Sam,
You ask some great questions. I’ll start from the bottom up if you don’t mind because those ones are easier to answer.
I'll have to answer only one at a time. Before considering the answers that I provide to your questions I would suggest listening to Steve's lecture on dealing with Biblical problems. Take note especially of what he says about answers. I am paraphrasing here but this is the jist of the principle " It is not essential in the defense of scripture to determine how any given problem is to be resolved. It is enough to have a plausible explanation. There may be multiple possible explanations to the problem but one plausible solution removes all grounds to the charge that a contradiction exists." In other words, there may be other plausible answers to your questions, but here are the answers that make sense to me.
Why does the Book of Mormon state that Jesus was born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10) when history and the Bible state that he was born outside of Jerusalem, in Bethlehem?
First please note that it doesn’t actually state that he was born in Jerusalem it says he will be born “at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers,”
I know, I know, it sounds like I’m straining at gnats here. The difference is actually pretty important though if you want to understand it.
I have never heard of an LDS person who doubted that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because there simply is no contradiction between the Bible and Book of Mormon on this topic when it is given more than just a quick glance.
To give a little background, this was a prophecy about Jesus Christ given at about 80 years before Jesus was born. Also it was given by a prophet that at the time lived in the western hemisphere but whose ancestors had migrated from the old world about 500 years previous. He himself wasn’t intimately acquainted with the Old World but he had access to many of the Old Testament scriptures and therefore Jerusalem was important to him.
Note that the place Jesus would be born is the “ Jerusalem... the of our forefathers" as opposed to the city of Jerusalem. The Book of Mormon peoples often described their own major cities by the term city, and the area surrounding those cities, including other smaller towns and "the land of" said city. The term the “land of Jerusalem” is also used over 30 times, and it is apparent from other passages that they were speaking of the general area similarly to how I would describe a trip to visit my Aunt in Lake Oswego as a trip to Portland (even though Lake Oswego is it’s own city). As you know, Bethlehem is about 6 miles or so away from the city of Jerusalem
As far as I know, the Bible never uses the term “Land of Jerusalem” it is an authentic ancient way of speaking though. One of the Dead Sea Scrolls (scroll 4Q385) which is ascribed to the prophet Jeremiah (the BOM prophet Lehi left around the time of Jeremiah so he would be using language similar to how people spoke during that time) uses the exact term “Land of Jerusalem” which in context was used to designate both the city of Jerusalem and the surrounding towns according to two non LDS scroll experts. (see Robert Eisenmann and Michael Wise, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (1993) p 57-58, these are both non-mormon authors) Although this phrase wasn’t known as anciently authentic in Joseph’s day and he was mocked for it continuously, There seems to be no doubt about its authenticity today.
Interestingly, if Joseph Smith was a fraud, he certainly knew a LOT about the bible. It would be odd for him to be so accurate in other biblical events but get this one wrong. Instead however he used an ancient phrase to describe where Jesus was born that was unknown to his contemporaries but was in fact authentic and accurate. As a fraudulent author this doesn’t make much sense, as a translator it makes perfect sense.
Here is a good article on the subject for further clarification.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... pts/?id=37