Copyrighted 2000 by Theodore H. Mann

Contents:

Introduction
Basic difficulties
The development of the Textus Receptus
Which Version of the KJV?
Printing errors which have never been corrected
Differences between the 1611 version and the modern KJV
Passages in the KJV having no Greek manuscript support
A few passages not appearing in any of the better Greek manuscripts
Manuscripts Containing the Comma Johanneum
Passages left out of the KJV, that appear in the original manuscripts
A notable paraphrase
Some other errors
Unclear statements and archaic terms
Terms whose meanings have changed
A few examples of awkward syntax
Conclusion
Bibliography

Introduction

The Authorized Version1 is a good translation.

Let me repeat that. Nearly all qualified and thoughtful biblical-language scholars freely and happily acknowledge that the King James Version of the Holy Bible is a good translation. I emphasize this point because so many supporters of the AV seem to think that its critics consider it to be a poor translation. This is not true.

The KJV is good, but there are better. And by “better” is meant that there are translations that come closer to accurately expressing, in contemporary English, what the original authors of the Bible wrote

No translation lasts forever, and this is as true for the KJV as it was for the Wycliff Version, the Bishops’ Bible, or the Geneva Bible. It will also be true for reputable contemporary translations if their editors cease to periodically revise them. Language eventually changes, and it becomes necessary to produce translations that reflect that change. Older and better ancient biblical manuscripts are discovered. Techniques for examining and assessing the relative reliability of the manuscripts improve, providing biblical-language scholars with improved means of making accurate text–critical decisions. (Remember, the original biblical documents no longer exist.)

The AV long ago became antiquated, but due to outcries against change by those who felt that new translations were somehow offensive to God, public acceptance of new and better versions was long delayed. That is to say, new translations were produced, but they usually failed to gain a foothold.

Basic difficulties:

Most of the problems associated with the AV are due to (1) the mediocre quality of the minimal materials the translators had at their disposal, and (2) changes in the English language.

Concerning materials: Regarding the New Testament, it is not known that the AV translators ever used any actual Greek manuscripts at all, relying instead on the Complutensian Polyglot (1514), various printed editions of the Greek New Testament (GNT) by Erasmus,2 Stephanus, Beza and others (collectively known as the Textus Receptus),3 the Latin Vulgate, several other Latin texts, English versions (especially the Bishops’ Bible and Tyndale) and versions in various other European languages. In any case, had the KJV translators actually used Greek manuscripts, only 20 or so would have been available at the time. The Textus Receptus , at the heart of today’s KJV-Only debate, was published in various forms and by different publishers between 1516 and the early 17th Century.4

Concerning language: Languages are constantly changing, and Elizabethan biblical English has for many years been unable to effectively convey to contemporary minds not only the subtleties of biblical meanings, but in many instances even idiomatic expressions and common terminology. I know individuals who have used the AV for 40 or 50 years or more who still cannot define innumerable archaic terms or explain the syntax of awkward passages. A glance at the same references in the NASB or NIV, however, makes the readings (not necessarily the interpretations) immediately clear. In some cases, Elizabethan terms now have completely different meanings than they had in the 17th Century, and a few even have opposite meanings (see below).

An excellent translation must achieve what is called “equivalence” in the target language. That is, it must achieve ways of accurately representing the original meaning in terms that can be readily understood by contemporary readers.

Those who adhere to the AV often express their love for its beautiful Elizabethan English. And beautiful it is. But this too can be deceptive, especially where the New Testament is concerned. The writers of the Bible did not use the Hebrew and Greek equivalents of the exalted language of Shakespeare. They used ordinary language. The New Testament is written in common Greek, and Elizabethan English supplies an elegance to contemporary readers that is absent in the original language. When 17th–century British subjects said “thee” or “thou,” it meant no more to them than the term “you” means to us. Of course, no translation is perfect, nor is a perfect translation possible to achieve.

