KJV Question #3

*Please read the post labeled "PLEASE READ" before posting a comment.

Not too long ago I readPreface to the 1611 Authorised Version (KJV) for the first time. (I have come think it is very interesting and rather important to be able to read any preface to any Bible one may pick up.) Through reading the 1611 KJV Preface I found a few very interesting things which the translators (of the KJV) said. One of these will be covered here, and I hope to cover the others in future posts.

Reading the passage brought confusion to me because of what the translators themselves said.
"...that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by the men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

I found a photocopy of the preface via a quick search (link here). It is a Catholic site I believe, and by using it I am not advocating Catholocism. It was simply the only place I could find a photocopy of the Preface. The photocopy is a bit tricky to read, however I made sense of it quickly. What I quoted above came from the first new paragraph of the page on the link. In fact it is the in the first sentence.

Notice the last phrase: "is the word of God." Some KJV only advocates say that no other version/translation in English is the word of God, while others will say that other versions/translations only contain the word of God but as a whole are not. If this is true (and this is what confuses me), did the translators of the KJV contradict God by calling the other translations His word?