What kind of Greek New Testament manuscripts actually served as the underlying foundation and basis for the varying printed editions of the Textus Receptus? According to sound, consistent, just textual measures, were those Greek NT manuscripts actually whole and nearly perfect (nothing added, nothing omitted, nothing changed and with absolutely no significant copying errors involving whole verses, whole clauses, whole phrases, or whole words and with only insignificant spelling variations)? If any TR-only advocates or KJV-only advocates consider them to be "whole," please name, list, and identify the specific Greek NT manuscripts that can properly and consistently be called "whole" according to sound, consistent, just textual measures. If those Greek NT manuscripts were "whole," why was there any need for textual physicians or editors such as Erasmus, Cardinal Ximenes, Stephanus, or Beza? Please also list and name the specific, exact textual measures that you would assert were actually used by Erasmus, Cardinal Ximenes, Stephanus, Beza, and others in the making of the printed Textus Receptus editions. If those actual Greek NT manuscripts which are the basis for the TR editions have any added or omitted verses, clauses, phrases, or words or have any other significant differences involving different words, would they be properly be identified as "whole" Greek NT manuscripts or as "sick" Greek NT manuscripts with some imperfections or copying errors according to sound, consistent, just textual measures?