Why does the Book of Mormon use King James Bible wording?

The short answer

The Book of Mormon’s English text sometimes reproduces King James Bible wording closely. That is direct evidence of a relationship between the English texts. It is not, by itself, proof that Joseph Smith invented the underlying record.

For example, Isaiah 9:1 and 2 Nephi 19:1 share extensive wording. They also differ: 2 Nephi reads “by the way of the Red Sea,” while Isaiah’s KJV reads “by the way of the sea.” The CES Letter argues that matching KJV italics are evidence of modern dependence. KJV italics mark English words supplied by translators for readability; their presence raises a real translation question, but does not independently settle how the English Book of Mormon was produced.

Keep the inference steps separate

Directly observed: the English passages overlap substantially and have some differences.
Reasonable inference: the English Book of Mormon text is related to the KJV wording.
Further historical inference: Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon in the nineteenth century. That conclusion requires additional premises about what a translation or revelation could produce.

KJV italics generally mark supplied English words, though the convention is not perfectly consistent. The Church’s translation essay says the Book of Mormon translation process is not fully known and describes the English text as produced through divine help. That is the Church’s explanation, not independent proof that resolves the textual question.

Sources

The issue

The Book of Mormon contains biblical passages in English that closely match the King James Version. Critics argue that some passages reproduce KJV wording—including words set in italics by KJV translators—and therefore reflect a nineteenth-century source rather than an ancient record. The CES Letter makes this case using Isaiah 9:1 / 2 Nephi 19:1 and Malachi 3:10 / 3 Nephi 24:10.

The textual overlap is real. The careful question is what kind of conclusion it supports. A match between English texts directly shows a relationship at the level of English wording. It does not automatically reveal whether the relationship arose because Joseph Smith copied or adapted the KJV, because biblical English shaped the revealed translation, or through another translation process. Those are explanatory models, and the overlap alone does not select among them.

The CES Letter also compares 3 Nephi with Joseph Smith’s later revision of Matthew. The full manuscript preserves more of the familiar sermon than the excerpt shows. Compare the three versions of the sermon

A concrete comparison: Isaiah 9:1 and 2 Nephi 19:1

The KJV of Isaiah 9:1 begins, “Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation…” The Book of Mormon’s 2 Nephi 19:1 gives nearly the same English sequence: “Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation…” Much of the verse continues in the same order and wording.

There are also differences. Isaiah’s KJV says “when at the first” and “afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea”; 2 Nephi reads “when at first” and “afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea.” The CES Letter highlights the KJV italicization of supplied words and treats the shared wording as evidence against ancient origin. The comparison establishes substantial English overlap; it also shows this is not a perfectly identical quotation.

The LDS scripture edition itself links 2 Nephi 19 to Isaiah 9 (“Compare Isaiah 9”) and places the chapter in Nephi’s account around 559–545 B.C. Its footnotes also point out textual differences elsewhere in the chapter, including that “not” in Isaiah 9:3 “should be removed” (compare 2 Nephi 19:3). These notes confirm that the LDS text presents the Isaiah material as a textual comparison, not as an assertion that every English word must match the KJV.

What KJV italics mean

In the King James Bible, italics generally flag English words not directly represented by a word in the translators’ source text, often supplied to complete the English sense. The convention was not perfectly consistent, and italics can also reflect textual variants. They are evidence about the KJV translators’ choices; they do not mean the implied idea is absent from the Hebrew or Greek context, nor do they dictate how another translator must render it.

So when the Book of Mormon’s English has a word that the KJV marks as supplied, that is a meaningful point of comparison. The question is whether it reflects use of the KJV as an English source, a translation that independently lands on the same English wording, or a revelatory translation expressed in familiar biblical English. The italic mark alone cannot tell us which explanation is correct.

The CES Letter also cites Malachi 3:10 and 3 Nephi 24:10, noting that the passages share the KJV phrase “that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” This is another case where shared English wording is straightforward to observe. The stronger conclusion—that this proves nineteenth-century composition—requires an argument about what the translation process could or could not produce.

Compare what tight and loose translation would explain.

Three evidence levels

Textual observation — high confidence: Specific Book of Mormon passages closely reproduce KJV wording. The examples above are directly checkable in the scripture texts.
English textual relationship — strong inference: The close correspondence supports a relationship between the English Book of Mormon text and the KJV. At minimum, the English rendering is KJV-like; a KJV source or influence is a plausible explanation.
Authorship/origin conclusion — debated inference: Moving from KJV influence to “Joseph Smith composed the book in the nineteenth century” requires an additional premise: that an ancient text translated by revelation could not be rendered in familiar KJV language. The correspondence does not itself prove that premise. Conversely, invoking revelation does not itself explain each match or independently demonstrate ancient origin.

What the Church says about translation

The Church’s Gospel Topics essay says Joseph Smith translated by the “gift and power of God,” that the English text came through revelation, and that the historical details do not provide a complete understanding of how the translation occurred or how Joseph’s methods may have changed. It invokes the Book of Mormon’s statement that God speaks “according to their language, unto their understanding.” This is the Church’s theological account of the process. It makes room for familiar English phrasing, but the essay does not give a verse-by-verse explanation of every KJV parallel.

It is important to avoid overstating the position either way. Saying “the Book of Mormon uses KJV language” is well supported. Saying “therefore Joseph fabricated it” is a further inference. Saying “God translated it, so the overlap is fully explained” is also stronger than the specific evidence in the essay. A careful discussion distinguishes what the texts show from what one believes about translation and authorship.

A concise response

“Yes, the Book of Mormon’s English text closely follows the KJV in passages such as 2 Nephi 19 and Isaiah 9, and some KJV-supplied wording appears in the overlap. That is evidence of an English textual relationship and a real question for any account of translation. It does not, by itself, prove whether Joseph Smith copied, adapted, or produced KJV-like language through the revelatory process the Church describes. The Church acknowledges that the translation process is not fully understood; the KJV parallels remain evidence to weigh, not a standalone verdict on authorship.”

Mormon 9 raises a more specific question. Its parallel appears in a disputed ending of Mark. Compare the wording and manuscript evidence.