Lutheran Minister: Young man, you have done a splendid job in defending your faith by twisting our doctrines. Now, we are going to put you on the defense and are not going to move until you answer this Book of Mormon contradiction. Alma 7:10 it reads that “He (Christ) shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers” while the Bible informs us in Luke 2:4-11 that Christ was born at Bethlehem in the City of David. Now, just look on any Bible map and you will happen to see Bethlehem happens to be five miles South of Jerusalem. How can Bethlehem be Jerusalem?
Missionaries: I will show you just how ridiculous your logic is. Would you please turn to 2 Kings 14:20, so we can follow out your contradiction and prove the Bible false. By claiming false, you have just proven without a doubt the Bible is false. It reads, “And they brought him on horses; and He was buried at Jerusalem with His Fathers in the City of David.” Now, if the City of David, according to the New Testament, is Bethlehem, how could He be buried at both Jerusalem and Bethlehem? I will answer your question and show you how ridiculous your contradiction really is. If you had read, you would have learned that Alma’s descendants were from Jerusalem, and Alma knew that Jerusalem was in the Old World. The Lord had to tell Alma where the Son of God was to be born. Of course, Alma had never been to Bethlehem, so the Lord had a small difficulty in attempting to tell Alma where the Son of God was to be born so He told Alma that Christ would be born “at Jerusalem” so Alma could link that up with the land of his forefathers. Now if you would look up the word “at” in the dictionary. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word “at” as a word which expresses “exact or approximate position.” Therefore, by the wisdom of the Lord, He chose the approximate position where Christ should be born. So in answering your question, is the Bible false?
Judge: It is not! You have made your point well.
Lutheran Minister: I assure you that there are more than one or two contradictions in their book. How any man can accept that book as divinely inspired is beyond me. Upon the crucifixion of Christ, we read in Luke 23:44 that “It was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness all over the earth until the ninth hour.” Then we turn to in 3 Nephi 8:20-23, where it reads that darkness covered that land for three days. Now, was it three hours as the Bible stated, or three days as pointed out?
Missionaries: Reverend, you mean to tell me you think that is a contradiction? I see you like the tear down the face of the Bible beyond what it has been already. Mark informs us that He was placed upon the cross at the third hour, (Mark 15:25), although John records it was the sixth hour. That would qualify under your definition and make the Bible false. We also have identical experience in the Bible where darkness prevailed for unusual periods of time in one area and was light at the same time in other areas. We read in Exodus 10:21 “And the Lord said unto Moses, stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over Egypt, even darkness which may be felt. And Moses stretched forth his hand towards heaven; and there was a thick darkness in the land of Egypt three days.” You will notice that the incident was nothing but a repeat performance of the experience suffered “in the land of Egypt.” In “The Book of Mormon” 3 Nephi points out (8:19) the corresponding three hours to Luke 23:44 were among the most perilous of the three-day ordeal. However, the wisdom of the Lord prevailed as it did in Egypt, and this continent remained for three days in darkness. There is another reason why the American Continent had three days of darkness, but we will point this out later as our discussion progresses. As you can see, however, your Bible would have answered the question for you. The Book of Mormon clears up any confusion, which is why we need this additional volume of scripture to testify of Christ.
