Translators' Preface

Here is a full-text reprint of the translators' preface to the 1611 KJV.

Key sections that undermine the KJVO argument:

• Why translation is necessary
• Why the Bible should be in an understandable language
• Why translations, including this one, can differ from each other without harming the message
• Why ambiguity or impossibility in translating required their addition of marginal notes
• Why the Catholic Bible was faulted for not being understandable enough
  

"For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables?" the 1611 translators asked (17.5).

Indeed! I say. Indeed.

Marginal Notes

How can the KJV be pure, etc. when its translators used marginal notes from the Hebrew instead of the actual Hebrew in hundreds of places? Yes, it's that ol' qere / ketiv issue, for you Hebrew scholars.

What does this mean for the KJVO "perfect preservation" argument, too?

The Ancient Fathers

Here's an interesting chapter on translation issues, before any of the more recent textual discoveries (Sinaiticus, Westcott & Hort, Vaticanus, etc.) were made.

"This goes to show that in general the conclusions of recent editors do not depend upon a small number of recently-discovered manuscripts, nor upon any theory of recensions as developed by Westcott and Hort. Indeed, as Tregelles shows, these conclusions were anciently held by fathers of the church."

All the differences in the Greek

Wow! Here is a verse by verse analysis of all the KJV/other differences based on the underlying Greek texts used to translate the NT into English. Start with the Preface.

The Webster Bible

Noah Webster produced his own revision of the KJV in 1833. And for interesting reasons (This site also contains a list of what he changed, from his own Introduction).

Changes to the KJV, and Defects Unchanged

Here is a list of changes made to the KJV from 1611 to 1769, including alterations to the text. Here is a sampling of outright translation errors, some with significant implications for proper understanding.

Obsolete and Archaic Language

Here's a link to the full text of the Bible Word-book, now in the public domain, which contains all the words in the KJV whose definitions were obsolete or archaic. Obsolete or archaic by the time of its publication in 1884, that is!

1st Ed. KJV Online

Wow! Page by page scans of the 1st edition KJV.

Jesus and translation

Examples where Jesus' affirmation of scripture differs from the KJV translation of the same scripture. An interesting line of argument.

KJV Readability

A handful of interesting oddities still found in the latest versions of the KJV and some thoughts on the "readability" issue. More oddities here, too.

Church History and the Revised Version

This might shed some light on the origin of the knee-jerk reaction to any other (non-KJV) version, along with contributing to a better understanding of the last 120 years of church history with regard to the Bible.
(JSTOR permission may be required)

The Point of Translation

A concise reminder of what Bible translation is FOR, and a few examples of the KJV's failings in that regard.

Baptists and Bible Translation

Interesting analysis of Baptists, their historical participation in world missions, and their priority of accurate, relevant Bible translation.

Note the "immerse" / "baptize" translation issue.

Some Baptist History

How was KJVO viewed by Fundamentalist Baptists prior to 1970? What does Baptist history reveal?

Purified Silver

One explanation of the error in 1) the KJV's translation of Psalm 12, and 2) the KJVO interpretation of this Psalm as a proof text for their preservation doctrine. Another treatment of this error.

The Goliath "Issue"

Who really killed Goliath? Here and here for some reasonable explanation.

Example of KJV Obscuring the Text

Here's a great example of how the KJV's rendering of a passage creates confusion for anyone but a scholar of the original language--not that such a person would then rely on KJV English to explain the meaning....

Isn't it interesting how a KJV user trying to preach or teach will paraphrase the KJV so that it can be understood in English? And how often those paraphrases sound like one of the modern translations?

King James and the Translators

Just read rule #1: Use the Bishop's Bible whenever possible. Thus, KJV is not really a fresh translation from the Greek and Hebrew, and God's Word was already believed to exist in another Bible.

Of course, the translators themselves were fine with other translations being called God's Word: "Nay, we affirm and avow that the meanest translation of the Bible in English is the word of God."

What else was in the original 1611 KJV, you ask--besides margin notes and the Apocrypha?

The wit and wisdom of Fred Butler

Excellent first-person story from a former KJVO convert.
Confessions of a King James Only Advocate

Similar to
Leaving King James Onlyism

Then read Fred Butler's
6 Arguments in Defense of KJVO

and his response to each:

• The Exclusivity Argument [1]
• The Exclusivity Argument [2]
• The Promise Argument
• The Textual Argument [1]
• The Textual Argument [2] The OT
• The Textual Argument [3] The NT
• Have Heretics Corrupted My Bible?
• Were Westcott and Hort Apostate New Agers?
• The Line of Good Bibles Argument
• The King James Translators and Their Work
• The Historical Argument

And perhaps, while we're at it, his analysis of the "inerrancy" issue, and the similarities between KJVO folk and the liberal / unitarian types:

• Liberals, KJV Onlyists, and Inerrancy
• Liberals and Inerrancy Part Two
• Responding to Non-Inerrancy Claims