Share This Episode
Viewpoint on Mormonism Bill McKeever  Logo

Alma 7:10 — Part 5

Viewpoint on Mormonism / Bill McKeever
The Truth Network Radio
December 20, 2019 7:33 am

Alma 7:10 — Part 5

Viewpoint on Mormonism / Bill McKeever

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 662 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

Matt Slick Live!
Matt Slick
Matt Slick's Top 6
Matt Slick
Matt Slick Live!
Matt Slick
Matt Slick Live!
Matt Slick
Matt Slick Live!
Matt Slick

You field your church is not true which churches didn't the Bible predict the apostasy of the Christian faith. These and 34 other questions often posed by Latter Day Saints are engrossed in answering woman's questions published by Kriegel written by the mortgage. Bill McKeever and Jerry Johnson answering woman's questions includes a glossary of Mormon terms and questions for group discussions, answering Mormons questions can be ordered or at your favorite Christian bookstore you ready to give an answer .1 Newman's commandment examines the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from a biblical perspective view .1 Mormon is sponsored by Mormonism research ministry since 1979 Mormonism research ministry has been dedicated to equipping the body of Christ with answers regarding the Christian faith in a manner that expresses gentleness and respect. And now, your host for today's viewpoint on Mormonism hoping you're having a very pleasant Friday.

Welcome to this edition viewpoint on Mormonism. I'm your host, Bill McKeever, founder and director Mormonism research ministry with me today is Eric Johnson. My colleague at MRM. We are continuing to look at elbow 710 in the book of Mormon, a verse that predicts the birth of Jesus where it says, and behold, he shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers. And of course the Mormons are arguing that this this actually vindicates Joseph Smith is a prophet of God and shows the authenticity of the book of Mormon is an ancient book by using expressions that they feel actually speak more correctly to the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Now that might sound a little bit confusing, but you might want to go back and listen to the prior broadcast can bring you up to speed on this, but today we want to look at one segment and that's an argument that was raised by Dr. Daniel Peterson from BYU regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you were to go to the Internet. There is actually a video that shows Dr. Peterson and Carrie shirts and we mentioned that Carrie Schuetz is no longer a member of the Mormon church. He has since left the Mormon church no longer believes in enhancement from all we know it's become an agnostic, but they were defending, seven, 10. In this video and Dr. Peterson uses the argument that you're about to read right now. Eric he says, seven, 10 predicts that Jesus shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers. Is this a mistake. Everyone knows that Jesus was born in Bethlehem not in Jerusalem but it is now playing for modern evidence that Bethlehem could be, and indeed was regarded anciently as a town in the land of Jerusalem, a recently released tax from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

For example, text claiming origin in Jeremiah's days, and therefore Lehi's says that the Jews of that period were taken captive from the land of Jerusalem.

Joseph Smith could not have learned this from the Bible, though, for no such language appears in it and that's taken on the & January 2000, page 22 is an article titled mounting evidence for the book of Mormon, but is it really mounting evidence for the book of Mormon is the evidence really vindicate what Joseph Smith wrote in with the book of Mormon says and what Dr. Peterson is actually claiming first of all he's talking about what's known as the pseudo-Jeremiah scroll, and he mentions this in footnote 40, but he does not quote the fragment at length the fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls of pseudo-Jeremiah scroll.

When the fragment is examined in more detail. We find that it does not mention Bethlehem, nor does it speak of Jesus's birth at all.

It doesn't say anything like that. We also find that the phrase land of Jerusalem.

And remember this is the phrase that Mormon apologists have often been turning to. But as we mentioned, it doesn't say that in elbow, seven, 10 but we do find the phrase land of Jerusalem, but when you see how it is used in this scroll, it's probably not a reference at all to the surrounding region of Jerusalem, but her reference to the actual city and if it is a reference to the actual city.

It would completely undermine the argument that is being raised here in this article from the January 2000 & on page 22. The fragment states that Jeremiah was one of those taken captive and that never was there a Dan the captain of the guard and I'm quoting the vessels of the house of God and the priests and the children of Israel and brought them to Babylon." Since the phrase vessels of the house of God is a clear reference to the temple in Jerusalem because that's where they were located.

Can we with absolute certainty rule out the possibility that the phrase land of Jerusalem used in this Dead Sea Scrolls fragment is a reference to the city itself and not a region or suburb. Consider also this very similar expression is found in the Old Testament in Daniel 11 into it says in the third year of the reign of Jehoiada, Kim, king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon onto Jerusalem and besieged it.

And the Lord gave Joachim King of Judah into his hand with part of the vessels of the house of God which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his God and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his God.

