KJV's Preface: The Translators to the Reader

When the KJV was first released in 1611, it came with a preface titled The Translators to the Reader. (Click Here)

Based on the KJV Translators' own Preface ("THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER"), they explicitly and vigorously refute the core tenets of KJV-Onlyism. Their words demonstrate profound humility, a respect for prior translations, an expectation of future revisions, and a belief that multiple translations are beneficial – the exact opposite of KJV-Only doctrine.

Here's a breakdown of their beliefs and how their words refute KJV-Onlyism, point by point:

Deep Respect & Reliance on Previous Translations:

What they said: They repeatedly praise and acknowledge their debt to earlier English Bibles (Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Cranmer/Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops'). They call them "good" and "godly," stating they "built upon" their foundations. They specifically mention using "the same materials" (previous translations) and "that which helped the advantage" in them.

Refutes KJV-Onlyism: KJV-Onlyism typically denigrates or rejects all other English translations as corrupt or inferior. The Translators explicitly valued and used these earlier works, seeing them as legitimate and helpful. They did not believe their translation invalidated or replaced all others.

Humility & Acknowledgement of Imperfection:

What they said: They readily admit their work isn't perfect or final. Key quotes:

"We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one."

"For perfection is under the sun... We cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself... yet he useth divers words."

"We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." (Emphasis on meanest meaning "most humble" or "simplest").

"We are so far off from condemning any of their labours that travailed before us in this kind... that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God for the building and furnishing of his Church..."

Refutes KJV-Onlyism: KJV-Onlyism claims the KJV is uniquely perfect, flawless, or the only valid English Word of God. The Translators explicitly stated their goal was improvement, not perfection; they affirmed God's word was present even in the simplest prior translations; and they condemned the idea of condemning those earlier works. They saw themselves as part of an ongoing process, not the endpoint.

Anticipation & Endorsement of Future Revision:

What they said: They directly state that if their work seems faulty, it should be corrected:

"If we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us."

"For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

"Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see." (This shows their process was revision based on multiple sources).

Refutes KJV-Onlyism: KJV-Onlyism forbids any revision or correction of the KJV, viewing it as sacrosanct. The Translators not only expected but invited future generations to improve upon their work, just as they had improved upon their predecessors. They saw translation as an ongoing, collaborative effort needing revision, not a frozen, untouchable artifact.

Belief in the Value of Multiple Translations:

What they said: They use a powerful analogy:

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded... For they that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

They also compare translations to a water channel: if one becomes muddy, having another source is good.

Refutes KJV-Onlyism: KJV-Onlyism insists that only the KJV is valid and all others are harmful. The Translators argued the opposite: multiple translations (and even marginal notes indicating textual variations) are profitable and necessary for understanding. They valued diversity and comparison, not singularity and captivity to one version.

The Translators' Core Belief About Their Work:

They saw the KJV not as the only or final English Bible, but as the best current culmination of a long tradition of English Bible translation. They aimed to produce a "principal good one" out of the "many good ones" that came before, explicitly for the use of the Church of England. They believed it was a faithful rendering using the best available sources and scholarship of their day, undertaken with reverence and care. Crucially, they believed the Word of God was authentically present in earlier English translations and anticipated that future translations would, and should, build upon and improve their own work.

Refuting KJV-Onlyism Using the Translators' Own Words:

The KJV Preface is perhaps the strongest internal evidence against KJV-Onlyism. To claim the KJV is the only valid English Bible is to directly contradict the explicit statements of the men who created it:

They revered prior translations that KJV-Onlyism rejects.

They declared God's Word was present in those "lesser" translations.

They admitted their own work wasn't perfect and expected future revision.

They explicitly endorsed the value of multiple translations as essential for understanding, condemning the idea of being "captivated to one."

They saw themselves as part of an ongoing tradition, not the final word.

Conclusion:

The KJV Translators would be utterly dismayed by KJV-Onlyism. Their Preface reveals a profound humility, a deep respect for the work of others, an expectation of progress, and a belief in the necessity of multiple translations to illuminate the meaning of Scripture. KJV-Onlyism, by insisting on the exclusive perfection and finality of their translation, fundamentally misrepresents the Translators' own stated beliefs and intentions as clearly laid out in "THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER." They saw the KJV as a significant step in a continuous process, not the end of the road.