As Far as Translated Correctly!

The statement made in Article 8 of the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated Correctly,” has been at the center of much criticism by the critics. I found the above interesting video in which the presenter attempts to counter the implied suggestion that the Bible may not be “translated (transmitted) correctly,” without paying much attention to what the Church’s claim actually is, and what the Bible itself actually says. (The video on the original channel can be seen here.) Firstly, the Bible is part of the canonized scriptures of the Church, meaning that it is trusted as such. It is not considered “unreliable” or “untrustworthy,” as he claims (see D&C 42:12).

Sometimes the critics ask the leading question, “If you think the Bible is not translated (transmitted) correctly, show us where it isn’t!” The underlying assumption is that we believe that the Bible is somehow unreliable and untrustworthy, which is not the case. As canonized scripture, we assume the Bible is translated (transmitted) correctly—unless we have reason by revelation to know otherwise. The Prophet Joseph Smith was once commissioned by the Lord to make an “inspired” translation of the Bible (by revelation), known as the Inspired Version, or the Joseph Smith Translation. In the current edition of the KJV Bible published by the Church, the significant bits of that translation are printed as alternatives in the footnotes, prefixed with JST. (Longer passages are placed in the appendix.) Those interested in making a comparison can get hold of a copy of this edition of the Bible published by the Church (very cheaply), and compare the KJV text with the JST alternatives in the footnotes (and in the appendix). That is the answer to the question, “If you think the Bible is not translated (transmitted) correctly, show us where it isn’t!” The most extensive changes were in fact made in the New Testament. To get a good idea, just studying the New Testament portion is sufficient. The best way to make a comparison is to highlight all the JST references in the footnotes with a highlighting pen, and then read the KJV text, and compare it with the highlighted alternatives in the footnotes.

In the above video, the presenter wastes a lot of time referencing survived manuscripts, as if that is somehow in dispute; while ignoring how those manuscripts have survived and come down to us; and the numerous references made in the Bible itself to missing scripture in the Bible. One of the objections made to Church’s claims has been the “sufficiency of the Bible” theory. The idea is that the canon of scripture is closed, and the Bible contains all the revelation and scripture that need be given. The Bible itself, however, makes many references to missing scripture in the Bible, both in the Old Testament as well as the New. Here are some references from the Old Testament:

1 Kings 11:

41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?

2 Chronicles 9:

29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

2 Chronicles 12:

15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

There are 6 sacred books of scripture mentioned in these verses (book of the acts of Solomon, book of Nathan the prophet, prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, visions of Iddo the seer, book of Shemaiah the prophet, book of Iddo the seer) that are no longer found in our Old Testament. In the past when I have discussed this subject with the critics, their response has typically been, What evidence do we have that these books formed part of the original scriptural canon? The answer is, Because there is a recognizable pattern of expression used within the Bible to reference books which the original writers considered sacred and canonical, and to which they deferred. The following verses refer to sacred books that currently exist in the biblical canon. Note the common expression used in all of them:

1 Kings 14:

29 Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

1 Kings 15:

7 Now the rest of the acts of Abijam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? And there was war between Abijam and Jeroboam.

1 Kings 15:

23 The rest of all the acts of Asa, and all his might, and all that he did, and the cities which he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Nevertheless in the time of his old age he was diseased in his feet.

1 Kings 15:

31 Now the rest of the acts of Nadab, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel

1 Kings 16:

5 Now the rest of the acts of Baasha, and what he did, and his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

1 Kings 16:

14 Now the rest of the acts of Elah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

1 Kings 16:

20 Now the rest of the acts of Zimri, and his treason that he wrought, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

1 Kings 16:

27 Now the rest of the acts of Omri which he did, and his might that he shewed, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

1 Kings 22:

39 Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he made, and all the cities that he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

1 Kings 22:

45 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he shewed, and how he warred, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 1:

18 Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Kings 8:

23 And the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 10:

34 Now the rest of the acts of Jehu, and all that he did, and all his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Kings 12:

19 And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 13:

8 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoahaz, and all that he did, and his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Kings 13:

12 And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, and his might wherewith he fought against Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Kings 14:

15 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Kings 14:

18 And the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 14:

28 Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Kings 15:

6 And the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 15:

21 And the rest of the acts of Menahem, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Kings 15:

36 Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 16:

19 Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 20:

20 And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 21:

17 Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 21:

25 Now the rest of the acts of Amon which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 23:

28 Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Kings 24:

5 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

2 Chronicles 25:

26 Now the rest of the acts of Amaziah, first and last, behold, are they not written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel?

