Has English Degraded?

[searchingtruths]

Has English Degraded? The KJV Debate Proves It

A common objection raised in Bible translation discussions is that modern English has not degraded. We are told that English is simply “different,” not diminished. Yet the same people who make this claim often defend modern versions by saying that the KJV is “too hard” for today’s readers.

That complaint proves the very point they deny.

If English had not degraded, then the KJV would not be considered “too hard.” Scripture has not become more difficult. English has become less capable.

The KJV uses a mature form of English with a fuller vocabulary, richer syntax, and clearer distinctions. Modern English has flattened. It has lost categories of meaning that Scripture requires. When someone says, “The KJV is too hard,” they are not identifying a flaw in Scripture. They are identifying a loss in the reader’s linguistic capacity.

Difficulty is not a defect in the Bible. It is a call to grow.

God’s Word is worthy enough that we should elevate our understanding to meet its precision. When a word has shifted in meaning, the solution is not to replace the text. The solution is to learn the meaning. That is why God has given the churches teachers, commentaries, lexicons, and helps. Scripture is worth the effort.

Modern versions simplify English because modern English cannot bear the weight of Scripture without simplification. That is not improvement. That is accommodation to decline.

The irony is that the strongest argument used to defend modern versions is the clearest evidence that English has degraded. The very complaint proves the point.

© A.K. Pritchard 2000, 2026 – Free to use with proper attribution.

Well said

 

[Logos1560]

Did Thomas Curtis in 1833 suggest that the inconsistent updating of the KJV in 1769 degraded it?

In 1833, Thomas Curtis wrote: “I stated that I conceived both Universities to have acted seriously in error: the one [Oxford] venturing to alter the Authorised Version (particularly in 1769) in numerous instances; and the other [Cambridge] adopting those alterations, as it would appear, without examination” (Existing Monopoly, p. 19). Thomas Curtis alleged: “The public Authorised Standard has been abandoned, and NO ONE FIXED AND SPECIFIC STANDARD (even in very important critical matters) has been substituted in its place” (p. 84). Thomas Curtis claimed: “’Besides necessary alterations in spelling,’ our modern Bibles [KJV editions] ‘DIFFER GREATLY [AND INTENTIONALLY] FROM THE AUTHORIZED VERSION” (p. 2). Thomas Curtis contended that the modern editions of the KJV "departed widely from the original edition of 1611, to the great deterioration of our Vernacular Translation" (p. 35).

David Norton observed: “Led by Thomas Curtis, a committee of dissenting ministers campaigned for a reliable text of the KJB” (Textual History, p. 116). Gordon Campbell wrote: “Curtis argued that the text of the Bible ‘has developed at least 10,000 critical and intentional departures from King James’ version’” (Bible, p. 149). Gordon Campbell pointed out: “At least one of the mistakes in the Blayney text identified by Curtis’s group has persisted to the present day, in the final phrase of Judges 11:19, which in 1611 was correctly given as ‘unto my place,’ was printed in Blayney’s text ‘into my place.’ The error has been corrected in the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible published in 2005, but not in standard editions of the KJV” (p. 150). David Norton noted: “Curtis’s basic position was that, besides many accidental errors, the modern [KJV] texts contained a very substantial number of intentional changes from the authorised text, and that only those changes that corrected printing errors could be reckoned legitimate” (Textual History, pp. 116-117). After referring to a collation of the first 1611 edition with the 1613 folio, David Norton asserted: “Curtis’s claim that no substantive change to the original was permitted was shown not to be the view held in the time of the translators, thus affirming that there was precedent for the continuing work on the text” (p. 119).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

In 1833, Thomas Curtis wrote:

David Norton observed:

Gordon Campbell wrote:

Quote stacking.

 

[Logos1560]

Quote stacking.

You are dodging and ignoring verifiable facts, seeming to run from the truth. Your response does not change the truth.

 

[Mike B]

Logos, I do not mean this to be disrespectful...instead it's more of an observation from following so
many of these threads. I'm glad that you are not teaching a new Christians class in "Can I trust the Bible",
as based on your comments (and those of others) those new Christians might be questioning whether
God has indeed preserved His words, or not.

So many words (or phrases) deleted from so many texts, or added in from a "margin note", or by a
transcriber. Not to demean the more modern bibles in any way, but I stick to my KJV because I trust
it was carefully translated by the best men for the job, and from manuscripts originating in Antioch
versus the more liberal (at the time) Alexandria. I do not have an education in biblical manuscripts,
but have learned enough to know I can put my trust in the KJV.

Others, like yourselves, have differing opinions, and I'm OK with that, but I do not care for being made
to feel like some kind of heretic with a target on my chest, especially on a Baptist forum, because I choose
the KJV over other translations.

We (all of us) are better than that.

Although I do not believe the KJV itself was uniquely inspired, for me it is the translation near and dear to
my heart and my relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Believe I'll hang on to it.

 

[Logos1560]

Others, like yourselves, have differing opinions, and I'm OK with that, but I do not care for being made
to feel like some kind of heretic with a target on my chest, especially on a Baptist forum, because I choose
the KJV over other translations.

I have not recommended nor advocate the Critical Greek Text.

I prefer the KJV, having read it over 60 years. According to the doctrine of truth taught in the KJV, I advocate and defend presenting the truth concerning the KJV and concerning other Bible translations. The KJV does not support the making of non-true claims for it or the making of misleading or non-true accusations against other English Bibles such as the NKJV. I properly challenge unproven or misleading assertions.

You have not been asked to stop reading the KJV. It has not been suggested that you should feel like "some kind of heretic" because you choose the KJV over other translations. You seem to be imagining something that is not true. Are you trying to make me a target with your seeming negative innuendos against me?

If you do not try to advocate opinions and traditions of men concerning the KJV as being a doctrine of God when they are not, why would you feel like "some kind of heretic"?

 

[Mike B]

You seem to be imagining something that is not true.

Perhaps your words come across stronger than you intend them to. I use the KJV, only, and some of you folks
aren't real keen on that idea.

Are you trying to make me a target with your seeming negative innuendos against me?

Absolutely not. I'm simply giving you a "real world" idea of how your posts may come across
to others.

 

[Logos1560]

Perhaps your words come across stronger than you intend them to.

Perhaps the truth is sometimes too strong for you. God has not given believers a spirit of fear of the truth. I have not objected to you using the KJV only.

 

[JonC]

I echo @Logos1560

I think most have their favorite translation for studying God's Word. Mine is the NASB (it includes the additional text but notes older manuscripts fo not...I like the info).

To teach and share the gospel I like using God's Word in a more easily understood translation (the NASB is a bit awkward). I never want my own preferences to be a stumbling block to others.

But I would never dream of demeaning God's Word in another translation.

Nobody here, @Anthony Pritchard , will fault you or another Christian for using the KJV or NKJV. The important thing is not the translation of God's Word you use but that God's Word transcend the translation and finds life in you.