Hassell on KJV (again)

In a recent post titled "Elder C.H. Cayce on the KJV" (here) I showed where Cayce and Elder Sylvester Hassell showed that they did not believe that the KJV translation was perfect. I want to add another citation from Hassell on this question. In the September 1893 issue (Vol. 15) of "The Gospel Messenger" (available to read here) Elder Sylvester was still writing a series on "The Interpretation of the Scriptures" (since the beginning of that year). In this edition he wrote the following about the King James Version of the Scriptures (emphasis mine):

"3d —Renderings which are now declared incorrect by all critical lexicons and commentaries remain in the King James version. Thus we have apothecary for perfume; bittern for porcupine; borrow for ask; candle for lamp; dragons for monsters; foxes for jackals; groves for pillars; hats for mantles; lamps for torches; linen yarn for droves of horses; mules for warm springs; owl for ostrich; paper reeds for meadows; spider for lizard ; sweet influences for cluster or chain; troop for vault; unicorn for wild ox, etc,

4th—MISUSE OF PREPOSITION. Matt. vi. 10, "in earth" should be "on earth." Heb. iv. 9, "Rest to or for the people of God," the word for "people" being in the dative case, so that either "to " or "for" is correct. Matt. iii. 11, " Baptize with water" should be "baptize in water." John iii. 16 and 18, believe "in" and "on" is exactly the same in the Greek, the proposition being eis. Rom. vi. 23, "Through Jesus Christ" should be "in Jesus Christ." Heb i 1, "By the prophets" should be ''in the prophets." Heb. i. 2, ''By his Son" should be "in his Son." 1 Cor. iii. 9, "We are laborers together with God" should be "we" (that is, Paul and Apollos) "are God's fellow-workers," (that is, companions in labor to the same Master, God ) In Acts ii. 38, "for" or "unto the remission of sins" is right; eis never means "on account of"; baptism is for the symbolical remission of sins, as is proved by Acts iii. 19; xxii. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 21; Heb. ix. 22; 1 John i. 7; v. 8; Rev. i. 5"

So, he believes that the King James translators got many things wrong in their translation.