Lacy said "Do you have a Biblical precedent for inspired scripture with textual imperfections?"
I'm not sure what you mean, and your question feels like you are trying to sidetrack and avoid answering the questions directed at you.
But to answer your question, as I understand it, I think it likely that the men who originally penned scripture (Moses, David, Isaiah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc.) under the Holy Spirit were not automatons but wrote in their own style and by their own level of education. Thus there are occasional grammatical "oddities" that would technically be considered imperfections from a purely grammatical point of view (many of the writers did not have advanced literary educations), but are not "errors in the word of God".
Similary, when Paul wrote to Timothy and told him that Timothy knew the "scriptures" from childhood, and that all "scripture" is given by inspiration of God, I certainly don't believe Timothy had the originals to learn from, but was taught orally in the synagogue from scrolls that were copies, and these copies likely had minor textual imperfections just like copies do today.
Similarly again, even the translators of the KJV held to a similar view of "inspiration" as what I am getting at: they held that the Septuagint was the word of God even though it "dissenteth from the Original in many places", yet they also say that the Lord himself stirred up Ptolemy to have it produced and that the Holy Spirit directed it into use by the early church. They also said that "the King's speech" is still the king's speech when translated, even though not all translators will translate it with equal accuracy. They also said that although God makes men, warts, freckles and scars on a man (who was made by God) does not mean that since God does not make mistakes that therefore that man is no longer rightly called a man nor does blemishes mean he was not produced by God.
To bring this full circle, a Bible need not be 100% textually representative of the originals, nor 100% word-perfect according to the strictest of grammatical rules, to be called "the word of God". Yet KJV-onlyism requires this sort of perfection, and in doing so is its own undoing, because nothing prior or since is 100% identical to the KJV grammatically or textually, in ANY language (English or otherwise) - which brings us back to the question posed to you by C4K which you have yet to answer.
