As you know, I am a strong KJV advocate. But it is not free of textual or translational errors.
As an example of the former, the most notable is the so-called "Johannine comma," in I John 5:7-8. None of the Byzantine manuscripts contain this phrase. It is found only in a handful of very late Western manuscripts and has been pretty convincingly traced to a marginal note of a medieval Catholic manuscript -- from whence it was put back into certain Greek manuscripts in the West.
The entire argument for the authority of the Textus Receptus is based on the fact that it reflects the Byzantine textual tradition, where Greek was used without interruption from the time of the Apostles down to Erasmus's time (and of course is still used today.) The tremendous unanimity of the hundreds of manuscripts divided by long distances and times in the Byzantine textual tradition reflects extremely careful copying and, I believe, the preserving action of the Holy Spirit. (This is pretty close attention to detail regarding the exact words of Scripture for a Church which some believe is only concerned with the general spiritual meaning of the Scriptures.)
The Johannine comma is not incorrect in its theology, but it is a pretty clear late insertion into the text.
Mistranslations are often a matter of opinion. Orthodox Christians would prefer that the ambiguous statement that appears three times in the NT, "ti emoi kai soi", be translated more literally. It literally means "What to me and to thee?"
The KJV translated it in both the case of the Gadarene demoniac and in Christ's words to his mother at Cana as "what have I to do with thee?"
The Catholic Douay-Rheims takes the same ambiguity found in Latin, "Quid mihi et tibi," and interprets it in each passage. For the Gadarene demoniac, it says "what have I to do with Thee?" And in Christ's use of it, the D-R translates the same phrase as "what is that to me and to thee?"
Keep in mind that in the passage in St. Mark, the demoniac runs and does homage to Christ before saying "ti emoi kai soi?" The demons are, in essence, saying to Christ: "we know that you are the Son of God -- and we're powerful spirits ourselves. What does it matter to you what we do with this lowly human?"
If "ti emoi kai soi?" were a put-down statement that basically said "shut up, I have nothing to do with you," (as many Protestants believe that Christ was saying to his mother) then one would not expect the demoniac to do homage (or "worship", as the KJV says -- the Latin says "et adoravit eum" -- adoration is strictly limited to what is due God) to Christ while he says it.
So the Douay-Rheims does capture the essence of what the passage means in the case of Christ speaking to his mother, but something is lost of the ambiguity. Likewise, the KJV misses the point somewhat, I think, in *both* passages.
These, again, are matters of interpretation. It is not possible or desirable always to have an exact equivalence between a Greek word or phrase and an English word or phrase. I recently discussed the "he who loses his life will save it... what shall a man give in exchange for his soul" passage, in which "psyche" is correctly translated into two different English words, depending on context.
Again, I am a great advocate of preserving and using the KJV. I have a KJV Gospel open beside me on a reading stand, a KJV Bible to my right on my desk, and a KJV with Textus Receptus Greek interlinear in front of me. Finding fault with the KJV is sort of like (if you will forgive the inadequate analogy) me critiquing Tiger Woods' golf game or Michael Jordan's jump-shot. The KJV translators are the giants -- we are the midgets who sit on their shoulders in the English-speaking world.
...as the Jews endeavour to take an advantage of this against the character of Mary, the Papists are very solicitous about the manner in which these words are said, lest they should be thought to contain a reproof, which they cannot bear she should be judged worthy of; or suggest any thing to her dishonour, whom they magnify as equal to her son: but certain it is, that the following words,And so we see a certain variety of readings here, hints of Jewish challenges to how Jesus addressed his mother and whether a Jewish man would speak to his mother in this way, Rome's objections that Jesus might sass his mother since they think she is a Co-Redemptrix (while also trying to deny it), etc. Gill takes a medium approach here, suggesting He reproved her for suggesting He perform a miracle and that she accepted His authority gracefully. Given that Baptists do not hold to Marian notions, this verse is not as charged for us as it would be for the Orthodox and even more so for Rome.
what have I to do with thee?
show resentment and reproof. Some render the words, "what is it to thee and me?" and give this as the sense; what concern is this of ours? what business have we with it? let them look to it, who are the principal in the feast, and have the management of it. The Jew (r) objects to this sense of the words, but gives a very weak reason for it:"but I say, (says he,) who should be concerned but the master of the feast? and he was the master of the feast:''whereas it is a clear case that he was one of the guests, one that was invited, (John 2:2), and that there was a governor or ruler of the feast, who might be more properly called the master of it than Jesus, (John 2:8). However, since Christ afterwards did concern himself in it, it looks as if this was not his meaning. Others render it to the sense we do, "what have I with thee?" as the Ethiopic version; or "what business hast thou with me?" as the Persic version; and is the same with, מה לי ולך, "what have I to do with thee?" used in 1 Kings 17:18, where the Septuagint use the same phrase as here; and such a way of speaking is common with Jewish writers (s): hereby signifying, that though, as man, and a son of hers, he had been subject to her, in which he had set an example of obedience to parents; yet, as God, he had a Father in heaven, whose business he came to do; and in that, and in his office, as Mediator, she had nothing to do with him; nor was he to be directed by her in that work; or to be told, or the least hint given when a miracle should be wrought, by him in confirmation of his mission and doctrine. Moreover, he adds,
mine hour is not yet come:
meaning not the hour of his sufferings and death, in which sense he sometimes uses this phrase; as if the hint was, that it was not proper for him to work miracles as yet, lest it should provoke his enemies to seek his life before his time; but rather the time of his public ministry and miracles, which were to go together, and the one to be a proof of the other; though it seems to have a particular regard to the following miracle, the time of doing that was not yet come; the proper juncture, when all fit circumstances meeting together, it would be both the more useful, and the more illustrious: or his meaning is, that his time of doing miracles in public was not yet; and therefore, though he was willing to do this miracle, yet he chose to do it in the most private manner; so that only a few, and not the principal persons at the feast should know it: wherefore the reproof was not so much on the account of the motion itself, as the unseasonableness of it; and so his mother took it.
