Skip to comments.When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine
Posted on 08/07/2003 8:34:50 AM PDT by fishtank
When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
This outline was covered in a lecture of the same topic at the March 1998 ACAP meeting.
1. The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha. Thus, the Bible that KJV-Only advocates use omits thousands of verses originally contained in the KJV (just over 5,700) far more than the few verses found in the KJV but omitted in the NASB, NIV, and other modern translations (such as 1 John 5:7). It is true that the Apocrypha was widely regarded by Protestants in 1611 not to have the status of full canonicity. However, in the original 1611 edition no disclaimer was included in this regard (one was added in later editions). Furthermore, if the Apocrypha were to be included today, KJV-only advocates would vehemently object to its inclusion a sure sign that its inclusion in the 1611 edition is a significant difference.
2. Even excluding the Apocrypha, the KJV of 1611 differed slightly from editions of the KJV in common use today.. We are not referring here to spelling changes and the like, or to misprints in later, single editions. Usually the changes are improvements for example, Matthew 26:36 now properly reads "Then cometh Jesus," where the original KJV read "Then cometh Judas." Not all the changes are for the better, though for example, Matthew 23:34 in the KJV originally read "strain out a gnat," which is correct, while subsequent editions of the KJV to this day have "strain at a gnat." These facts prove that the extreme KJV-Only belief that even the slightest deviation from the wording of the KJV results in a false Bible is completely unrealistic. Please note that we are not claiming that the differences are vast or troubling from our perspective. We are simply pointing out that the position that the wording of the 1611 KJV is inviolable logically requires that modern editions of the KJV not be used.
3. The translators of the KJV did not believe in the KJV-Only doctrine. a. They asserted that "the very meanest [i.e., most common or rude] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession . . . containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." In other words, any translation of the Bible by Christian scholars is the word of God. b. They understood their work as a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek text, contrary to some extreme KJV-Only advocates who maintain that the original Hebrew and Greek text is nonexistent and irrelevant. c. The KJV originally included marginal notes containing alternate renderings making it clear that the wording of the KJV is not above correction or improvement. They admitted that there were Hebrew words that appeared only once in the whole Old Testament whose precise meaning was a matter of conjecture or debate. d. They also included variant readings an extremely important point that contradicts the KJV-Only doctrine that the slightest variation from the KJV text results in an unreliable or false Bible. In at least one instance they placed half a verse in italics because they were unsure whether it was original (1 John 2:23b). e. They acknowledged that they exercised liberty in rendering the same Greek or Hebrew word in a variety of ways for stylistic purposes, again proving that they did not regard their wording as the only possible or acceptable rendering of the Bible. f. They took as a guiding principle the belief that the Bible should be translated into the "vulgar," or common, language of the people implying that as the English language changes new translations may be needed. g. They asserted that there was value in having a variety of translations of the Scriptures.
4. The KJV Bible itself does not teach the KJV-Only Doctrine. a. No verse of the KJV indicates that there can be only one translation in any language. Much less does any verse of the KJV teach (as some KJV-Only advocates maintain) that there can be only one language version of the Bible at a time and that the only Bible in the world today is the KJV. b. The KJV does clearly teach that God's word is pure and that God promised to preserve his word. But in no verse does the KJV indicate that this preservation would occur without variant readings or renderings. To say that God's word is "pure" is not the same thing as saying that there can be no variations from one version of the Bible to another. It is, rather, simply to say that what God has said is absolutely reliable. But we must still determine precisely what God said. Did he say what is in the Apocrypha? Did he say 1 John 5:7? The purity of God's word is an axiom, but it does not automatically answer these questions. c. The KJV does teach that no one should add to or subtract from God's word. This does place a serious responsibility on the textual scholar and the translator; but it does not tell us which English version is correct about disputed verses such as 1 John 5:7.
