Has English Degraded?

[Anthony Pritchard]

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.

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV uses a mature form of English with a fuller vocabulary, richer syntax, and clearer distinctions.

That may be your opinion, but you fail to prove your assertion to be true, verifiable fact.

You present no standard reference work on the English language or recognized authority on the English language who supports your view.

The lack of standardization of grammar and spelling in Early Modern English does not suggest that it is a more precise and accurate English than Modern English.

Jack Lynch quoted the following from Samuel Johnson’s 1755 preface to his dictionary: “When I took the first survey of my undertaking, I found our speech copious without order, and energetick without rules: wherever I turned my view, there was perplexity to be disentangled, and confusion to be regulated; choice was to be made out of boundless variety, without any established principle of selection; adulterations were to be detected, without a settled test for purity; and modes of expression to be rejected or received, without the suffrages of any writers of classical reputation or acknowledged authority” (Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary, p. 25).

In 1755, Samuel Johnson did not seem to find Early Modern English to be a mature form of English.

Perhaps Early Modern English is the less mature form, more imprecise form, lacking the clearer distinctions and standardization in Modern English.

 

[Logos1560]

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

Your conclusion is incorrect.

You are contradicting the assertions of leading KJV defenders and KJV-only authors who claim that the KJV is easier to read and understand than modern English versions are.

KJV-only author Bob Steward asserted: “The New King James Version is not easier to understand” (Why Not the NKJV, p. 4). Concerning the NKJV, Kelly Gallagher claimed: “The English is harder than that of the King James translation using longer, more difficult words in almost all cases” (Perfect Bible, p. 57). Bob Steward contended: “Neither the New King James Version nor any other modern translation is easier to understand that [than] the Authorized KJB” (p. 5). Pierre Coovert declared: “The claim that the NKJV is easier to read is bogus because it is not” (Why I Don’t, p. 16). Christopher Johnson claimed: “Even if we just consider the syllables alone, we can see that the NKJV is far more complicated and intended for a much higher reading level than the KJB” (Why Christians, p. 165).

Douglas Stauffer asserted: “The King James Bible is not harder to read and it is not harder to understand” (One Book One Authority, p. 259). Michael Hollner claimed: “People have been conned into believing the lie that the new versions are much easier to understand” (King James Only, p. 291). Michael Hollner wrote: “The King James Version has a 5th grade readability level and is EASIER to read and understand than the modern versions” (Ibid.). Pierre Coovert asserted: “Anyone who is honest will say that the words in the KJV are easier to understand” (Why I Don’t, p. 20). KJV defender R. B. Ouellette claimed that it would be a false statement to say that the KJV “is harder to read and understand than modern Bibles” (A More Sure Word, p. 150). As support for his claim, R. B. Ouellette asserted that the KJV “has a significantly lower average syllable count, making it more accessible to a beginning English reader than the newer Bibles” (Ibid.). Jim Taylor claimed that “the NKJV is slightly more difficult to read than the King James Version” (In Defense of the TR, p. 103).

Gail Riplinger alleged: “All new Bible versions must change those simple one or two syllable Anglo-Saxon words of the King James Version into complex, multi-syllable Latinized words” (Language, p. 152). Gail Riplinger claimed that the NKJV “and all new versions use many, many, many more words and letters to say something than the KJV does” (In Awe, pp. 269-270). Gail Riplinger asserted that the KJV “says things using fewer words than any of the corrupt new versions” (p. 270).

 

[Reynolds]

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.

A lot of word meanings have completely changed since 1756.

 

[Salty]

493 Archaic words

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

@Reynolds

You are right. A lot of word meanings have changed since the mid‑18th century, and that shift is part of a larger pattern. English has undergone significant semantic drift and morphological flattening. These are real losses compared to Early Modern English.

Semantic drift refers to the way meanings change over time. Words that once carried broad or layered senses now carry narrower or different ones. That affects how Scripture is read.

Morphological categories have flattened as well. Several distinctions that existed in 1600 are gone.

a) The T‑V distinction in the second person. Early Modern English distinguished singular and plural, and formal and informal. thou, thee, thy, thine were singular and intimate or inferior. you, ye, your, yours were plural, or singular formal or superior. We lost both categories. Dialects immediately tried to rebuild them with forms like y’all, yous, yinz, you guys, but none are standard.

b) Verb categories. Person marking on verbs has disappeared. thou goest, he goeth are gone. Strong verb classes continue to shrink. Old English had about 300. Modern English has about 70, and children regularize the rest. Sneaked is overtaking snuck. Dived is replacing dove in the UK.

c) The subjunctive. Early Modern English used it productively. If he be, though she go. We retain fossils such as if I were and God save the King, but most speakers now use the indicative.

d) Older grammatical categories that show the direction of change. Grammatical gender, dual number, and the full case system were already fading by 1600, but they illustrate how much structure English once carried.

Taken together, these changes show that English is flatter than it was in 1600. That is why Scripture feels “hard” to modern readers. The Bible has not changed. The language has.

 

[Logos1560]

d) Older grammatical categories that show the direction of change. Grammatical gender, dual number, and the full case system were already fading by 1600, but they illustrate how much structure English once carried.

Perhaps they merely illustrate how much Middle English or Early Modern English retained or followed Latin grammar since imprecise Early Modern English had not yet been standardized with any standard English grammars. English had not reached its maturity since it had not yet developed its own standardized English grammar.

J. B. Lightfoot asserted: “Accustomed to write and speak in Latin, they [the KJV translators] unconsciously limited the range and capacity of the Greek by the measure of the classical language with which they were most familiarly acquainted” (Fresh Revision, p. 80). Lindley Murray (1745-1826), who has been called the father of English grammar, wrote: “The English tongue is, in many respects, materially different from the learned languages [Greek, Latin]. It is, therefore, very possible to be mistaken ourselves, and to mislead and perplex others, by an undistinguishing attachment to the principles and arrangement of the Greek and Latin Grammarians” (English Grammar, p. 99). David Crystal wrote: “The influence of Latin syntactic style on English became marked in the 16th century” (Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English, p. 70). David Crystal wrote: “The remarkable John Wallis (1616-1703) was the first to call for a new, non-Latin approach to English grammar” (Making Sense, p. 56). Thus, the KJV translators’ Latin scholarship including Latin grammar may have affected some of their English translating decisions. Just as spelling of English words was not yet settled and standardized, English grammar rules, syntax, and usages may not have been firmly established or settled in 1607-1610. James Grainger referred to “the unfixed state of English syntax during the period from which the English Bible drew its idiom, 1535-1611” (Studies in Syntax, p. 50).

Richard Hughes suggested: “The first attempt at standardizing the rules of English grammar is in 1762, with the publishing of Bishop Robert Lowth’s ‘A Short Introduction to English Grammar’” (English Grammar, p. 279). David Crystal noted: “One of the most influential grammars of the 18th century was Robert Lowth’s Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762). This was the inspiration for Lindley Murray’s widely used English Grammar (1794)” (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, p. 3). It could be argued that Samuel Johnson in his outline of English grammar in his 1755 Dictionary made an earlier attempt at standardizing English grammar.

The lack of standardization of grammar and spelling in Early Modern English does not suggest that it is a more precise and accurate English than Modern English.

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV uses a mature form of English with a fuller vocabulary, richer syntax, and clearer distinctions. Modern English has flattened.

Does your argument suggest that the original 1611 KJV edition English would be the mature form of English so that post-1900 KJV edition English with much standardization of spelling and influences from Modern English would be a less mature form?

Have the over 2,100 changes, revisions, and corrections [along with thousands of other changes to letters and spelling] made to original 1611 edition English in post-1900 KJV editions flattened or degraded their English?

Do you prefer original 1611 edition English or post-1900 KJV edition English?

 

[Logos1560]

493 Archaic words

KJV defender Laurence Vance asserted: “When it comes to the use of archaic words, modern Bible versions are the greatest culprits” (King James, His Bible, p. 332).

Laurence Vance even claimed that the KJV “is no more archaic than daily newspapers and current magazines, and, surprisingly, even modern Bible versions” (King James, His Bible, p. 331).