These verses all refer to books that currently exist in the Bible. In these verses the authors of the sacred writings are effectively referring the reader to those other writings for a more complete account of the events described, using a standard kind of idiomatic phraseology to do so. Now contrast that with the following verses where exactly the same phraseology is used, referencing books that no longer exist in the Bible:

1 Kings 11:

41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?

2 Chronicles 9:

29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

2 Chronicles 12:

15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

We conclude that these are all sacred books which were considered by the writers of the original sacred texts to be inspired and scriptural, or of the same standing with the rest, but which no longer exist in our current Bible. The evidence for missing scripture from within the biblical text is overwhelming. For a further example consider the following:

2 Chronicles 32:

32 Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his goodness, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, and in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.

This obviously refers to the writings of the great prophet Isaiah, whom we are familiar with. How great a loss would it be if this great book had not survived, and was missing from the Bible? Now contrast that with the following:

2 Chronicles 9:

29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

2 Chronicles 12:

15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

These verses clearly refer to whole books or writings of equally great prophets and seers and visionary men of Israel in ancient times whose books have not survived, and which the sacred writer considered of equal standing with the rest. Who can doubt that these writings must have been just as inspired, scriptural, canonical, and revelatory in nature as the other prophetic books we already have in the Bible, and therefore would have been equally valuable to us today?

The Book of Mormon also confirms this loss. 1 Nephi 13:23 informs us that the book of Old Testament scripture which Lehi and his family took with them to the promised land, known in the Book of Mormon as the “brass plates of Laban,” had a much larger content than the volume that we have today; and 1 Nephi 19:10; Alma 33:15; 34:7; Helaman 8:20; 3 Nephi 10:16; also mention three other Old Testament prophets by name, Zenos, Zenock, and Neum (and quote from them), that are no longer found in our current Bible. 2 Nephi chapter 3 also quotes from the prophecies of Joseph (son of Jacob, who was sold into Egypt) recorded in the brass plates that are no longer found in our Bible.

Moving on into the New Testament, there is equally compelling internal evidence that the scriptural canon of the New Testament that we have today is not as complete as it had been originally. All the four Gospels are in fact abridgements of larger records, the originals of which have not survived. The first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were compiled from a common set of records, which is why they are called the “Synoptic Gospels”. It is possible to create a “synopsis” (a side-by-side comparison) of the three books, which shows passages that are practically identical with each other, and which could only have come from a common source; while at the same time there are sufficient differences between them to prove that they could not have just been copied from each other; because each contains material not found in any of the others. This can only be explained on the basis that they were copied from other larger sources the originals of which have not survived. A Google search for the “Synoptic Gospels” will provide much useful and interesting information.

The Gospel of Luke is particularly interesting in this regard, because at the beginning of his Gospel he actually tells us that there were other larger sources from which he has compiled his record. The Book of Acts is a continuation of the Gospel Luke; and both contain information relevant to this subject, so I will quote them both together:

Luke 1:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, [i.e. writing is implied] which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word [Apostles being implied];

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order [i.e. make a compilation or abridgement], most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Acts 1:

1 The former treatise [i.e. Gospel of Luke] have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

In these verses Luke is making it clear that he is using other sources available to him at that time to write a “treatise” about the life of Christ. He is acting as an editor to compile a short treatise from a larger source. That larger source has not survived.

The Gospel of John originates from a different source than the Synoptic Gospels; but internal evidence indicates that that too is an abridgement from a larger source. That is suggested by the following verses:

John 20:

31 But these are written [i.e. the Gospel of John as we have it—being an abridgement of a larger work], that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 21:

24 This [John] is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

From these verses we learn two things: Firstly, we learn that the Apostle John was not the author of the Gospel of John as we now have it. Secondly, we learn that it is an abridgement of the original record of John made by someone else. That original record has not survived.

The general conclusion that we arrive at from this analysis is that none of the four Gospels we have today are in fact the original records that were prepared by the original “eyewitnesses” of the events (i.e. the Apostles). They are abridgements of them made by others at a later period. Print was not available in those days. Manuscripts had to be copied by hand, which was a tedious and laborious thing to do. Therefore people tended to make abridgements, rather than copy entire manuscripts. Those original documents have not survived. Therefore what we have today is not the perfect or complete record. They contain omissions, deletions, and abridgements. It does not make what we have “unreliable” or “untrustworthy;” but it does make it incomplete. The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) supplies many of the missing bits; but not all of them. That too is not complete. The complete record will be revealed by the Lord at some future date, when the time for it is right (D&C 93:6, 18). 

