King James Only?

Blogging our way through the King James Only debate

What the KJV Translators Said About Future Revision

The King James Version is often presented as though its first appearance in 1611 settled every question about English Bible translation. In King James Only writing, the translators may be treated as uniquely guided men whose finished work cannot be corrected without attacking Scripture itself. Their own preface tells a more measured story.

The preface, usually known as The Translators to the Reader, was printed with the 1611 Bible. It explains why a new English Bible was commissioned, describes the sources consulted, and defends the value of translating Scripture into accessible language. It also acknowledges the difficulty of the task and the legitimacy of improving earlier work.

This matters for readers in Australia who encounter claims about the KJV at a church in Sydney, a Bible study in Melbourne, or through online ministries reaching Brisbane and Perth. The question is not whether the KJV is valuable. The historical question is whether its translators believed their English wording was beyond review.

They did not. They respected earlier translations, compared multiple witnesses, and aimed to improve an existing English Bible. Their method assumes that translation involves judgement, comparison, correction, and continued examination. That is very different from the claim that the 1611 wording was delivered as a permanently flawless form of the Bible.

The KJV Was Designed As An Improvement

The translators directly explained that they had not set out simply to create a Bible from nothing. Their famous statement says they did not intend “to make a new translation” or “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.”

That language places the KJV within a history of English revision. The translators valued the work of William Tyndale, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, and other versions. They did not regard every earlier translation as worthless because it came before their own. Instead, they treated earlier Bibles as resources that could be tested and refined.

The KJV therefore began as a revision project, especially of the Bishops’ Bible. Its translators compared English renderings with Hebrew and Greek texts and consulted previous versions. Their own description does not support the idea that a faithful Bible must be produced without dependence on earlier translators.

Their Preface Recognised The Difficulty Of Translation

The preface repeatedly presents translation as demanding intellectual and linguistic work. Hebrew and Greek words can carry ranges of meaning, and the best English expression may depend on context. A translator must decide how closely to follow the structure of the original language and how clearly to communicate its meaning in English.

The translators also defended their decision not to use exactly the same English word every time an original-language word appeared. They wrote that they had not bound themselves “to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.” In their view, a rigid pattern could obscure meaning rather than preserve it.

This is significant because some modern KJV-only arguments treat verbal consistency as a mark of superior accuracy. The translators themselves were more cautious. They understood that Hebrew and Greek terms do not always correspond to one English word in every context, and that a translation may need varied wording to communicate the sense.

A Good Translation Could Be Made Better

The phrase “to make a good one better” is especially important when discussing future revisions. It describes the translators’ attitude towards an existing translation, but the principle plainly allows the same process to continue. If a good Bible can be improved through comparison and correction, there is no obvious reason why the process must stop in 1611.

The preface does not claim that the translators had reached an untouchable final form. It gives reasons for their choices, answers objections, and asks readers to judge the work fairly. That is the language of responsible scholarship, not a declaration that every spelling, phrase, or textual decision is permanently immune from review.

Nor should this be confused with saying that the translators expected endless alteration based on personal preference. Revision was to be governed by evidence: the original languages, earlier English Bibles, manuscript knowledge, grammar, and the meaning of the passage. Their approach was conservative, but it was not frozen.

What Their Preface Actually Allows

The translators’ own principles point towards several conclusions that are often overlooked in KJV-only discussions.

The preface also explains why variety among translations can be useful. Comparing different renderings may help readers investigate the meaning of difficult passages. This does not make every translation equally accurate, but it does reject the idea that one approved English wording must be treated as the only legitimate avenue to biblical truth.

In practical terms, the translators provide a model for evaluating the KJV. A reader in Adelaide or Hobart does not have to choose between reverence for the Bible and honest study of its translation history. Respect for Scripture can include asking why a phrase was chosen, what the underlying text says, and whether later evidence supports or challenges an inherited reading.

Later KJV Editions Already Involved Revision

The phrase “the KJV” can conceal a complicated publishing history. The 1611 edition was followed by further editions that corrected printing errors and altered details of presentation. Spelling, punctuation, paragraphing, italics, and occasional wording were adjusted over time.

The commonly used KJV text today is closely associated with the 1769 Oxford edition edited by Benjamin Blayney, not simply with every detail of the first 1611 printing. Earlier and later editions differ in thousands of small matters, many involving spelling and typography. Some differences reflect the development of English printing; others corrected mistakes introduced by printers.

This history makes claims about a single untouched KJV difficult to sustain. A Bible purchased from an Australian Christian bookshop, ordered online, or downloaded for use at a church in regional New South Wales will normally reflect a later standardised form. It is still called the KJV, but it is not a museum copy of the first printing.

KJV-only advocates sometimes respond that these changes are merely cosmetic. In many cases they are minor, but that response still concedes the central point: the KJV tradition has involved correction and revision. The real question is not whether change occurred, but which changes were justified and how far revision should go.

The Translators Were Not Arguing For Verbal Infallibility

The preface strongly defends the authority of Scripture, yet it does not identify the translators’ English sentences with a miraculous, error-free dictation. Their confidence rests on the biblical text and on faithful translation, not on the claim that every decision they made was incapable of improvement.

They knew that translators could misunderstand a passage, choose a less suitable English expression, or inherit a weakness from an earlier version. Their willingness to consult multiple sources shows that they expected knowledge and judgement to matter. That expectation leaves room for later scholars to re-examine manuscripts, grammar, and context.

This distinction is useful in Australian churches where KJV-only claims can become linked with questions about preaching, Bible college training, or which edition a congregation should use. A person can prefer the KJV for its literary influence and familiar cadence without accepting the stronger claim that all later revisions are corrupt.

The translators’ position is also more intellectually modest than some modern defences of the KJV. They produced a major translation for their own time, using the resources available to them. They did not present themselves as the final court of appeal for every future generation of English-speaking Christians.

Why This Matters For KJV-Only Arguments

The translators’ words do not settle every debate about textual criticism. They do, however, challenge a central assumption of the KJV-only movement: that faithfulness requires treating the KJV’s traditional English wording as permanently beyond correction.

A historically responsible view can recognise the KJV’s strengths while acknowledging its limitations. It has memorable prose, a powerful cultural legacy, and many passages of lasting beauty. It also reflects the linguistic knowledge, manuscript resources, and translation practices of the early seventeenth century.

For readers in Australia, this balanced approach is especially practical. English is used across different communities, from large congregations in Melbourne to smaller assemblies in northern Queensland, and many believers already compare the KJV with the NKJV, ESV, NIV, CSB, or NRSVue. Such comparison is not automatically evidence of unbelief. It can be the kind of careful engagement that the KJV translators themselves valued.

The strongest historical evidence points to a simple conclusion. The KJV translators believed a good translation could be made better. They used previous Bibles, recognised the difficulty of their work, allowed variation in English wording, and left no clear basis for treating their 1611 text as an unchangeable final revelation.

Read the preface for yourself, compare its claims with the history of the 1611 and 1769 editions, and test KJV-only arguments against the translators’ own words. That evidence does not diminish the KJV’s importance; it places the translation within the honest, revisable tradition its makers actually described.