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. We know exactly what these words are because they’re italicized in the KJV Bible. What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?” (CES Letter)
Not true. Sometimes the italic words appear in the Book of Mormon verses and sometimes they don’t. If you look at some of the very first verses that quote Isaiah, the Book of Mormon does not follow the italics:
| 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. Added Italics Are Obvious – When you look at the quoted verses without the italics, there is only one obvious when to read the verse 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 it is usually consistently the same words added. |  |
New Testament Does The Same Thing – 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 mean the New Testament writers traveled forward in time and read what the KJV translators italicized? No, it is because the words to add are obvious and straightforward.
Example: Isaiah 9:1
“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)
There is only one sensible way to read this. Since the chapter is written in the future tense, we get:
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)
If Joseph Smith blindly copied this out of the bible, why did he 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?” There are all kinds of differences from what is italicized!
Also, why didn’t CES Letter italicize the word her? It is italicized in the KJV bible. Did they intentionally misquote the KJV bible because the premise of their argument is obviously 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.” Very dishonest.
Example: 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 not enough.”
| This one is a little bit trickier. 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. 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 Knew Italic Words Were By Translators – The LDS newspaper 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.” Joseph Smith and everyone else knew exactly what the italic words in the bible were for, and were concerned that the “wisdom of man” might “tint” the correct translation through these words.
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 misquoted the bible verse, and made an italic word a normal word, because the Book of Mormon did not include this word. 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, why not add these words to make reading them easier? |
| Argument By Repetition | CES Letter repeats the date of the KJV bible in their first two arguments six time. They are basically repeating the premise that the Book of Mormon copies a modern text. CES Letter repeats the same argument on p.81 |
| Guilt by Association | As with the previous question, which incorrectly claimed the KJV “edition” of the bible has translation “errors,” CES Letter is implying that these added italic words were somehow improper and should not have been in the Book of Mormon if the Book of Mormon were based on an earlier text. This is an unfair characterization of these italic words. They were not errors in any way. |
| False Dilemna | Could it be that these words which are so often similar were added independently? Unlikely, but it could be. |
Kafkatrapping – This argument attacks the 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 deception is flagrant, and it 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 inuendo, 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 to an obsession with truth that you can only see, and a superstitious outlook.
Changeable Truth – The level of ignorance from CES Letter, that they think the italic words from the bible are just modern additions, just goes is staggering. It just goes to show how little they believe in truth that is unchanging. 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. In the anti-Mormon’s narrative, there is no way the story of Noah is true today the way it was back then, nor should it be. Truth is relative, always fitting modernity.
Today, why don’t we add some italic words to add more female characters to the Book of Mormon, to show that we are “inclusive?” Why don’t we add some italic words to justify gay marriage or abortion? The italic words in our scriptures, our political speeches, our classroom assignments, popular culture, entertainment media, 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 a deduction if they figured it out on their own, subconsciously. They are also more likely to believe the evidences for that deduction, which in this case are falsehoods.