While KJV Only advocates are quick to point out any variation between their translation and more modern translations such as the NIV and NASB, claiming that the Word of God is being tampered with, very few of these alterations are not based soundly on better manuscript evidence or intent on clarifying the meaning of a word. In most cases, the point being drilled home concerning the modern translations is skewed because their detractors focus only on each verse and not on the whole of Scripture. Here are a few examples that I find to be representative of the various accusations and apologies.
One significant translational difference between the KJV and modern translations is the use of “hell.” The Hebrew word sheol and the Greek terms hades and gehenna are all translated “hell” in the KJV. This is inconsistent, however, with the idea of sheol and hades, which both refer not to torments but simply to the place of the dead. KJV Only advocates complain over the use of “the grave” by modern translations for these two terms, but the KJV translators have done the same thing in passages like Genesis 37:35 where Jacob says, “I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning.” The distinction between hades and gehenna is most vivid in Revelation 20:13-14 which declares that death and hades will be cast into the lake of fire.
One benefit of having modern translations is the use of updated speech. The KJV contains several terms that have lost their 17th century meaning but continue in modern English with an alternate meaning. Such is the case in Hebrews 4:12, which calls the word of God “quick, and powerful.” In the KJV, “quick” never refers to speed or agility. It has been replaced with its meaning, “living.” Also, the word “powerful” is elsewhere translated “effectual” in the KJV and means that whatever it is referring to is effective and active in its work; thus it is translated “active” by the NIV and NASB.
One of the greatest difficulties in copying the New Testament must have been the temptation to harmonize the Scriptures. Harmonization is most evident among the Gospels and between Ephesians and Colossians. By weeding out these additions to the text, modern translations are accused of hiding the Word of God from their readers. However, as is evident in the two readings of Jesus’ birth from Matthew 1 and Luke 2, the fact that Jesus was the firstborn son of Mary is not left out altogether, but it only rightfully belongs to Luke’s account. In the KJV, “firstborn” has been added to Matthew 1:25.
Some variant readings, the category to which harmonizations belong, are the result of the “expansion of piety.” Many examples of this are obvious in just surveying the appearances of “Christ” in the KJV, which may be found with “Jesus” or “Lord Jesus” added to it either in late manuscripts or apart from manuscript evidence. One significant example is found in Jesus’ instruction to His disciples not to tell anyone that He was the Christ: the KJV includes “Jesus the Christ.” Jesus was not trying to hide His name but only His identity. The “expansion of piety” also resulted from the great zeal of some scribes to correct inaccurate Old Testament references. In Mark 1:2, Mark begins to quote Malachi 3:1 but attributes it to Isaiah. In an effort to correct Mark, some scribes changed “it is written in Isaiah the prophet” to “it is written in the prophets.” However, the following verse comes from Isaiah 40:3, lending some accuracy to Mark’s citation. Furthermore, citation in the 1st century was not the same as it is today. It appears that when quoting two prophets consecutively, the writer would attribute the quotes to the more significant prophet, as practiced here and in Matthew 27:9.