They love to quote "church fathers" except when it gets in the way of their masonic gnosticism.
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.