Alma said that the Savior should be "born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers." (Alma 7:10.) Inasmuch as the Savior was evidently born at Bethlehem, not in Jerusalem, how should we interpret Alma's statement? At first glance the statement appears to be in error. However, archaeological evidences that have come forth since the Book of Mormon was published indicate that in 600 B.C. Bethlehem was probably a part of the "greater" land of Jerusalem. In this connection, it is of interest to note that the Book of Mormon refers to the land of Jerusalem, not the city; also, Bethlehem is only about six miles from the city of Jerusalem. (If you desire additional information on this subject, read An Approach to the Book of Mormon, pp. 81-82, by Hugh Nibley.)