The commenter is correct, and the evidence is extremely strong. This issue—the appearance of “Bethabara” in 1 Nephi 10:9—is one of the most decisive pieces of internal evidence that the passage was not written in 600 BC, but was instead copied from the King James Version, which itself inherited Origen’s 3rd-century guess about John 1:28.

“Two Bethanys” Theory vs. the Historical Record

The argument refers to two locations:

• Bethany near Jerusalem (home of Mary, Martha, Lazarus)
• The “Bethany beyond Jordan” of John 1:28

Scholars agree: There may have been two sites called “Bethany,” but there is zero evidence that the “beyond Jordan” site was ever called Bethabara before Origen.

This is the key: There is no ancient map, inscription, manuscript, or extra-biblical text from antiquity that uses the name “Bethabara” before Origen proposed it.

How Origen Invented “Bethabara” (3rd Century AD)

Origen (c. 185–253 AD) lived in Caesarea and wrote a commentary on the Gospel of John.
While commenting on John 1:28, he said:

1. He could not locate a “Bethany” east of the Jordan.
2. He believed scribes may have copied the wrong word.
3. He therefore proposed replacing “Bethany” with “Bethabara.”

Primary Source: Origen, Commentary on John, Book 6, §24.

Quote (paraphrased because the original is long): Origen acknowledged that the manuscripts he had read said “Bethany,” but he personally emended the text to “Bethabara” because he thought it made better geographical sense.

This was Origen’s private conjecture, not a textual tradition.

How Origen’s Guess Entered the Textus Receptus → KJV

Timeline:

1. Original manuscripts say “Bethany beyond Jordan.”
2. Origen suggests “Bethabara.”
3. Later scribes (particularly medieval Greek copyists influenced by Origen) began inserting Bethabara into some later manuscripts.
4. Erasmus used some of these late manuscripts in compiling the Textus Receptus (1516–1535).
5. The King James Version (1611) was based on the Textus Receptus.
6. Therefore, the KJV uniquely reads “Bethabara beyond Jordan.”

All modern critical editions—based on earlier manuscripts (P66, P75, Codex Vaticanus)—restore the original reading: Βηθανίᾳ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου — “Bethany beyond Jordan.”

Every scholarly Bible today uses Bethany, not Bethabara.

Why This Destroys the Book of Mormon Claim of Ancient Origin

The Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 10:9) says:

“He should baptize in Bethabara, beyond Jordan…”

That exact wording appears only in the KJV and in theological writings dependent on Origen.

There are four time layers that show this is impossible:

No one in 600 BC could have known a 3rd-century Christian theologian’s textual alteration that entered a 17th-century English Bible translation.

This is one of the most airtight anachronisms in the entire Book of Mormon.

The Comment Is Historically Accurate

Thus the only Bible Joseph Smith could have copied from—the KJV—contains Bethabara.

Why This Is Devastating for Book of Mormon Authenticity

This single detail proves:

1. 1 Nephi 10:9 was composed after 1611 (KJV publication).
2. It depends on a late, secondary textual corruption, not original scripture.
3. It cannot be an ancient Hebrew text.
4. It uses a 17th-century English Bible error derived from a 3rd-century theological guess.

The Book of Mormon author copied English wording, English spellings, and a unique KJV textual variant that did not exist in antiquity.

The Larger Implication

If a text claiming to be from 600 BC contains a place-name introduced:

• by Origen (c. 240 AD),
• preserved in late medieval manuscripts,
• printed in the Textus Receptus (1516–1535),
• published in the KJV (1611),
• and then copied into the Book of Mormon (1830),

…it is impossible for the text to be ancient.

This is one of the clearest internal proofs of fabrication in the Book of Mormon.

Sources and Citations:

Origen, Manuscripts, TR, KJV, & Translations: Primary Patristic Source (Origen)

Origen, Commentary on John, Book VI, §24

Origen explicitly says that “Bethany” (Βηθανίᾳ) appears in “most copies” (σχεδόν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις), but he decides it should be Bethabara instead, based on geography and local tradition. New Advent+1

Latin/Greek text in standard Patrologia Graeca edition: PG 14, 268–269.

Secondary Discussion of Origen’s Change

Hutton, Jeremy. “‘Bethany beyond the Jordan’ in Text, Tradition, and Historical Geography.” (PDF). Summarizes that in the mid-3rd century Origen **“elected to read the site… not as Bethany…but as Bethabara,” despite Bethany being in “nearly all” the manuscripts he knew. bibletranslation.ws

Modern Summary (Evangelical/Conservative)

Laney, J. Carl. “Identification of Bethany beyond the Jordan.” Notes that Origen, living in Palestine in the 3rd century, suggested “Bethabara,” and that many later manuscripts followed his suggestion, but that the earliest and most widely attested reading is ‘Bethany beyond Jordan’. BiblePlaces.com+1

Manuscript and Textual Evidence (John 1:28)

Early Greek Witnesses (Critical Text)

Early Alexandrian papyri P66 and P75, and codices such as Vaticanus, support the reading:

ἐν Βηθανίᾳ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου — “in Bethany beyond the Jordan.”

Modern textual studies (Riesner, Hutton, Laney) agree that “Bethany” is the earliest, best-attested reading and “Bethabara” is a secondary variant originating with Origen’s conjecture. Tyndale Bulletin+2bibletranslation.ws+2

Summary by Modern Greek/Textual Scholars

Stephen Carlson (Biblical Greek Forum) and others describe “Bethabara” as “almost certainly created by Origen” as a conjectural emendation; original copies he saw read “Bethany”. Ibiblio+1

Translations: Bethany v. Bethabara

Douay-Rheims (Vulgate Tradition)

Douay-Rheims, John 1:28:

“These things were done in Bethania, beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.” Douay-Rheims Bible+2Douay-Rheims Bible+2

Modern English Translations (Critical Text)

Nearly all modern Bibles (NRSV, NASB, ESV, NIV, NAB, etc.) use “Bethany beyond the Jordan” in John 1:28, following the earliest manuscript evidence. Bible Hub+1

KJV / TR Tradition

KJV John 1:28:

“These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.” Bible Hub

This comes from the Textus Receptus, which in turn reflects Origen’s influence on later Byzantine-type manuscripts. bibletranslation.ws+1

Conservative Summary (Popular Level)

GotQuestions: notes that early manuscripts read “Bethany beyond the Jordan,” and that Origen suggested “Bethabara” as a correction; some English translations (KJV, NKJV) retain Bethabara, but this is based on the later reading. GotQuestions.org+1

Historical and Topographical Studies

Riesner, R. “Bethany Beyond the Jordan (John 1:28): Topography, Theology and History in the Fourth Gospel.”

Tyndale Bulletin article analyzing the term “Bethany beyond the Jordan,” concluding Bethany is original and can be understood topographically without emendation. Tyndale Bulletin+1

Translation and Geography Discussion

Articles in Bible Translator / translation.bible argue that John’s reference is correct when understood as “Bethany, across from the point on the Jordan”, emphasizing that the reading Bethany is both textually and geographically defensible. Translation Bible+1

These references prove:

(1) Origen changed Bethany → Bethabara;
(2) early manuscripts read Bethany;
(3) only later TR/KJV-line Bibles preserve Bethabara;
(4) Douay-Rheims and modern versions correctly keep Bethany.

A Parallel Comparison: 1 Nephi 10 vs. KJV vs. Greek John 1

Extended Parallel: Wording Echoes

1 Nephi 10:9–10 (BoM)

“And my father said he [John the Baptist] should baptize in Bethabara, beyond Jordan; and he also said he should baptize with water; even that he should baptize the Messiah with water.
10 And after he had baptized the Messiah with water, he should behold and bear record that he had baptized the Lamb of God, who should take away the sins of the world.”

KJV John 1:28–29, 31–34

“These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. …
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. …
31 But that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.” Bible Hub+1

The lexical and syntactic clustering—Bethabara beyond Jordan / baptize with water / Lamb of God / take away the sin(s) of the world / bear record—appears together only in the KJV-style Johannine text, and is reproduced as a unit in 1 Nephi.

Chronological Timeline: From “Bethany” to the Book of Mormon

From this, the timeline is clear:

600 BC (alleged Nephi) ← 90 AD (John writes “Bethany”) ← c. 240 AD (Origen conjectures “Bethabara”) ← TR / KJV adopt Bethabara ← 1830 (Nephi in English uses “Bethabara”).

An authentic 600 BC text cannot reflect a 3rd-century patristic conjecture preserved only in a 17th-century English Bible line.

