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." On the contrary, certain modern versions have changed most male references for gender neutral references, and have been criticized for such.

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." On the contrary, certain modern versions have changed most male references for gender neutral references, and have been criticized for such.

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. Instead, the AV is based on the majority of the manuscripts, which agree extremely well, as opposed to modern versions, which are based upon some few older manuscripts which disagree greatly between themselves. The oldest manuscript fragment, dated to A.D. 66, agrees with the reading used by the AV.[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=submitsearch&f_submit=Search&f_context_any=any&section=bible&f_search_type=bible&f_keyword_any=Matthew+26:22]

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. Instead, the AV is based on the majority of the manuscripts, which agree extremely well, as opposed to modern versions, which are based upon some few older manuscripts which disagree greatly between themselves. The oldest manuscript fragment, dated to A.D. 66, agrees with the reading used by the AV.[https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=submitsearch&f_submit=Search&f_context_any=any&section=bible&f_search_type=bible&f_keyword_any=Matthew+26:22]

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."