Church in the wilderness

Yea King James and the Anglican church said they could not translate it anything other than 'church' for instance it can be translated "assemblies" or "congregation".

 

HankD wrote:

>in that they and the scholastic sector found and reported "errors" both of translation and typography to them which they spent over 190 years correcting.

Also,

>Did God change His mind in the following years :1613, 1629, 1638, 1744, 1762, and 1769 when hundreds of collective changes were made to the AV of 1611?

So here’s a question that has always bothered me in regard to the KJV-only position:

If the original manuscripts of the KJV translation were lost or destroyed somewhere around 1640 or so (as is generally admitted by all parties in this debate), then on what possible basis could later revisions of the KJV take place if they supposedly were correcting only printers’ errors or “restoring” the original AV 1611 to its correct form?

How could anyone living in 1650 or later possibly discern a printer’s error without an “original” working manuscript from the translators themselves to compare against? Apart from special revelation, this would seem to be an impossible task.

It thus seems to me, that for the KJV-only advocates, without the “original” printer’s copy to verify a misprint or wrong reading, they would have to claim that Blayney in 1769 as well as earlier revisers of the KJV had to have been operating under special divine revelation -- if their work indeed was restoration of the accurate original 1611 form and not merely an exercise made by “bible correctors,” devout or otherwise (this, regardless of whether these revisers from 1650-1759 claimed to be “improving” or “restoring” the original 1611 AV text, the “original manuscript” of which by their time had completely been lost).

Can someone who defends the KJV-only hypothesis enlighten me on this?