This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
“When King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable… What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word?”
(CES Letter)
False
This is frequently not true. Sometimes the translator’s italic words appear in the Book of Mormon verses and sometimes they don’t. For example, look at the very first chapter that quotes Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. The translator’s italic words are not there:
| Isaiah 48:6 1 Nephi 20:6 Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them. Thou hast seen and heard all this; and will ye not declare them? And that I have showed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them. |
The bible verses are definitely not copied “word for word.” There are lots of differences, particularly when it comes to the italicized translators’ words.
Reasonable Translations
When you look at most bible verses without the italic words, there is only one obvious when to read it so that it makes sense. If I said “Hand me phone,” you would know that I meant “Hand me the phone.” Nobody would render it as, “Hand me tree phone.”
CES Letter is incorrect in assuming that the italics are the translator’s own words. They are not added words, but words that are used when there is no strictly correct way to say something in English. It might take two words in English to say one Hebrew word. Anyone who is bilingual knows that sometimes you need to add words to clarify meanings, and that any translator would use the same additional word, or at least a very similar word. For the KJV bible, “generally, though not always, their judgment was justified in their choice of italicized words.”
New Testament Quotes Italic Words From The Old Testament – The New Testament frequently quotes the Old Testament, and guess what? It usually includes the same italicized words that were added by KJV translators, just as the Book of Mormon does. Does this make the New Testament false? Does this mean the New Testament writers traveled forward in time and read what the modern KJV translators italicized? No, it is because the words that one needs to add to make it legible are obvious and straightforward.
Added Words That Aren’t Obvious
What about cases where it isn’t immediately obvious what words to add? CES Letter gives an example: “Nevertheless the dimness not such as in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.” (Isaiah 9:1)
In order to figure out what it is saying, you need to look at the context. Once you study out the surrounding verses and chapters, there is really only one sensible way to translate this. Since the chapter is written in the future tense, we get in the Book of Mormon: Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations.” (2 Nephi 19:1)
CES Letter Lies About Italic Words – CES Letter claims the Book of Mormon quotes the KJV Isaiah 9:1 “nearly verbatim,” but that is not true. There are all kinds of differences from what is italicized in the KJV. If Joseph Smith blindly copied it out of the bible:
- why did Joseph Smith add a comma after “nevertheless”? That wasn’t part of what the KJV translators added.
- Why did he remove “the” before the word “first”?
- Why did he remove the comma after “Jordan”?
- Why is there “Red” before “Sea?”
CES Letter lies about what is italicized in the bible. The word her is actually italicized in the KJV bible, and the Book of Mormon omits this word. So did CES Letter misquote the KJV bible because the premise of their argument is false? The Book of Mormon does not include the italicized word “her,” and the Book of Mormon therefore does not copy italicized portions “word for word.”
All of the italic words that the Book of Mormon does include are universally reasonable additions for any English translation.
Malachi 3:10
“Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, said the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” (Malachi 3:10)
The Book of Mormon quotes this verse in its entirety with all KJV italic words. But how can you get all those additional italic words from only “that not enough”? What do these last three words “that not enough” mean?
This one is a little bit trickier to understand the context. The literal Hebrew of “that not enough” is “till not enough.” Till not enough what? If you look at the entire verse (which CES Letter fails to do), you see that the context is a blessing being poured out in greater abundance than what could be stored.
The only sensible way to render it is: “there shall not be room enough to receive it.” Biblical scholars agree. That’s why most bible translations translate it the same way.
Joseph Smith Said Italic Words Were Translator Words
The LDS The Evening and Morning Star said in 1833: “The book of Mormon, as a revelation from God, possesses some advantage over the old scripture: it has not been tinctured by the wisdom of man, with here and there an Italic word to supply deficiencies.-It was translated by the gift and power of God.” (The Evening and Morning Star)
Joseph Smith and everyone else knew exactly what the italic words in the bible were for. It was common knowledge. Joseph Smith was even concerned that the “wisdom of man” might “tint” the correct translation through these words, or that italic words might give an incorrect meaning.
Later in life, Joseph Smith started going through the bible and making inspired corrections and commentary on the bible. But for the purpose of bible quotes in the Book of Mormon, why radically change text that everybody was already familiar with? Everybody used the KJV bible. Why not just stick with what’s there, for now?
The problem with comparing the bible and Book of Mormon is that it is so easy for us to act like scholars and judge what should be the same and what should be different. This is quoted too similarly! This is contradictory doctrine! Instead, why don’t we just see it for what it claims to be: one ancient book that quotes from another ancient book?
