I'm aware of the justification. But it's wrong. There were more than just grammatical fixes.
You know that verse that you gave VS to translate, and wouldn't accept him using the proper noun instead of the pronoun? There are instances where the 1769 edition changed pronouns. l
At least VS didn't change the meaning of the verse.
AV has NO KNOWLEDGE of any of these topics, especially where they involve the original texts. So he has no idea that the King James Version is sometimes far closer to a paraphrase than I personally allow in my own translation work. Indeed, he accused me of paraphrasing when I simply preserved the ambiguity of the text---and AVOIDED the flip-of-the-coin approach that the KJV translators used in such cases. (For example, if I can't determine from the original text the gender of a word, I usually look for an English rendering that is equally ambiguous. That is, I try to avoid situations where my translation provides MORE detail ---or resolves some ambiguity--- compared with the original. I don't want to ADD or DELETE from the Biblical text. AV didn't like the fact that I refused to be as "reckless" as the KJV so often was, because they added and deleted quite often, sometimes by design but sometimes by relative incompetence.)**
I do NOT wish to give the impression that the KJV translators were trying to do a bad job or were somehow deviously motivated. I think they did a reasonably good job for what they had to work with at the time. If I had to grade the, I'd even give them a B- and perhaps even a B. (Had they done their work TODAY, I would give the translation a D-, but that's not fair, obviously. They had very little to work with at that time. For example, with the New Testament, they had between two and six manuscript sources, depending upon the passage. But they worked under huge disadvantages in terms of lexical resources and they struggled CENTURIES before the papyrii of Egypt were discovered that made such a huge difference in resolving so many Koine Greek issues---and that really didn't begin until around WWI. And Biblical linguistics hardly started impacting Bible translation until the 1970's. Of course, mostly the KJV translators just plagiarized from the previous Bibles, especially for what are today considered the most "grand" and elevating KJV passages!)
AV thinks that a good translator somehow removes all questions and ambiguities from the original text---but that is what sells PARAPHRASES! As usual, AV has his facts wrong by 180 degrees. To him it is unthinkable that God would allow the Bible to leave any ambiguities in a translation or allow for mysteries in the grammar or word choices. But such is INHERENT to language. And the Bible itself reminds us of those mysteries and ambiguities! ("We see through a glass but darkly.") And the disciples even complained to Jesus that he spoke in parables---and Jesus replied and shocked them by saying that God intentionally obscures various truths and withholds understanding!
The worship of the imagined supremacy of the KJV has always amazed me---but it is important to also keep in mind how much the KJV was hated in its own day as a dangerous "modern translation" that was allegedly trying to undermine the truths of the Bible! Tradition always works that way---just as the tradition-lovers in every age can never come up with reasons why their view is the only correct one. (Just watch AV mumble and squirm whenever we ask to explain WHY he believes various things. He can't tell us the "why" because he himself has no idea. Of course, with much of his bizarre stuff, he simply throws out nonsense to get attention and we all know it is just a joke. He enjoys it.)
But I'm sure the Christians in China were I recently completed work on a new New Testament translation in Chinese with notes would be flabbergasted if I tried to explain to them AV's views on the superiority of Jacobean English and its special role, allegedly, in God's plan of history. I have sometimes wondered if there are similar "traditionalists" in China who insist that some archaic version of Mandarin was the language of Adam or the throne of God---but when I've asked questions like that of my international colleagues, they think I'm joking. (As one said with a laugh, "Only America has super-crackpots like that!")
If I really thought that visitors to these threads were taking him seriously, I would exegetically shred his pseudo-exegesis word-by-word. But because his knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is just about as non-existent as his mangling of basic English Bible reading comprehension, it would be an exercise in futility. A Proverbs 22:10 ending would take a while, no doubt. AV's unfamiliarity with even the most basic lexicographic tools of translation led him to shoot off his own foot today when he challenged my use of the standard abbreviation of Danker's latest edition of the Bauer lexicon. That tells me he doesn't even have the knowledge of a first semester Bible college Greek student. (Not that I would even expect him to pass the qualifying exams for admission to a solid M.A./NT program.) Dunning-Kruger is a massive problem among the creationists who heckle in these threads and AV is their poster child.