The preface to the 1611 King James Version (KJV)

The preface to the 1611 King James Version (KJV), titled “The Translators to the Reader,” offers important insight into the translators' mindset and intentions. When we read this document carefully (such as at Together We Teach or Bible Researcher), we find that the KJV translators did not promote KJV-onlyism or the doctrine of a Perfect Textus Receptus (TR).

Let’s break it down.

---

🔍 1. Did the KJV translators promote KJV-Onlyism?

Absolutely not. Here are reasons why:

a. They saw their translation as one among many good ones

“We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English… containeth the word of God.”

• The translators explicitly affirmed the value of other translations, even calling earlier versions like the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible “the Word of God.”

• They believed translations could be improved and that no single version should be elevated as the perfect or final one.

b. They saw Bible translation as a continual process

“Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser.”

• This shows they did not consider the KJV as the final perfect form of Scripture. Instead, they welcomed ongoing refinement and revision.

---

📜 2. Did the KJV translators believe in a Perfect TR?

No. In fact:

a. They used multiple sources

• The translators did not rely solely on any one edition of the TR. They consulted:

  • Erasmus’ editions

  • Stephanus’ editions

  • Beza’s editions

  • The Latin Vulgate

  • The Septuagint

  • Syriac and other early versions

• They cross-checked manuscripts and versions critically, not dogmatically. They clearly did not believe in one perfect Greek or Hebrew text preserved without any variant.

b. They acknowledged textual uncertainty

“It is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.”

• This shows they did not treat any manuscript tradition as absolutely perfect or unquestionable.

---

✅ 3. What conclusions can we make from the KJV Preface?

• The KJV translators valued transparency, accuracy, and improvement in translation.

• They rejected the idea that one version, such as their own, should be treated as final or infallible.

• They believed that all faithful translations are the Word of God, not just the KJV.

So, the KJV translators themselves would reject the modern “KJV-only” movement, which insists the KJV is perfect, exclusive, and divinely preserved above all others.

---

❌ 4. Are KJV-Onlyism and Perfect TR teachings wrong?

Yes. They are unscriptural, historically inaccurate, and inconsistent with the translators' own views.

a. Scripturally flawed

• No verse teaches a specific version or edition (like the KJV or TR) is perfectly preserved to the exclusion of all others.

• God's Word is preserved in the totality of the manuscripts, not a single printed edition.

b. Historically inaccurate

• The TR has multiple versions (Erasmus 1516–1535, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1633, etc.), and they differ.

• The KJV itself does not always follow the TR exactly; it sometimes follows the Latin Vulgate or even uses its own translation choices.

c. Doctrinally dangerous

• KJV-onlyism creates division in the Church, idolizes a translation, and rejects the usefulness of other good translations like ESV, NASB, or NIV.

• It replaces the doctrine of inspiration and preservation in the original languages with an unbiblical doctrine of translation perfection.

---

📖 Biblical View of Scripture Preservation

• Psalm 119:89 – “Forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.”
  → God’s Word is preserved in heaven and faithfully transmitted on earth through careful copying and study.

• 2 Timothy 3:16–17 – “All Scripture is God-breathed…”
  → Paul refers to the Scriptures Timothy had, which were copies — not originals or perfect editions.

• Luke 1:1–4 – Luke acknowledges many written accounts and a careful investigation.
  → This shows a non-dogmatic, evidence-based approach to textual transmission and writing.

---

✅ Final Conclusion:

The 1611 KJV Preface disproves KJV-onlyism and Perfect TR beliefs.

The translators saw their work as part of a larger process of faithful translation, not the final word. KJV-only and Perfect TR doctrines are modern inventions that misrepresent both the original translators and the history of the Bible. They should be rejected in favor of a more biblical, historical, and faithful understanding of God's Word and its transmission.