I noticed that on another thread it was suggested that todays spoken English is "dumbed down" when compared to that spoken in 1611. If this is true then then it would give credence to the idea that modern English translations are "dumbed down" as well. HOWEVER. Since we know that languages such as English (along with several others) are living languages, i.e. they are growing, changing or evolving, it would be faulty to suggest that our modern English is "dumbed down". Change does not equal a weakening and actually in some cases would be a strengthening of a language. Anyone that has studied the history of languages would probably argue that English improved grammatically between each period of its development. Therefore would it not make logical sense that a modern translation of the Bible into English, be an improvement? I do realize that this does not take into consideration the textual platform but that is a whole different topic. I am focusing on the newness of the language that is used. I guess what I am getting at is why would someone consider modern English to be a lesser form of English than that of 1611 when it is a living language?