The 1611 KJV translators did not claim perfection

The 1611 KJV Preface: https://blackletterkingjamesbible.com/Library/Preface

The 1611 KJV translators did not claim that their English translation was perfect or incapable of correction. The clearest statements are below, with the relevant sentences rendered in CAPITAL LETTERS. I have preserved the wording of the Preface as much as possible and capitalized only sentences that explicitly contradict the belief that the KJV translation itself is perfect.

Capitalized Statements

The Septuagint

It is certain, that that Translation was NOT SO SOUND AND SO PERFECT, BUT THAT IT NEEDED IN MANY PLACES CORRECTION; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolike men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient, rather than making a new.

Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit, so it is evident, and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much, that the Seventy were Interpreters, THEY WERE NOT PROPHETS; they did many things well, as learned men, but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it.

Earlier English Translations

And to the same effect say we, that we are so far off from condemning any of their labours that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land, or beyond sea, either in King Henry’s time, or King Edward’s, if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time, or Queen Elizabeth’s of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance.

Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser, so, 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.

The Translators’ Own Purpose

Truly, good Christian Reader, 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, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.

This statement indicates that the translators viewed the work as an improvement and revision, not as the production of an absolutely perfect English Bible.

Imperfections in Translation

Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

As the King’s speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, THOUGH IT BE NOT INTERPRETED BY EVERY TRANSLATOR WITH THE LIKE GRACE, NOR PERADVENTURE SO FITLY FOR PHRASE, NOR SO EXPRESSLY FOR SENSE, EVERYWHERE.

A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all; also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars.

NO CAUSE THEREFORE WHY THE WORD TRANSLATED SHOULD BE DENIED TO BE THE WORD, OR FORBIDDEN TO BE CURRENT, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SOME IMPERFECTIONS AND BLEMISHES MAY BE NOTED IN THE SETTING FORTH OF IT.

This is one of the strongest passages. The translators explicitly acknowledged that a translation may contain “imperfections and blemishes” while still rightly being called the Word of God.

Only the Apostles Were Infallible

For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

The translators connect infallibility with the apostles or apostolic men who possessed an extraordinary measure of the Spirit. They do not apply that privilege to ordinary Bible translators.

The Apostles Used an Imperfect Translation

The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess.

THE TRANSLATION OF THE SEVENTY DISSENTETH FROM THE ORIGINAL IN MANY PLACES, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet the Apostles used it.

This directly rejects the idea that a translation must be absolutely identical to the original manuscripts in every place before it can be recognized as Scripture.

Repeated Correction Is Legitimate

For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault by such as were wise to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?

If we be sons of the Truth, WE MUST CONSIDER WHAT IT SPEAKETH, AND TRAMPLE UPON OUR OWN CREDIT, yea, and upon other men’s too, if either be any way an hindrance to it.

For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already, and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar, the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished also; IF ANYTHING BE HALTING, OR SUPERFLUOUS, OR NOT SO AGREEABLE TO THE ORIGINAL, THE SAME MAY BE CORRECTED, AND THE TRUTH SET IN PLACE.

The translators defended revising earlier English Bibles and stated that anything not agreeing with the original could be corrected. This is incompatible with claiming that their own translation was beyond all correction.

Uncertain Readings

Concerning the Hebrews themselves, they are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as Saint Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.

Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?

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.

Therefore as Saint 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.

These remarks show that the translators accepted legitimate uncertainty in some textual and translational matters and believed that variant readings could assist the reader in determining the meaning.

No Uniformity of Wording

Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle Reader, that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done.

For there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere.

But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word—as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by PURPOSE, never to call it INTENT; if one where JOURNEYING, never TRAVELLING; if one where THINK, never SUPPOSE; if one where PAIN, never ACHE; if one where JOY, never GLADNESS, etc.—thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom.

The translators did not believe that one Hebrew or Greek word had to be represented by exactly one English word every time. Their method allowed variation according to context.

Scholarly Conclusion

The Preface strongly supports these conclusions:

• The translators regarded previous English Bibles as genuine works of God’s providence.
• They believed translations could contain errors, imperfections, and blemishes.
• They considered correction and revision necessary and beneficial.
• They distinguished ordinary translators from the inspired and infallible apostles.
• They acknowledged that the Septuagint differed from the Hebrew original in many places.
• They permitted uncertainty and alternative readings in the margins.
• They did not present the 1611 English translation as verbally perfect or immune from correction.

Thus, the Preface does not teach modern KJV-only perfectionism. It teaches a high view of Scripture while recognizing that translations are human works that may be improved. The translators themselves described their goal as making “a good one better,” not creating an English Bible incapable of error or revision.[bible-researcher][forwardtheword][founders]