The Scriptures were translated into English before 1611. There was the late 1300's Wycliffe's Bible. There were several English Bibles made and printed in the 1500's. The makers of the KJV changed and revised the English Bible of their day. Those hundreds and thousands of changes and revisions made to the pre-1611 English Bibles include at least a few textual changes and many, many translational changes. In addition, the 1611 edition of the KJV was changed and revised in over 2,000 places by later printers and editors of the KJV. Evangelist Dennis Corle, editor of fundamentalist publication Revival Fires, asserted: "There are Bible believers and there are Bible revisers, but there are NO Bible believing revisionists" (God's Inspired Book The Bible KJV 1611 Inspired Preserved, p. 49). Dennis Corle claimed: "Make no mistake, to revise the Bible is to change its contents. Though it is perceived as a milder word than is the word translation, it none the less speaks of changing the text" (p. 49). Does a consistent application of Dennis Corle's statements assert that the makers of the KJV and that the later editors of KJV editions were all non-Bible believing revisionists? Dennis Corle also asserted: "There are several major reasons for a revision. First: You are proud enough to assume that you can improve on the King James Bible. That would imply imperfection in the present King James Bible" (p. 51). According to a consistent application of Corle's reasoning, were the makers of the KJV proud enough to assume that they could improve on the pre-1611 English Bibles? Were later editors and printers proud enough to assume that they could improve on the 1611 edition of the KJV?