100% or 95-98%?

It is this multitude of manuscripts which constitute the 100% perfect Word of God, not one particular version.

 

Any version individually: 95-98% textually accurate, 100% message accurate. 100% the word of God.

To help you understand, consider that the KJV vs. the TR do not have 100% textual matching.

 

Frank, you could apply the same question to the Four Gospels as they appear in any given version, as they each give different narrations of the same events, some going into more detail than the others about individual events.

 

Actually, the inconsistent KJV-only theory results in multiple conflicting MSS and authorities before 1611 or before 1769 and in
multiple conflicting translations in various langauges. If not, please identify and name the specific MSS that the KJV follows 100%.

Does the KJV-only theory result in multiple conflicting editions of the KJV?

Does the KJV-only theory suggest that God was
not able to preserve 100% the 1611 edition of the KJV in most present KJV editions? There are over 1800 words that are different between the 1611 edition of the KJV and the present-day Oxford edition of the KJV in the Scofield Reference Bible.

Even if you claim to have a 100% perfect translation, are you claiming that you can understand and interpret that translation 100% perfectly or infallibly? Are you the new infallible "pope" concerning Bible translations
so that all must accept your opinion or be wrong?

 

FrankBetz asked:

wouldn't God be less than 100% if He isn't able to preserve His Holy Bible PERFECTLY??

Who (apart from you) suggested that God wasn't able?

 

Amen, Brother Terry_Herrington -- Preach it!

 

FrankBetz: "I post this in effort for one to see the danger
in multiple conflicting MSS when the aspect of simple logic
is applied in reason."

Unfortunately your "reason" is unreasonable.
The KJV1611 shows that your reasoning is incorrect:
On the first page of the New Testament in the King James
Version this verse and this margine note are found:

S.Matthew J.11

And ||Iosias begate Iechonias and his brethren,
about the time they were caried away to Babylon.

Margin note: Some read: Iosias begate Iakim,
and Iakim begat Iechonias

This means there is a textual variation between the
Greek sources available to the translators of the
King James Version. The translators believed that
the source that ommits Iakim is more like the original
than is the source that includes Iakim.
This means that the translators of the KJV were doing
textual criticism.

Note than in verse 17 the inculsion of Iakim would
increase the number to 15 (instead of 14).

IMHO the translator footnotes and the text of each
English Version * are inerrant and inspired.

*caveat: the New World Translation, the Reader's Digest
Bible, and others not faithful to the available sources
are NOT inerrant and inspired English Bibles.

Caveat: cross-reference margin notes are not inerrant
and inspired; maps are not inerrant and inspired;
comentaries in margine notes are not inerrant and
inspired -- Only the translator footnoes that show
variants in sources and variants in translation meaning
are inerrant and inspired.

 

The Word of God is 100% in the original autographs, and about 98% in any given version (with the exception like the New World Translation; Reders Digest, etc)

I am of the opinion, that in the 1000's of Manuscripts, Ancient Versions, and quotations from the early text by the orthodox Church fathers, the Word of God has been preserved 100%. No version can claim to be 100% the Word of God, since this would then require the said translation to be Infallable and Inerrant, something not possible for a translation, no matter how good it may be. This is even true of the TR and KJV.

 

You have

Wrong again Frank.

 

Did the KJV translators know more than you?

Lancelot Andrewes, a leading KJV translator,
wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (PATTERN OF CATECHISTICAL DOCTRINE, p. 59).

The KJV translators did not hold to the inconsistent KJV-only assumptions that blind you.
The KJV translators rejected and refuted the one-perfect-translation-only theory of their day that used several of the same arguments that are used for the man-made KJV-only theory today.

 

Are you deciding to remain confused by the
inconsistent, conflicting claims and reasoning
of the man-made KJV-only theory?

 

Is the KJV 100% or even 95-98% in agreement with the earlier pre1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not the word of God according to your KJV-only reasoning?

KJV-only author Robert Sergent wrote: "Tyndale's translation greatly influenced the Authorized Version which retains some 80% of Tyndale's English text" (ENGLISH BIBLE: MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, p. 193).