The marginal notes in the 1611 KJV proves KJV is imperfect

The 1611 King James Version (KJV) margin often included literal Hebrew or Greek idioms (labeled with a dagger †) alongside alternative English renderings (labeled with double parallel lines ||). You can review complete digitizations and breakdowns via resources like the 1611 King James Bible The Original Blackletter Edition (click https://blackletterkingjamesbible.com/Library/MarginNotes ) or the Literatura Bautista Exhaustive Listing (click https://en.literaturabautista.com/exhaustive-listing-marginal-notes-1611-edition-king-james-bible

Examples of Alternative and Literal Margin Readings

• Isaiah 26:4 – Main text: "Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is the rock of ages." The margin notes an alternative literal rendering of the Hebrew idiom: "Heb. the rock of ages" (which actually popularized the phrase into Christian hymnody, though it sits in the margin of 1611 rather than as the primary translation sentence structure for that specific clause depending on the layout context). 
• Genesis 25:28 – Main text: "And Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison..." The 1611 margin provides the highly graphic, literal Hebrew translation: "Heb. venison was in his mouth." 
• Romans 7:5 – Main text: "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law..." The margin clarifies the underlying Greek term: "Gr. passions" rather than motions.
• Matthew 6:2 – Main text: "Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee..." The margin offers a subtle grammatical alternative: "Or, cause not a trumpet to be sounded". 
• Genesis 29:6 – Main text: "And he said unto them, Is he well?" The margin details the literal Semitic idiom: "Heb. Is there peace to him?" 

WARNING FROM THE TRANSLATORS

Many of the margin notes reveal many instances where the KJV translators were forced to interpret as part of their translation work. The KJV translators were not always certain that they had made the correct interpretation, and hence the margin note. In the preface of the 1611 they explained that we should not dogmatize on the basis of their interpretation:

…it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment … 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? … They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.

The notes indicate a desire on the part of the KJV translators to be very accurate and as literal as possible, in part because they sometimes noted matters where the departure from the original language was very slight. However, at other times some departures may seem surprising, such as when their notes reveal that they left out "spirit" in Genesis 7:22. The object of the margin notes is usually to expand the meaning of a single word or short phrase. In some cases, lengthy phrases or in rarer cases an entire verse is rewritten in the margin. The margin notes reveal some italics were inconsistent (though perhaps they should be considered vindicated by the content of the margin notes). (Copied from The Original Blackletter Edition https://blackletterkingjamesbible.com/Library/MarginNotes)

Conclusion:

The marginal notes in the 1611 KJV reveal something more nuanced than a simple claim of imperfection—they demonstrate the translators’ intellectual honesty about textual uncertainty.

The original 1611 edition contained approximately 7,342 marginal notes indicating textual variants[1], but these served a specific purpose. The notes presented alternative or more literal renderings, and in some cases specified variant readings in the original text or offered brief explanations of words and expressions[2]. Critically, the translators added these marginal notes to indicate reasonable alternative renderings, not as commentary[3].

The translators’ preface reveals their actual position on perfection. They made clear they held no illusions that their translation itself was perfect or the final Word of God, distinguishing between the translation and the original language by admitting that only the original Greek and Hebrew texts were inspired, while the translation was considered Scripture insofar as it accurately reflected the original documents[1]. When criticized that such notes undermined reader confidence, they responded that “they that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it might be the other”[3].

This represents a fundamentally different claim than asserting perfection. The KJV translators acknowledged textual complexity and invited readers to engage with it rather than imposing false certainty. Unlike defenders of the Textus Receptus who claim an edition is perfect, the KJV translators explicitly rejected such pretensions, demonstrating that they anticipated later research would help clarify the meaning of the original[1]. Their transparency about uncertainty actually strengthens rather than weakens their credibility.

[1] John Bertone, Finding God in Scripture (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2016). [See here, here, here.]
[2] Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed., in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1908–1914), 2:158–159.
[3] Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss, and Steven M. Voth, Zondervan, The Challenge of Bible Translation: Communicating God’s Word to the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2009). [See here, here.]