5. The KJV-Only doctrine contradicts the evidence of the KJV Bible itself. a. If the KJV-Only doctrine were true, we would expect that quotations from the Old Testament (OT) appearing in the New Testament (NT) would be worded exactly the same. But this is usually not the case in the KJV. Granted, God might legitimately inspire the NT authors to reword certain OT verses. But this explanation does not cover all the evidence. b. The fact is that the vast majority of OT quotations in the NT differ at least slightly. Why would God inspire NT authors to reword OT statements routinely if there is only one legitimate wording for each OT verse? c. In some cases in the NT the OT quotation is presented as what a person in NT times actually read, or could read, in his copy of the OT. For example, several times Jesus asked the Jews if they had never read a particular OT text and then quoted it in a form that differs from the KJV (Matt. 19:4-5 [Gen. 1:27; 2:24]; Matt. 21:16 [Ps. 8:2]; Matt. 21:42 and Mark 12:10 [Ps. 118:22-23]; Matt. 22:32 and Mark 12:26 [Ex. 3:6]). If the Bible is properly worded in only one way and any variant is a corruption of the Bible, then Jesus was asking them if they had read something which, according to KJV-Only reasoning, they could not have read. Elsewhere we are told that a person read an OT text, where the KJV of that OT text differs from what appears in the NT quotation (Luke 4:17-19 [Isa. 61:1-2]; 10:26-28 [Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18]; Acts 8:32-33 [Isa. 53:7-8]). These facts prove that the OT text which the Nazareth synagogue, Jesus himself, the rich young ruler, and the Ethiopian ruler had differed in wording from the OT in the KJV.
6. The KJV-Only doctrine is not the historic belief of the Christian faith. In the history of Christianity only two other versions of the Bible have ever been treated as the Bible, and even in these two cases not to the exclusion of other language versions. But those two versions were the Greek Septuagint (OT) and the Latin Vulgate, both of which (especially the latter) are typically rejected by KJV-Only advocates as perversions of the Bible. The Vulgate was treated as the only valid Bible for centuries by the Roman Catholic church in order to maintain uniformity in Bible reading and interpretation. Yet KJV-only advocates commonly regard the Septuagint and the Vulgate texts as false versions or "perversions" of the Bible. To be consistent, then, they must maintain that for over half of church history (over a thousand years) there was no Bible available to anyone outside a tiny number of scholars (if to anyone at all). In Protestantism the belief that the Bible may exist in multiple versions even in the same language has freed the Bible from the monopolistic control of the clergy or the theologians. The KJV-Only doctrine is a reactionary movement, limited almost exclusively to a segment of American fundamentalists (with much smaller followings in other English-speaking countries).
7. The KJV-Only doctrine does not fit the facts about the transmission of the Bible. a. According to at least some versions of the KJV-Only doctrine, God preserved the Bible against any and all deviations, so that the true Bible has always been the same. But there is no evidence that this has happened. In fact the Bible and portions of it have been freely copied, re-copied, and translated with great freedom in the first five centuries of the church and in the last five centuries (so far). This resulted in many variations and deviations from the original text. b. The copies of the first 1500 years or so of church history were all produced by hand, and no two extant manuscripts are completely alike. It is unrealistic to expect that before the printing press an absolutely unchanging text would be preserved by anyone and the evidence from the extant manuscripts proves that in fact it did not happen. c. In the case of the New Testament, the distinctive Greek text tradition on which the KJV was based, known as the Byzantine text, does not appear to have existed in the early church. The best evidence we have so far suggests that the Alexandrian text tradition is the earliest. This claim is vigorously rejected by KJV-only advocates, and the arguments pro and con are many and the issue too complicated for most non-scholars to follow and appreciate. However, a simple observation can here be made even here. For the KJV-only doctrine to be correct, in every place where the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts differ, the Byzantine must always be right. To base one's doctrine on such an unprovable and dubious assumption is not wise.
8. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to respect the KJV as God's word. Many evangelical Christians greatly revere the KJV, read it, quote from it, believe it, and seek to live by it, who do not subscribe to the KJV-only doctrine.
9. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to express criticisms of other translations. Many evangelicals who do not hold to the KJV-only doctrine have specific criticisms of other translations. For example, many evangelicals are critical of gender-inclusive translations such as the NRSV. Many evangelicals have pointed out weaknesses or problems in the NIV. Sober criticism of other translations assumes a humble perspective that recognizes that no translator or translators have produced a perfect translation and that translators who make mistakes are not necessarily corrupting God's word.
