Well why not? Jesus visting America is exactly how Mormons justify their doctrine. They base it on when Jesus said he had "other flocks. What's abundantly clear is that they are not doctrine of scripture, but doctrine of men.
I don't know Hebrew, but I have a hard time believing that nobody knew whether you were talking about full brothers, half-brothers, cousins or anyhing else in Hebrew. Didn't JHavard have an example of the description of a cousin? Really? You can't imagine an extended family clan with women dying in childbirth, etc. and lots of cousins around and half brothers, etc.? I can. There is a Greek passage which uses the greek word for cousin. But that doesn't mean that other books were not taking the Hebrew word "Brother" and rendering it in Greek in an overly literal way.
Oh I can imagine the situation, but I can't imagine having no way to describe the orgin of individuals within it.
Fine. If the Bible doesn't say it, it can't possibly be true. Whatever. Don't make a distinction between what are fanciful claims that require more substantiation in history and archeology,etc. and a claim that is entirely plausible based upon the Bible's silence. Just stick to what is written and close your mind about anythign else.
SD
We have the same problem in English. Lots of cultures can't understand how so many different family relationships are classified as "cousins". I have to have my wife explain to me what relation my own relatives have to me... "is that 'second cousin' or 'first cousin once removed' or what?"