That's my point. You can re-translate the same thing over and over again, claim that one translation is more divinely inspired than the next, but ultimately they're just rehashing the same material Rome originally decided should fit into the Bible. It's not as though they went out and tracked down texts declared heretical by the ancient church to form an entirely new religion.
I also think it's funny that they use the KJV. It was translated specifically to slant towards the Anglican church, another church most fundamentalists would deride as being too liberal (and to the British monarchy, which every American should hate of course).
Likewise, they retain a fair amount of Catholic theology (and extra-Biblical mystic stuff). Repackaged, sure. They diverge and take separate paths. But they're all branches on the same tree - the Protestant Reformation didn't occur to the 16th century. I don't know how people make the leap from having a shared history to deriding someone as evil - especially based on Ecclesiastical choices of various religious organizations that the typical layperson doesn't even understand.