Along with reducing the number of uses of several archaic words, the KJV completely removed some archaic, antiquated, rare, unusual, or difficult words or spellings found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles. These words would be English Bible words or Biblical English found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles. Should all the following words have been kept in the 1611 KJV since KJV-only advocates suggest that such words in the KJV should be kept? Is the English of the 1611 KJV less precise because it lacks all these words in pre-1611 Biblical English?

Some examples include the following: “abrech” (Gen. 41:43), “abrogate” (Heb. 8:13), “achat” (Exod. 39:12), “advoutry” (Mark 7:21), “affianced” (Luke 1:27), “afterbirth” (Deut. 28:57), “albs” (Lev. 8:13), “almery“ (Deut. 28:17), “almuggim” (1 Kings 10:11), “arb” (Lev. 11:22), “arede” (Mark 14:65), “assoyl” (Matt. 21:24), “banketed” (Job 1:4), “beer” (Isa. 24:9), “beweep“ (Deut. 21:13), “boldened” (1 Sam. 13:12), “brain pan” (Jud. 9:53), “breastlap” (Exod. 25:7), “bruterer” (Exod. 25:7), “buballs” (1 Kings 4:23), “buggers” (1 Tim. 1:10), “burgesship” (Acts 22:28), “byss” (Gen. 41:42), “calamite” (Exod. 30:23), “carrion” (Lev. 5:2), “cavillation” (Luke 19:8), “cavillations” (Lev. 19:13), “cherubs” (1 Kings 6:25), “chevisance” (Deut. 21:14), “childishness” (1 Cor. 13:11), “childship” (Rom. 9:4), “colled” (isa. 15:2), “commonalty” (Lev. 4:13, “conjurers” (Dan. 4:7), “consistory” (Ps. 107:32), “cowcasins” (Ezek. 4:15), “cratch” (Luke 2:7), “cressets” (Jer. 25:10), “culver” (Mark 1:10), “deadoffering” (Lev. 3:5), “debite” (Luke 20:20), “deedslayers” (2 Kings 14:6), “delectation” (2 Cor. 12:10), “despicions” (Acts 28:29), “discomforted” (Ezk. 13:22), “diseasest” (Mark 5:35), “dissembling” (Prov. 12:19), “door cheeks” (Exod. 12:23), “dukedoms” (Gen. 36:30), “effusion” (Heb. 11:28), “egalness” (2 Cor. 8:14), “emmet” (Prov. 6:6), “endote” (Exod. 22:16), and “equalness” (2 Cor. 8:14). Additional examples include “erewhile” (John 9:27), “fardels” (Acts 21:15), “field devils” (2 Chron. 11:15), “fiends” (Mark 1:34), “flickered” (Ezek. 10:19), “flacket” (1 Sam. 16:20), “flaggy” (1 Sam. 15:9), “flawnes” (1 Chron. 23:29), “felicity” (Gal. 4:15), “foreby” (Lam. 1:12), “fortuned” (Gen. 39:7), “frayles” (1 Sam. 25:18), “frumenty” (Lev. 23:14), “gaoler” (Acts 16:23), “gabis” (Job. 28:18), “gardes” (Deut. 22:12), “gelding” (Acts 8:34), “ghostly” (Rom. 8:5), “gnew” (Rev. 16:10), “gorgeousness” (Isa. 3:18), “grece” (Acts 21:35), “grennes” (Ps. 140:5), “hagab” (Lev. 11:22), “harborous” (1 Tim. 3:2), “harbourless” (Matt. 25:35), “hargol” (Lev. 11:22), “hawthorn” (2 Chron. 