The Book of Mormon claims to be an ancient record. But as you read it, you might notice something strange about it—it reads like the King James Bible, right down to its phrasing, grammar, and even entire copied passages. And it’s not just that it sounds old-fashioned; it mirrors the exact wording of the 1769 edition of the KJV, including some of that version’s unique features (and errors).

That raises a big question: If the Book of Mormon was written centuries before the KJV existed, why does it match a 17th-century English translation so closely?

Today, we’ll break down how the Book of Mormon borrows from the King James Bible, what gives it away, and how its grammar reveals it as a product of its time rather than an ancient scripture. Let’s dig into the evidence!

The King James Bible and Its Influence on the Book of Mormon

To really understand how the Book of Mormon borrows from the King James Bible, we need to talk about what Joseph Smith would have had access to in the early 1800s. The Bible he would have known best wasn’t just any old version—it was the 1769 edition of the King James Bible, the standard version used in America at the time and one of the most popular English translations of all time.

The KJV itself was first published in 1611, but the 1769 update (edited by Benjamin Blayney) made several refinements, including spelling updates and, most importantly, the addition of certain italicized words. These italicized words weren’t in the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts but were a tool that the KJV translators added to help smooth out the translation into English—words that didn’t exist in the biblical text but were inserted for clarity.

Here’s the problem: the Book of Mormon doesn’t just sound like the King James Bible—it blatantly copies it, including these italicized words, which should have no reason to appear in a text supposedly written centuries before the KJV even existed. If the Book of Mormon were an ancient text translated by divine means, there’s no reason it should include these additions. Yet, it does.

Beyond just the italicized words, the Book of Mormon also contains entire passages copied straight from the KJV, sometimes with only minor changes. Here is an example:

Malachi 3:10 → 3 Nephi 24:10

1769 KJV (Malachi 3:10):

“…and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.“

Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 24:10):

“…and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it.“

In this case, the KJV translators added seven words in the highlighted section to make the sentence sound natural in English. These words are not found in Malachi’s original Hebrew manuscripts.

So why does the Book of Mormon—which was supposedly completed by Moroni over 1,400 years earlier—contain the exact same seven words introduced by 17th-century English translators?

If the Book of Mormon were truly an independent, divinely translated ancient record, these words should not match the KJV word-for-word, especially when they weren’t in the Hebrew original. The fact that they appear identically in both texts strongly suggests that Joseph Smith wasn’t translating anything—he was copying straight from the Bible he had in front of him.

Why This Matters

These are just one of many examples where the Book of Mormon copies the KJV word-for-word, including italicized words that weren’t in the original biblical texts.

This raises a serious question: If the Book of Mormon were truly an ancient document translated by divine power, why does it exactly match the wording of a 17th-century English translation—including words that didn’t exist in the original Hebrew?

The simplest explanation? Joseph Smith was not translating an ancient record. He was copying from the Bible in front of him.

Geographical Blunders

Beyond directly copying the text, it also becomes clear that Joseph Smith was unfamiliar with the Biblical text in many ways.

First, Smith was obviously clueless about the geography of the land of Israel.

Isaiah 9:1 → 2 Nephi 19:1

1769 KJV (Isaiah 9:1):

“Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was 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 her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.“

Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 19:1):

“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 afterward did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.”

Not only does this passage also copy italicized words from the KJV, but it also introduces a major geographical blunder. The Book of Mormon changes “the sea” to “the Red Sea”—a glaring mistake, considering the Red Sea is nowhere near Galilee.

This isn’t just a typo. Joseph Smith couldn’t help his own pride and instead of just copying the text like he had previously done, he decided to try and interpret the text himself and failed miserably. He misunderstood the context, revealed his unfamiliarity with geography, and accidentally inserted a reference to the Red Sea where it made no sense.

19th-Century Grammar vs. Ancient Hebrew Structure

As if that weren’t enough, the language of the Book of Mormon has even more (hilarious) problems.

Suppose the Book of Mormon was genuinely translated from an ancient text written in Hebrew or some variant of Egyptian. In that case, we’d expect its grammar and sentence structure to reflect that.

Instead, we find grammar that matches early 19th-century English—specifically, the awkward, overly formal language that imitates the King James Bible rather than an ancient language.

One of the biggest giveaways is Joseph Smith’s frequent use of “did” before verbs. This grammatical structure was never standard in ancient Hebrew or Egyptian but was common in Early Modern English and even persisted in some regional dialects of Smith’s time. Here’s an example:

Overuse of “Did” Constructions

Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 4:19): “And after I had smitten off his head with his own sword, I did take the garments of Laban and did put them upon mine own body.”

Book of Mormon (Mosiah 2:3): “And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses; and also that they might give thanks to the Lord their God, who did bring them out of the land of Jerusalem, and who did deliver them out of the hands of their enemies.”

“The Holy Pronouns” – Thee, Thou, Ye, Thy

Joseph Smith also tried to imitate the KJV’s formal tone by using thee, thou, ye, and thy—but he didn’t always use them correctly.

In Early Modern English (the language of the KJV), these pronouns had specific grammatical roles:

• Thou/Thee/Thy = Singular (informal)
• Ye/You/Your = Plural (or formal singular)

The KJV uses these forms correctly. For example:

KJV (Exodus 4:15)

“And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.”

Thou/thy is used for Moses (singular), while ye/you is used for the Israelites (plural).

However, in the Book of Mormon, these pronouns are frequently misused or mixed with his contemporary English, showing that Joseph Smith tried to imitate the KJV but didn’t fully understand its grammar.