Okay, let's also look at second Kings 25, eight through 11 because this gives us even more details regarding the final days of Jerusalem and like the pseudo-Jeremiah scroll. It mentions that booze there a Dan by name. It says, and in the fifth month of on the seventh day of the month, which is the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came nephew Sarah Dan Capt. of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon onto Jerusalem and he burnt the house of the Lord and the king's house and all the houses and of Jerusalem, let me stop you there because that's important that he burnt the house of the Lord educate which is Harris well in the city yes and the king's house, such as in the city and all the houses of Jerusalem. Okay, it goes on to say that every great man's house burnt he with fire and all the army of the Chaldees that were with the captain of the guard break down the walls of Jerusalem roundabout. Now the rest of the people that were left in the city and the fugitives that fell away to the king of Babylon with the remnant of the multitude did nephew Sarah Dan, the captain of the guard, Carrie away as we pointed out the mention of the king's house is important since Jeremiah 32 two says that this was where the prophet Jeremiah was being held prisoner in the king's house that will affect him. Jerusalem yes that's where he was being held since the scroll states that Jeremiah was among those taken captive from the quote land of Jerusalem and since Jeremiah was clearly in the city of Jerusalem. It appears that whoever wrote the pseudo-Jeremiah scroll was using the phrase land of Jerusalem as a term to describe the city of Jerusalem. So you see the Dead Sea Scrolls really don't help the Mormon argument you have to already have this presupposition and make it say what you wanted to say we might mention it in this article that Dr. Peterson wrote that was in the inside.

There's a picture of a scroll with a caption that reads this is what the caption says, some have questioned Nephi's prophecy that Christ would be born in the land of Jerusalem doesn't say it doesn't say that with the Dead Sea Scrolls show that Bethlehem was regarded anciently as a town in the land of Jerusalem. That's the quote." Besides the fact that Nephi is erroneously credited with this prophecy because it wasn't Nephi. It was Elma there are other reasons why this caption is misleading.

As mentioned previously, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which Dr. Peterson refers never mentions Bethlehem at all. It never mentions Bethlehem at all. Furthermore, the book of Mormon does not say specifically that Jesus would be born in the homeland of Jerusalem. That's an argument that Mormon apologists are making it doesn't say that it says that Jesus would be born at Jerusalem and it's a phrase used in the book of Mormon as we demonstrated over the past several broadcast it's a phrase that is used 19 times in the book of Mormon. The phrase at Jerusalem is used 19 times and as we've gone through each of these 19 times. It seems very clear by the insistence of Mormon themselves and Mormon manuals that of the 1918 of them is pointing to the city of Jerusalem at Jerusalem means in Jerusalem the question were raising. This will why wouldn't then mean the same in Elma 710.

Why all of a sudden Elma 710 gets a completely different interpretation. While I think it's clear folks they have to do that because if it's going to say that Jesus was actually born at Jerusalem or in Jerusalem as it's understood by that phrase than that is a serious problem for the book of Mormon which would certainly point out that one either.

It's not the ancient text. Mormons are led to believe or the Joseph Smith didn't have the ability to translate it correctly but it has certainly a huge error in it, let me disclose with this from what we gather in the Bible.

The southern tribes were always known as Judah clear up to the captivity Jeremiah 33, six and seven says this quoting. Then Jeremiah the prophet speak all these words into Zedekiah king of Judah in Jerusalem when the king of Babylon's army fought against Jerusalem and against all the cities of Judah. Note it does not say the cities of Jerusalem. It says cities of Judah and against all the cities of Judah that were left against Lachish and against as a cup for these defense cities remained of the cities of Judah Judah if Mormons choose to point to pseudo-Jeremiah as proof that the land of Jerusalem is a common ancient expression.

They should also concede that this is a reference to the city and not a reference to a land region that would somehow include the town of Bethlehem. I don't know.

I don't know if this is really going to be all that convincing to a lot of Latter Day Saints.

Certainly if there's some Mormons out there and you're kind of questioning the authenticity of the book of Mormon. This might be something that you will seriously consider for many Mormons it probably won't matter. I don't know, but the prophecy once more found in Micah 52, which speaks specifically of Bethlehem, there was a reason for it to be so pinpoint and since the Bible never does talk about a land of Jerusalem that there were suburbs and that you could be miles away from the actual city and still consider yourself to be part of that land Jerusalem with no evidence to support that whatsoever. I think this is as you just mentioned a problem because if Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God who did not have the ability to translate these ancient plates.

If there were even any plates to to start off with. If he was not able to do that and he made his own air and placed it inside of, seven, 10 when other heirs did he make. How do we know anything else that that is in there a we should be reading into like the apologists, the LDS apologists want to do with Elma 710. I think that's a great point. This is just one more issue where when we look at it in more of a broader scope because what we've done is we've gone through every time that free

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime