I am completely floored by the part in bold. It seems a giant leap towards de-literalizing the Book of Mormon.
Skousen appears to be saying that God performed the creative and cultural translation. Is there some other way I should read the statement? This would suggest that it was not Joseph's bricolage at all, or in any way, but God doing all of that as a service for Joseph in advance, and showing the precise words as dictated on the stone/instrument. Whether or not that explanation is to be embraced, Skousen is clearly de-literalizing the book's historical claims, is he not?
All of this quoting from the King James Bible is problematic, but only if we assume that the Book of Mormon translation literally represents what was on the plates. Yet the evidence in The Nature of the Original Language (parts 3 and 4 of volume 3 of the critical text) argues that the Book of Mormon translation is tied to Early Modern English, and that even the themes of the Book of Mormon are connected to the Protestant Reformation, dating from the same time period. What this means is that the Book of Mormon is a creative and cultural translation of what was on the plates, not a literal one. Based on the linguistic evidence, the translation must have involved serious intervention from the English-language translator, who was not Joseph Smith. Nonetheless, the text was revealed to Joseph Smith by means of his translation instrument, and he read it off word for word to his scribe. To our modern-day, skeptical minds, this is indeed “a marvelous work and a wonder”.