[AnalogReigns]

Protestant Bishop Tunstall of London declared that there were upwards of 2,000 errors in Tyndale's Bible. Tyndale translated the term Baptism into "washing," Scripture into "writing," Holy Ghost into "Holy Wind," bishop into "overseer," priest into "elder," deacon into "minister," heresy into "choice," martyr into "witness," etc. In his footnotes, Tyndale referred to the occupant of the Chair of Peter as "that great idol, the whore of Babylon, the anti-Christ of Rome."

In a 66 book tome like the Bible 2000 errors really is not that many... Knowing a little about the original languages too each of the words you mentioned ARE valid literal translations of those words: Baptism does mean literally "washing," the word for ghost or Spirit does literally mean "wind," bishop does actually mean "overseer," priest (or minister) is another word for "elder," deacon can indeed mean "minister," heresy is from the word "choice," and martyr does actually mean "witness."

If those are examples of Tyndale's errors, and this is into modern English, not that of 400 years ago..., then there were far less than 2000!

Tyndale & his translators (he himself did not do all the translating) were under constant real threat of being burned alive, because of the lovely harmless little Roman Catholic church. Is it any wonder they identified that institution's head with the worst of evils? (keep in mind too, they did not hold the literalist view of today of one person being THE anti-Christ, rather the pope of that day they and the corrupt institution he headed they called anti-Christ or anti-Christian.) After that kind of tyranny, we call the Reformers terrorists?

George Washington and the Continental army burned down loyalist houses and buildings--were they terrorists too? Lincoln, through his generals, obliterated much of Georgia...torching everything, was he also kin to the Taliban?

I think we need to be very careful comparing bad things done to the evils of Islamic fanatics--their's is an entirely different reasoning and scale.

[TradicalRC]

Lincoln, through his generals, obliterated much of Georgia...torching everything, was he also kin to the Taliban?

I find the "Taliban" line a bit much, It may be the new "Nazi", who knows. However, Lincoln is not the Honest Rail-Splitter that ideological historians have given us, he actually ignored much of the Constitution that he was sworn to protect.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

George Washington and the Continental army burned down loyalist houses and buildings--were they terrorists too?

Yes, but they won, so they got to write the history. The reason they had to pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor was because they were formally committing treason and acts of terrorism in an organized conspriacy against established state authority.

The cause was righteous, but lets not forget this background. Had they lost, it would have been up the long ladder and down the short rope for them, with a nice little snap of the neck at the end.