This is John from the American Wisdom Series:

We use the King James Version as our main study Bible. Why the King James? Because all the major Bible aides are based on the KJV. We have documented KJV translation errors and have marked them in our Bible. Newer versions are not as faithful to the original text. As the  The Authorized or King James Version is clearer and more faithful to the original Hebrew [and Greek] than all modern translations because the King James Version is not an attempt to interpret the text.

The Old Testament manuscripts were faithfully preserved by Ezra and Nehemiah, after they came back from Babylonian captivity, in what is known as the Masoretic Text. There are a few translation problems with the 1611 King James Version Old Testament, because the Massorah was not available for the translators to refer to in 1611 when the King James Bible was originally translated. The Massorah has since been gathered and can now be used to check the exact Hebrew wording used in the original Old Testament manuscripts, and it is no longer necessary for a Bible student today to guess what God meant to say, based on their pre-conceived ideas, like the 1611 translators had to do. 

Live Link to-> The Kenites are revising our Bibles. 

 Live Link to->>>> "The Massorah"

 Live Link to->>>> Does your version of the Bible: Contain the following verses? Many new versions do not.

New supposed to be improved versions published since the 1970s can not be trusted. (The Authorized King James Version of the 1611, Companion Bible originally published in 1922 with notes and appendixes by E.W.Bullinger is your best option for the KJB with wording as originally published)

Their is a free download of the Companion Bible condensed, 1611 King James Version available on line that has corrected many of the wording errors in the original printing, based on findings in the Massorah, and made the necessary revisions to their online version of the original KJB.

You can, as of March 2016, download the Companion Bible condensed at the following:
Download a Companion Bible free at: http://www.companionbiblecondensed.com/  When you open the site click unto and download one book at a time unto your disk or hard drive.
and the appendix at: http://www.markfoster.net/rn/companion_bible_appendices.pdf
or
You can still buy one, but I believe with original wording, from Artisan Publishers @ http://www.artisanpublishers.com  Then click open one of their links to Bibles
or You can also write to them  @ P.O.Box1529, 1409 West Shawnee, Muskogee, OK.74402

The Companion Bible contains notes directly from the Massorah text, pointing out any 1611 unknowingly made discrepancies from the original manuscripts.

What’s wrong with the new supposed to be improved modern translations of the Bible?

Most modern translations, from the Revised Standard Version (RSV) to the New International Version (NIV), use as their source for the New Testament a Greek Text based upon the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century. This text, publicized by Westcott and Hort, is also known as the Alexandrian Text. It originated in Egypt and has been massaged by "higher critics" (Kenites) down through the ages. These manuscripts, used in the RSV, represent less than 5% of known Greek Biblical manuscripts, but are supposedly more authentic because they are "old". Read on to find out why older, in and of itself, doesn't mean better or more accurate.

The bulk of New Testament manuscripts were copied century after century from earlier ones as they wore out. Older copies did not survive because these texts were used until worn out. This text, the so-called "Received Text" or "Byzantine Text" (also termed "Syrian", "Antioch", or Koine text) was used more aqnd wore out faster and over the centuries had to be copyed more often. It is the text that was used in the King James Version. The most accurate manuscripts got used most and therefore; had to be recopied more often. So a very old manuscript that lay in a corner and never got used, though it may well be the oldest, doesn't mean it's better.

  Remember, it wasn't until the sixteenth century AD that movable printing type was invented. All type pages to print Bibles up until that time had to be carved into a wood block, one letter at a time, to get it ready for the printing press. Can you imagine the time involved. And printing presses, when first invented were only capable of printing several pages per hour.  Of course even that was much faster then writing out the whole Bible, on a scroll by hand.

A person would spend a whole week carving on one page, and if he slipped and made a mistake he had to start carving over with a new block of wood.  Or even if he got the page to press, one miss feed of a sheet of paper, and the wooden block type page got smashed, he had to re-carve the page, One week later he got back to press after each miss feed. Needless to say until about the mid 1500s, when Gutenberg invented movable type and only the smashed letter or letters had to be replaced, Bibles weren't mass produced, and a lot of handwritten scrolls wore out and had to be replaced.

I spent my entire working life as a printing pressman. When I started printing in 1958, if you got 9000 copies of a sixteen page form, off press in a eight hour shift you had a good day. Today, modern presses will run 30 or 40 thousand copies of a 32 page form per hour.  Can you imagine what a Bible would cost today if we were still carving each page from a block of wood..

Now here is guest author Richard Nickels pamphlet titled: 

King James Version Translation Errors

Nearly 4,000 manuscripts of this Byzantine or Official Text agree almost perfectly with each other, and are a far better standard to go by than corrupt copies no matter how early they were made. Located primarily at Mt. Athos in Greece, copies of the Official Greek Text give us a very reliable record of the New Testament scriptures.

 Proof that the Received Text is Correct

Jay P. Green, Sr., General Editor and Translator of the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, states in his preface:

"The market-place is being glutted with new books which are being represented as versions of the Bible. Each one claims to be the very word of God, yet there are literally thousands of differences between them. They all leave out dozens of references to the deity of Jesus Christ, and they add words which tend to question His virgin birth, His substitutionary, fully satisfying atonement. This is due to their decision to depend upon an Alexandrian [Egyptian] textbase, instead of that body of God's words which has been universally received and believed in for nineteen centuries, known to us as the Received Text. These new versions [such as the NIV, New Jerusalem Bible and others] are not only marked by additions, but also by subtractions, since some four whole pages of words, phrases, sentences and verses have been omitted by these new versions. And these are words attested to as God's words by overwhelming evidence contained in all the Greek manuscripts..

