Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

I've done a bit more searching on the phrase "land of jerusalem" and found a few things:1) There are indeed some modern scholarly uses of the phrase. But these seem to refer either to "land" in the sense of "real estate" or "geography," not in the sense of a territory or region.2) The El-Amarna letters seem to have a few references to the "land of Jerusalem." There are two in EA 286 and one in EA 287. There is also a reference to the "territory of Jerusalem" in EA 290, mentioning Bet-Ninib as a city in this territory. (This is apparently what you mentioned in Message 83 but with the wrong tablet number and with the older, less preferred translation Bit-Lahmi.)
(The El-Amarna letters are available online here and here)The El-Amarna letters do seem to use "land of Jerusalem" in the sense of "territory" or "region," supporting your contention. And the Book of Mormon also uses "land of Jerusalem" in a few places, perhaps with a similar connotation of "territory" or "region" (though I'm not fully convinced of this yet).However, remember that the El Amarna letters were written by Canaanites in the Late Bronze period (14th century BC). The phrase "land of Jerusalem" is not found in Scripture. There is no evidence that it was used in Palestine after the Israelite conquest. So where did Lehi (7 centuries later) or Joseph Smith come up with the phrase "land of Jerusalem?" What did they mean by it? Is there any historical or linguistic connection between Book of Mormon usage and the El Amarna tablets? I'd say any connection is extremely doubtful.Further, in the passage in question:

quote:

---

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers

---

the phrase used is "Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers", not the "land of Jerusalem." Even if the latter is demonstrated to mean "territory" or "region" in the Book of Mormon, does the former have the same meaning, and how would you establish this? It seems to me that the former has more the sense of "real estate" or "possession."Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

It is impossible for Christians to accept the BoM, as we have seen. But others may think it worth a look, and if so, take a look at this:'But behold, the Spirit hath said this much unto me, saying: Cry unto this people, saying - Repent ye, and prepare the way of the Lord, and walk in his paths, which are straight; for behold, the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and the Son of God cometh upon the face of the earth. And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.' Book of Alma, 7:9-11Now take it from a Bible reader, everything in that which is in agreement with the Bible could well have been lifted right out of the so-called King James Version, and everything in it that is not in the 'KJV' is wrong, as far as the Bible is concerned. If one was to do a hatchet job on the Bible's message, it would look exactly like that- or the Qur'an.

I'm wondering if I gave up on this contradiction too quickly. I've got some further questions for you:

quote:

---

Seems you have your names confused. Jacob and Joseph were Nephi's younger brothers, and not the Jacob and Joseph of the OT.

---

Yes, I agree that I misread the Book of Mormon here. But wasn't Nephi supposedly a descendent of Israel? If so, which Jewish tribe were Nephi and his brothers from?

quote:

---

Mosiah 29:42 and Alma 4:20 infer that Lehi, and his lineage were operating under the high priesthood, or Melchizedek Priesthood, which is not bound by lineage, but conferred by god.

---

How is the "Melchizedek priesthood" implied here? (I see no mention of Melchizedek.) How does the Book of Mormon speak of the Nephite priests elsewhere; are they spoken of in relation to Melchizedek or as priests of Israel?(Note that in the Bible, a priest of Israel must be from the tribe of Levi. A priest of the order of Melchizedek was different and more general, and was not referred to as a priest of Israel.)

The title of "High Priest" can only be held by one with the "High Priesthood", which is the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. Father Abraham demonstrated the "High" position of Melchizedek when he offered him tithes (Heb 7).The two scriptural links I provided in Mosiah and Alma sufficiently state that the High Priesthood was being conferred upon each subsequent leader of the Nephites. You are right, and wrong. You are correct in that a High Priest is not "referred to as a priest of Israel", as Priests of Israel are after the Order of Aaron.You are also correct in that the capacity of Priest of Israel is birthright to descendants of Levi.A High Priest (Priest after the order of Melchizedek) is not more general, as they are of the "High Priesthood" or "The Priesthood of God". I would describe them as more "specific" in that they exercise a higher capacity.Give me a little more time to properly respond your other queries. I seldom have enough time to make a proper post.I do appreciate your queries in that some of them I have never heard before. I always enjoy a new challenge, and these seem to satisfying that joy.

quote:

---

The title of "High Priest" can only be held by one with the "High Priesthood", which is the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

---

So the high priest who condemned Jesus to death was priest after the order of Melchizedek?Is that the customary attitude to followers of Jesus of priests after the order of Melchizedek?

Those who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood can become corrupted just as any other man.

quote:

---

Those who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood can become corrupted just as any other man.

---

Only if God can be corrupted. The priest in the order of Melchizedek was defined as incorruptible. That's the whole point of it. There is only one priest in the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek himself was mere pre-figurement of the Messiah, as Judah was, as the red heifer was, as the scapegoat was.Mormonism simply doesn't have the first clue about theology, it's absurd beyond imagination.Or doesn't want anyone to have it.

quote:

---

The title of "High Priest" can only be held by one with the "High Priesthood", which is the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

---

Are you saying that the meaning of "high priest" in the Book of Mormon is completely different from that in the Bible? Are there any definitions of "high priest" in the Book of Mormon? If so, perhaps "qualifications for High Priest" would constitute another contradiction with the Bible.In the Bible, the phrase "high priest" or "chief priest" (or sometimes "anointed priest") simply denotes the head of the priesthood. The priesthood of Israel had a high priest, who was also of the priesthood of Israel so must meet all of its qualifications. The first high priest of Israel was Aaron (see Ex 28-29). The phrase "high priest" occurs more than 70 times in the Bible and is apparently always speaking of a high priest of Israel, except in the book of Hebrews.There are only two priests after the order of Melchizadek ever mentioned in the Bible. The first is Melchizadek himself, and the second is Jesus. Jesus is referred to as a "high priest" and a "great high priest" by the writer to the Hebrews, who also makes clear that Jesus was not a Levitical priest, but a priest after the order of Melchizadek.

Hi, Ochaye. John 10:16 says:

quote:

---

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

---

There are others, Jesus says.Why wouldn't these others also write scriptures?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Ochaye. Where does this definition appear?

Hebrews 5.

Other sheep.

Hi, Kbertsche. The church of God in the BoM had fallen apart by the time of Christ's ministry:

quote:

---

And thus there became a great inequality in all the land, insomuch that the church began to be broken up; yea, insomuch that in the *thirtieth year the church was broken up in all the land save it were among a few of the Lamanites who were converted unto the true faith; and they would not depart from it, for they were firm, and steadfast, and immovable, willing with all diligence to keep the commandments of the Lord.

​

-3 Nephi 6:14

---

When they say the "thirtieth year," they mean, "the thirtieth year since the sign of Christ's birth."Some Lamanites continued to follow the teachings of the Church, and some had the priesthood authority, but the Church itself was decentralized and disorganized. My personal understanding is that the Church is essentially gone by this time.So, by the time of Jesus's ministry, it is correct that there is no Church.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Ochaye.No where in Hebrews 5 is it said that all priests of the order of Melchizedek are inccoruptible.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Ochaye. I can't help but think that you consider this to be a point somehow, but I'm not sure what, exactly, you think the point is.You can't expect me to take a two-word post seriously.Edited by Bluejay, : I didn't preserve his formatting.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.