Question: Why do you prefer the KJV over modern translations?

On our website: https://www.thebereancall.org/content/question-why-do-you-prefer-kjv-over-modern-translations
More question and answer: https://www.thebereancall.org/questionanswer

Question: I was very upset by the answer from you about the reason you prefer the KJV.... I need you to please send me several examples of what you consider "serious" errors [in modern translations]. I would also be very appreciative of some reading material that the lay person can understand...or names of some sources....

Response: Thank you for your recent letter challenging me regarding my support of the KJV. This question is too complex to deal with in a brief letter, but let me try once again. You asked for sources.
The best case against "KJV only" is presented by D. A. Carson in The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. He points out, in "eight key Christological verses (Jn:1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
See All...,18; Acts:20:28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
See All...; Rom:9:5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
See All...; 2 Thes:1:12That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
See All..., Tts 2:13; Heb:1:8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
See All...; 2 Pet:1:1Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
See All...)... the KJV fails to underscore the deity of Christ in four." Most modern translations do as well or better. The NIV scores in seven of the eight. Even Thomas M. Strouse, though strongly criticizing Carson, admits these four KJV failures (Jn:1:18No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
See All...; 2 Thes:1:12That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
See All...; Tts 2:13; 2 Pet:1:1Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
See All...) and explains them as "a textual problem (Jn:1:18No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
See All...) and the other three are translational problems." Even its defenders must admit to some flaws in the KJV.

Critics fault the KJV because it comes from a Greek New Testament which was put together by Erasmus in 1516, later improved by Theodore Beza and Robert Stephanus. The latter's fourth edition in 1551 is "substantially the Textus Receptus," according to Jasper James Ray, one of its most fervent defenders. Too late in time, say the critics, and too few manuscripts as its source. Yet this was basically the Greek text that had been accepted by the Greek church in the East for centuries (the Roman Catholic Church in the West used the Latin Vulgate), earlier manuscripts from which the Greek Bible came having been worn out and discarded. Modern translations (some are worse than others, the RSV in particular) come from a Greek text developed by Westcott and Hort (two scholarly heretics) based largely upon Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which, though older, are clearly corrupted.

In God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper James Ray cites more than 200 differences between the KJV and "44 new version Bibles"—some minor, some serious. How do we know who is right without learning Greek and poring over thousands of ancient manuscripts? In checking out the differences Ray cites, not only logic but the testimony of the rest of Scripture and the Holy Spirit come down solidly on the side of the KJV. You wanted examples. Here are a few.
In Revelation:1:11Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
See All..., RSV, NAS (and others, but I can't list them all) leave out "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." Not only is this a key claim to deity stated in a special way to show that Jesus is Jahweh (see Is 44:6), but it seems logical that the speaker would immediately identify Himself. It is more likely to have been deleted than added.
In John:9:35Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
See All... modern translations change "Son of God" to “Son of man," which not only denigrates Jesus but makes no sense in this context. Yes, Jesus often called Himself "Son of man," but in His general teaching to the multitude where He used veiled language. Here He is introducing Himself to someone who never heard of Him or heard His teaching, and "Son of man" wouldn't mean anything.

In Luke:2:33And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
See All... "Joseph" is changed to "father" and in verse 43 "Joseph and his mother" are changed to "his parents." All of the above (and others) deny His deity. Though Christ's deity is clear in other places in most modern translations, these and other verses send the opposite signal, thus causing confusion.

In Colossians:1:14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
See All..., "through his blood" is left out in RSV, NAS, etc., though they include it in Ephesians:1:7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
See All.... I don't think Paul omitted it. In 1 John:4:3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
See All..., "Christ is come in the flesh" is missing, though this phrase was a key in combatting gnostic cults and now the New Age. In Luke:4:8And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
See All..., "Get thee behind me, Satan" is omitted, though it seems appropriate. In Luke:4:4And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
See All..., "but by every word of God" is missing, making it an improper quote of Deuteronomy:8:3And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
See All... and weakening it. In each case deletion seems more likely to have occurred than addition.

There are several cases where direct reference to Old Testament prophecies seems very appropriate yet is left out of RSV, NAS, etc., such as Matthew:27:35And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
See All..., "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet"; Mark:13:14But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
See All..., "spoken of by Daniel the prophet"; Mark:15:28And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
See All..., "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith," etc. Again, the text seems weakened by the loss.