10. Advocacy of the KJV-only doctrine is no guarantee of doctrinal truth or interpretive accuracy. A variety of Christian sects of American origin embrace the KJV in more or less exclusivistic fashion. a. Arguably the "Ruckmanites," a fundamentalist Baptistic movement that looks to Peter Ruckman as its primary spokesperson, is a distinct subgroup of American fundamentalism with almost cultish characteristics. Their basic theology seems sound enough, but it is overlaid with such extremism and legalism in its view of the Bible as to undermine its evangelical view of salvation. b. Mormonism uses the KJV as its official Bible, even though Joseph Smith produced an "inspired" revision of the Bible (which some Mormons also use). The Mormons have a strong commitment to the KJV because it was the Bible of the early LDS prophets, the Book of Mormon quotes (indeed, plagiarizes) whole chapters from the KJV, and Mormons have found it convenient to use the KJV in evangelizing especially in English-speaking countries. c. Many Oneness Pentecostals hold to a form of the KJV-only doctrine, especially on a popular level among pastors and laity. In their case they find it convenient to stick with the KJV because in certain places its wording is more compatible with the way the Oneness doctrine is articulated than modern translations (e.g., Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16). Oneness Pentecostals often object to arguments based on the Greek or Hebrew as vain attempts to improve on the Bible.
11. The KJV-only doctrine requires that we have some sort of faith in the KJV translators. KJV-only advocates constantly complain that if we don't have one sure Bible, the KJV, then we have to trust what scholars say about the text and its translation. But they are placing their faith solely in the KJV translators. A genuinely Protestant approach to the Bible requires that we not trust any one translator or translation team. Lay Christians can compare different translations to help get at the truth about any passage or at least to become aware of possible disputes over the meaning of the passage.
12. Advocates of the KJV-only doctrine all too commonly exhibit a spiteful and disrespectful attitude toward other Christians. Advocates of a hard-line KJV-only position commonly label all other translations (even the NKJV) "per-versions" of the Bible. They typically accuse anyone defending these other translations of lying, denying God's word, calling God a liar, and having no faith. While there are gracious, charitable advocates of the KJV-only doctrine, in general its advocates have earned a reputation for vicious name-calling, condescension, and arrogance. To quote the original 1611 edition of the KJV, these people "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." While zealous to defend the KJV, they betray its teachings by failing to exhibit love toward fellow believers in Jesus Christ. All too often they imply that to be saved one must not only believe in Christ, but must also adhere to the KJV as the only Bible. A doctrine that fosters such bad fruit must be bad. There is nothing wrong with loving the KJV and believing it to be the best translation of the Bible. There is something very wrong with condemning other Christians for not sharing that opinion.
Bibliography 1. Fundamentalist KJV-Only (and Related) Works
Burgon, John W. The Revision Revised. Paradise: Conservative Classics, 1977 reprint . Fuller, Daniel O., ed. Which Bible? Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International, 1978. Hodges, Zane C., and A. L. Farstad, eds. The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text. 2d ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985. Pickering, W. N. The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977. 2. Evangelical Works Critiquing the KJV-Only Position
Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995. 3. On Mormonism and the Bible
Barlow, Philip L. Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-Day Saints in American Religion. Religion in America series. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Just a few comparisons in this chapter alone between the KJB and the NotKJV will show that the Nkjv has changed far more than Thee and Ye. Not only that, but don't ever use a Nkjv proponent as a guide for hunting, a safari, or a nature trail. Anyone that thinks a porcupine is a bird, and a bird is a snake, and can't tell the difference between a jackal and a dragon, is liable to get you sent to jail.
"That's no spotted owl, that's a snake - go ahead, shoot it!" - Nkjv guide
V. 7 KJB - unicorns - Nkjv - wild goats
V. 11 KJB - bittern (a bird) - Nkjv - porcupine
V. 13 KJB - dragons/owls - Nkjv - jackals/ostriches
V. 14 KJB - satyr/screech owl - Nkjv - wild goat/night creature
V. 15 KJB - great owl/vultures - Nkjv - arrow snake/hawks
In what way does that question affect the spiritual content of the passage? - Is a Harte a rabbit, or a large deer-like animal? Does it matter?