25:18), “healthful” (Tit. 2:11), “heavengazers” (Isa. 47:13), “hilchapels” (Amos 7:9), “hoared” (Josh. 9:4), “hucklebone” (Gen. 32:25), “huswiferie” (Prov. 31:18), “improve” (2 Tim. 4:2), “ixion” (Deut. 14:13), “jakes” (2 Kings 10:27), “Jewship” (Gal. 1:13), “knappeth” (Ps. 46:9), “lamia” (Isa. 34:14), “lamies” (Lam. 4:3), “latten” (Gen. 31:42), “ligurious” (Exod. 28:19), “lither” (Rom. 12:11), “loured” (Gen. 4:5), “maidenhead” (Jud. 11:38), “male stewes” (1 Kings 15:12), “manchet” (1 Kings 4:22), “mandragoras” (Gen. 30:14), “manward” (Titus 3:4), “marshal” (Gen. 39:1), “maund” (Exod. 29:3), “meinie” (Gen. 22:3), “meked” (James 3:7), “misdoers” (Isa. 53:12), “muzzling” (Deut. 32:2), “moon prophets” (Isa. 47:13), “mossell” (1 Cor. 9:9), “naught packs” (Ps. 86:14), “nebb” (Gen. 8:11), “neers” (Isa. 34:6), “neverthelater” (Lev. 7:24), “nigard” (Isa. 32:6), “ohim” (Isa. 13:21), “overbody” (1 Sam. 23:9), “overscaped” (Lev. 19:10), “overskipped” (Deut. 26:13), “overthwart” (Deut. 32:5), “overwinner” (1 Sam. 15:29), “panier” (Job 41:7), “parbreak” (Num. 11:20), “partlets” (Acts 19:12), “pensiveness” (Ps. 77:3), “perceavaunce” (Eph. 1:8), “perquellies” (2 Sam. 5:8), “pight” (Heb. 8:2), “pismire” (Prov. 6:6), “plage” (Deut. 17:8), “pleck” (Lev. 13:4), “porphyry” (Est. 1:6), “possessioner” (Micah 1:15), “pyght” (Heb. 8:2), “quadrin” (Mark 12:42), “queer” (1 Kings 6:5, 16, 19), “querne” (Isa. 47:2), “quier” (1 Kings 6:5), “raynes” (Rev. 19:8), “rebecks” (1 Sam. 18:6), “recreate” (Ps. 94:19), “redebush” (Isa. 9:16), “redshanke” (Deut. 14:16), “rickes” (Jud. 15:5), “roofed” (1 Kings 6:9), “roomth” (2 Sam. 22:20), “rowneth” (Isa. 5:9), “rugagates” (Jud. 12:4), “rythe” (Jer. 49:31), “sallets” (Jer. 46:4), “scrale” (Exod. 8:3), “salaam” (Lev. 11:22), “sethim” (Deut. 10:3), “shalms” or “shawms” (Ps. 98:6), “shope” (Gen. 2:7), “simnel” (Exod. 29:23), “slade” (1 Sam. 25:20), “slops” (Isa. 3:20), “Sodomward” (Gen. 13:22), “soleam” (Lev. 11:22), “spangles“ (Num. 31:50), “springalds” (Dan. 1:4, 10), “stickered” (Rom. 4:20), “stambered” (Mark 7:32), “stellio” (Lev. 11:30), “succourless” (Prov. 31:8), “taxus” (Exod. 25:4), “terebinth” (Isa. 6:13), “thievish” (Ps. 10:8), “toot-hill” (Gen. 31:48), “treacle” (Jer. 8:22), “unborn” (Ps. 78:6), “unghostly” (1 Tim. 4:7), “unhele” (Lev. 18:16), “unlust” (Isa. 43:22), “unquiet” (Deut. 28:65), “unshodhouse” (Deut. 25:10), “unthrifts” (1 Sam. 30:22), “uplandish” (Jud. 5:11), “wastels” (Lev. 24:5), “wenest” (Acts 8:20), “whale fish” (Job 7:12), “Whitsuntide” (1 Cor. 16:8), “whore keeper” (Deut. 23:17), “withoutforth” (1 Chron. 26:29), “witsafe” (Ps. 119:29), “wrutt” (Ps. 80:13), yonderward” (1 Sam. 20:37), and “zijm” (Isa. 13:21).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I do a certain amount of itinerant preaching, and about ten years ago there were seven churches where I preached that used the King James (Authorised Version in Britain). I was (and still am) happy to use the KJV if asked.
Of these, three have closed and two have switched to the NKJV. The other two no longer ask me to preach because I wrote something less than enthusiastic about the KJV on my blog.
In Britain, the KJV is dying. There are still some large churches that use it, most notably the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, but the pastor there, Peter Masters, who has been there since 1970 (!) is now approaching 90 years old, but the church can't find anyone of suitable calibre to take over who doesn't want to change from the KJV.

 

[Mike B]

I have a question: Does a standardized modern English language exist today?

