Just off the top of your head, how many mis-translations can you cite in the KJV?

First of all, every translation we have today comes indirectly from the Latin Vulgate. For over a thousand years the early Church had the original manuscripts written by the disciples and Paul.

In 382 AD after the Doctrine of the Trinity was fully established by the Church at Rome Pope Damasus 1 commissioned "saint" Jerome to revised the Vetus Latina ("Old Latin") a collection of Bible texts in Latin then in use by the Church. Jerome made several changes to certain texts in the Bible to support the Trinity.

These are some of the changes that can be understood after a carful study.

Change

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

John 10:36 Say you of him, whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, you blaspheme, BECAUSE I SAID I AM THE SON OF GOD? (Even at his trial the Jews did not accuse Jesus of making himself God, the accuse him of making himself the Son of God John 19:7)

Addition

1 Timothy 3:16  And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preach(ed) unto the Gentiles, believe(d) on in the world, received up into glory. Why would Paul use the past tense if he was still preaching in his letter to Timothy and how could he have said believed on in the world when the NT was not even put together as yet.

Addition

John 20:28 Thomas said to him my Lord and my God.

Jesus was a Jew, Thomas was a Jew, John was also a Jew. All Jews believe in the Shema "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, is one Lord. Jesus even said it is the first and greatest commandment. Deut. 6:4, Mark 12:29.

Addition

Philippians 2:6 Being in the form of God, thought it not (robbery) to be equal with God.

Philippians 2-9 Wherefore, God also has highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name. (If Jesus is already equal to God to what has God exalted him)

Mistranslation

John 5:58 Before Abraham was, I am. Many believe in John 5:58 Jesus is claiming to be God. This is so inaccurate, firstly the Jews said to Jesus you are not fifty years old and have you see Abraham. Jesus replied Before Abraham was, I am. This has everything to do with Jesus existing before Abraham, and nothing to do with Jesus being God.

This one is a biggie

John 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.

Firstly, God has no beginning, God is from everlasting. So in the beginning would mean the beginning of creation. Secondly Jesus never claimed to be God but repeatedly called God his Father. And thirdly Jesus said God was also his God. Rev. 3:11-12

There are many more but these are the ones off the top of my head.

None -

The KJV is the only translation from the accurate Textus Receptus, whereas ALL others are translated from the corrupt text from Westcott & Hort, who modified the Textus Vaticanus & the Textus Sinai

There are very few mis-translations in the KJV.

Here's the thing. Translation is very subjective. A single word in Greek or Hebrew might have more than a dozen meanings in English, and vice versa. In many cases the original language uses a phrase for which there is a relatively accurate parallel in English, but selecting that parallel in translation actually deviates wildly from the original reading. For example, we read in the Hebrew that David "slept with his fathers." That is a Hebrew idiom referring to death. If we translate it literally, our translation does not accurately convey the intent of the author. If we translate it exclusively by its meaning ("David died"), then not only do we lose the wording of the original, but we also fail to convey the author's use of a polite euphemism in describing a revered figure.

Looking through the King James Version, we can certainly criticize some of their choices, but that is not the same thing as saying that they mistranslated the text. For example, some folks complain that the KJV uses the word "Easter" on one occasion to translate the word "Passover." While that might be a poor choice, the fact of the matter is that the word "Easter" was invented specifically to refer to the holiday called "Passover" in every other language on earth. When the KJV was translated, the terms were synonymous. The reason the translators chose the word "Easter" in that one verse is because this was specifically the Passover upon which Jesus was crucified. A poor choice? Maybe, but still an accurate translation (at that time).

In another example, the King James Version translates the same Greek word as "belief" in some contexts and "faith" in others. This decision is frequently doctrinal and designed to preserve the Protestant doctrine that salvation is by faith alone. However, in Greek, the words for "faith" and "belief" are not differentiated as they are in English, so it is technically accurate to translate that one Greek word by either of its two English equivalents. Again, the translation may create ambiguities for the reader, but it is still accurate.

In other cases, the precise tense of, say, a verb in a foreign language has no English equivalent. For example, in Greek, there are three voices: active, passive, and middle. In English, we only have the active voice and the passive voice, and in most cases the passive voice is considered improper. So, a translator must supply additional words in order to render the meaning of the middle voice, or change the syntax slightly to translate a passive verb in its active form. Similarly, in Greek, the present tense is frequently used to describe past events. While this can be translated in English the same way (i.e. in a sentence such as: "So I go to the store, and who do you think I meet?"), it typically denotes informal speech. In translation, the use of the present tense to denote past action is usually translated with the simple past tense. Also, in Greek, the imperfect tense ("he was running") is used far more often than in English, and often conveys the sense of a completed action that was not instantaneous. In English, we do not typically draw that distinction, so the simple past tense is used in translation ("he ran").

One example of how Greek verbs are hard to translate is found in the opening verses of Genesis in the Septuagint. English translations typically say "the Spirit of God moved upon the waters." In Greek, the verb "move" is in the imperfect tense and the middle voice, implying that the Spirit of God himself, and no other entity, was continuously moving of his own volition over the waters. To make matters worse, the word "move" can also mean "to bring," and the word "spirit" can also mean "wind," "air," or "breath." How would you render that passage in English, considering that the standard phraseology is already ingrained in the minds of your readers? Now, keep in mind that you want a translation that is not only readable for the non-academically inclined, but also suitable for liturgical use in the churches. It starts to get difficult at that point. And in the New Testament, the same issues occur on virtually every page of the text.

