You just proved our point when you stated that the only way to get an accurate translation is to seek consistancies from other sources instead of one so there were inconsistencies of Gods word
Is that your point? There are variations from one manuscript to another or from one language to another, therefore we'd all better trust a man who didn't deal with any manuscripts, and couldn't read, speak, or understand any other languages? That's a pretty lousy point. Christian writers of antiquity already showed much more facility with the ancient versions as to produce things like the hexapla (produced by Origen sometime before the 240s), which gathered together six different versions of the OT that were extant at that time. Joseph Smith just took the KJV and added some of his own ideas to it, mangling it in the attempt to harmonize everything.
I fail to see how this proves anything other than the fact that your false prophet didn't know what he was doing. (Or even worse that he did.)
We have all along stated that the scriptures are true as far as they are translated correctly. Who would be the best source to bring consistancy? A man or a prophet of God
No one has any reason to doubt the transmission of the scriptures but the self-interested like Mormons, Muslims, and others with their own latter-day anti-God messengers. The modern method of higher textual criticism, for whatever its worth, generally deals with points of arcana related to various hypothetical sources (e.g., Q) and relation of different manuscripts and traditions to one another. It is folly to think of this in terms of "See, the scriptures are corrupted unless they're translated by
our guy", as though any differences that their might be between the Latin Vulgate and the Sahidic or the Armenian and the Greek or whatever rise to the level of casting serious doubt on the text itself. We know that it doesn't because we have people who can read and compare the different versions (scholars who specialize in the Biblical text), and point out the differences and to what degree they indicate a deviation from the assumed source text.
I suppose if you did not have that, it would be much easier to make and believe much more fantastic claims about the Bible being incorrectly translated to the point of being essentially useless until your guy comes around to correct it, despite the fact that his own
source text (KJV) didn't exist until almost 1200 years after the established translation in question (434 vs. 1611). And that is but one translation -- the Latin, the Syriac, and the Coptic were all completed earlier than the Armenian, according to Armenian sources themselves (see, e.g., Bp. Sion Manoogian "The Armenian Church and her Teachings", p. 8), and hence obviously relied on even earlier manuscripts and traditions.
Again, your point is pretty lousy, seeing as how the historical record itself contradicts it. It really only works as you would have it if you assume that everyone is working from the autographs (and hence there should be no variations at all, since we can all just go back to the originals written by the hands of the apostles themsleves), but since I don't know of any Christian who seriously thinks that, that's not even an argument you can make in this context. At least not if you want to actually argue within the bounds of the thread, which is about how ridiculous it is for Mormons to think of Joseph Smith as correcting the scriptures by producing something that is really just a ruined copy of the KJV, not based on anything else.
Meanwhile, in the real world, actual Christians whose churches and translations of the scriptures have existed for over a millennia before the KJV did have shown how it actually happened: their forefathers specifically sought out the scriptures from diverse sources and used these to work out just how the scriptures should be translated into their own language. This is essentially how it is that scholars find so-called "errors" in transmission today, and yet you would like to pretend as though this is some sort of bombshell that destroys the Christian faith in the Bible's reliability (for some reason...), rather than evidence that things have been handled properly.
That, like belief in Joseph Smith and his "correction" of the Bible, is just ahistorical foolishness.