The “manuscripts” that the above video keeps harping on about only provide us with what has survived. They don’t provide us with what hasn’t survived. It is absurd logic to conclude from what has survived that it is the only thing that ever existed—when those same manuscripts testify of the prior existence of even greater and more complete sources which haven’t survived. Christianity during the first 300 years was under constant (though intermittent) persecution in the Roman Empire. That persecution included, among other things, the destruction of churches, and burning of manuscripts. I agree that we are lucky to have what has survived. But it is absurd reasoning to conclude that it is the only thing that ever existed—especially when those same sources tell us of greater manuscripts which haven’t survived.

At around 13 minutes into the video he says, “… these Jews went home with the gospel, and so the gospel is proliferating from Spain to the west, to India, to the east and southeast, to Arabia, into Africa, to Ethiopia; … and so the gospel is being disseminated throughout the known world at the time at which Paul wrote his epistles.” That is great! How many manuscripts have survived from Arabia, Ethiopia, or India?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is based on revelation, as the primitive Church had been. People can choose not to believe; but it doesn’t invalidate the claim. Unbelievers have existed in every age, whenever the gospel was revealed; but that has never invalidated the prophetic claim. It is the sign of a false and apostate religion to claim that the canon of scripture is closed, and that God no longer speaks, nor gives additional revelation or scripture to be added to the canon. Whenever there has been a true church and religion of God on earth, this power has always been given, to receive revelation, and add scripture to the canon.
_____________________

P. S.

After I had posted the above, an article was brought to my attention on CARM website, written by Luke Wayne, in criticism of the Joseph Smith Translation, as though it somehow poses a challenge to what I have written, which of course it doesn’t. The article can be seen here. In that article he argues that the JST can’t be genuine because it doesn’t match any known manuscripts, which is a meaningless criticism, because Joseph Smith does’t claim to be translating from any known manuscripts. The underlying assumption of the JST is that it is a revelation from God, and is based on more complete manuscripts the originals of which have not survived. In this post I have convincingly argued that there is a case to be made for missing scripture in the Bible, and for incomplete or abridged manuscripts on which the current New Testament is based. When Luke Wayne has successfully addressed those, he can then start raising criticisms against the JST.

The Miracle of the Book of Mormon!

One criticism that is sometimes made of the Book of Mormon is that it “plagiarizes” the Bible! The reference is to the lengthy quotes from Isaiah given in the books of 1 & 2 Nephi. A total of 17 chapters of Isaiah are quoted directly in the Book of Mormon. Chapters 2–14 of Isaiah are quoted consecutively in one block in 2 Nephi, comprising chapters 12–24 of that book; and chapters 48–49 and 50–51 of Isaiah are also quoted in one block in 1 Nephi chapters 20–21, and in 2 Nephi chapters 7–8, respectively (as well as other smaller quotes given elsewhere). To the casual observer these passages appear to be verbatim quotes from the KJV—hence the accusation of “plagiarism!” These quotes, however, are not what they appear to be. There are several factors involved in that accusation that need to be dealt with separately. Firstly, there is nothing strange or unusual about scripture quoting scripture, and there is plenty of it found in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments. In the OT, most of the books of Kings and Chronicles are repetitions; and in the NT, most of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are likewise repetitions. A Google search for duplicate verses in the Bible will provide many interesting examples. A search for the synoptic gospels would likewise produce interesting results. In the Book of Mormon about 7% of the text are quotations from the Bible, which is not all that great. The rest is original material. If quoting scripture within scripture is “plagiarism,” then the Bible is the bigger “plagiarizer” of the two. That is the first point.

The second point is that the biblical quotes found in the Book of Mormon are not what they appear to be. They are not verbatim quotes. They may appear to be, if looked at superficially, because they make use of the same vocabulary, style, and idiomatic language as the KJV; but that is deceptive. There are significant variations. To illustrate, I will quote selected verses from just chapter 2 of Isaiah as quoted in the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 12), and highlight the variations as compared to the KJV. All additions are printed in bold italics, and deletions in red and struck through:

5 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord; yea, come, for ye have all gone astray, every one to his wicked ways.

6 Therefore, O Lord, thou hast forsaken thy people, the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are hearken unto soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers.
. . .

