Another objection frequently raised against the Authorized Version is that its translators added words. The critic will point to the italicized words in the King James Bible and the babe-in- Christ stares at them with a mixture of dread, embarrassment, and unbelief "To think the book I trusted has been toyed with," comes the thought of doubt, sown as skillfully as it was in Eden.>
First, there are words in the Authorized Version which are not found in the blip and Greek texts. In fact, there are over 773,670 of them. Apart from an occasional allelujah, cumi or Apollyon, none of the words in an English Bible are found in the scriptures of any Greek, blip, or Aramaic manuscripts.
Second, we have translations because languages are different. I'm not trying to be insulting, but we live in a generation that does not know how to think logically. Since languages are different one must use different words in one language to make the EXACT statement contained in another language. Failure to use the necessary words would result in an interpretation or a paraphrase, but not a translation.
For example: I go to Mexico for a visit. I forget my toothbrush. Needing one to maintain relationships 1 go down to the corner store. I ask for a "cepillo de dientes." I need three words in Spanish to say the very same thing which one word covers in English. 1 am accurately translating.
Whenever the translators of the Authorized Version met with such a situation, they put the words in italics. This consent to absolute honesty stands as one of the great arguments for the A.V. text and the integrity of its translators. All versions must make such "additions" in order to bring a manuscript from one language to another.
The producers of the new Bibles not only fail to identify such places in
their work, but, by pointing scornfully to the italicized words in the A.V.,
imply that they did not use such methods. Naughty, naughty!