When you declare something someone posts to be "utter falsehood" then be ready to state your reputation to prove it. You could have said it differently. You could have said, "This is not accurate and here is why..."
But instead you lumber in here with this big slam and feeling no need to prove it- no need whatsoever to site proof. Everyone is just supposed to think that you are authority enough.
Which means you posit your reputation as the authority.
Therefore it is perfectly sensible, since you did not site your sources when declaring something to be "utter falsehood", to ask you if you are willing to put that reputation that you apparently hold in such high regard and expect others to as well on the line.
You have.
I'll address that later. But for now, is it your contention that every one of them was 100% Anglican Catholic and is it your contention that you CANNOT be Anglican Catholic and be thoroughly reformed?
This is just one site that says you are wrong.
//www.bible-researcher.com/bib-b.html#beza1565[/URL]
Here is another- there are plenty more:
This is why, if you had bothered to pay attention before lumbering in here with your unsupported accusations, I said "which came to be known as the TR".
It occurred to me that I have allowed some of Dr. Bob's snippy remarks to get my dander up and thus misrepresent my feelings and thoughts of him and to behave myself unseemly. For that I apologize.
Let me hasten to say that I do not consider myself on the same level of intellectual prowess as Dr. Bob. I believe it is apparent from some of his postings that he is a well educated and capable, erudite man.
I obviously did not like my post being called "utter falsehood" and some other unnecessarily demeaning terms. But that does not negate the fact that I have the utmost respect for Dr. Bob and find myself agreeing with him the vast majority of the time. I do not pretend here that I do not wish he would be more tender with those with whom he disagrees. It is incumbent upon a giant to walk gently among men.
Having said all of that, even a giant can stagger. I think it is clear he has here. Though I must also confess that I over spoke slightly myself. I said that MOST of the translators were Calvinists, which is really probably true, as I think the below case will support, but it is hard to say that for certain.
I am right that Theodore Beza, the disciple of Calvin, produced the text from which the King James translators (or AV if you're English) translated the majority of their work. I have proven that and it is easy enough for ANYONE to research and discover for themselves in a matter of minutes.
And Dr. Bob is partially right that there were plenty of Anglicans on the translation committee.
But where this sometimes not-so-gentle giant has staggered is his lack of understanding that the Puritans occupied about half of the translation committee and that the Anglicans, the other half, had by this time adopted their thirty nine articles of religion which are considered "overtly Calvinistic". He also fails to realize that, though James himself might not have been a Calvinist (he may have been very Calvinistic- I don't know), it was Dr. John Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College Oxford, a thorough Puritan who prompted the king to sponsor a new version.
Furthermore, the translators used mostly Tyndale's version for wording and Tyndale was thoroughly reformed believing in election and such as Calvin would enunciate later.
I give you the following for reference. Of course plenty more could be given but for sake of avoiding tediousness I present these two:
James and the Puritans did agree on one thing at Hampton. When Dr. John Reynolds, President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, proposed a new translation of the English Bible, he found James enthusiastic.
And so, on this day, January 17, 1604, the motion was carried "...that a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes..."
Forty-seven of England's top Bible scholars were appointed to do the work.
In an effort to diminish bias, both Anglicans and Puritans were included. King James himself organized the task. The translators were counted off into six panels (three Old Testament, two New Testament, one Apocrypha). The king charged them to stick as close to the earlier Bishop’s Bible as accuracy would allow, but to take into account earlier versions.
In the end, the new translation borrowed about seventy percent of its wording from William Tyndale’s vivid translation.
http://www.christianhistorytimeline.com/DAILYF/2001/01/daily-01-17-2001.shtml
The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, which are clearly Protestant if not
overtly Calvinistic. But I might add that the Articles do include a section outlining double predestination.
http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2006/08/calvinist-and-anglican.html
God bless!
