Perhaps in an effort to argue that the KJV should not be updated at least KJV-only author claims that the KJV did not update [except rarely] the language of the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision. Gail Riplinger claimed that “only rarely does the KJV change an ‘archaic phrase’” in the earlier English Bibles (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 136). Riplinger wrote: “This author’s word-for-word collation of earlier English Bibles shows that the few changes the KJV made were not done to update an evolving English language or to represent the language of that day” (p. 17). Riplinger again referred to her “word-for-word comparison of the actual scriptures of Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, and the Great Bible” (p. 37). Riplinger asserted: “We cannot assume, as most have, who have not actually collated them word-for-word, that the language of the KJV reflects updating of the language of the Bishops’ and earlier Bibles” (p. 136). Riplinger asserted that “the words that differ in the early English Bibles are pure synonyms” (p. 859). Gail Riplinger claimed: “The evidence proves that the Bishops’ and earlier Bibles had a pedestrian, that is, a very easy and common vocabulary. They actually had a simpler vocabulary than the KJV” (In Awe, p. 136). Riplinger wrote: “The Bishops’ Bible, like all of the early English Bibles, was truly an easy reading Bible” (p. 527). Riplinger asserted: “Earlier English Bibles were written in a simpler language” (p. 17). Does the evidence prove or confirm Riplinger's claims?