Here are some clear examples of these mistakes:

Book of Mormon (Alma 38:12)

“Use boldness, but not overbearance; and also see that ye bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love.”

Ye is a plural pronoun in the KJV, but here, it addresses a single person (Shiblon). The correct KJV-style phrasing would be “see that thou bridle thy passions.”

Book of Mormon (Mosiah 2:19)

“O how you ought to thank your heavenly King!”

The Book of Mormon frequently uses you instead of thee/thou in places where the KJV would have used the singular form. This inconsistency suggests that Smith was imitating archaic language but frequently fell back into his own 19th-century speech patterns.

These errors make it clear that Joseph Smith was not fluent in Early Modern English but still attempted to mimic the KJV’s style regardless–and in several cases, he failed magnificently.

Long, Redundant Sentence Structures

Another telltale sign of 19th-century writing is the overly long, repetitive sentence structures throughout the Book of Mormon. Ancient Hebrew, by contrast, tends to use shorter, more direct statements.

Take this for example:

Book of Mormon (Mosiah 2:20-21)

“I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another—I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.”

Notice how the Book of Mormon passage is overly wordy, repetitive, and full of unnecessary clauses. This is not the natural structure of Hebrew writing, but it does resemble the grandiose, sermon-like style common in early 19th-century religious revival preaching.

Why This Matters

Suppose the Book of Mormon was truly an ancient record written in Hebrew-based language structures. In that case, we’d expect its grammar to reflect that. Instead, it follows awkward, pseudo-KJV English, mixing outdated grammar with 19th-century phrasing.

This isn’t what an accurate translation would look like—it’s what you’d expect from someone trying to make their writing sound biblical without actually understanding biblical languages.

The Overwhelming Evidence of a 19th-Century Origin

By now, the pattern should be clear: the Book of Mormon doesn’t read like a translation from an ancient language—it reads like a 19th-century book trying really hard to sound like the King James Bible. From copying italicized words to misusing archaic grammar to overloading sentences with unnecessary repetition, every linguistic marker points to an origin in the early 1800s, not ancient Israel or Mesoamerica.

So, what do scholars have to say about all of this? The overwhelming majority of experts—outside of Mormon apologetics, of course—recognize the Book of Mormon as a product of its time.

1. KJV Dependence Is Unmistakable

As we’ve already seen, large portions of the Book of Mormon are copied verbatim from the King James Bible, even down to the italicized words that were added by 17th-century translators. But the problem goes deeper than just direct borrowing. The Book of Mormon also includes:

• Translation errors from the KJV wouldn’t exist in a divinely guided translation of an ancient text.
• Verses copied word-for-word, even in contexts where they don’t make sense in a supposedly independent ancient document.

No legitimate ancient translation process would result in a text that just so happens to mimic the exact phrasing and translation choices of a 17th-century English Bible. The simplest explanation is that Joseph Smith used the KJV as a template and filled in the rest himself.

2. 19th-Century Religious and Cultural Influences

The themes and concerns of the Book of Mormon align far more with 19th-century American religious thought than with anything from the ancient world. For example:

• Anti-Catholic rhetoric: The Book of Mormon warns about a “great and abominable church” (1 Nephi 13:5–6), which many early Mormons identified with the Catholic Church—an extremely common Protestant sentiment in Joseph Smith’s time.
• The obsession with Native American origins: The idea that Native Americans were descended from Israelites was widely circulated in the early 1800s, appearing in books like View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith (1823), which closely parallels the Book of Mormon’s narrative.
• Evangelical-style revival preaching: Many Book of Mormon sermons resemble the emotional, fire-and-brimstone preaching style of the Second Great Awakening rather than the structured, poetic parallelism typical of ancient Hebrew religious texts.

The Book of Mormon doesn’t reflect an ancient worldview—it reflects the debates, fears, and religious trends of Joseph Smith’s America.

3. Linguistic Anachronisms and Errors

If the Book of Mormon were truly translated from an ancient record, we’d expect to find linguistic features consistent with ancient Hebrew or Egyptian. Instead, we find:

• 19th-century English idioms that wouldn’t have existed in antiquity (e.g., “the skin of blackness” in 2 Nephi 5:21, reflecting 19th-century racial views).
• Errors based on English misunderstandings, like the Red Sea mistake in 2 Nephi 19:1, which makes no sense geographically.
• Grammatical structures completely foreign to Hebrew, like the excessive use of did before verbs (*”he did go” instead of simply “he went”).

Even LDS scholars who try to defend the Book of Mormon’s language have to acknowledge that much of its phrasing is firmly rooted in the 19th century.

Why This Matters

The Book of Mormon claims to be an ancient record, yet everything about its language and style screams 19th-century America. What is the most logical explanation? It was written by Joseph Smith, who borrowed heavily from the King James Bible and was influenced by the religious and cultural ideas of his time.

If the Book of Mormon were truly an ancient translation, we wouldn’t expect to see:

At every level, the evidence overwhelmingly points to the Book of Mormon being a 19th-century creation.

Conclusion

The presence of KJV elements in the Book of Mormon—especially italicized words that only exist due to 17th-century translation choices—proves direct borrowing rather than divine translation. The grammatical structures further expose the text as a 19th-century creation rather than an ancient Hebrew or Egyptian document.

When examined critically, the linguistic evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient scripture but a product of its time—crafted by Joseph Smith using the Bible and the religious ideas of early 19th-century America.

Ultimately, the Book of Mormon’s biggest weakness is its biggest giveaway: it tries too hard to sound ancient, but in doing so, it reveals exactly when and where it really came from.