...it has been written, 'For I say to you, until the heavens and the earth pass away, in no way shall pass away one iota or one point from the Law, until all things come to pass' — Matthew 5:18 [Green's paraphrased]

What then is the evidence these Bible-alterers offer to persuade you to give up the precious words they have removed from their versions? Mainly, they cite two manuscripts, admittedly old, but also admittedly carelessly executed. The Sinaiticus was so poorly executed that seven different hands of "textual critics" can be discerned as they tried to impose their views on the Bible... it was discarded, found in a wastebasket fourteen centuries after it was executed. TheVaticanus manuscript lay on a shelf in the Vatican library at Rome until 1431, and was considered so corrupt that no one would use it... they have systematically removed Luke's witness to the ascension of Christ and of course they have done away entirely with Mark's witness to the ascension, simply because these last twelve verses do not appear in those two corrupt manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus...

... Origen, an early textual critic... said, that 'the Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written'... given the opportunity, many like Origen will actually alter the manuscripts to make them say what they understand them to mean... Justin Martyr, Valentinus, Clement of Alexandria, Marcion, Tatian, and a horde of others practiced their 'textual science' by operating on manuscripts, or by writing their own 'versions'...

 This is John Again: Remember the publishers of the new Bible versions only goal is to sell their Bibles, and be the only publisher who is allowed to sell their newest version.  To accomplish this they must make enough changes to the previous version to qualify for this copyright protection; So their new goal becomes; Change "The Word of God" enough to qualify, it matters not to them if they have to corrupt "God's Word" to do just that as long as you buy their Bible! 

...Today there are more than 5,000 manuscripts and lectionaries in Greek as witnesses to the New Testament text. And 95% of them witness to the Received Text readings [contained in Green.s Interlinear and the King James Version]. Partly due to the fact that ancient manuscripts containing the Received Text were worn out by use, while the Alexandrian textbase manuscripts were preserved by the dry conditions of Egypt, some have sought to discredit the Received Text because they say it is not as ancient. But now that manuscript portions from the second century are being unearthed, it is found that many of the readings of the Received Text which had been tagged scornfully as 'late readings' by nearly unanimous consent of the 'textual scientists'(Kenites) are appearing in these [newly found] manuscripts. Readings which were before called late and spurious have been found in these early-date manuscripts... Yet strangely, in textual criticism classes, such discoveries are swept under the rug by Kenite professors, not reported to the class."

We use the King James Version exclusively as our main study Bible, only using other translations to aid study of certain passages, to get another perspective. The fact that modern versions slavishly depend on the Egyptian and Vatican corruptions of the New Testament should make us all avoid them as a "main Bible".

 now, Why Are There Errors in the King James Version, and there are some, we'll admit?

You have probably heard the joke about the bigoted Protestant fundamentalist who said, "If the King James Version was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!" People sometimes forget that the KJV was first published in 1611 A.D.

For centuries prior to 1611, Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the "official" text of the powerful Roman Catholic Church.

Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV.

The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV errors, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much worse!

 Translation Errors

Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form". The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

 This is John Again: The King James translation, or any other translation, of the original Hebrew text has some words which were given different translations at different places probably because of the interpreters preconceived ideas of what they think God meant to say. For example: According to the notes in the "Dake's Annotated Reference Bible" the Hebrew word hayah in the KJV is Trans. (became) 67 times, (becamest or came to pass) 505 times, (become) 66 times, and (come to pass) 131 times, but for some reason in Genesis 1:2 it is translated (was)! That sure changes the way a person perceives the original creation of the earth, doesn't it?  Gen. 1:2 And the earth was (became) without form, ...  Remember the 1611 translators did not have the Massorah to check their work against; But we do, so we are without excuse!. Satan sure wants us to read was instead of became, since it was because of his sin that God destroyed the first earth age.

Genesis 10:9 should read "Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD". The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other.s sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated". The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he". As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

2 Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children".

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth".

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live". God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days". Too bad William Miller didn.t realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read "lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction". "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect". "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature". Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive".

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood". The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week..." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week..." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing". That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison". We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses..." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover". The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

1 Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishingfoolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved". Likewise, 2 Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish".

1 Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

2 Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation". This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

1 Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things".

1 Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil".

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God".

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation".

1 John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection" in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be .were cast. because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.

Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing".

 Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong

No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead.

In Psalm 81:4, "was" is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.

We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized "are" is incorrect and that "were cast" in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), "I am he". The "he" is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great "I AM" of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.

In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words "the son" are not in the original Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph.

Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words "it were". It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!

Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words "to be". The fact is, Christians are now saints.

1 Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It should say: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the important thing is the keeping of the commandments of God".

Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized word "is" in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these verses is: don't let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the judging.

1 Timothy 3:11 has "their" in italics, which is not implied in the original.

2 Peter 2:5 should not have "person, a". Noah was the eighth preacher of righteousness.

1 John 2:23 has "(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek.

 Punctuation Problems

Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise". The comma should not be after "thee", but "day". The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.

Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between "risen" and "early" and there should be no comma after "week" as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene..." Thus, it should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene..."

 Word Differences

Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that the 1611 A.D. King James English is somewhat different than today's English language. The meaning of certain words has changed, and/or the King James sometimes uses words not familiar to most people today in their common speech. In addition, certain idioms in the original Hebrew and Greek are a little difficult to understand today. The Oxford Wide Margin KJV has excellent marginal references which often explain the correct meanings. Here is a partial listing of changed word meanings: