There was also an introductory dedication that is still found in most KJV editions printed today, but following this "Dedicatorie" section there was also an 11-page section titled, "The Translators to the Reader." Though unfortunately not found in modern editions of the KJV, this section the original 1611 edition stated (The Holy Bible 1611 Edition, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, no date, no page numbers, but the passage below is on page 9 of this section):
Truly (good Christian Reader) wee neuer [never] thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not iustly [justly] to be excepted against; that hath bene [been] our indeauour [endeavor], that our marke.
"The Translators to the Reader" section also defends the appropriateness of having included marginal notes that suggested other possible renderings or translations. (Unfortunately these marginal notes also eventually were removed.) On this point biblical scholar F.F. Bruce (pp. 102-103) observes:
They mention that some readers have misgivings about the alternative renderings suggested in the margin, on the ground that they may appear to shake the authority of Scripture in deciding points of controversy. This obscurantist objection has been urged against other Bible versions, of much more recent date; some would prefer a false appearance of certainty to an honest admission of doubt.
In another reference to the inclusion of alternative renderings noted in the margins of the KJV, "The Translators to the Reader" section of the original KJV points out and illustrates how the KJV translators' expertise in the ancient biblical languages is limited.
F.F. Bruce further notes (p. 103):
This is an important point; our understanding of the Hebrew vocabulary, especially in regard to such terms as are indicated by the A.V. [Authorized Version, i.e., the KJV] translators, has been gradually increasing over the generations, and has received much welcome illumination in fairly recent times. The R.V. [Revised Version, 1885, and American Edition of the RV, 1901, otherwise known as the American Standard Version] reflects fuller knowledge in this field than the A.V.; the R.S.V. [Revised Standard Version, 1952] represents an advance on the R.V.; and the New English Bible will be found to have profited greatly by recent advances in Semitic philology, but even the New English Bible makes no pretence of having attained finality. Where, then, there is doubt about the meaning of a word or phrase, is it not better to warn the reader that this is so? And what is true of uncertainties in translation applies with equal force to variant readings in the manuscripts and other authorities for the text. This too the A.V. translators point out when they criticize Pope Sixtus V for his ruling that no variant readings should be put in the margins of his edition of the Latin Vulgate. "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."
Without changing its name or labelling it as "revised," the KJV in fact was revised many times from 1611 to 1769, including changes in spelling, changes in punctuation, changes in wording, the removal of the Old Testament Apocrypha,
the removal of marginal notes with alternative renderings. It was in 1769 that Dr. Benjamin Blayney of Oxford completed what Bruce Metzger describes as "the most careful and comprehensive revision" that came to be known as "the Authorized Version." Blayney's 1769 revision produced the text that is used by most publishers of the KJV today. (This is explained in Bruce Metzger's article on "Translations" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, page 759-760.) Metzger notes that in the 1614 edition alone, changes were made in over four hundred places.
http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm#5