9 And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore forgive them him not.

10 O ye wicked ones, enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for the fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty shall smite thee.

11 And it shall come to pass that the lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.

12 For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be soon cometh upon all nations, yea, upon every one; that is yea, upon the proud and lofty, and upon every one that who is lifted up; and he shall be brought low.

13 And Yea, and the day of the Lord shall come upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that for they are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,

14 And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills, that and upon all the nations which are lifted up, and upon every people;

15 And upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall;

16 And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.
. . .

19 And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for the fear of the Lord shall come upon them, and for the glory of his majesty shall smite them, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.

20 In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they he hath made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats;

21 To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for the fear of the Lord shall come upon them, and for the glory majesty of his majesty glory shall smite them, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.

These are very significant variations. In no way can they be described as verbatim quotes from the KJV. I am sure the critics will now say that Joseph Smith merely copied the text of the KJV, and made changes to it! The answer to that is, firstly, Joseph Smith would have had to be very clever to be able to make the kind of changes that he did, and to do it in such a short space of time. He would have had to be a literary genius, which he wasn’t. The verbal closeness to the text of the KJV of the unchanged portions, however, require further explanation. The question that arises here is, if Joseph Smith was clever enough to copy the text of the KJV, and then to make the kind of variations in it that he did; it would have been a lot easier for him to just rewrite the whole text, expressed in his own words, and thus avoid the charge of “copying from the KJV” altogether. Why did he choose to do it the harder way, rather than the easier way, which would have had the added advantage of escaping the accusation of “copying from the KJV?”

Another question that the critics don’t attempt to answer is, Why would Joseph Smith want to quote such lengthy and extensive passages from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon anyway (thus exposing himself to such an accusation), unless they were indeed part of the original Book of Mormon manuscript? The rest of the Book of Mormon is a perfectly coherent narrative, without the massive interruption of those lengthy Isaiah quotes. If the Book of Mormon was a fabricated story, that would have been a very illogical thing for a fabricator to want to do. And what is the real reason for the close verbal connection between the unchanged portions of the Isaiah quotes to the KJV? Luckily there is an answer to that question as well. The answer is, the same as the reason for the verbal closeness observed between the KJV and its precursors, such as the Bishops Bible or the Geneva Bible etc.—It is because they are all extremely literal translations; and they also make use of the same vocabulary and idiomatic language; which explains the verbal closeness that exists between them.

The KJV is an extremely literal (i.e. word for word), almost mechanical translation. It is so literal that it is possible to convert it back into Hebrew, and arrive at something that is nearly identical with the original manuscript. In some older Hebrew grammar books such exercises are given, and provided that the student knows the rules the exercise is not difficult to perform. That is how they believed scripture translation should be done in those days, in order to avoid any chance of a “private interpretation” by the translator entering into the text. And I believe that they were right. Now extremely literal translations usually turn out to be wooden, dull, and uninteresting. The genius of the KJV is that it is able to combine extreme literalness with a high degree of literary excellence. This, however, was not accomplished all at once; it evolved. It has a 200 year history behind it. It was a gradual, evolutionary process, going back as far as Coverdale, Tyndale, and beyond. With each iteration it keeps getting better and better, until in the KJV it reaches the pinnacle of its perfection so that very little change is needed to improve upon it. It developed alongside the development of the English language itself. It reached perfection at a time when the English language itself reached perfection as a vehicles for literary expression. That explains the close verbal connection that exists between the KJV and its earlier precursors. This also explains the close verbal connection of the biblical passages quoted in the Book of Mormon with the KJV; because the Book of Mormon is also translated in the same way. It is a literal (word for word) translation like the KJV—which is also a confirmation of its miraculous origin. The Book of Mormon is a miracle. It is a miracle not only because Joseph Smith who translated it could neither read Egyptian nor write English; but also because in it within 80 days he achieved the same degree of literary perfection that took the translators of the KJV 200 years to accomplish; and he left far fewer imperfections remaining in it. Those who criticize the language of the Book of Mormon don’t know what they are doing. The language, style, composition, and diction of the Book of Mormon is a supernatural work of art of unparalleled beauty, literary merit, and excellence. It is a literary masterpiece, like the KJV—only better! Joseph Smith in a million years could not have produced the Book of Mormon out of his own intellect, ingenuity, or imagination. There is no man on earth in fact who could have, no matter how great his skills or accomplishments. It is a miracle from start to finish.

