You avoid and ignore some of the historical facts concerning the Church of England's doctrinal views leading up to 1611.
(Notice how no one is calling out "logos" for veering off-topic. The bias of these emotional, tribally-dependent amateurs is evident. Don't worry, I will salvage this by connecting this topic to "the fundamentals of the faith", see if you can find where below)
As I've stated before, "logos", you talk more than you think.
"King James was very hostile to the Arminians.
He soon, however, became more lenient toward them, when convinced by Bishop Laud, that the laxity and pliancy of Arminianism made it far more supple and convenient
for the purposes of “kingcraft” and civil despotism, than the stiff and unyielding temper of Calvinism"
Not all of them supported the Anglican Church, as some were
Puritan, and
multiple sources list
Arminian members of the committee as well
(an explanation on why Arminianism didn't just suddenly pop out of the woodwork once the Church of England "officially" cozied up to it later below).
During the period of 1604-1610, back up your own claim and name the specific KJV translators that you can prove to be "not Calvinist."
Then all we need is one example from the Arminian camp, which is the staunch enemy camp of Calvinism, as this alone will refute your position that "all" of them were Calvinist.
"
Richard Thomson, sometimes spelled
Thompson, was a
Dutch-born
English theologian and translator. He was Fellow of
Clare Hall, Cambridge and the translator of
Martial's epigrams and among the "First Westminster Company" charged by
James I of England with the translation of the first 12 books of the
King James Version of the Bible.
He was also known for his intemperance and his doctrinal belief in Arminianism."
The Puritans:
"Some Protestants thought that
the Anglican Church was still too much like the Catholic church. These people became known as Puritans.
...
persecution of Puritans meant that most members of this religious group supported Parliament,
whereas most Anglicans and Catholics tended to favour the royalists."
Notice how numerous Protestants were staunchly against corruption in the Anglican Church that echoed the Catholic Church.
"Though
the Church of England in 1600 may have been unscriptural in its episcopal form of church polity, views on baptism, and an incipient lack of evangelistic fervor... The Church of England at the end of the nineteenth century
still was wrong in its polity and views on baptism, but it had become completely apostate concerning the fundamentals of the faith. Though orthodox on paper, the Anglican Church by the twentieth century had loosed its moorings, effectively departing from the faith once delivered to the saints. It had become intoxicated with the liquor of German Rationalism and therefore died spiritually. Westcott and Hort clearly exhibited this in their writings."
The King James translators "were a diverse group. While some were born in large cities and towns, most were from small villages scattered throughout England. Several were the children of university graduates, most were not. They were sons of mariners, farmers, school teachers, cordwainers (leather merchants), fletchers (makers of bows and arrows), ministers, brewers, tailors, and aristocrats. All were members of the Church of England, but their religious views ran the gamut.
Some were ardent Puritans, others staunch defenders of the religious establishment. Some believed in pre-destination and limited salvation as taught by John Calvin,
while others believed in self-determination and universal access to heaven as taught by Jacobus Arminius."
An example of one Puritan who represented numerous other Puritans on the board:
"Dr. Lawrence Chaderton was described as a "staunch Puritan," godly, learned, and full of moderation. He also had a reputation of being a "pious Protestant," who after being converted from Catholicism turned his back on Rome. He was familiar in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew and was "thoroughly skilled in them." When appointed to the translation committee, he was described as being "the most grave, learned, and modest of the aggrieved sort" to represent the Puritan faction of the committee. He also was noted as an excellent preacher (82-89)."
And another:
"Dr. John Reynolds originally was a Catholic until he was converted to Christ by his brother. He went on to become
a leader of the Puritan movement within the Church of England."
As we can see here, the Puritan movement was happening within the church of England. Meaning members of the Church of England did not agree with all its doctrinal or political views. Why? Keep reading.
Of course, by this point we can already conclude that to argue "all of the King James Translators agreed with the Church of England's doctrinal views" is ludicrous. All you needed was one example of an Arminian to disprove this deceptive claim.