LDS Apologists Consistently Assert The Accuracy And Reliability of The Book of Mormon. 

The following is a recent 2025 post by a LDS Apologist:

“Concerning Alma 7:10, Joseph Smith is awarded yet again the Guessed Right Again Award. 👇

“In the Amarna letters we read of ‘the land of Jerusalem’ as an area larger than the city itself, and even learn in one instance that ‘a city of the land of Jerusalem, Bet-Ninib, has been captured.’ it was the rule in Palestine and Syria, as the same letters show, for a large area around a city and all the inhabitants of that area to bear the name of the city. This was a holdover from the times when the city and the land were a single political unit, comprising a city state; when this was absorbed into a larger empire, the original identity was preserved, though it had lost its original significance” (Nibley, Hugh, “Lehi in the Desert”, Improvement Era, Vol. 53, No. 1 (January 1950), 15)”

The Claim in Context

Alma 7:10 (Book of Mormon)

“And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin…”

The Book of Mormon states Christ would be born “at Jerusalem,” which contradicts the biblical and historical fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:1).

LDS apologists attempt to neutralize this contradiction by arguing:

• “Land of Jerusalem” is an ancient term broader than the city.
• The Amarna letters allegedly show that “Bethlehem” could be described as being “in the land of Jerusalem.”
• Therefore, Joseph Smith “guessed right.”

This is the Nibley Argument cited.

However—when examined critically, linguistically, geographically, and historically—the conclusion does not hold.

What the Amarna Letters Actually Say

The Relevant Letter

The key text is EA 290, a letter from Abdi-Heba, the ruler of Jerusalem (Urusalim), to the Egyptian Pharaoh (ca. 1350 BC).

It contains the phrase: “the land of Jerusalem,” and mentions a city “Bit Ninurta / Bit Ninib” within that territory.

Important facts:

• Bethlehem is never mentioned in the Amarna letters—not once.
• “Bit Ninurta” is not Bethlehem.
  The identification of Bit Ninurta with Bethlehem is not accepted by any mainstream archaeologist or linguist. (See: W. Moran, The Amarna Letters; Na’aman; Liverani; Albright.)

For this reason the Amarna letters do NOT state or imply that Bethlehem was called “the land of Jerusalem.”

“Land of X” Was Normal—but That Does Not Help Alma 7:10

In ancient Near Eastern correspondence often used phrases like:

• “land of Gezer”
• “land of Shechem”
• “land of Jerusalem”

This is geopolitical, not toponymic. It describes:

• A city-state and its controlled villages.
• Primarily during the Late Bronze Age (1400–1200 BC).

However, even if Bethlehem were technically in Jerusalem’s “land,” the text problem in Alma 7:10 remains:

Alma 7:10 states that Jesus would be “born AT Jerusalem.”

Not:

• “in the land of Jerusalem,”
• “near Jerusalem,”
• “in a village under Jerusalem’s control,”
• Or “in Bethlehem (land of Jerusalem).”

Biblical usage always says “born in Bethlehem.” Never “born at Jerusalem.”

Even the Book of Mormon elsewhere uses more precise city terms when appropriate.

Why the Amarna Letters Cannot Vindicate Alma 7:10

The Chronological Problem

The Amarna Letters date to ~1350 BC.—Alma 7 is allegedly ~83 BC—over 1,200 years later.

During the time Jesus was on Earth:

1. Bethlehem was its own distinct locality, not a subordinate city-state.
2. Jews spoke of “Bethlehem” explicitly.
3. No New Testament or Second Temple text calls Bethlehem “the land of Jerusalem.”

Second Temple Literature Never Uses This Phrase

We have significant literary sources from:

• The Dead Sea Scrolls
• The Septuagint
• Tobit
• Sirach
• 1–2 Maccabees
• Josephus
• Philo
• Mishnah

In none of these literary sources is Bethlehem called “the land of Jerusalem.”

The Preeminent Linguistic Problem

Hebrew distinguishes:

• בֵּית לֶחֶם – Bethlehem
• יְרוּשָׁלַיִם – Jerusalem

Using one Hebrew word in place of the other would be a category error in Jewish thought. This is the error that LDS apologist make.

