Is it wrong to update the archaic words and language in a Bible translation? Is accuracy lost when words are updated? Should archaic words be left in the text with their meaning only explained in marginal notes? Should Bible readers be required to learn the vocabulary of Bible translators that lived 200, 300, 400, or 500 years ago? I ask these questions because there are some who claim that archaic words should be left in the text and should not be updated and if updated accuracy is lost. Here are some words from the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops') of which the KJV was a revision. If the 1380's Wycliffe's Bible was included, it would be easier to compile even a longer list. Perhaps you know some of these words or can figure some of them out. advoutry albs arede cavillation chevisance debite diseasest felicity frayles grece hagab hargol heavengazers hucklebone lamies manchet maund meinie moon prophets perquellies querne quier redebush rugagates sallets shawms taxus unghostly whalefish Whitsuntide Should English readers today have to know these words and was it wrong that these words were updated and replaced in our English translations?