Do we have a complete, perfect, and sufficient Bible?

You are simply not bothering to check the Greek, which is the original language in which the divinely inspired Word was written. To be accurate and reliable, an English translation must translate (or transliterate) the actual word in the Received Text. So you are mistaken about Hell.

Let me show you: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (Mark 9:43,44) There is your eternal fire. But what is the Greek word for Hell (The Lake of Fire).
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
Καὶ ἐὰν σκανδαλίζῃ σε ἡ χείρ σου ἀπόκοψον αὐτήν· καλόν σοι ἐστίν κυλλὸν εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν ἢ τὰς δύο χεῖρας ἔχοντα ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὴν γέενναν [ Gehenna] εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἄσβεστον
This is not a matter of "Greekifying" but making sure that the Greek is translated word-for-word (as far as possible).
This is incorrect. Hades is cast into the Lake of Fire metaphorically, since the occupants of Hades are cast into the Lake of Fire.
True, But the actual Greek text has "great fish". "Whale" would be a good translation with interpretation.
I think we need to clear up some misunderstanding. So let me clarify my position:

1. The Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Received Text were divinely inspired and became printed texts. The Received Text fairly represents the MAJORITY of Greek manuscripts. This is what we mean by "perfect, complete, and sufficient". If our Bibles went back to the Hebrew there would be only 24 books, but those 24 are properly represented by the 39 books in the KJB Old Testament.

2. The goal of the King James translators was to produce an outstanding English translation, and they achieved their goal. The KJB (or Authorized Version) became the Holy Bible" or the Word of God for over 300 years. And even today it is recognized as such by many. The majority of commentators simply assumed that it was the Word of God without question.

3. At the same time a translation is not inspired and is subject to improvement. So the KJB was "revised" (improved would be more accurate) in 1629, 1638 and 1760. The changes were minor and related to (1) printer's errors (2) italics (3) minor changes to the text (4) spellings (5) marginal references and removal of references to the Apocrypha (6) capitalization and (7) punctuation. See this article Has the King James Bible Been Revised? - Thomas Nelson Bibles Even with capitalization, there could be a few changes today such as consistently capitalizing "Holy Spirit", and a few other words.

So if we compare Mark 9:33 with the original 1611 printing here is what we see:
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, then hauing two hands, to goe into hell, into the fire that neuer shall be quenched:
This is exactly the same except for those spellings. So if you want to be picky, you would stick with these spellings.

In your estimation, the word hell should never be used? Got it.

And in your estimation, a translation cannot be inspired? Got it.

"Only MY KJV...." "NO, only MY KJV...." where's the popcorn.

popcorn

I did not say that. Gehenna is correctly translated as hell.
Not in my estimation, but in the estimation of all Bible-believing Christians. Divine inspiration is strictly limited to the original manuscripts. Show me where in the preface to the original KJB ("The Translators to the Reader") do the translators make such a gross mistake, and say they were "inspired". Here is what they said "..we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see." That speaks of divine help and guidance.

What language did Joseph speak to his brothers? He spoke in Egyptian and needed a translator. Was Egyptian part of the originals? Wow, God took what was spoken in Egyptian and had it perfectly translated into Hebrew, and the Hebrew translation is considered the inspired word of God. I believe God has done the very same thing with the KJV. Inspiration without preservation is useless.

Btw, how many of the original writers knew they were writing down inspired words?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph was sold at 17 years of age so the Hebrew language was known to him. Where is the scripture that Joseph needed a translator?

Genesis 42:
22 And Reuben answered them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear? therefore, behold, also his blood is required.
23 And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.

But he was hiding his identity so Im not sure if I agree with you

Who said this? The only problem I have with the King James Only cult ideology is the raising up of a version of His word to the point of making it an idol. This standard that YOU are lifting this version up to, is impossible for it to measure up to. You put this "magical mysterious standard" on it that you think put's it on a level above even the manuscripts that were used to write it. How does this make sense? God's word is living, it endures, and one of it's biggest strengths in history was the shear amount of copies we have all around world that we can always compare and contrast to see the amazing power of God to preserve His word, as He says He will in His word. One of the biggest problems with this belief is the fact it's not supported by His word...... Which means this belief HAS to originate with man. I don't trust that. To be honest it seems like a Childs security blanket to me, that you just don't feel right unless your version of the bible is better than the other Bible's everyone else uses.

In my opinion this unbiblical view of the KJV supremacy shows a distrust of God and His ability to preserve His word that is biblical. You create this standard about "perfect" and "inerrant" in a way that the KJV (nor any other version) meets. Period. How can you call something inerrant when mistakes have been pointed out to you? Mat. 28:20, where it says "end of the world", should be "end of the age". This is not debatable and has cause SO much trouble in the church, especially the last 100 years. These can have completely different meanings. See, if I bought into this belief of KJVO before I was saved, and later come to learn of this, could it not topple my whole belief system? Especially if not yet founded on the TRUTH and I haven't been born again with His Spirit to keep me. I find this topic as hard to discuss this with the KJVO crowd as it is to discuss Trumps accomplishments with a rabid Leftist. You won't look or deal with reality while digging into these false beliefs. Again you won't be convinced by anything, Can't prove this with His word, and can't see the cult like behaviors it takes to accept this as you do. I don't know, maybe 6 more walls of text will convince me, have a good day man.

23 They did not know that Joseph understood them, for there was an interpreter between them.

6 Now Joseph was governor over the land; he it was who sold to all the people of the land. And Joseph’s brothers came, and bowed themselves before him with their faces to the ground. 7 Joseph saw his brothers, and knew them, but he treated them like strangers and spoke roughly to them. “Where do you come from?” he said. They said, “From the land of Canaan, to buy food.” 8 Thus Joseph knew his brothers, but they did not know him.

Yes, he was hiding his identity, but the words he spoke in Egyptian were translated to Hebrew and the Hebrew translation became the inspired words of God. A translation can be inspired.

Not understanding what you are saying? Joseph understood his brother words so he knew the Hebrew language

Joseph’s words he spoke to them to hide his identity were in Egyptian, yes? Those words became part of the Hebrew Scriptures, yes? In order for those words to become part of scripture, they were translated into Hebrew, yes? And that translation became the inspired word of God.

When the New Testament writers would quote the Old Testament (Mt. 1:23; Mk. 1:2; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; I Cor. 2:9; Gal. 3:13, etc.), they had to TRANSLATE from Hebrew to Greek, because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but THEY wrote in Greek. So, if a translation cannot be infallible, then EVEN THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE "ORIGINAL GREEK" ISN'T INFALLIBLE, because it contains translations from the Hebrew text!

Of the 900 different English translations of the scriptures apparently the OP is stuck on one which was done 400 years ago.

As if all people are better at deciphering language from 400 years ago than they are modern English.

So....if this is the case then we should instead be reading Bibles in original language....because the idiomatic and metaphoric languages are much better understood than translations anyway.

It was Moses that wrote down Genesis! Wondering why you are even debating why Joseph needed a translater? Scripture is clear that Joseph understood his brother's words

His brothers needed the interpreter because Joseph spoke to them in Egyptian. Moses wrote what Joseph spoke in Egyptian, and translated it into Hebrew, yes? Although, Egyptian was the original language that was used.

---------------------------------------
Good Grief--Lord have mercy--Im done

Bibliolatry? Yes, Guilty, as charged!:

Handling The Word Of Life!

Amen.