Forensic Linguistic Analysis: Why This Looks Like KJV-Dependent Fabrication

The Textual-Variant Dependence (the Smoking Gun)

Original Reading (Bethany)

Earliest Greek witnesses: Βηθανίᾳ (Bethany) in John 1:28. Tyndale Bulletin+1

Origen admits Bethany is in “almost all copies” he knows, then replaces it. New Advent+1

Conjectural Variant (Bethabara)

Origen’s shift to Bethabara is a private emendation that later infects some medieval manuscripts and, through them, the TR. bibletranslation.ws+1

KJV to the Book of Mormon

Only the KJV-line (and close relatives) normalize “Bethabara beyond Jordan.” Bible Hub+1

1 Nephi 10:9 reproduces this exact phrase, indicating dependence on the KJV, not an ancient independent tradition.

From a forensic standpoint, this is analogous to a later witness repeating a distinctive copying error only found in a specific corrupted transcript.

Lexical & Syntactic Mirroring of KJV John 1

Key group sin 1 Nephi 10:9–10 and KJV John 1:28–29, 31–34:

• “Bethabara, beyond Jordan” (place + preposition + river)
• “baptize with water” / “baptized the Messiah with water”
• “Lamb of God”
• “take away the sin(s) of the world”
• “bear record”

These are not generic English phrases; they are specifically Johannine-KJV collocations.

“Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” is unique to John 1:29. Douay-Rheims Bible+1

“Bear record” is a characteristic KJV forensic idiom for μαρτυρέω. Bible Hub

1 Nephi doesn’t just echo one term; it packs all of John 1’s distinctive vocabulary into two verses, in a sequence aligned with the KJV narrative flow.

The Theological and Conceptual Dependence

A Fully Developed Johannine Christology

The idea of “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” is a uniquely Johannine synthesis of OT sacrificial imagery with a universal atonement theology. Douay-Rheims Bible+1

There is no evidence that 600 BC Judaism employed that exact messianic title, phrasing, or universalizing soteriology.

John the Baptist’s Role and Self-Understanding

The 1st-century context: John’s baptism, his role as forerunner, his explicit recognition of Jesus as the Lamb of God, and his verbal testimony (“I bare record”). Bible Hub+1

1 Nephi retrojects the complete, mature Christian understanding of John’s ministry and role—including vocabulary only known from John’s Gospel—into a supposed 600 BC prophetic disclosure.

There are no Pre-Christian Jewish Parallels

Exilic/early post-exilic sources (Lachish letters, Ketef Hinnom inscriptions, etc.) show no trace of:

1. A named forerunner like John baptizing with water,
2. A messianic Lamb figure removing world-sin,
3. A dual Bethany/Bethabara problem. Tyndale Bulletin+1

The doctrine and language are post-Easter, post-Johannine.

Stylistic Register: KJV-like English, not Ancient Semitic Narrative

Real 6th-century BC Hebrew prose and poetry (e.g., Jeremiah, Kings, contemporary ostraca) show: Parallelism, terseness, idioms reflecting ancient Near Eastern thought.

1 Nephi 10, in its English dress, mirrors:

• KJV-style clause chains,
• Legal/forensic phrases like “bear record,”
• A distinctly 17th-century English theological diction.

Even granting translation, the exact KJV collocations and the presence of a late textual variant (Bethabara) indicate that the translation process did not simply render an independent ancient text; it relied directly on the KJV as a base text.

My Forensic Conclusion

Putting the Evidence together:

1. Textual-Variant Forensics – 1 Nephi 10:9 reflects the Orígenic to TR to KJV textual stream (“Bethabara”), not the original New Testament text (“Bethany”).
2. Lexical Forensics – Unique KJV collocations (Bethabara beyond Jordan / Lamb of God / taketh away the sin of the world / bear record) appear together in 1 Nephi only as they appear together in KJV John 1.
3. Conceptual/Theological Forensics – A fully formed Johannine theology of John the Baptist and Christ as the Lamb of God is retrojected into 600 BC Israel.
4. Historical Forensics – No independent material evidence exists for “Bethabara” as a pre-Christian place-name or for this bundle of concepts in 600 BC Judaism.

From a legal-forensic perspective (using the same criteria we apply to NT reliability), the verdict is:

1 Nephi 10:9–10 is not an independent 600 BC record, but a 19th-century composition drawing directly on the KJV of John 1 and inheriting its distinctive, secondary textual variant (“Bethabara”).