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?

Preservation

Here's a good article titled "The Preservation of Scripture," by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary professor, William Combs. See also DBTS' resources on the KJV issue.

He classifies the different views of preservation, and then examines the actual verses that are used to support some of the various positions.

I appreciate his consideration of what the "word" of God means in each passage, since this can be interpreted several different ways--from prophecy, to the Scriptures, to Jesus. Unfortunately, many people fail to critically examine the meaning of "word" in the given context before applying it.

He makes an interesting point about John 21:25, also (p.24).

The KJVO myth of certainty (p. 37) is explained. How can I know my Bible is the Word of God?!

Sadly, the KJVO position boils down to a faith decision, in contradiction to the facts about the Textus Receptus tradition, the meaning of simple Greek words, and the amount of energy put forth by so many KJVO-types to present their case as reasonable, scholarly, and Biblical.

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 Geneva Bible

More from the English Bible History timeline.

The 1560 Geneva Bible:

1. 50 years before the KJV
2. "Bible of the Protestant Reformation"
3. First Bible to number the verses (the verse numbers themselves aren't Scripture....)
4. Bible of the Puritans and Pilgrims

Just read the whole timeline page! Note the anti-Protestant KJV history comments.

Tyndale on Understanding the Scriptures

Here's a great quote from the martyred William Tyndale, found in a brief history of the Bible in English, a history marked by the desire to have a Bible in the common language of the people:

"William Tyndale fought and died for the right to print the Bible in the common, spoken, modern English tongue of his day… as he boldly told one official who criticized his efforts, 'If God spare my life, I will see to it that the boy who drives the plowshare knows more of the scripture than you, Sir!'"

Given the reading ability of today's schoolchildren, the KJV, however....