The development of the Textus Receptus:

Whereas most contemporary translations of the NT are based on a Greek text eclectically compiled from manuscripts judged to be of the highest reliability, the Textus Receptus was originally derived from seven manuscripts, none of them dated before the 11th Century, and most of them dated much later than that.5 Since the Textus Receptus had such a profound impact on the translation of the KJV, a brief description of its history needs to be told:

While visiting Basel in August 1514, the Dutch Roman Catholic priest and Christian humanist, Desiderius Erasmus ( 1469?–1536 ), was approached through a mutual friend by the famous publisher Johann Froben. Realizing that the market for biblical publications was ready for an edition of the Greek New Testament, and wishing to beat a competing publisher who was working on a similar project, Froben asked Erasmus to prepare an edition of the New Testament in Greek, and to do so as soon as possible.

Erasmus undertook the task and collected whatever Greek manuscripts he could find on short notice.5 Unfortunately, the manuscripts he was able to lay his hands on required a considerable amount of editing, making it necessary for him to work quickly (and sloppily) in order to satisfy Froben’s desire for haste.
Erasmus was unable to locate a manuscript containing the entire Greek New Testament, so he had to use several different manuscripts, including two inferior texts from a monastic library in Basel. He compared them to a couple of other manuscripts in his possession, hand-wrote various corrections between the lines of the Greek script, and sent them to Froben. These manuscripts, with Erasmus’ hand-written entries, still exist.
The only copy of the Book of Revelation he had was one he borrowed from a friend named Johann Reuchlin. He then engaged a copyist to make a copy of the document so that he could return the original to his friend. This proved a difficult task, because the manuscript included a commentary on the Revelation, and the copyist had to extract some of the biblical text from the text of the commentary. Naturally a number of mistakes resulted which found their way into Erasmus’ Greek New Testament.

Furthermore, the final leaf of Reuchlin’s manuscript was missing (or mutilated), so Erasmus back–translated those verses (in addition to others in the Revelation and elsewhere in the New Testament) from the Latin Vulgate. In other words, he translated the missing passages, as well as several other NT verses, from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek so that he could finish the task in the allotted time. Consequently, several words and verses appeared in the final product which have never been found in any Greek manuscript to this very day. Indeed, one Greek term he used in Chapter 17 of the Revelation does not even exist in the Greek language (see below).

The number of Greek manuscripts used by Erasmus in the production of his Greek New Testament reached the grand total of seven.5 (Over 5000 are available to scholars today). These documents still exist, and are known to be of relatively poor quality and of late vintage. All of them, in fact, were minuscules from the 11th, 12th and 15th centuries. This, plus the back-translation from the Vulgate, and the speed at which he worked, produced a Greek New Testament that was replete with mistakes. Even Erasmus himself acknowledged the poor quality of his work, with the written comment that it had been “thrown together, rather than edited.”6

Printing started on October 2, 1515, and was (amazingly, for that time) finished by March 1, 1516. It was published under the title, Novum Instrumentum, and consisted of three main parts: the Greek text, a Latin translation, and Erasmus’ explanatory remarks which were mainly intended to explain and defend the Latin portion of the volume.

Besides the textual errors (which included, by the way, numerous unauthorized changes by the printer), the speed at which the volume was printed resulted in so many typographical mistakes, that one later reviewer, F. H. A. Scrivener, stated: “It is in that respect the most faulty book I know.”7 Still, Erasmus’ Greek New Testament became the first such work to be published and marketed, although it was not the first to be submitted to print,8 and became the authoritative Greek text for over 200 years.

Matters did improve slightly, however. Erasmus eventually published four more editions of his Greek New Testament, and made numerous corrections. Subsequent editors also made various alterations. However, the Erasmus text, even after improvements were made, still contained hundreds of mistakes. It was this text, after passing through the hands of several publishers,2 that came to be called the Textus Receptus, and it was this corrupt text, about 100 years following its inception, that became the most significant exemplar for the New Testament portion of the King James version of the Bible.

Which Version of the KJV?

Those who love the old KJV are usually quite surprised to learn that there were in fact three (count them!) editions of the King James Version published in 1611, and not one of them agrees entirely with the others.
Because of the unusually heavy publishing load placed on Robert Barker, the King’s printer, part of the printing of the AV was farmed out to another company. The result was two versions which, because of typographical errors and misreadings, disagreed with each other.

