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?