4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Why does Christ repel her so rashly? I reply, though she was not moved by ambition, nor by any carnal affection, still she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds. Her anxiety about the inconvenience endured by others, and her desire to have it in some way mitigated, proceeded from humanity, and ought to be regarded as a virtue; but still, by putting herself forward, she might obscure the glory of Christ. Though it ought also to be observed, that what Christ spoke was not so much for her sake as for the sake of others. Her modesty and piety were too great, to need so severe a chastisement. Besides, she did not knowingly and willingly offend; but Christ only meets the danger, that no improper use may be made of what his mother had said, as if it were in obedience to her command that he afterwards performed the miracle.In the second and third paragraphs, we see a sample of Calvin, the thoughtful and contemplative scholar and the lover of scripture and its study. His remarks and approach are instructive for any student of scripture. In the fourth paragraph, we see Calvin as the greatest Reformer, taking the theological fight to the enemy, Rome. The language may seem harsh but we should recall that these were life and death matters to the peoples of that time. And Calvin's charges against the Marianism of Rome are not entirely excessive by any means.The Greek words (Ti> ejmoi< kai< soi<) literally mean, What to me and to thee? But the Greek phraseology is of the same import with the Latin Quid tibi mecum? (what hast thou to do with me?) The old translator led many people into a mistake, by supposing Christ to have asserted, that it was no concern of his, or of his mother’s, if the wine fell short. But from the second clause we may easily conclude how far removed this is from Christ’s meaning; for he takes upon himself this concern, and declares that it belongs to him to do so, when he adds, my hour is not yet come. Both ought to be joined together — that Christ understands what it is necessary for him to do, and yet that he will not act in this matter at his mother’s suggestion.
It is a remarkable passage certainly; for why does he absolutely refuse to his mother what he freely granted afterwards, on so many occasions, to all sorts of persons? Again, why is he not satisfied with a bare refusal? and why does he reduce her to the ordinary rank of women, and not even deign to call her mother? This saying of Christ openly and manifestly warns men to beware lest, by too superstitiously elevating the honor of the name of mother in the Virgin Mary, f43 they transfer to her what belongs exclusively to God. Christ, therefore, addresses his mother in this manner, in order to lay down a perpetual and general instruction to all ages, that his divine glory must not be obscured by excessive honor paid to his mother.
How necessary this warning became, in consequence of the gross and disgraceful superstitions which followed afterwards, is too well known. For Mary has been constituted the Queen of Heaven, the Hope, the Life, and the Salvation of the world; and, in short, their fury and madness proceeded so far that they stripped Christ of his spoils, and left him almost naked. And when we condemn those horrid blasphemies against the Son of God, the Papists call us malignant and envious; and — what is worse — they maliciously slander us as deadly foes to the honor of the holy Virgin. As if she had not all the honor that is due to her, unless she were made a Goddess; or as if it were treating her with respect, to adorn her with blasphemous titles, and to substitute her in the room of Christ. The Papists, therefore, offer a grievous insult to Mary when, in order to disfigure her by false praises, they take from God what belongs to Him.
My hour is not yet come. He means that he has not hitherto delayed through carelessness or indolence, but at the same time he states indirectly that he will attend to the matter, when the proper time for it shall arrive. As he reproves his mother for unseasonable haste, so, on the other hand, he gives reason to expect a miracle. The holy Virgin acknowledges both, for she abstains from addressing him any farther; and when she advises the servants to do whatever he commands, she shows that she expects something now. But the instruction conveyed here is still more extensive that whenever the Lord holds us in suspense, and delays his aid, he is not therefore asleep, but, on the contrary, regulates all His works in such a manner that he does nothing but at the proper time. Those who have applied this passage to prove that the time of events is appointed by Fate, are too ridiculous to require a single word to be said for refuting them. The hour of Christ sometimes denotes the hour which had been appointed to him by the Father; and by his time he will afterwards designate what he found to be convenient and suitable for executing the commands of his Father; but in this place he claims the right to take and choose the time for working and for displaying his Divine power. f44