One came to be called the “he” version, because of a mistake in the printing of Ruth 3:15: “Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: And he [should have been “she”] went into the city.” In addition to this error, there were myriads of others.

The second edition printed Ruth 3:15 correctly, and was therefore called the “she” version. However, this edition contained its own set of errors, including Mt. 26:36, which was rendered: “Then cometh Judas [should have been “Jesus”] with them unto a place called Gethsemane… ”

Later in 1611, a third version was printed, about which little is known except that it was apparently a mixture of pages from the first two publications.

Printing errors which have never been corrected:

Almost all printing errors in the KJV—and there were thousands—have been corrected over the centuries. But here is one that has never been changed.

1. “..strain at a gnat..” (Mt.23:24). This should be “..strain out a gnat..” (Gk. diulivzonto”, filtering out).

Differences between the 1611 version and the modern KJV:

Nearly all AV’s in current use are the Benjamin Blayney revision of 1769, and none of them are the 1611.9 At the time he produced the revision, Blayney was, and remained a respected member of the Oxford faculty. I contacted several major publishing companies, and asked them to identify the text of the AV they publish. Without exception, Blayney’s revision was named. Virtually no one today uses a 1611 AV, nor would any reasonable person wish to do so; there are simply too many errors. The 1769 Blayney revision is far closer to the intentions of the KJV translators than any of the publications that emerged in 1611, but even that version contains many inaccuracies.

The following, obviously, is only a short list of differences that exist between the 1611 KJV and the one that is published today. There are scores of thousands of differences between the 1611 Authorized Version and today’s KJV (perhaps as many as 75,000). Usually the AV is correct, but not always. Sometimes the 1611 is accurate and the AV is mistaken. Very often, however, they are both wrong.

1. Mt. 26:36: The 1611 (“She” version) has “Then cometh Judas..” The modern KJV has “Then cometh Jesus..” (Gk. Ihsou'”: The modern KJV is correct.)

2. Mk. 10: 18: The 1611: “There is no man good..” Modern KJV: “There is
none good..” (Gk. oujdei”: The modern KJV is correct.)

3. Jn. 15:20: The 1611: “The servant is not greater than the Lord.”
Modern KJV: “The servant is not greater than his Lord.” The correct translation here is “A slave (dou’lo”) is not greater than his master (kuvrio”).”

4. Acts 27:18: The 1611 “And being exceedingly tossed with a tempest the next day, they lightened the ship.” Modern KJV: “And being exceedingly tossed with a tempest, the next day they lightened the ship.” Notice where the comma is placed, and how it changes the meaning.

5. 1 Cor.4:9: The 1611 had “approved.” The modern KJV has “appointed.”
The correct term is “condemned.” (Gk. ejpiqantiou”: condemned to
death)

6. 1 Cor. 15:6: The 1611: “And that he was seen of about five hundred
brethren..” Modern KJV: “After that he was seen..” “After” (e[peita) is
correct.

7. Eph. 6: 24: The 1611: “Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.” Modern KJV adds “amen.” The 1611 is correct.

8. 1 Tim. 1:4: The 1611 “..which minister questions, rather then edifying..” Modern KJV: “..which minister questions, rather than godly edifying..” The modern KJV is more accurate than the 1611, but even that is not the best translation. A better version is: “These promote mere speculation [or “controversy”]* rather than God’s work [or “the administration of God”]**, which is by faith.” (Gk. *ejkzhthvsei”: useless speculation; **oijkonomivan qeou’: a stewardship of God)

9. 1 Tim. 2:9: The 1611 had “shamefastness.” The modern KJV has “Shamefacedness,” which was a printer’s correction. Both terms mean the same thing, but a better translation would be “modesty” or “decency” (Gk. aijou'”).

10. 1 Jn. 5:12: The 16ll: “He that hath not the Son, hath not life..” Modern KJV: “..he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life..” The modern KJV is correct.

Passages in the KJV having no Greek manuscript support:

There are a number of New Testament passages in the AV which do not appear in any of the more than 5000 Greek New Testament manuscripts available today. This is due primarily to the fact that the Greek New Testaments used by the translators of the AV contained numerous words and passages drawn from the Vulgate, a Catholic Latin translation that even Catholics no longer use. These Latin passages were translated back into Greek, resulting in many errors.

The following is a list of some terms and passages in the AV which are found in no Greek manuscripts at all.

1. Acts 9: 5,6: “..it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him…” (Erasmus honestly admitted in the notes accompanying his Greek NT that he took the words from the parallel passage in Acts 26:14, and included them in his GNT because they were in the Vulgate.)

2. Col. 1:14: “..through his blood..”

3. Rev. 5:14: “..him that liveth for ever and ever.”

4. Rev. 17:4: “..full of abominations and filthiness..” The Greek term for “filthiness” (ajkaqavrthto”) used in this verse in the KJV, does not exist in the Greek language.

The references below resulted from Erasmus back-translating from the Latin Vulgate into Greek, because the final page of the copy of Revelation he was using was missing.

5. Rev. 22: 16: “… the bright and morning star.” The term for “morning star” (ojrqrinov”) appears in none of the Greek manuscripts.

6. Rev. 22:19: “..book of life..” In fact, the Greek has “..tree of life..” (Gk. xuvlou th'” zwh'”)

7. Rev. 22: 17: “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come… ” Both of the Greek terms for “come,” and the term for “let him… come,” do not appear in any of the Greek manuscripts. However, this is of no practical importance since the terms that are in the Greek (jjjejrcou and ejrcevsqw, respectively) carry the same meaning.

8. Rev. 22:18: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book… ” The italicized words are to be found in no Greek manuscript. However, as in the preceding example, the meaning is not materially altered by the terms that are in the Greek.

9. Rev. 22:19: “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Again, the italicized terms are those that appear in none of the Greek manuscripts. As with the preceding two examples, the correct Greek terms mean pretty much the same things–with the exception of the term “book,” in the “book of life” (in bold letters). This should read, “tree of life.” There is not a single Greek manuscript that supports the KJV reading.

10. Rev. 22:21: This should read, “The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all,” not “…be with you all.” Again, a minor variation, but the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the KJV does contain errors which can be clearly demonstrated. It is a good translation, but there are better.

A few passages not appearing in any of the better Greek manuscripts:

1. Mt.6:13: “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for
ever”

2. Luke 17:9: “I trow not”

3. Rom.8:1: “who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit”

4. Eph.3:14: “of our Lord Jesus Christ”

5. Heb.11:13: “and were persuaded of them”

6. 1 Jn.4:19: “him”

7. 1 Jn.5:7b-8a: “… in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth… ”

Item #7, above, deserves more extensive consideration.

When Erasmus compiled his Greek New Testament for Johann Froben in 1515, he neglected to include the above passage. A firestorm of protest erupted, led by a man called Stunica,10 who had been one of the editors of the Complutensian Polyglot. Latin versions had included it and it was widely accepted as part of the approved New Testament text. Erasmus responded that he left the passage out because it did not appear in any of the Greek manuscripts available to him, but that he would include it in future editions of his Greek New Testament if a Greek manuscript could be found which contained it.

In time, a manuscript was located, or rather produced. As it turned out, it had been written in Oxford (!) by a Franciscan friar named Froy (perhaps a few others were involved as well), who had back-translated the material from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus kept his word, however, and included the Comma Johanneum, as it came to be called, in his third edition, but with a note stating that he doubted its authenticity.

Erasmus was, of course, eventually proved right. Out of the thousands of extant Greek New Testament manuscripts, this passage appears in only eight (listed below). As you examine the list, note that the earliest appearance of this reading is a later addition to a 10th-century manuscript (how much later, one wonders), and then only as a variant reading (meaning that it was offered as an alternative reading to the one appearing in the main body of the text). Also note that all of the other seven sources are dated in the same century in which Erasmus lived (16th), or later (18th). Furthermore, four out of the eight (b, c, d and e) are hand-written additions, added to the margins of the documents, and are not part of the texts themselves. To my knowledge, none of the early church Fathers mention it; it appears in none of the early versions. It does not even appear in the Vulgate until around the year 800.

