Here are some examples:
"Against" used to merely mean opposite or confronting. Thus in I Samuel 25:20
"And it was so, as she rode on the ass, that she came down by the covert of the hill, and, behold, David and his men came down against her; and she met them." (KJV)
"So it was, as she rode on the donkey, that she went down under cover of the hill; and there were David and his men, coming down toward her, and she met them." (NKJV)
In today's English you would think the KJV was saying that David and his men were attacking her when it means they came toward her to confront her.
An even better example is the old English word "let." In 1611, when the KJV was translated, "let" had two meanings:
1) to permit or to allow
2) to hinder, impede or prevent.
Today only the first definition survives, but the KJV has a few places where the old second definition is used:
Isaiah 43:13
"Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?" (KJV)
"Indeed before the day was, I am He; And there is no one who can deliver out of My hand; I work, and who will reverse it?" (NKJV)
Romans 1:13
"Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles." (KJV)
"Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles." (NKJV)
II Thessalonians 2:7
"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way." (KJV)
"For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way." (NKJV)
Another example is the word "meat." In the King James day it meant any food used for nourishment. Today it is limited to animal flesh. This can cause confusion when you read about the "meat offering" in the Old Testament in the KJV and then find out that the offering is composed of flour and oil (but not meat). Or read in Habakkuk 3:17, "and the fields shall yield no meat" (KJV) which means "and the fields yield no food" (NKJV).
In each of these verses you could walk away with the wrong understanding if you use the KJV. This is not to say that the KJV is a bad translation. The problem is that English has changed as a language, sometimes slightly, sometimes significantly.
An example of a slight change is the word "naughtiness." Today it means a minor misdeed, such as done by a child. But in the King James day it meant extreme wickedness or very bad.
James 1:21
"Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." (KJV)
"Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls." (NKJV).
Jeremiah 24:2
"One basket had very good figs, even like the figs that are first ripe: and the other basket had very naughty figs, which could not be eaten, they were so bad." (KJV)
"One basket had very good figs, like the figs that are first ripe; and the other basket had very bad figs which could not be eaten, they were so bad." (NKJV)
This is why I generally don't recommend the KJV