Why Alma 7:10 Is Better Explained as a 19th-Century Error

Joseph Smith lived in:

• Upstate New York
• Before archaeology existed
• With no access to ancient Near Eastern texts
• Using only the King James Bible

The KJV repeatedly places prophetic emphasis on Jerusalem as the city of the Messiah (e.g., Zechariah 9:9; Isaiah 40; Isaiah 52). A person reading the KJV alone—without careful biblical training—could easily make the mistake of saying:

“He will be born at Jerusalem.”

This Matches: 19th-century American biblical exegesis. It does not match ancient Israelite geography, Jewish messianic expectations, and isnot actual archaeological evidence.

Therefore Alma 7:10 is almost certainly an anachronistic error, not an ancient Semitic idiom.

The Following is an image of an authentic ancient Egyptian limestone relief fragment, likely dating from the New Kingdom period (c. 1550–1070 BC)

Unlike the Book of Mormon—which has produced no verifiable cities, inscriptions, or artifacts—the ancient Near East is saturated with authenticated archaeological material. The limestone relief shown below comes from New Kingdom Egypt, a culture richly documented through inscriptions, monuments, and international correspondence such as the Amarna Letters. These artifacts allow us to reconstruct the history, languages, and geopolitical boundaries of the region with precision.

The above image is an example of real, dateable archaeology, in contrast with the absence of archaeological evidence for Mormon claims.

“Artifacts like this Egyptian relief demonstrate the level of sophistication and preservation common in Near Eastern archaeology. The same era produced the Amarna Letters—international diplomatic tablets dated to the 14th century BC.

These letters explicitly mention the ‘land of Jerusalem’ as the district of the Canaanite city-state of Urusalim. Significantly, they never mention Bethlehem, and no scholar equates ‘Bit Ninurta’ with Bethlehem. This shows why the LDS defense of Alma 7:10 collapses when examined through real historical data.”

Unfortunately, we do not find this type of images or historical, literary text connected with any of the alleged ancient texts for the Book of Mormon

The “Guessed Right Again Award” Claim at the Beginning of this Essay Is Unfounded

The apologetic argument collapses for the following reasons:

(1) Bethlehem ≠ Bit Ninurta: No scholarly source equates them.

(2) No Amarna text calls Bethlehem “the land of Jerusalem:” Because Bethlehem is never mentioned in these texts.

(3) 1,200+ years separate the Amarna age and the Book of Mormon setting

(4) No Jewish text from the Second Temple era uses this terminology

(5) Alma 7:10 states “born AT Jerusalem,” not “near” or “in the land of”

(6) The simplest explanation is a 19th-century mistake based on the KJV

Why Nibley’s Argument Persists Among LDS Apologists

Hugh Nibley’s method often used by highly selective parallels, early, outdated scholarsh, Linguistic conjectures, and arguments from possibility rather than evidence

Modern Near Eastern specialists have rejected these associations because they are:

• Linguistically unsupported
• Chronologically implausible
• Geographically inaccurate
• Dependent on assumptions LDS scholars already wish to prove

The supposed “evidence” for Alma 7:10 has no basis in mainstream archaeology or historical linguistics.

The statement that Alma 7:10 is vindicated by the Amarna letters is not supported by any credible evidence.

1. Historically: Bethlehem was always understood as a distinct town.
2. Textually: No ancient writer calls Bethlehem “Jerusalem.”
3. Archaeologically: The Amarna letters do not mention Bethlehem at all.
4. Linguistically: The parallel is manufactured and chronologically impossible.

For These Reasons:

Far from being a “Guessed Right Again Award,” Alma 7:10 reveals a clear historical mistake—fully consistent with a 19th-century composition, and wholly inconsistent with ancient Israelite geography or terminology.

Sources and Citations:

The Following are the actual texts LDS apologists attempt to use in validating the Book of Mormon.

Critical Edition (standard scholarly reference)

• Moran, William L. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.
  – EA 285–290 contain the references to “the land (KUR) of Jerusalem.”

Specific Passage (EA 290)

• EA 290: “To the king, my lord… the land of Jerusalem has gone over to the Habiru.”
• Mentions “Bit Ninurta / Bit Ninib”, not Bethlehem.