CES Letter Logical Fallacies
| Falsehood | The premise of this argument is false. The Book of Mormon does not quote the bible’s translator’s words “word for word.” In fact, CES Letter misquotes the KJV bible verse, turns an italic word into a normal word, to make the verse appear more similar to the Book of Mormon. How is CES Letter going to criticize how the Book of Mormon quotes the bible when they can’t even quote the bible correctly themselves? CES Letter falsely claims that the Book of Mormon dates the Isaiah verse to 550 B.C. That is when Nephi copied it, but actually the original text came from before then. |
| Non Sequiter | Regardless, whether Joseph Smith referenced his KJV bible or not when translating the content of these quotes into the Book of Mormon, why shouldn’t he add these words to make reading them easier? Why wouldn’t he reference the KJV bible sitting on his shelf to make translating easier? |
| Argument By Repetition | CES Letter repeats the date of the KJV bible in their first two arguments six times. They are basically repeating the premise that the Book of Mormon copies a modern text over and over, instead of providing convincing evidence. CES Letter repeats this same argument on p.81 |
| Guilt by Association | As with the previous question, CES Letter implies that a quote from the bible in the Book of Mormon is somehow improper and couldn’t be based on ancient text. This is an unfair characterization of these italic words. They were not errors in any way. |
| False Dilemna | This argument sets the frame that either Joseph referenced the bible or the italic words ought to be different. Well, it could be that these words which are so often similar across various translations were added independently? Maybe Joseph Smith referenced the bible and maybe he didn’t. |
Kafkatrapping – This argument attacks our belief that the Book of Mormon is ancient scripture by cherry-picking associations with modern bible translations. CES Letter says the association is too strong, and then in other arguments they complain that the differences are too many. The truth is, the Book of Mormon added and removed lots of words from verses that are quoted from the Old Testament, just as the New Testament does with the Old Testament. This kind of Anti-Mormon deception is obvious to anyone who has actually sat down and compared the bible and Book of Mormon side by side.
But just raising the question gives it some tiny amount of credibility. As is often the case with innuendo, this argument successfully uses the kafkatrapping tactic. They begin with the frame that the Book of Mormon’s relationship with the bible deserves to be called into question, and we buy into it. As the strongest physical evidence for the Mormon Church’s authenticity, this allows CES Letter to go on and use physical evidence as a wedge to attack the church. This leads the audience to obsess with truth that you can only see, and a superstitious outlook.
Changeable Truth – This argument just goes to show how little skeptics know about the history of the bible or about translating languages. Also, to make such a wild assumption and base their entire testimony of the gospel on it really shows how little skeptics believe in eternal truth. Think about it, what is the alternative to scripture that has remained essentially the same for many thousands of years? Scripture that is always changing. Truth that is never static for the Anti-Mormon crowd. In the anti-Mormon’s narrative, there is no possible way the story of Noah is true for us today, nor should it be. Truth is relative for Anti-Mormons, always updating to fit modernity
| See also: | CES Letter Contradiction Strategy |
Why don’t we add some italic words to make the Book of Mormon more “progressive”? Why not alter the gospel to be be more “accepting” or “dedicated to equality”? Isn’t that what the Anti-Mormon crowd is always urging us Mormons to do? Add italic words into our scripture, our political speeches, our classroom assignments, our sermons, popular culture, and entertainment media. Suddenly it becomes clear what this argument is really about. Skeptics are pretty much saying, “You already alter your scripture and history to suit your modern ideas, so why don’t you change it to suit this wonderful progressive ideology?” This is an effective temptation because we all have our own opinions about the way things should be.
It is an easy line for anyone to cross, to advocate for a worldly cause within the church rather than to accept that truth is eternal, and that God uses a priesthood leadership structure rather than the ‘voice of the people.’ It is an easy line to cross, and once you do, you usurp priesthood, usurp eternal truth, and overturn divine justice with social justice. This invariably leads to apostasy and misery. Truth does not need to constantly be updated to fit the current year, the same old ideas repeatedly repackaged in a flashy modern frame.
Innuendo Rather Than Logic – CES Letter gives a few lines of incorrect leading evidence, and the reader connects to dots in their mind to an inevitable conclusion. If the Book of Mormon includes all of the bible translator’s words that were added in 1604, obviously the Book of Mormon wasn’t written before then. CES Letter spell out this logic, but the reader’s mind connects the dots on its own. People are much more likely to believe this lie if they figured it out on their own, subconsciously. They are also more likely to believe the evidences for that lie.
As a companion to the bible, the Book of Mormon is an important testimony of Jesus Christ. It gives clarification that the rest of mainstream Christianity is missing out on, and to this end it is important that the Book of Mormon relate to the bible narrative. We what has been corrupted in Christianity over the years, plain and precious truths that have been taken out, and a fuller extent of the role of Jesus. As two witnesses for Christ married in purpose, we must understand how they fit and work together.Complete answers to CES Letter questions about Mormons: