Changes

The King James Version contains some arguably feminist language, such as "prophetess" (Luke 2:36)<ref>though it refers to a rebellious Jezebel women in Rev. 2:20 as such</ref> and gender neutral language for "man" (see, e.g., Luke 3:4; Luke 3:16; Mark 9:17)<ref>where gender specific language is absent.</ref>  Also, the KJV uses "children of God" perhaps as a gender neutral version of "Godly men," with some seeing that neutralizing the gender has the effect of inserting a connotation of submission that might be more characteristic of Islam than Christianity.  Modern versions picked up on this, and use "children of God" far more pervasively than the KJV did.  In Luke 4:34, the KJV refers to "Holy One of God" rather than "Holy Son of God."

The King James Version contains some arguably feminist language, such as "prophetess" (Luke 2:36)<ref>though it refers to a rebellious Jezebel women in Rev. 2:20 as such</ref> and gender neutral language for "man" (see, e.g., Luke 3:4; Luke 3:16; Mark 9:17)<ref>where gender specific language is absent.</ref>  Also, the KJV uses "children of God" perhaps as a gender neutral version of "Godly men," with some seeing that neutralizing the gender has the effect of inserting a connotation of submission that might be more characteristic of Islam than Christianity.  Modern versions picked up on this, and use "children of God" far more pervasively than the KJV did.  In Luke 4:34, the KJV refers to "Holy One of God" rather than "Holy Son of God."

The King James Version translators did not have access to earlier ancient manuscripts that were discovered in the 1800s.  As a result, the King James Version includes passages that are not in the earliest ancient manuscripts.

One sect of Christians believe that the King James Version translators did not have access to earlier ancient manuscripts that were discovered in the 1800s.  As a result, the King James Version includes passages that are not in the earliest ancient manuscripts. Other sects of Christians disagree with this belief, holding to the idea that the most accurate manuscripts have all the text that the King James Version has (save the Apocrypha) and that other versions (particularly out of Alexandria) have taken this text out.

The translators were predominantly literary types, such as poets, without much input from scientific types who might have recommended some wording having more physical connotations, or linguistic scholars who could point out the details of scientific terminology.  For example, "owph" is translated as "fowl" rather than the linguistically and scientifically correct "winged creature."

The translators were predominantly literary types, such as poets, without much input from scientific types who might have recommended some wording having more physical connotations, or linguistic scholars who could point out the details of scientific terminology.  For example, "owph" is translated as "fowl" rather than the linguistically and scientifically correct "winged creature."