It was, I understand, added to a Latin translation by a friar in the early Middle Ages. It then began to appear, here and there, in other Latin versions, finally becoming incorporated into the body of the biblical text itself, becoming part of the Vulgate, and ultimately finding its way into the English, where it was accepted.

Clearly, this passage was never written by the apostle John.

Manuscripts Containing the Comma Johanneum:

a. #61: Codex Montfortianus, dating from the early 16th century. . This is the manuscript shown to Erasmus to force him to include the Comma Johanneum in his GNT.
b. #88: A variant reading in a 16th-century hand, added to the 14th-century codex Regius of Naples.
c. #221: A variant reading added to a 10th-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
d. #429: A variant reading added to a 16th-century manuscript at Wolfenbuttel.
e. #636: A variant reading added to a 16th-century manuscript at Naples.
f. #918: A 16th-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
g. #2318: An 18th-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.
h. #629: 16th Century. Much of this was back-translated from the Vulgate, including a partial quote of the Comma Johanneum. (The phrase, “… and these three are one” is missing.)

A few passages left out of the KJV, that appear in the original manuscripts:

1. Mt.24:36: “nor the Son”
2. Acts 4:25: “by the Holy Spirit”
3. Rom. 8:28: This should read “And we know that God works all things together for good..” KJV leaves out “God.”

Some other errors:

The reader is encouraged to look up the following passages in any critical Hebrew—English or Greek—English Interlinear, and to compare them to the NASB, NIV or any other reputable current translation. However, be aware that various translations may not use identical terms; they may be synonyms. Check the list below with the contemporary translation and the interlinears to see that the indicated changes are justified.

1. Mk. 6:20: “he observed him” should be “he was protecting him.” (Gk. sunethvrei)
2. Mk. 9:18: “pineth away” should be “becomes rigid.” (Gr. xhraivnetai: He becomes stiff.)
3. Lk. 18:12: “I give tithes of all that I possess” should be “… all I acquire.”
(Gk. o{sa ktw’ai)
4. Jn. 13:2: “supper being ended” should be “supper taking place” (kai; deivpnou ginomevnou). To say that supper was ended conflicts with v.12 and 26.
5. Jn. 18.1: The “Brook Cedron” should be the “Valley of the Kidron.”
6. Jn. 20:17: “Touch Me not” should be “Do not keep on holding me.” The verb is a present-continuous-imperative, and means that Mary was holding on to Jesus.
7. Acts 2:6: “Now when this was noised abroad” should be “And at this
sound.” (Gk. genomevnh” de; fwnh'”: And this sound having happened..)
8. Acts 19:2: “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” should
be “Did you receive the Holy Ghost when you believed?” The doctrine
of Second Blessing has resulted from this mistake.
9. 2 Cor. 12:2: “I knew a man” should be “I know (oi\da) a man.”
10. 2 Cor. 2:17: “Corrupt the word of God” should be “peddle the Word of God.” (Gk. kaphleuvw)
11. Gal. 3:24/1 Cor. 4:15: “Schoolmaster”and “instructor”are misleading. The Greek term (paidagwgo;”) refers to a male slave who had charge of the boy to take him to school.
12. Gal. 6:11: “How large a letter” should be “large letters.” Paul is speaking about the size of the letters he is writing, not the length of the epistle.
( [Idete phlivkoi” uJmi’n gravmmasiv e[graya: See with what large letters I write to you.)
13. Col. 2:16: “The sabbath days” should be “a sabbath.”
14. 1 Thess. 5:22: “Abstain from all appearance of evil” should be “every form of evil.” (… Ajpo; pantov” ei[dou” ponhrou’ ajpecesqe: From every form of evil abstain.)
15. James 3:2: “For in many things we offend all” means be “in many things we all offend.”
16. Rev. 1:6: “Kings and priests” should be “a kingdom, priests.”
17. Rev. 11:15: “kingdoms” should be “kingdom.” The term is singular.
18. Mt. 5:15/Lk. 15:8: Light, in Palestine was produced by oil lamps, not by candles.
19. Men did not “sit” at table; they “reclined;” they used “wineskins,” not “bottles;” they wore “sandals,” not “shoes;” they kept ointment in “flasks,” not “boxes.”
20. Lk. 2:1: “all the world” was the Roman Empire, not the population of the entire earth.
21. 1 Cor. 14:20: The statement, “..be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children..” should be “be not children (paidiva) in understanding; yet in evil be babes (or infants: nhpiavzete)..” Two different Greek terms are used for “children” and “babes,” implying that in evil we should be especially innocent.
22. Rev. 4:6 and elsewhere in the Revelation: The term “beasts” should be translated “living beings” (zw/’a). These are, after all, God’s cheribum.
23. Rev. 20:14: If the “lake of fire” is hell, what is the “hell” being cast into it in this verse? The first “hell” is actually the term “hades,” which is the
temporary abode of the dead, while awaiting resurrection. Since, by that time in history (Rev. 20), there will be no more death, the temporary abode is no longer functional. Therefore it is destroyed in the true hell, the lake of fire.
24. In all ten uses of Hades, it is translated “hell.” The difference between Hades or Sheol as the intermediate state of the dead, and the final state of the wicked in gehenna, is unknown to the average reader, largely because the KJV completely obscures the distinction by translating all three terms with the single term, “hell,”
25. Mt. 26:27: “Drink ye all of it” means “Everyone drink of it.” A comma after “all” would have helped the KJV version: “Drink ye all, of it.”
26. Rom. 12:8: “..he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity.” “Simplicity” should be “liberality.” (or generosity: aJplovthti)
27. 1 Tim. 6:5: “..gain is godliness” should be “..godliness is gain,” meaning that the person being described thinks he can achieve personal gain by acting godly.
28. Acts 12:4: “..intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.” The Greek term translated “Easter” is pascha, which means “Passover,” and is so translated in every instance in the KJV, except this one. The celebration of Easter was unknown in biblical times.

