Changes

The King James Version uses "king" and "kingdom" hundreds of times in translating the New Testament, even though there were no real kings at the time of Christ or now.  But the King James Version was commission by King James during a period of the powerful English monarchy, and King James promoted the divine right of kings.

The King James Version uses "king" and "kingdom" hundreds of times in translating the New Testament, even though there were no real kings at the time of Christ or now.  But the King James Version was commission by King James during a period of the powerful English monarchy, and King James promoted the divine right of kings.

The King James Version frequently and repetitively uses "and" to begin a sentence.  For example, seven straight verses -- Luke 4:11-17 -- begin with the word "and"; ten straight verses -- Luke 4:58-67 -- also begin with the word "and", and perhaps more than half of the verses in the entire Gospel of Luke use that now-disfavored beginning.  The King James Version also frequently uses "behold", which is poetic but seems archaic today.  One of its most common words is "spake" (archaic form of "spoke"), which it uses 644 times.

The King James Version frequently and repetitively uses "and" (and also "but") to begin a sentence.  For example, seven straight verses -- Luke 4:11-17 -- begin with the word "and"; ten straight verses -- Luke 4:58-67 -- also begin with the word "and", and perhaps more than half of the verses in the entire Gospel of Luke use that now-disfavored beginning.  The King James Version also frequently uses "behold", which is poetic but seems archaic today.  One of its most common words is "spake" (archaic form of "spoke"), which it uses 644 times.

 

The King James Version does not make full use of the possessive form, instead often spelling things out in wordy and cumbersome form rather than using an apostrophe "s".  It also does not make full use of the variety of punctuation available, often ignoring the exclamation point.

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.

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.

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."

Some of the key terminology in the KJV is archaic today.  For example, the KJV refers repeated to "Esaias", and many readers may not understand that as a reference to "Isaiah".

Some of the key terminology in the KJV is archaic today.  For example, the KJV refers repeated to "Esaias", and many readers may not understand that as a reference to "Isaiah".