The Book of Mormon should be the easiest book on earth to translate into perfect biblical Hebrew, provided the right man is chosen for the job, and he knows how to go about it. The “right man for the job” would be someone who is not only an accomplished Hebrew scholar; but also has a special interest in the KJV. For the remainder of this post I am going to demonstrate the above by quoting four verses of Isaiah already quoted, first as they appear in the Book of Mormon, then in the KJV, followed by the earlier translations so they can be compared, which illustrates what I have said above. Here they are:

Book of Mormon 1830:

5 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord; yea, come, for ye have all gone astray, every one to his wicked ways.

6 Therefore, O Lord, thou hast forsaken thy people, the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are hearken unto soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers.
. . .

9 And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore forgive them him not.

10 O ye wicked ones, enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for the fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty shall smite thee.

King James Bible 1769:

5 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.

6 Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers.
. . .

9 And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not.

10 Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty.

King James Bible 1611:

5 O house of Iacob, come yee, and let vs walke in the light of the Lord.

6 Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Iacob; because they be replenished from the East, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselues in the children of strangers.
. . .

9 And the meane man boweth downe, and the great man humbleth himselfe; therefore forgiue them not.

10 Enter into the rocke, and hide thee in the dust, for feare of the Lord, and for the glory of his Maiestie.

Bishops Bible 1568:

5 Come ye O house of Iacob, and let vs walke in the lyght of the Lorde

6 For thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Iacob, because they be replenished with euils from the east, and with sorcerers lyke the Philistines, and in straunge children they thynke them selues to haue enough
. . .

9 There kneeleth the man, there falleth the man downe before them: therfore forgeue them not

10 Get thee into the rocke, and hyde thee in the grounde for feare of the Lorde, and for the glorie of his maiestie

Geneva Bible 1560:

5 O house of Iaakob, come ye, and let vs walke in the Lawe of the Lord.

6 Surely thou hast forsaken thy people, the house of Iaakob, because they are full of the East maners, and are sorcerers as the Philistims, and abound with strange children.
. . .

9 And a man bowed himselfe, and a man humbled himselfe: therefore spare them not.

10 Enter into the rocke, and hide thee in the dust from before the feare of the Lord, and from the glory of his maiestie.

The Great Bible 1539:

5 Come ye (O house of Iacob) let vs walcke in the lyght of the Lorde.

6 But thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Iacob, because they go farre beyonde the east contreys in Sorceryes (whom they haue as the Philistines had) and in straunge chyldren they thinke them selues to haue ynough.
. . .

9 There kneleth the man, there falleth the man downe before them, but thou (o Lorde) wilt not leaue them vnpunished.

10 And therfore get the in to some rock, and hyde the in the grounde for feare of the Lord, and for the glory of his magestye:

Matthew’s Bible 1537:

5 It is to the that I crye (O house of Iacob) vp, let vs walck in the lyghte of the Lorde,

6 But thou art scatered abroade with thy people (O house of Iacob) for ye go farre beyonde youre fathers, whether it be in Sorcerers (whome ye haue as the Phylystynes had) or in calkers of mens byrthes, whereof ye haue to manye.
. . .

9 There kneleth the man there falleth the man doune before them, so that thou canste not brynge hym a waye from thence.

10 And therfore get the soone into some rock, & hyde the in the grounde from the sighte of the fearful iudge, & from the glorye of his mageste:

Coverdale Bible 1535:

5 It is to the that I crie (o house of Iacob) vp, let us walke in the light of the LORDE.

6 But thou art scatred abrode with thy people (o house of Iacob) for ye go farre beyonde yor fathers, whether it be in Sorcerers) whom ye haue as the phylistynes had) or in calkers of mens byrthes, wherof ye haue to many.
. . .

9 There kneleth the man, there falleth the man downe before them, so yt thou canst not bringe him awaye from thence.

10 And therfore get ye soone in to some rock, vnd hyde the in the grounde from the sight of the fearful iudge, and from ye glory of his Magestie.

Wycliffe Bible 1382:

5 Come ye, the hous of Jacob, and go we in the liyt of the Lord.

6 Forsothe thou hast cast awei thi puple, the hous of Jacob, for thei ben fillid as sum tyme bifore; and thei hadden false dyuynouris bi the chiteryng of briddis, as Filisteis, and thei cleuyden to alien children.
. . .

9 and a man bowide hymsilf, and a man of ful age was maad low. Therfor foryyue thou not to hem.