(Original Akkadian text in Moran; also in Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, 1907.)

Verifiable Proble: Bethlehem (Beth-Lehem) is not mentioned anywhere in the Amarna corpus.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HISTORICAL SOURCES

Bethlehem in Ancient Sources: Bethlehem appears in numerous ancient texts — never as part of “Jerusalem”:

• Joshua 15:59 (LXX Variant) – lists Bethlehem as a Judean town, not as Jerusalem’s territory.
• Micah 5:2 – prophecy explicitly ties Messiah’s birth to Bethlehem, not Jerusalem.
• 1 Chronicles 2:51; 2:54 – Bethlehem listed as separate clan/settlement.
• Ruth 1:1 – “Bethlehem in Judah” — precise location.

Second Temple Sources

Bethlehem is always treated as distinct from Jerusalem:

• Josephus, Antiquities 5.2.8; 7.4.1 – mentions Bethlehem independently, never as “land of Jerusalem.”
• Dead Sea Scrolls geographical references separate Bethlehem and Jerusalem.
• Mishnah (Shevi’it 9:2, et al) — Bethlehem listed as a separate agricultural district.

Modern Archaeology: Bethlehem was a well-defined, independent settlement since at least the 2nd millennium BC.

• Mazar, Amihai. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000–586 B.C.E. Doubleday, 1990.
• Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil A. The Bible Unearthed. Free Press, 2001.

SCHOLARSHIP ON THE AMARNA LETTERS AND GEOGRAPHY

“Land of Jerusalem” in the Amarna Tablets

Every scholarly examination agrees:

• “Land of Jerusalem” = Jerusalem’s Late Bronze Age district
• It does not include Bethlehem

Peer-Reviewed Scholarship

• Na’aman, Nadav. “Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.” Israel Exploration Journal 45 (1995).
  – Detailed analysis of city-state territories; Bethlehem not included within “Jerusalem’s land.”
• Liverani, Mario. International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600–1100 BC. Palgrave, 2001.
  – City-states (like Urusalim) comprised villages known from archaeology; Bethlehem is not one of them.
• Dever, William G. What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? Eerdmans, 2001.
  – Territorial boundaries near Jerusalem show no evidence that Bethlehem belonged to “Jerusalem’s land.”
• Schniedewind, William. How the Bible Became a Book. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
  – Discusses Jerusalem’s limited Bronze Age footprint; Bethlehem lay outside the area.

The Amarna Letters never equate Bethlehem with the “land of Jerusalem.”

Why the Hebrew & Akkadian Linguistic Distinctions Refute the LDS Claim

In every ancient Jewish text, Bethlehem and Jerusalem are ALWAYS treated as two different places. They are never interchangeable. Not once. Ever.** This matters because:

The Book of Mormon, Alma 7:10 says Jesus would be “born AT JERUSALEM.”

That’s a mistake no ancient Jew or ancient Near Eastern writer would ever make. The LDS defense claims: “Ancient people sometimes called Bethlehem the land of Jerusalem, so Alma 7:10 is correct.”

But the linguistic evidence proves the exact opposite.

WORDS MATTER — and ancient Jews were extremely precise

Hebrew has distinct words:

• בֵּית לֶחֶם – Beth-Lehem
  (“House of Bread”)
• יְרוּשָׁלַיִם – Yerushalayim
  (“City of Peace”)

Notice That These Hebrew Words, look different, mean different things, refer to different towns. And they are used separately with absolute consistency.

Not once in the Hebrew Bible, Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Josephus, Mishnah, or the Targums
is Bethlehem ever called “Jerusalem.” This consistency is powerful evidence because it shows that:

No ancient Jew would EVER say “born at Jerusalem” if they meant Bethlehem: This destroys the LDS argument that Alma 7:10 uses an ancient idiom

The LDS claim is:

“Ancient Israelites sometimes referred to Bethlehem as part of ‘Jerusalem,’ so Alma 7:10 is accurate.”

But linguistics prove:

• No Hebrew speaker did that
• No Aramaic speaker did that
• No Akkadian scribe did that
• No Second Temple Jew did that
• No ancient writer conflated the two cities

The claim that Alma 7:10 matches an “ancient idiom” is linguistically impossible.

Linguistics shows Alma 7:10 reflects a 19th-century mistake, not an ancient one

A 19th-century American reading the KJV might assume:

“Jesus lived in Jerusalem. That must be where He was born.”

But someone living in ancient Israel would NEVER say that. this fact proves the LDS error fits a:

• 19th-century assumptions
• 19th-century biblical misunderstandings
• Joseph Smith’s environment

Meaning that these alleged ancient Mormon texts are really a 19th century fabrication by Joseph Smith.

The linguistic distinction proves Alma 7:10 is NOT an ancient Semitic text

If the Book of Mormon were truly written by ancient Jews, on metal plates, in “Reformed Egyptian,” by prophets familiar with Hebrew geography, then it would NEVER contain:

“born at Jerusalem.”

That incorrect phrase is a dead giveaway of modern authorship: The linguistic evidence shows:

• the Book of Mormon does not reflect ancient Semitic geography
• it does not match ancient Jewish writings
• it does not match the linguistic patterns we see in real ancient texts

The linguistic distinction between Bethlehem and Jerusalem proves Alma 7:10 could not have been written by ancient Jews — only by a modern author who didn’t understand ancient geography.

Key linguistic sources

• Gesenius, Wilhelm. Hebrew Grammar.
• Joüon, Paul; Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew.
• Huehnergard, John. Akkadian Grammar.
• Sivan, Daniel. A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language.

All of these scholarly sources demonstrate that “Bethlehem” and “Jerusalem” are distinct lexical items and cannot substitute for each other.

WHY “BIT NINURTA” does not equal BETHLEHEM

Academic consensus

“Bit Ninurta” is a theophoric name (temple-town of Ninurta/Ninib). Bethlehem is not associated with the Mesopotamian deity Ninurta in any text, inscription, artifact, or archaeological layer.

Scholarly Sources

• Albright, W. F. “The Amarna Letters from Palestine.” BASOR 74 (1939).
• Steiner, Margreet. Jerusalem in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Sheffield, 2001.
• Na’aman, Nadav. “Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to God’ on his Campaign to Judah.” BASOR, 1990.

No peer-reviewed scholar identifies Bit Ninurta with Bethlehem. These facts fully impeach the Book of Mormon text for Alma 7:10

SECOND TEMPLE JEWISH SOURCES

In Examination of all Second Temple Sources, None equate Bethlehem with Jerusalem.

6Primary Texts: Cited with standard editions:

• Dead Sea Scrolls (García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition)
• Josephus (Loeb Classical Library)
• Philo (Loeb Classical Library)
• Mishnah (Danby Edition)

Bethlehem is always treated independently.

NEW TESTAMENT SOURCES

Every NT reference confirms Bethlehem as distinct:

• Matthew 2:1 — “Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea.”
• Luke 2:4–7 — “Joseph went… to Bethlehem… and she gave birth.”
• John 7:42 — Messiah comes from Bethlehem.

No NT text describes Bethlehem as “land of Jerusalem.”

LDS APOLOGETIC SOURCES (FOR BALANCE)

These are included so readers see the actual argument being made:

• Hugh Nibley, “Lehi in the Desert”, Improvement Era 53 (1950): 15–16.
• John Tvedtnes, “Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon”, FARMS.
• Daniel Peterson, “On Alma 7:10 and Bethlehem”, Interpreter Foundation.

Even FARMS-affiliated scholars concede publicly that:

• Bethlehem is never mentioned in the Amarna corpus
• The “land of Jerusalem” argument depends on possibility, not evidence
• The time gap (1350 BC → 83 BC) is a major weakness

SUMMARIZED EVIDENCE TABLE

Based on the primary documents, archaeology, linguistics, and Second Temple literature, there is:

1. No evidence that ancient Israelites ever said the Messiah would be born “AT Jerusalem.”
2. No evidence that Bethlehem was called part of “the land of Jerusalem” in the time of Christ.
3. No evidence in the Amarna Letters that Bethlehem belonged to Jerusalem.
4. No evidence that Bit Ninurta is Bethlehem.

The argument that Joseph Smith “guessed right,” as the LDS Apologist suggests at the beginning of this essay,  has no basis in any accepted historical source.

Categories: Robert Clifton Robinson