Source material for KJV: perfect or imperfect?

[Logos1560]

Was the source material on earth [original language texts, pre-1611 English Bibles, and translations in other languages] used in the making of the KJV perfect or imperfect?

By what process can a 100% pure or perfect translation be achieved if there are any errors in the sources from which it was made?

Can KJV-only advocates identify all the 100% pure or perfect source material used for the making of the KJV?

Can KJV-only advocates name and identify just one of the source materials known to be used in the making of the KJV that they would claim was 100% pure and perfect and was without error?

The KJV translators clearly noted that they used several sources, and those sources included sources that can be shown to have been imperfect and that were textually different.

It is known that the KJV translators used the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible as their starting point. It is known that the KJV translators used other pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva] as source material. Were all the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision 100% pure?

Were the printed original language Old Testament and New Testament texts from which the KJV was translated 100% pure without any printing errors or without any errors in the manuscripts on which they were based?

Were the original language manuscripts on which those printed original language texts were based 100% pure and without any copying errors?

One of the source materials for the 1611 KJV was the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. The KJV translators borrowed a number of renderings from the 1582 Rheims. Was the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament pure source material from which to borrow renderings?

If the KJV translators added anything from any imperfect or impure source to their work, according to what consistent basis can it be claimed the result was 100% perfection?

 

[Yeshua1]

Was the source material on earth [original language texts, pre-1611 English Bibles, and translations in other languages] used in the making of the KJV perfect or imperfect?

By what process can a 100% pure or perfect translation be achieved if there are any errors in the sources from which it was made?

Can KJV-only advocates identify all the 100% pure or perfect source material used for the making of the KJV?

Can KJV-only advocates name and identify just one of the source materials known to be used in the making of the KJV that they would claim was 100% pure and perfect and was without error?

The KJV translators clearly noted that they used several sources, and those sources included sources that can be shown to have been imperfect and that were textually different.

It is known that the KJV translators used the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible as their starting point. It is known that the KJV translators used other pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva] as source material. Were all the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision 100% pure?

Were the printed original language Old Testament and New Testament texts from which the KJV was translated 100% pure without any printing errors or without any errors in the manuscripts on which they were based?

Were the original language manuscripts on which those printed original language texts were based 100% pure and without any copying errors?

One of the source materials for the 1611 KJV was the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. The KJV translators borrowed a number of renderings from the 1582 Rheims. Was the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament pure source material from which to borrow renderings?

If the KJV translators added anything from any imperfect or impure source to their work, according to what consistent basis can it be claimed the result was 100% perfection?

Did the KJV translators have ANY sources that were not available to say the Bishop or geneva bible translators?

 

[Winman]

Source material for the KJB did not have to be perfect to provide for an inerrant text. This article can explain better than I concerning the last 12 verses of Mark 16;

Of the approximately 3,119 Greek manuscripts of the N.T. extant today, none is complete. The segment of text bearing Mark 16 has been lost
from many, but over 1,800 contain the section and verses 9-20 are present
in all but the 3 cited above.1 The footnote is thus unveiled and laid bare
as dishonest and deliberately misleading in intimating that these verses
are not the Word of God.

The external evidence is massive. Not only is the Greek manuscript
attestation ratio over 600 to 1 in support of the verses (99.99%) – around
8,000 Latin mss, about 1,000 Syriac versions as well as all of the over
2,000 known Greek Lectionaries contain the verses.2 They were cited by
Church "Fathers" who lived 150 years or more before B or Aleph were
written i.e.: Papias (c.100), Justin Martyr (c.150), Irenaeus (c.180),
Tertullian (c.195), and Hippolytus (c.200).3 Further, the Vatican MSS
has a blank space exactly the size required to include the 12 verses at the
end of the 16th chapter. The scribe who prepared B obviously knew of
the existence of the verses and their precise content. Indeed, as
Tischendorf observed, Sinaiticus exhibits a different handwriting and ink
on this page, and there is a change in spacing and size of the individual
letters in an attempt to fill up the void left by the removal of the verses.
These circumstances testify that the sheet is a forgery.

source-

http://www.christianmissionconnection.org/Which_Version_is_the_Bible.pdf

None of the over 3000 extant Greek manuscripts is complete. Of these only about 1800 contain the 16th chapter of Mark, and all but three of these contain the last 12 verses. And as you can see, there is much other evidence for these verses.

None of these manuscripts was perfect, but they can be used to determine the perfect text. The overwhelming evidence is that the last 12 verses of Mark 16 belong in scripture, so we can be confident and assured when we read these verses that they are truly the word of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

Source material for the KJB did not have to be perfect to provide for an inerrant text. This article can explain better than I concerning the last 12 verses of Mark 16;



source-

http://www.christianmissionconnection.org/Which_Version_is_the_Bible.pdf

None of the over 3000 extant Greek manuscripts is complete. Of these only about 1800 contain the 16th chapter of Mark, and all but three of these contain the last 12 verses. And as you can see, there is much other evidence for these verses.

None of these manuscripts was perfect, but they can be used to determine the perfect text. The overwhelming evidence is that the last 12 verses of Mark 16 belong in scripture, so we can be confident and assured when we read these verses that they are truly the word of God.

So you would hold tht though the manuscripts are not perfect, some mistakes in them, that the translators were able to translate into English an EXACT copy of the original manuscripts?

That they were inspired by the holy spirit to translate same way Ap[sotles/prophets were to write them down originally?

 

[Winman]

So you would hold tht though the manuscripts are not perfect, some mistakes in them, that the translators were able to translate into English an EXACT copy of the original manuscripts?

That's what I'm saying Bubble Boy.

That they were inspired by the holy spirit to translate same way Ap[sotles/prophets were to write them down originally?

No, this is you putting words in my mouth. You do that on purpose. I never said they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to translate the scriptures. I am just showing that imperfect texts can be used to determine the inerrant text. 1800 Greek manuscripts included Mark 16, and all but 3 included the last 12 verses, plus there was much other evidence to support the last 12 verses. So while none of this evidence was perfect, it can be used to determine a perfect text.

If you are unable to understand this, I can't help you.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's what I'm saying Bubble Boy.



No, this is you putting words in my mouth. You do that on purpose. I never said they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to translate the scriptures. I am just showing that imperfect texts can be used to determine the inerrant text. 1800 Greek manuscripts included Mark 16, and all but 3 included the last 12 verses, plus there was much other evidence to support the last 12 verses. So while none of this evidence was perfect, it can be used to determine a perfect text.

If you are unable to understand this, I can't help you.

You are assuming God intended us to have a 'perfect' text,bbeing the exact copy of the inspiried originals, aren't you?

 

[Winman]

You are assuming God intended us to have a 'perfect' text,bbeing the exact copy of the inspiried originals, aren't you?

I am not assuming that at all, God promised to preserve his words.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Show me where God said he would allow his word to become corrupted as you ASSUME.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not assuming that at all, God promised to preserve his words.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Show me where God said he would allow his word to become corrupted as you ASSUME.

he did, there were called the original books of the OT/NT canon of scriptures!

 

[Logos1560]

I am not assuming that at all, God promised to preserve his words.

You may still be assuming a great deal since you have not demonstrated that God made any promises that would suggest that He showed partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.

Perhaps you are blind to the assumptions that you make since you are not objective concerning your own opinions.

You admitted that the original language manuscripts have some errors so are you assuming that fallible, imperfect men can make perfect textual criticism decisions?

Are you perhaps assuming that God promised to preserve different words in a different language in a translation instead of preserving the original language words given to the prophets and apostles?