While we certainly do not oppose the use of the King James Version and believe that it’s a sound translation of Scripture, we do not believe that it’s the only inspired version of Scripture. It’s important to note that all English translations have errors and mistakes.
One mistake found in the KJV that has been corrected in nearly all other translations is the use of the word “Easter” in Acts 12:4. This word comes from the Greek pascha. Virtually all theologians and biblical scholars agree that pascha refers to the Passover. According to Strong’s, this word refers to “the Passover.” Thayer’s Greek Lexicon agrees, “the paschal sacrifice (which was accustomed to be offered for the people’s deliverance of old from Egypt).” Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary concurs, “…it should be, ‘after the Passover:’ that is, after the conclusion of the festival. (The word employed in our King James Version being an ecclesiastical term of later date, is improperly used here.).”
In addition to the above example, the fact that the KJV went through multiple revisions shows that there were mistakes in the original 1611 translation. For example: consider the below list of original and later corrected passages:
And your heart shall live that seeke good. (1611)
And your heart shall live that seek God. (Corrected)
…she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust: (1611)
…she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust; (corrected)
2 Timothy 4:13
The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou commest, bring with thee, but especially the parchments. (1611)
The cloke that I left as Troas with Carpus, when thou commest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. (corrected)
But when hee saw Iesus afarre off, he CAME and worshipped Him. (1611)
But when he saw Jesus afar off, he RAN and worshipped Him. (corrected)
In addition to the KJV, all English translations of the Bible contain mistakes, including those based on the Majority and Alexandrian text-types. For example, nearly all English versions of the New Testament contain the Trinitian formula of 1John 5:7, even though scholarship universally agrees that this passage is spurious. Consider the following:
“The text of this verse should read, Because there are three that bear record. The remainder of the verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the trinitarian addition before the fourteenth century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the Trinity in the first 450 years of the church era.,” The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, note on 1 John 5:7-8.
“But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every manuscript of this letter written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve.It is missing in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin,” Adam Clarke’s Commentary, note on 1 John 5:7.
Barnes Notes’ also notes, “…for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine,” note in 1 John 5:7.
In addition to the above, there are numerous other examples of where the English translations of the Bible deviate from the Hebrew and Greek. In fact, there are differences between Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Does this imply that we cannot trust English translations of the Bible? No, most English translations of the Bible are fairly reliable. Compared to other literary works from antiquity, the integrity of the Bible is quite amazing.
However, based on the fact that there are mistakes and spurious passages in all English translations of the Bible, it’s a good idea to compare trustworthy translations, such as the King James Version, American Standard Version, and Revised Standard Version. Even more importantly is to compare the English to the original language. For the Old Testament this would be Hebrew and for the New Testament this would be Greek (although, YRM believes there is creditable evidence to suggest an original Hebrew New Testament). Resources to accomplish this would include the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, and Thayer’s Greek Lexicon.