Two points about Alma’s wording should be noted: first, Jerusalem is referred to as a land rather than a city, and second, Jesus’ birth would occur at Jerusalem. Joseph Smith, of course, knew well that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. If he himself had been writing the Book of Mormon, he would have so stated the fact, as any deviation from the well-known setting would certainly draw objection. However, Joseph Smith was merely translating a geographical note from an ancient writer, which in itself proves to be nicely packaged evidence that the Book of Mormon derives from a Semitic background.
For a major city-center such as Jerusalem to be called not a city but a land was standard practice anciently. El Amarna letter 287 (ancient diplomatic correspondence discovered in Egypt) mentions several times the “land of Jerusalem,” and letter 290 records the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the ‘Apiru people. But now even a town in the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.” 10
The Book of Mormon record itself is internally consistent in referring to the place from which Lehi and family had departed, where the Savior would appear as a mortal, and to which the people of Judah would eventually return as “the land of Jerusalem.” 11
Satellite towns and villages that surround larger demographic or political centers were regarded in ancient times as belonging to those larger centers. Not only Bethlehem but also Hebron (fifteen miles south of Bethlehem) were assumed to be in the “land of Jerusalem.” 12
A second point: Alma stated that Jesus would be born of Mary not in Jerusalem but at Jerusalem. A dictionary definition of the preposition at includes the words on, in, within, close by, or near.13
Regardless of our definition of the preposition at, Alma’s declaration is true. Even if the alternate definition in is accepted, Jesus’ birth is very properly placed in “Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers.”
Thus, instead of Alma’s prophetic preview of the setting of the Savior’s birth being grossly erroneous or contradictory, it is actually quite compatible with similar biblical and extrabiblical figures of speech and constitutes an evidence of the passage’s authentic ancient origin.
“A virgin”—regardless of the polemics of biblical scholars, the fact is that this young woman, Mary, would be a virgin, and still as a virgin (that is, not having intimately known any mortal man) she would have a son—the Son of the Eternal Father. She would conceive, not as Matthew’s Gospel reads, “of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 1:18), but as Alma’s text reads, “by the power of the Holy Ghost.” The Holy Ghost enables individuals to withstand the presence of God the Father. See also commentary at 1 Nephi 11:13–26.