www.bibleprotector.com/forum

On another board, one poster stated that according to Ward Allen the KJB translators were using Rheims.
I've searched and found some info; I just don't know how much is factual. Is there anyplace I can get more info on this?
The KJB preface seems to indicate that their adversary's incomplete bible was not considered holy; that seems about as far as I can go. But I know nothing of Ward Allen; is he reliable?

Ward Allen is a scholar who supports the most revisionary views on the KJB. Of course the KJB men had knowledge of the Rheims, but when you see the spirit behind the attack on the KJB is to undermine it as much as possible, then you understand that the motivations of such men will be to make the KJB seem as bad as possible. Ward Allen's focus is on the works of the translators themselves, draft documents, and so on, to attempt to understand in merely human terms the KJB, as though it was just the work of men. That the KJB translators took a few words from the Romanists is not unlikely, but that is hardly proof that the KJB was Romanish, any more than the Textus Receptus was made by Erasmus with information with Romanish influences.

Thanks; so basically those posters are opportunists. No reason for me to chase that red herring.

Ward Allen is a scholar who supports the most revisionary views on the KJB. Of course the KJB men had knowledge of the Rheims, but when you see the spirit behind