Several campaigns make accusations to slay the KJV for what it isn’t. Now I admit I am not a KJV-only proponent that the version is the absolute only singled out divine infallible text on earth, but neither do I regard versions after the 1881 critical texts were discovered and translated by Westcott and Hort. Though there are many misunderstandings about the KJV that must be considered.
The claim is that the scholars of the version were under Masonic watch and purposed it for Masonic literature. The illustrations give impression that it has been coded by Masonic influence, some of the words reflecting Masonic language, therefore it cannot be trusted. After they handed over the final product to King James, he brought it to Francis Bacon, a Rosicrucian, to edit and add color (poetic flow). King James was also accused of having Masonic tendencies, so this led a couple accusations that the KJV is an instrument of Masonic influence and language. Is that true?
I am not going to dispute who gave a final edit, because I don’t know (no one can absolutely declare it). But consider this when claiming it is a Masonic literature. The 52 scholars of the KJV were under order of King James to present a translation that would satisfy the criticisms the King had with the 1599 Geneva footnotes he despised. The scholars NEVER claimed absolute divine inspiration from God. As a matter of fact, they admitted their version was merely a new revision with some precepts of the King, and that they were accountable for reproach (admitted in its original Preface). However, the scholars compared original manuscripts (Textus Receptus Majority of texts at the time) with the translations known to retain accuracy. It borrowed most of its wording from Tyndale’s 1526 version and the Matthew Bible, using the Geneva and Coverdale as reference.
So IF IT WAS A MASONIC TEXT, then it would mean Tyndale’s version was also Masonic, which the KJV borrowed mostly from, though it was not. Even if Francis Bacon had edited it for flow, it still wouldn’t mean it was made into a Masonic literature.
Perhaps I take issue with some of the impression given from the King’s precepts he put on the translators, and some of the choice of words could be better, but to say it is something else that it isn’t just to demote it is not fair nor rational.
See my article “Is it a Problem if the KJV was Edited by Francis Bacon?“