score:5
TLDR: the italics carried the intent/message well enough
The translation of the Book of Mormon was not necessarily a word for word translation.
24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.
Continuing from an apologist site:
While the translation of the Book of Mormon may come directly from God, this does not preclude the role that Joseph would play in adapting the language of the Book of Mormon to a cultural and linguistic framework that would both establish that the text was authentic and inspired while also communicating the Book's message clearly. Thus Joseph's model of revelation is one in which God could use things such as King James language as the means to the end of establishing his everlasting covenant and calling his children to repentance....He worked in cooperation with Joseph (instead of merely subjecting his mind to the revelation) to get his message out to his children.
From another page:
The Book of Mormon claims to be a "translation." Therefore, the language used is that of Joseph Smith. Joseph could choose to render similar (or identical) material using King James Bible language if that adequately represented the text's intent.
Only if we presume that the Book of Mormon is a fraud at the outset is this proof of anything. If we assume that it is a translation, then the use of Bible language tells us merely that Joseph used biblical language.
If Joseph was a fraud, why would he plagiarize the one textβthe King James Bibleβwhich his readers would be sure to know, and sure to react negatively if they noticed it? The Book of Mormon contains much original materialβJoseph didn't "need" to use the KJV; he is obviously capable of producing original material.
And while some translations from KJV of the bible are word-for-word (italics included) there are other parts of the Book of Mormon that differ at portions. If Joseph Smith was just plagiarizing straight from the bible why would some parts differ? I could try to list all of these but this has been done in 1904 Improvement Era 3 pg 179-196 so I'll provide one like OP (there are a bunch-though I'm not 100% sure this is all of them):
Isaiah 3:10-11 Say unto the righteous it shall be well with him; for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him; for the reward of his hands shall be given him
2 Nephi 13:10-11 Say unto the righteous, that it is well with them; for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked! for they shall perish; for the reward of their hands shall be upon them.
Beatitudes have several differences as well (pg 185)
See also:
all emphasis mine
Upvote:0
I must respectfully admit to the OP that I'm a bit confused by this question. If some passages of the Book of Mormon are intended to be good translations into English of Hebrew scriptures recorded 1400 years prior to its publication, and the translators of the King James version also did a good job with their translation of the same passages, wouldn't it make sense that they end up in many cases with the same added clarifying words?
depperm's answer presents some other explanations for why the Book of Mormon and the KJV Bible are identical in places to round things out, and I recommend his answer as being more complete. But I wanted to put my additional question-to-a-question out there.