There are also cases in which the King James relies on relatively late manuscripts which leads to some deviation from the modern critical text accepted by scholars as the most likely original reading. But again, those are not translation errors - the translators of the KJV accurately translated the manuscripts that they had on hand.

There are also cases in which the meaning of English words has changed since the early 17th century. This makes some terms in the King James Version inaccurate when transposed into modern English, but in that case the reading is anachronistic, but the translation itself is still accurate.

Now, for comparison, there are some inaccurate translations out there. For example, John 1:1 is explicitly mistranslated in the NWT used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. We aren't just talking about a poor choice of words. The translation deviates directly from the clear meaning of the text and supplies a translation that conveys something completely different from the original. The KJV actually has very few cases of this.

So, overall, I would argue that there are not many mis-translations in the King James. I'm sure they exist, but most of the erroneous readings cited by its critics are not actually examples of an inaccurate translation, but a translation that was based on poor manuscripts, is frequently inconsistent, sometimes uses archaic terminology, and tends to select synonyms that advance a particular doctrinal viewpoint.

Oh, I forgot to address spelling and transliteration issues. This is another area where the translator is offered great latitude. For example, in the Hebrew Old Testament, we see the words "YHVH," "Adonai," and "Elohim" in reference to God. When the New Testament quotes passages containing these words, they always translate them into the Greek "Kurios" (for YHVH and Adonai) and "Theos" (for Elohim). Among the translators of the Septuagint and the authors of the New Testament, the Greek equivalents were considered suitable translations, and they made no effort to render the original names using Greek letters. The KJV follows the same convention, rendering YHVH as "LORD," Adonai as "Lord," and Elohim as "God." This was done both for traditional reasons (the Vulgate did the same thing in the Latin OT) and because it creates consistency between the Old and New Testaments.

Spelling variations abound in the manuscripts. "David," for example, is variously spelled ΔΑΥΙΔ or ΔΑΒΙΔ in the Greek, both of which would have been pronounced as "dah-veedh" at the time. Several Hebrew names are transliterated into Greek under both declinable and indeclinable forms, such as "Joseph" (indeclinable in Greek) vs. "Joses" (declinable), Mariam vs. Maria ("Mary" in the KJV), Juda vs. Judas, Jakob vs. Jakobos (always transliterated as "James" in the KJV), etc. In most cases, the King James Version differentiates between these forms from the OT to the NT. But keep in mind that English spelling had not yet been standardized when the KJV was translated, so even the same form of the same name is sometimes rendered inconsistently (for example, "Jude," pronounced "joo-duh" in the 16th century, vs. "Judah," which was also pronounced "joo-duh" at the time).

I stay away from ancient superstition so I don't know.

If the Bible is the real-deal, the Word of God, then we have a book that answers the issues of life. Therefore, it is very important to determine IF the Bible is reliable. The Bible is a collection of 66 books (39 Old Testament, 27 New Testament) written over a period of 1500 years by approximately 40 different authors about creation, history, prophecy and Gods plan for all of creation. This fact is a miracle ALL by itself!

How can 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years write a collection of work that doesn't contradict itself?? It can not do this without Divine intervention! Facts and principles such as the earth being round Isaiah 40:22 , earth being suspended in nothing Job 26:7 , valleys in the seas 2 Samuel 22:16 , sanitation Deuteronomy 23:12,13 , quarantine Leviticus 13:45-46 , and blood being the source of life Leviticus 17:11 (DNA) ALL these scientific findings were recorded in the Bible hundreds (sometimes thousands) of years before they were “discovered” by scientists. These are just a few examples, there are many, many more.

Who else but God could have revealed such things that were unknown to man – and yet would later be discovered and confirmed? GOD knew because he created them all! Hundreds of prophecies have been documented! Prophecy is a promise from God of what is to come. Unlike other books and false religions whose predictions have come and gone (and failed) the Bible has never missed. Consider Psalm 22:12-18 which describes the crucifixion of Christ. Now consider that this book was written 1,000 years before Christ was even born, and at least 600 years before crucifixion existed! This is just ONE example regarding Jesus, there are hundreds more.

Google "fulfilled prophecy" There are many ministries, scientists and historians whose work exclusively deals with prophecy. It seems pretty clear at this point that a book written by so many different people over such a period of time containing all of these undiscovered scientific principles and specific predictions about people, places, and events with 100% accuracy could only be the product of something supernatural - God. He tells us in 2 Timothy 3:16 that he is the author. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1947, are an overwhelming source of confirmation. These scrolls contain manuscripts about 1,000 years older than what we previously had... and they all match! It takes a lot more blind faith to ignore the Bible than it does to accept it as divine and reliable. Many intelligent and scholarly skeptics have set out to disprove the Bible and God’s existence only to find overwhelming evidence that God does exist and the Bible is His Word. Jesus says if you seek him honestly He will personally make himself known.

The fact of the matter, there are no mis-translations if you compare scripture with scripture and know that God spoke in parables and without a parable God did not speak.

There are HUNDREDS!

Bats, virgins and coat of many colours straight off.

Since I'm only conversational, not fluent, in Koine Greek and Aramaic, I can't cite any.

The one about a camel being able to go through the eye of a needle comes to mind.

The correct word is actually "rope," not "camel."