KJV's borrowing from 1582 Rheims NT

[Conan]

The part of Rheims in the making of the English Bible : Carleton, James G. (James George), 1848-1918 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

VII, 259, [1] p. 23 cm

archive.org

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

I am unable to view the link. Yes, they did use some words from there, no issue. Good scholarship there.

 

[Logos1560]

Yes, they did use some words from there, no issue.

It would supposedly be an issue according to a consistent, just application of some KJV-only claims.

In his commentary on the Psalms, Peter Ruckman wrote: “A pure Bible couldn’t come from an impure source” (Vol. II, p. 979). D. A. Waite claimed: “If the SOURCE be corrupted, the PRODUCT likewise must be corrupted” (Dean Burgon News, June, 1979, p. 2). Thomas Corkish asserted: “God does not associate with something impure” (Bradenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 151). Thomas Corkish claimed: “Purity requires every and all words in the correct order” (p. 152). Thomas Corkish declared: “To continue qualifying as God’s Word, the Bible must remain pure” (Ibid.). David O’Steen declared: “If a Bible has an error, it cannot be the scripture” (Study Notes, p. 61). Al Lacy contended: “If it [a Bible translation] has even ONE error, it is NOT the Word of TRUTH! You cannot trust it” (Can I Trust, p. 99). Al Lacy asserted: “If we do not have a perfect translation, we do not HAVE the Scriptures” (p. 101). Terence McLean claimed that “the Bible of the true Christians never cross-pollinated with the corrupted texts until the nineteenth century” (History of Your Bible, p. 33). Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? (Job 14:4). And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean (Lev. 10:10).

Would KJV-only advocates claim that the 1582 Rheims was an absolutely clean, holy, and pure source from which the makers of the KJV could borrow renderings? Is the 1611 KJV directly associated and connected with a corrupt Bible (the 1582 Rheims) that is not pure and that is not scripture according to a consistent application of some KJV-only claims? According to a consistent, just application of some KJV-only reasoning, when some contaminated or impure water from the 1582 Rheims was poured into the 1611 KJV, what would the result be? Does the verifiable fact of the influence of the 1582 Rheims on the English text of the KJV demonstrate that the KJV is not the seventh in succession of those which influenced its text? Was the pre-1600 Bible of true Christians cross-pollinated with a corrupt text when the KJV’s makers borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Rheims? Were even the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible absolutely clean and pure sources with every and all words in the correct order? Is it in effect being suggested that the KJV cannot be absolutely pure and perfect when it came from any imperfect sources with some impurities?

Can KJV-only advocates name and identify any one OT source and any one NT source with every and all pure words in the correct order on which the KJV is based?