Many defenders of the so-called Authorized Version of the Scripture (the Bible), also referred to as the King James Version and the 1611 Version, will vigorously attack any other version regardless of sources or the relative accuracy of the translation. While their enthusiasm and dedication is admired, their motives often are suspect. To make a statement that a version is an inspired translation, while knowing that there are translational errors in that version, is to say that our Elohiym, whose name is Yahuwah (yah-hoo-wah'), is known to make mistakes. This cannot be. Yahuwah makes no mistakes. Man is often just too dimwitted to understand that.
YashaYahuw (Isaiah) 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, said Yahuwah.
The King James Version Greek, or Apostolic Scripture, is based on the Textus Receptus and the Ibriy (Hebrew), or TANAKH, is based on the Ben Chayyim manuscripts. However, there are a GREAT many renderings of words in it that do not agree with the underlying original languge definitions. There are many words that are there that are just not translated at all, and many other words that are not there have been added to the version by the translators. There are so many of these false renderings and ommissions that it cannot seriously be viewed as an "inspired translation" as the KJV-Onlyist claim.
For instance, the original translation of the Authorized Version (1611 KJV) contained the apocrypha which is generally known to NOT be inspired scripture. If the KJV was inspired would those books have been included? If the KJV was inspired then why was it altered by the removal of those books? Of course the KJV-Onlyist usually is not aware that the KJV he is reading is the fourth revision of the 1611 that was originally published in 1769 CE.
One obvious error of translation is found in Acts 12:4.
Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
G3957. pascha, pas'-khah; of Chald. or. [comp. H6453]; the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it)
As you can see by the above lexicon defintion of the word, pascha should have been translated as Passover. In the 26 other appearances of this Greek word in scripture it is rendered as "Passover" in the KJV. There are many other examples like this, but this one will suffice. (How many white crows do you have to see before you'll believe that all crows are not black?) While this one error shows that the King James Version is not an inspired translation, it also shows that the underlying document (the Textus Receptus) is correct.
Many so-calleed "Bible Scholars" of today try to justify this error by saying that there was a secular holiday in Yisra'el by that name at that time and that holiday is what Herodes was talking about. Unhappily for them there is no credible evidence in scripture, secular history, or any where else of a "secular holiday" by that name until the Roman Catholic Church made it a "holiday," and then they got the day all messed up by tying it the first "Sunday" after the first full moon following the spring equinox instead of to the lunar cycle starting at the new moon that really determines the day of the Passover.
Of the modern and popular versions of which I am aware, with the exception of the King James Version and The Sacred Scripture of Yahuwah, Restored Names Version (RNV), all are translated from the corrupt manuscripts of Hort and Westcott, including the Greek of the New King James Version, who were the driving human forces behind the first modern translation, called The Revised Version, which was commissioned in 1871 and published in 1881. Using these corrupt manuscript sources, so far as I am concerned, puts all versions derived from it in the same corrupt status deserving of those manuscripts.
The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts are sometimes referred to as Alexandrian Manuscripts, as they are in the style of Origen, the Bishop of Alexandria, Mitsrayim, who made a mockery of the written Word of Yahuwah. These are the manuscripts used by Wescott and Hort to "revise" the original Greek of the Scriptures, and also are the basis for the modern Aland/Nestle Greek Texts. All are perverted, corrupt, and lead to apostate versions of the scripture when they are translated. The manuscripts that come from the sources of Mitsrayim show these characteristics today. They are corrupt, and will enslave people who are earnestly seeking to know Yahuwah. Beware of all versions that come from them.
There are other versions coming into circulation that claim to be from ancient Ibriy and Kasdiy (Aramaic) versions. I have not yet seen or studied any of these versions and so cannot speak about their accuracy or lack of it.
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. (KJV)
Mitsrayim (Egypt) is an antetype of the world of sin, that we come out of when we repent and are immersed. Remember that the people of Yisra'el (Israel) were resident aliens in physical Mitsrayim for four hundred years, and they were redeemed by Yahuwah (the Spirit of Yahushua), the first born were saved by the blood of the passover lamb placed on their lintels, and all were taken toward the Promised Land. Of the originals who left Mitsrayim, only those who had the faith (Yahushua [Joshua] and Kaleb [Caleb]) entered into Kena'an (Canaan), while the others who left Mitsrayim with them died in the deserts because of their unbelief. This is the picture of people who obey the gospel today. They come out of spiritual Mitsrayim, redeemed by the blood of the Mashiach (the Passover Lamb), and become Sons of Yahuwah, receivers of the promise if they keep the faith, and journey toward the Promised Land of the New Yeruwshalaim (Jerusalem).
A better rendering of the verse is, "When Yisra'el was a lad, I loved him, and out of Mitsrayim I called My Son." (RNV)
While the KJV has the archaic language dreaded by so many people, and the NKJV goes a long way toward correcting that problem, neither version is inspired, and therefore neither is error free. Care MUST be taken, regardless of the version that you are using. Even though I know absolutely that there is no inspired translation in existence, I highly recommend the Restored Names Version (RNV) as the most reliably rendered version around today. It is available free in several formats on this and other web sites (see Links to the RNV on the Resources page).