They love to quote "church fathers" except when it gets in the way of their masonic gnosticism.
Don't you understand the difference? - We don't even know if our understanding of the ancient hebrew and greek languages is correct because there are no living people who used it. We can only have understanding through prayer, regardless of the language in which we read. We have to have faith that God is keeping his promises regarding his word, and that the Holy Spirit is guiding the obviously fallible men who do the work. You continue to ask for something that we cannot know, rather than something that we are guaranteed through faith, and prayer.
I'm beginning to think that many here never learned how to read God's word. - It's not the same as reading one of the classics, or a novel, or even an encyclopaedia; the Bible can have a different message for you each time that you read a particular passage.
You have gone over the edge!
It's a promise that the Lord gave us; you don't believe that he has kept it - Sad.
It's a promise that the Lord gave us; you don't believe that he has kept it - Sad.
Had you read Post #109 you would be starting to get a feel for how the Lord is trying to tell all of us. Is it too subtile for you?
Of course if you are one of those who are struggling with being convicted of sin by the KJV, then it will be foolishness to you until you are brought to reprobation.
Stop the neener neener neener, and read the post.
So you hide behind silly straw-man propositions. Don't you find it just a bit ironic that the oldest fragment of manuscript ever found just happens to support the traditional text on one of the passages that the Newbible salesmen wanted to change?
Thank You Lord; it feels so good!
2 Tim. 3:16Only the KJV is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Knowest thou not that it is the Holy Ghost which convicteth thee of sin, and not a book? The book verily containeth the Word of God, but it is the Spirit that quickeneth to the hearer that which the book containeth, and not the book itself. Can the book save thee? Surely thou knowest!
Thou answeredst a question in a quarrelsome manner, knowing full well that the man of God should not be quarrelsome, but apt to teach, longsuffering, and patient. Thou art full of thyself, and art puffed up by thine own pride.
Perchance they have taken leave, and are on a journey, or sleepeth, or peradventure they are taking counsel with one another on how to respond to this, the challenging of their doctrine. It may even be that they have been struck dumb. Let us lie in wait, and it may be that they will come again unto this place, herein to offer words of encouragement one to another, and to mock those who do not accept their teaching. They make great sport of such, and think themselves to be wise. As the peacock and the gamebird strut, so also do they. May it be unto them as they have spoken.
Well, my NAS is going into the trash pile (NOT).
Consider to whom you are really showing your lack of respect.
QUESTION: Aren't all King James Bible believers "name callers?"
ANSWER: No. (Should be "only some are".)
EXPLANATION: In recent years, the issue of a perfect Bible has been expertly(??) handled by Dr. Peter S. Ruckrnan. Dr. Ruckman is a highly educated teacher/preacher who accepts the Antiochian manuscript as authentic and views them with the Antiochian ideology that accepts the Bible as perfect. Dr. Ruckman's style is forceful in regard to the authority of Scripture and his treatment of Bible critics is devastating. His approach to most Bible issues is one of grace, where many Christians lack such grace. But on the singular issue of the authority of Scripture his approach is similar to the Apostle Paul (II Corinthians 10:10) and the great English scholar, John William Burgon. A very few advocates of the perfect Bible, lacking Dr. Ruckman's scholastic qualifications have assimilated his caustic style with tragic results. The broad majority of King James Bible believers do not utilize this style simply because it is not their natural style.
Now THAT is worthy of a Monty Python skit! Appealing to the King of Name-callers after denying that KJV-Onlyists are name-callers is humorous in the extreme.
Some of the names Ruckman calls men who disagree with him are jackass, poor, dumb, stupid red legs, silly asses, apostolic succession of bloated egotists, two-bit junkie, two-faced, tin- horned punk, some incredible idiot, this bunch of egotistical jack legs, conservative asses whose brains have gone to seed, cheap, two-bit punks, jacklegs, stupid, little, Bible-rejecting apostates.
