Mark 1:2 CT reading also in KJV-only line

At the Sword Scripture Conference, Pastor_Bob reported that "Dr. Norris Belcher spoke on "Staying with the Word of God."
His text was Luke 20:45-47
He poses the question - If you were Satan, would you not do everything in your power to weaken the Word of God and then convince people that it was indeed the pure Word of God? [It stands to reason that Satan has produced counterfeits of everything that God made pure and holy. Why would the Word of God be any different? If Satan did produce a counterfeit Bible, where is it today?]

Dr. Belcher then offered some examples of differences in the two texts:

Mark 1:1-3 - The KJV reads "prophets" whereas the CT reads "The prophet Isaiah." He points out that Jesus was quoting two prophets not just the prophet Isaiah."
_______________________________________

I have not recommended the Criticial Text, nor any English translations made from it. To be fair to them, it should be acknowledged that the reading "Isaiah the prophet" at Mark 1:2 is also found in some Bibles that are placed on the KJV-only view's line or stream of the preserved text.

Murdock's and Lamsa's English translations of the Syriac Peshitta, which is on the KJV-only view line or stream of good Bibles, have "Isaiah the prophet" at Mark 1:2. Dean Burgon also acknowledged that the Old Latin Version had the name of Isaiah at Mark 1:2 and that “copies of the Old Latin version thrust Isaiah’s name into Matthew 1:22, and Zechariah’s name into 21:4” (Unholy Hands, I, pp. B-53-B-54). The Old Latin Bibles are also placed on the KJV-only view's line or stream of the preserved text. Wycliffe's Bible, which is on the KJV-only view's line or stream of good Bibles according to several KJV-only authors, also has "Isaiah the prophet" at Mark 1:2.


Why are KJV-only authors willing to accept some Bibles that have this reading "Isaiah the prophet" at Mark 1:2 while rejecting others?

 

Are you not aware of which KJV-only authors place those translations such as the Syriac Peshitta, Old Latin, and Wycliffe's on their good line, stream, or tree of Bibles?

Here are the ones that include the Peshitta that has the reading "Isaiah the prophet at Mark 1:2.
Peter Ruckman's good tree included the Peshitta Syriac Bible, which did not include the book of Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and John 7:53-8:11. Mickey Carter also placed the Peshitta translation in his pure stream of Bibles (Things That Are Different, pp. 110, 112). Carter wrote: "The New Testament pure stream or trail is the Greek text of the Authorized Version and has its beginning at the church of Antioch (Acts 11:26), the Syrian capital, and was already set down by 150 A.D. from the Greek Vulgate into Syrian and was known as the Peshitta Version" (p. 110). William Bradley wrote: "The Peshitta was the Bible of the early church translated from the original autographs into Syrian" (To All Generations, p. 5). Edward F. Hills placed the Peshitta Syriac on the line of manuscripts and translations leading up to the KJV (Believing Bible Study, p. 68). Donald Clarke contended that the Peshitta was "virtually the same Bible" as our English KJV (Bible Version Manual, pp. 19-20). Mickey Winter claimed that the KJV is "in harmony" with the Peshitta (KJV on Trial, p. 16). William Grady claimed: "The Peshitta set the standard because of its early composition and strong agreement with the Greek text underlying the King James Bible" (Final Authority, p. 34). Thomas Strouse asserted that “the TR is represented by the 2nd century Syriac Peshitta” (The Lord God, p. 18). Douglas Stauffer also maintained that the Peshitta "closely agrees with the Traditional Text of the King James Bible" (One Book, p. 307). Jack Chick listed the Peshitta as one of the Bibles that were “exactly copied and correctly translated” (Next Step, p. 8).

Here are the KJV-only authors that include the Old Latin Bibles on their good line even though it has the reading "Isaiah the prophet" at Mark 1:2.
Peter Ruckman included the Old Latin Version in his line of Bibles (Bible Babel, p. 82). Will Kinney wrote that “an educated guess would be that God preserved His perfect words in the Old Latin Bibles” (Flaming Torch, April-June, 2003, p. 18). William Grady suggested that the Old Latin “was also closely allied to the Textus Receptus” (Final Authority, p. 35). David Sorenson maintained that the Old Latin “was translated from the Received Text” (Touch Not, p. 79). David Cloud asserted that “the Scripture was also preserved in the Latin” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). Cloud maintained that “the witness of the Latin manuscripts and other versions have significance in determining the text of Scripture, because these were even more commonly used by the churches through the Dark Ages than the Greek” (p. 219). Gail Riplinger referred to “pure Old Latin Bibles” (In Awe, p. 704). Jeff McArdle wrote: “Those old Latin Bibles (not including the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome) were the words of God given to God’s people in their own language” (Bible Believer’s Guide, p. 25). Jack Chick listed the Old Latin as a Bible that was “exactly copied and correctly translated” (Next Step, p. 8). Gary Miller indicated that the Old Latin was one of the “faithful translations of both the Old Testament and New Testament” (Why the KJB, p. 40). Donald Clarke maintained that the KJV is “in harmony” with the ancient versions that he mentioned which included the Old Latin (Bible Version Manual, pp. 18-20). He contended that the Old Latin Bibles “agree with the King James Bible of 1611” (p. 19).

Ruckman, Ray, Carter, Cummons, Cimino, Steward, and Bradley all listed Wycliffe's Bible as a good Bible.
Cimino suggested that Wycliffe’s Bible of 1382 came “from the same type of Greek text” as the KJV (The Book, p. 14). David Cloud listed Wycliffe’s as part of the heritage of the KJV (Faith, p. 433). Cloud wrote that “the foundation for the English Bible was the Wycliffe Bible of 1384” (p. 532). Cloud noted: “In English, the Word of God was preserved prior to 1611 with some impurities in the Wycliffe version based on Latin from 1384” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). He described it as “a good Bible with plain, powerful language” (p. 96). Cloud commented: “Though Wycliffe translated from Latin rather than Hebrew and Greek, his translation was good” (pp. 170-171).

 

In an article in Wally Beebe's Open Bible, the following is stated: "Next to Tyndale, the man to whom lovers of the English Bible owe the greatest debt is Coverdale" (p. 1219). KJV defender Thomas Holland observed: "God used Miles Coverdale in an unique way because Coverdale labored on three early English translations" [Coverdale's, Great, and Geneva] (Crowned with Glory, p. 77).

Those three English Bibles are included on the KJV-only view's line or stream of good Bibles.

William Tyndale has been referred to as the "primary" or "principal" translator of the KJV. Next to William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale may have had the most influence on our English Bible, especially in the Old Testament books that Tyndale did not have the opportunity to translate. Coverdale may be indirectly responsible for more renderings in the KJV than any one of the KJV translators themselves.

Along with the three English Bible mentioned earlier, Miles Coverdale also produced an English N. T. in 1538 that was printed with a Latin N. T. It was entitled The New Testament both in Latin and English after the vulgar text: which is read in the church [Translated and corrected by Myles Coverdale].

In this 1538 English N. T. translated by Miles Coverdale, the uniquely-used-by-God translator, the following rendering is found at Mark 1:2

as it is written is Isaie [Isaiah] the prophet