Changes

The King James Version does not make full use of the possessive form, instead often spelling things out to more clearly translate.  See, for example Luke 5:33: "And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?" <ref>Note, however, that the KJV does use both the possessive and the exclamation point in chapter 6 of the Gospel of Luke.</ref>

The King James Version does not make full use of the possessive form, instead often spelling things out to more clearly translate.  See, for example Luke 5:33: "And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?" <ref>Note, however, that the KJV does use both the possessive and the exclamation point in chapter 6 of the Gospel of Luke.</ref>

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 Use of the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament was proven right by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948.

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 Use of the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament was proven right by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948.

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."