Dr. Ruckman can get pretty vulgar. He calls the New American Standard Version more of the same old godless, depraved crap (Satans Masterpiece--the New ASV, p. 67). In The Unknown Bible, p. 100, Ruckman says, You see how people get all screwed up?
Ruckman believes it is God who has called him to speak like this:
God called me to sit at this typewriter and pour forth VINEGAR, ACID, VITRIOL, AND CLEANING FLUID on the leading conservative and fundamental scholars of 1900 through 1990. ... God is in charge. He ... destines me to sit at this typewriter and LAMBAST, SCALD AND RIDICULE these Bible rejecting fundamentalists who believe the Bible is the Word of God, ... I hereby dedicate myself anew to the task of DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM AND NEGATIVE BLASTING against every adversary of that Holy Book... (The Bible Believers Bulletin, Dec. 1985).
Ruckman is fighting for a holy Book in an unholy manner. It is confusion.
There is also a distinct difference between the way the Spirit of God deals with a saved but erring man and an unregenerate corrupter of the gospel. There is a vast difference between the way the Lord Jesus Christ dealt with His own disciples and the way He dealt with the Pharisees. There is a vast difference between the way Paul dealt with Peters hypocrisy and the way he dealt with the unsaved teacher in Acts 13.
Yet Mr. Ruckman makes no difference between the Pope, a Modernist, or a Fundamental Baptist. He will lump Curtis Hutson with John Paul II and Karl Barth.
Ruckmans spirit and language is not that of the Bible. James 3:13-17 says:
Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works WITH MEEKNESS OF WISDOM. But if ye have BITTER ENVYING AND STRIFE in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first PURE, then PEACEABLE, GENTLE, AND EASY TO BE INTREATED, FULL OF MERCY AND GOOD FRUITS, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
My friends, this passage from the King James Bible condemns Ruckmanism. This passage from the King James Bible tells me that Ruckmans spirit is earthly, sensual, and devilish. Enjoying Ruckman because he gets after those Bible perverters is the same spirit as enjoying a good dog fight when the dog you have betted on is the biggest, meanest one around. Sic em, Pete, sic em! It is entertaining, and it is immensely satisfying to the flesh, but God says bitter envying and strife is earthly, sensual, devilish. God says heavenly wisdom is peaceable, gentle and full of mercy.
Some will protest, But Ruckman is only striving with and showing bitterness toward the enemies of the Bible. The Holy Spirit gave instructions in 2 Timothy 2:24-26 on how to deal with those who oppose the truth. He said nothing, absolutely nothing, about pouring vitriol and acid on them!
And the servant of the Lord MUST NOT STRIVE: BUT BE GENTLE UNTO ALL MEN, apt to teach, PATIENT, IN MEEKNESS instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
Dr. Ruckman claims that those who reject his attitude and language are pacifists who dont know the heat of the battle.
And this, which I find most disturbing:
In The Unknown Bible, Ruckman claims to hold to 14 biblical truths which other Bible teachers have overlooked for 2,000 years. These include the following:
1. Angels as thirty-three year old males without wings; and all woman in the CHURCH AGE receiving thirty-three year old male bodies at the Rapture. ...
2. Faith and works as the plan of salvation for the Tribulation saints with WORKS ALONE in the Millennium. ...
3. The spiritual circumcision of the believers soul literally cut loose from the inside of his fleshy body at the time of his new birth. ...
4. Demons as winged creatures ranging in size from those of flies and mosquitoes to eagles and vultures ...
5. The Biblical teaching on what constitutes the essence of a marriage in Gods sight [Ruckman believes sexual relations constitute marriage].
On page 347 of The Unknown Bible, Ruckman modestly claims: Do you realize that in these last two chapters, you have learned a dozen things that were unknown to the greatest Bible teachers in the world? In 2000 years of church history, they havent even been able to find the passage which dealt with these things we have been talking about.
Dr. Ruckman also claims that his view of mans soul is brand new truth:
The problem is the word soul, but since there isnt one pre-millennial, soul-winning, fundamentalist who knows what a soul is (see the entire library of books published by Eerdmans, Baker, Zondervan, and the Sword of the Lord before 1970) ... The soul in the Bible is an invisible BODILY SHAPE. In the Old Testament, the soul is almost synonymous with the body, for it is STUCK TO IT till death (Ruckman, Problem Texts, p. 145).
