com (HELO qh.findmail.com) (10.1.2.28)
  by ivault.egroups.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 1999 16:11:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 10781 invoked from network); 3 Oct 1999 16:11:50 -0000
Received: from jarom.lightrealm.com (HELO nazarene.net) (207.159.141.5)
  by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 1999 16:11:50 -0000
Received: (from nazarene@l...)
	by nazarene.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) id IAA05806
	for a55843991; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 08:11:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <19991003161039.41511.qmail@h...>
X-Originating-IP: [151.164.43.149]
From: "Steve Cohen" <torah_shalom@h...>
To: nazarene@n...
Subject: [nazarene] Book of Mormon
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 11:10:35 CDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-nazarene@n...
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nazarene@n...


Erik D Aalvik wrote:

>Luana,      It is a plageristic lie that has tons of falsehoods and 
>contradictions in it. If the story of how it was translated was true there 
>should have been no need to edit. It says that YESHUA  was born in 
>Yerushalayim not Beit Lechem, for just one thing.

Now lets not throw away the truth just to make a point.
The above statement in a lie.  NOWHERE does the Book of
Mormon state that Yeshua was born "IN Yerushalayim/Jerusalem"
and it is furthermore an outright lie that the book makes
any claim that Yeshu was not born at Beit Lechem/Bethlehem.

The book does say that he was to be born "AT Jerusalem" not "IN Jerusalem. 
(Alma 7:10).  However the Book of Mormon many times over uses the phrase 
"Land of Jerusalem" (1Nephi 2:11 etc.).  This phrase NEVER appears in the 
Bible but DOES appear in other ancient documents.
One example is the Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q385b fragment one col. 1:

	...Jeremiah the Prophet of the Lord
	[...wh]o wer taken captive from the land of Jerusalem.

Also the Amarna Letters which date to the 14th Cent. BCE have:

	behold this land of Jerusalem (287:25)

	comes up to the land of Jerusalem (287:45)

	a town of the land of Jerusalem (290:15)

So the term "Land of Jerusalem" was used anciently to describe Jerusalem and 
the lands and towns immediately surrounding it.

Now Bethlehem is only five miles outside of Jerusalem and would
clearly be part of the "Land of Jerusalem".  Thus it would be very
accurate to have said that the Messiah would be born AT Jerusalem.

Since this information was not known in 1830 it seems that the very fact 
that the Book of Mormon states that Messiah would be born "AT Jerusalem" and 
constantly uses the phrase "Land of Jerusalem" which is not used in the 
Bible, is tremendous evidence for its authenticity.
After all any one in 1830 would have said "in Bethlehem" and not "AT 
Jerusalem."


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This list provided by SANJ sponsors: http://www.nazarene.net
SANJ is a non-profit organization