[frgoff]

No, first, because the phrase "At Jerusalem" is a Hebraism which means the land and areas surrounding.

Second, because Alma is addressing people who have never been to Israel, have lived for hundreds of years knowing nothing about Israel except as the land their forefathers came from. If Alma or the Lord were to say to them Bethlehem, they'd say: Where's that. If He said "at Jerusalem," they'd say "oh, yes, the heart of the land of our fathers.

The fact that Joseph Smith used the phrase at Jerusalem instead of Bethlehem is actually an evidence in favor of the book being divine in origin. It's exactly the opposite of what you would expect in a forgery.

The tone of your posts makes it quite clear you have a vested interested in rejecting the Book of Mormon (whatever it is), so there's no point in continuing the conversation.

[Californiajones]

Again, your reasoning is strange.

Whoever "Alma" is, if they were a true prophet of God, they would not be concerned with the lack of traveltime accrued by the people they were prophesying to.

For instance, the prophet Micah in the Old Testament prophesied that the messiah would be born at Bethlehem, hundreds of years before the fact. This was a surprising fact, considering the humble nature of the town. However, God knew in His economy of the relevance and historicity of Bethlehem and just waited for the events to unfold. Alma, whatever that is (actually my Eastern Star aunt was named Alma) makes no prophesy here, just jumbles up previous words from various old and new testament sources to confusing effect.

Jerusalem is NOT Bethlehem and would never be construed as such by the Holy Spirit.

[Californiajones]

Okey dokey. Where in the Bible is this Hebraism used in the same context as Alma? And a better concordance exercise, how many times does the Bible refer to the place of Jesus's birth as "at Jerusalem"?

The Bible, babe, is our standard to judge the Book of Mormon. Not the other way around. So, let's see your concordance search. Double dare ya.