Unclear statements and archaic terms:

1. Matt. 26:15: “..they covenanted with him…,” means “they paid him.”
2. Matt. 27:44: “..cast the same in his teeth” means they “reviled him.”
3. Jn.12: 6: “..and bare what was put therein” is better as “took away.”
4. 2 Cor. 10:16: “To preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man’s line of things made ready to our hand” should be “..to preach the gospel even to the regions beyond you, and not to boast in what has been accomplished in the sphere of another.”

Terms whose meanings have changed:

1. 1 Pet. 2:9, etc.: “Peculiar” meant “chosen, or that which belongs to one person;” now it means “strange.”
2. 1 Thess. 4:15, etc.: “For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.” To the average reader, this passage says that those who are alive at Christ’s return will not stop (prevent), or hinder those who are dead from meeting the Lord. (This assumes, of course, that the average reader knows that “asleep” means to be dead.) However, “prevent,” in the 17th Century, meant to “precede.” Paul is telling the Thessalonians that those who are alive will not “precede” those who are dead, at Christ’s return. See also Ps. 88:13, 119:147, Amos 9:10.
3. 2 Thess. 2:7, etc.: “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.” Without entering into an interpretation of this passage, it seems to be saying that “he who allows will continue to allow, until he is taken out of the way.” However, in the 17th Century, “let” meant to “restrain”. This should read: “For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.”
4. 1 Cor. 10:24: “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.” “Wealth” meant “welfare,” not riches.
5. Acts 10:11: “..as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners..” “Knit” should be “being let down…”(or “coming down”: Gk. katabai’non).
6. Gal. 1:13, etc.: “Conversation” meant “general behavior,” not dialog.
7. 2 Pet. 2:7: “Filthy conversation” meant “immoral conduct.”
8. John 1:5: “Comprehend” meant “overcome.”
9. Acts 21:15, etc.: “And after those days we took up our carriages…” “took up our carriages” meant “we got ready.” The term itself (carriage) referred to what was carried, not a vehicle.
10. Acts 28:13, etc.: “And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium..” “Fetched a compass” meant to “make a circuit.” The compass came from China around 1250, and was unknown in Bible times.
11. Rom. 1:29, etc.: “Debate” meant “violent actions.”
12. James 5:11, etc.: “Pitiful” meant “full of pity.”
13. Heb. 13:16: “But to do good and to communicate forget not…” “Communicate” meant to “share.”
14. 1 Thess. 5:14: “..comfort the feebleminded..” “Feebleminded” meant “faint hearted.”
15. Mk. 6:21: “..Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates..” “Chief estates” meant “leading men.”
16. 1 Tim. 5:4: “But if any widow have children or nephews…” “Nephews” meant “grandchildren.”
17. Mt. 2:16, etc.: “Then Herod…slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof…” “Coast” meant “district.” Bethlehem is not situated near a body of water.
18. Mt. 25:27: “Usury” was interest of all kinds, not just excessive interest.
19. “Sometimes,” in the Bible, meant “formely” and not “occasionally.” (Eph. 2:13, etc.)
20. “By and by” meant “at once.” (Mt. 13:21, etc.)
21. “Presently” also meant “at once.” (Mt. 21:19, etc.)
22. Lk. 7:4, etc.: “And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly..” “Instantly” meant “earnestly.”
23. “Anon” meant “immediately,” and not “after a time.” (Mk. 1:30)