Ruckman believes that the flood mentioned in 2 Peter 3 is not Noahs flood but one which supposedly occurred at the judgment of the earth, when Satan was cast out of Heaven. The fact that no other Bible teacher has held this view is considered in the following way:
Now who could get a message so simple all muddled up? Answer: Every major fundamental Bible scholar and teacher in the United States, without one exception. If you were to ask Henry Morris what the verses refer to hed say Noahs flood: ditto Harry Rimmer, Clarence Larkin, J. Vernon McGee, Swindle (sic), MacArthur, Bob Jones III ... the Scofield Board of Editors (Ruckman, The Unknown Bible, p. 67).
In bragging up his new book, The Salient Verses, Mr. Ruckman makes these comments:
If you are able to obtain a copy [of Ruckmans proposed new book] you will have, in your hands, a minimum of 200 advanced revelations that came from the inerrant English text, that were completely overlooked (or ignored) by every major Christian scholar since 90 A.D. This would include all of the modern Bible revisors (1800-1999), all of the faculty members and staffs of every major Fundamental (Conservative and Evangelical) seminary, university, and college in Europe and America since 1500, and every Greek and Hebrew scholar (or teacher) since 1611. ... Actually, if a Bible believer has this work he will have the accumulated knowledge of Cornelius Stam and Ethelbert Bullinger ... Clarence Larkin and C.I. Scofield Ewing, Osborne, Tilton, and PTL ... Pember, Peters, Gaebelein, Pentecost, Lindsey, Kirban, Rockwood, Webber, and Van Impe ... plus the Puritans, Reformers, major evangelists (Moody, Sunday, Finney, Torrey, Wesley, etc.) and all that ANY Greek and Hebrew scholar ... ever found out--that was SO--in the last 200 years (Bible Believers Bulletin, Jan. 1994, pp. 2,4).
This is a proud, cultish mindset. Consider a few of the other peculiar teachings held by Dr. Ruckman:
God has ordained on this earth 12 boundaries, with 12 nations, who are destined to leave this earth (transported by angels--Luke 16:22), and populate outer space infinitely and forever, beginning with the 12 constellations that are seen on the earth once every 12 months (The Unknown Bible, p. 588).
In eternity, the Christian is in New Jerusalem; he is in his apartment house that is made out of transparent gold, like clear glass. ... He is called out on trips, and these trips take him to Mars, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Uranus, etc. transporting couples into gardens placing them down and saying, be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth (Ibid., p. 592).
I know they [demons] have to be small. ... theres two little animals that have wings. Ones a fly and the others a mosquito. Know what these things are? Theyre pictures of demons. all commentaries, and all theologians, theyre winged. The things have wings (Ruckman, Demons and Christians, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1976, side 1).
Ruckman is at the very least, quite deceived about some things, and at worst, a reprobate. It's interesting that most serious defenders of the KJV distance themselves from Ruckman as much as possible. Those that do are very wise, in my estimation.
I personally have no quarrel with the KJV as a translation. I have used it, I still use it, and I would not tell someone that it is no good or out-dated. I also use the NKJV, NASB, and consult other translations as I study. Do I think that the KJV is the ONLY English Bible? No!
They love to quote "church fathers" except when it gets in the way of their masonic gnosticism.
You evidently missed Con X-Poser's point. The point is that not a single ante-Nicene church father quoted from the King James because it did not exist! They quoted from the manuscripts that they had, which were typically in the vernacular of the day. You folks on the "KJV-Only" side of the aisle persist in attributing inerrant status to the KJV that the KJV translators recognized did not exist. They were not being "humble" as another poster suggested, but rather they understood the issues involved in translation. Your assertion is a logical fallacy. When this is pointed out, you respond with ad-hominem attacks. There has been neither gnostic nor masonic arguments suggested here and I challaenge you to so documemt otherwise. This is the classic "guilt-by-association" fallacy. And I, for one, do not want those new to this discussion to be misled by these fallacies.
There is no other reason. If you believe otherwise, then you have been deceived.