10 Entre thou, puple of Juda, in to a stoon, be thou hid in a diche in erthe, fro the face of the drede of the Lord, and fro the glorie of his mageste.

So who is now plagiarizing from whom? By the look of things, it is the KJV which is plagiarizing from its precursors, rather than the Book of Mormon from the KJV. The KJV is a lot closer to its precursors than the Book of Mormon is to the KJV. The truth of course is that none of them are plagiarizing. The reason for their verbal closeness is as mentioned above. It is because they are all very literal translations, which is equally true of the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon is the secret of success of restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is its greatest conversion tool. It is what converts people to the LDS Church more than anything else. It is the reason why the restored Church is progressing and expanding, while mainstream Christianity is shrinking and declining. It is an authentic book of ancient scripture, miraculously translated into superb English by the gift and power of God, to which the Holy Ghost bears witness. It is a powerful witness to the restoration of the gospel; and God’s special means of the gathering of his “elect,” and of conversion to his restored Church in the last days. It is the “marvellous work and a wonder” prophesied of in Isaiah 29:14. It causes the “wisdom of the wise to perish,” and the “understanding of the prudent to be hid”. It is the means of the gathering of God’s elect in the last days, for the elect will “hear his voice,” and “harden not their hearts” (Heb. 3:15; 4:7).

The Book of Mormon also being indeed the word of God, complements the Bible, and therefore facilitates the correction of many doctrinal and theological errors made by Christians in the past on which the Bible has lacked sufficient clarity. I have already demonstrated its ability to do that in several previous posts in my blog. People don’t even need to become Latter-day Saints to be able to benefit from, or make use of the Book of Mormon for that purpose. But they do need to recognize it for what it is, and be able to study it in faith, otherwise it won’t profit them.

And by the way, for the benefit of those who may be interested in making a more complete comparison of all the biblical quotes in the Book of Mormon with the KJV, and observing the differences, there are various software tools that enable you to do that. Most word processors, both commercial and free, also have the capability of comparing two different versions of a document, and showing the differences.
____________________

P. S. A word about the italicized words in the KJV, and how they are treated in the Book of Mormon version is also instructive. The KJV, as stated earlier, is an extremely literal (i.e. word for word) translation, because that is how they felt at that time was the best way of preserving the integrity of the original text. Now because of the grammatical differences between the two languages, an absolutely literal translation, without any variations, would not make sense in English. Some changes would need to be made (and occasionally some words added), to enable it to make sense in English. For example in Semitic languages, like Hebrew or Arabic, the link verb “to be” doesn’t exist. If you wanted to say, “I am happy,” you would say, “I happy”. If you wanted to say, “I was happy,” you would still say, “I happy”! If you wanted to say, “I shall be happy,” you would again say, “I happy”! The correct meaning and tense would be understood by the context, word inflection, and by other grammatical nuances of the text. Now if you wanted to translate such phrases into English, the words “am,” “is,” “are,” “was,” “were,” “shall be” etc. would have to be added for it to make sense in English. The translators of the KJV were so meticulous in preserving the integrity of the original text (by a literal translation), that they decided to print all added words and phrases in italics, so that the reader would have no difficulty ascertaining which words were added, and which words were a literal translation of the original text. The way the Book of Mormon treats those passages is instructive, and further indicates the miraculous origin of the book. Sometimes those italicized words were retained, sometimes omitted, and sometimes changed. To illustrate, I will quote one verse of Isaiah from the above passage (Isaiah 2), first as it appears in the KJV, highlighting the italicized word, followed by its alternative treatment in the Book of Mormon: KJV, Isaiah 2: 6 Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers. In that verse the word “are” is printed in the KJV in italics, meaning that it did not exist in the original Hebrew, but was added by the translators in order to make the English translation grammatically correct. That is how the translators felt was the most appropriate reading of the original text, as rendered into English. But notice how the Book of Mormon quote resolves the same problem: BOM, 2 Nephi 12: 6 Therefore, O Lord, thou hast forsaken thy people, the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are hearken unto soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers. The Book of Mormon text contains additional words which may suggest possible manuscript variations; but there is no question that “hearken unto” is a more meaningful substitute for “are” in the above text. The KJV rendering suggests that all the Israelites (and all the Philistines) had become “soothsayers,” which is not a reasonable assumption. “hearken unto” is a more meaningful alternative to “are” in the above text. The Book of Mormon version is a better translation than the KJV—and of course, Joseph Smith figured all of that out by himself in just 80 days!
_____________
Postscript added 17 June 2020.