24. Heb. 9:5: “And over it the cherubims of glory…” “Cherubim” is already plural, and doesn’t need the ‘s’. Same with “seraphims, nethinims, and Anakims,” found elsewhere in the KJV.
25. The reader is confronted with words like: “discovered” for “uncovered,” “clift” for “cleft,” “champaign” for “campaign,” “glistering” for “glittering,” “dureth” for “endureth,” “intreat” for “entreat,” “ware” for “beware,” “adventure” for “venture,” “graff” for “graft,” “ensue” for “pursue,” and words like “holpen, bewrayeth, etc.” Why have to look all of these terms up in a dictionary (if they can even be found in most dictionaries), when translations exist that present them in contemporary language?
26. Mt. 15:4: “..let him die the death” meant “be put to death.”
27. 1 Cor. 4:4: “I know nothing by myself” should be “I know nothing against myself.”
28. Lk. 23:25: “Nothing worthy of death is done unto him.” “Done unto him” should be “done by him.”

A few examples of awkward syntax:

1. Lk. 9:17: “..and there was taken up of fragments that remained to them
twelve baskets.”
2. 2 Cor. 13:2: “I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present,
the second time; and being absent now I write to them which
heretofore have sinned, and to all others, that, if I come again, I will
not spare.”
This is a complicated sentence at best, but isn’t the following easier to understand? “I already gave you a warning when I was with you the second time. I now repeat it while absent: On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier, or any of the others.” (NIV)

Conclusion:

The preceding material barely begins to examine the subject dealt with in this paper. There is much more to the story. Some of the categories of problems listed above can be extended by means of further examples almost indefinitely, and other issues not mentioned in this study can be raised. If the reader is interested, the books listed below are particularly helpful. Although each of them deals with text–critical—historical—translation issues covering a much broader spectrum than the narrower scope of this paper, they have much to say that contributes to the topic, and they are classics in their fields.

Bibliography

Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1987.
Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd edition. Edited by F.
Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. The University of Chicago
Press, 1979.
Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Baker Book
House. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1995.
Fuller, David Otis. Which Bible? 5th Edition. Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids
International Publications, 1975.
Lewis, Jack. The English bible: From KJV to NIV. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1991.
Metzger, Bruce Manning. A Tetual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New
York: United Bible Societies, 1975.
———-. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.
———-. The New Testament: Its Background, growth, and Content. Enlarged
Edition. Abingdon Press, 1989.
———-. The Canon of the New Testament; Its Origin, Development, and Significance.
Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1997.
White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern
Translations? Bethany House Publishers: Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1995.

http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue1/Articles/Translation_Problems_in_the_KJV_New_Testament.doc&h=add9b