 

[xlsdraw]

I do a certain amount of itinerant preaching, and about ten years ago there were seven churches where I preached that used the King James (Authorised Version in Britain). I was (and still am) happy to use the KJV if asked.
Of these, three have closed and two have switched to the NKJV. The other two no longer ask me to preach because I wrote something less than enthusiastic about the KJV on my blog.
In Britain, the KJV is dying. There are still some large churches that use it, most notably the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, but the pastor there, Peter Masters, who has been there since 1970 (!) is now approaching 90 years old, but the church can't find anyone of suitable calibre to take over who doesn't want to change from the KJV.

It is the UK that is dying.

 

[Deacon]

I have a question: Does a standardized modern English language exist today?

There is no single governing body for written or spoken standards for the English language...never has been.

...the implication that the KJV's language is superior might be:

(1) a "flame" - a provocative post meant to stir up controversy,
or
(2) a strong indication of a presuppositional bias.

Has the English language evolved? Absolutely!

The KJV was a foundational achievement in the development of the modern English language.

Rob

 

[xlsdraw]

There is no single governing body for written or spoken standards for the English language...never has been.

...the implication that the KJV's language is superior might be:

(1) a "flame" - a provocative post meant to stir up controversy,
or
(2) a strong indication of a presuppositional bias.

Has the English language evolved? Absolutely!

The KJV was a foundational achievement in the development of the modern English language.

Rob

Or
3) God is Sovereign.

I'm firmly in the camp of option 3.

The prophesied "falling away" has coincided with the tampering with God's Word.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It is the UK that is dying.

Have you ever visited?

 

[Logos1560]

The prophesied "falling away" has coincided with the tampering with God's Word.

What is your definition of "tampering with God's word" that you are willing to apply consistently and justly?

Was any of the updating, revising, and changing in the KJV of the pre-1611 word of God translated into English "tampering with God's Word"?

When the Church of England makers of the KJV changed some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles to make them more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government views, was that "tampering with God's Word"?

Were the KJV translators consistent or inconsistent in their updating and revision of archaic words and language in the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles?

Would all this significant amount of updating in the KJV be considered “dumbing down” the language of the pre-1611 English Bibles?

Did the KJV move or remove ancient landmarks by updating and revising many words in the pre-1611 word of God in English?

 

[Logos1560]

Does a standardized modern English language exist today?

Do you think that the aspects of Modern English found in post-1900 KJV editions have flattened or degraded the original 1611 edition English?

Do you prefer original 1611 edition English or post-1900 KJV edition English?

Here are a few example of 1611 edition English compared to post-1900 KJV edition English.

854 +Job 18:9 grinne ------- gin

857 Job 19:9 stript ------- stripped

--- Job 19:15 aliant ------- alien

--- Job. 19:17 entreated ------- intreated

858 +Job 20:25 glistering ------- glittering

859 Job 21:33 The clouds ------- The clods

--- Job 22:15 troden ------- trodden

860 Job 23:2 then my groning ---- than my groaning

--- Job 23:3 O ------- Oh

861 Job 23:12 more then ------- more than

--- Job 24:5 desart ------ desert

--- Job 24:5 pray ------- prey

--- Job 24:20 remembred ------- remembered

--- Job 24:21 evill intreateth ------- evil entreateth

--- Job 24:24 litle ------- little

--- Job 24:24 as al ------- as all

--- Job 28:7 foule ------- fowl

--- Job 28:8 troden ------- trodden

--- Job 29:2 O ------- Oh

863 Job 29:17 pluckt ------- plucked

864 Job 30:1 then I ------- than I

865 +Job 30:3 flying ------- fleeing

--- +Job 30:6 clifts ------- cliffs

866 Job 30:8 then the earth ------- than the earth

867 Job 30:30 burnt ------- burned

--- Job 31:6 ballance ------- balance

868 Job 31:7 my hands ------- mine hands

--- Job 31:19 cloathing ------- clothing

869 *Job 31:21 lift ------- lifted

870 *Job 31:29 lift ------- lifted

871 Job 31:32 travailer ------- traveller

 

[Mike B]

Do you think that the aspects of Modern English found in post-1900 KJV editions have flattened or degraded the original 1611 edition English?

Nope. Not one bit.