Where did King James only originate?

I look at the underlying Greek text.

Setting aside KJB and going back to the NASB, why "can" is a bad translation? and why "will" is a good one? Thanks

Estai isn't easy to translate. It means "I am." The future tense of estai is "I will be" or "I shall be." It wouldn't make much sense if you said the future tense of "I am" is "I can be."

See https://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm

...but it's delusional to say the KJV 1611 is the only version that reflects the autographs with 100% accuracy.

So which one is correct, you said 'will be" is a better translation yet now going to a greek 'I can be" ? Please help since I am still of little understanding of this. Thanks

I've told you I believe "how will these thing be" is correct, in my opinion; and I showed you from the Greek why I believe this. I'm not sure what more you want me to say. If you read my previous post again that's the best explanation I can give.

I'm not a Greek scholar so I can't say absolutely I'm right. Interpreting Greek is as much an art as a science in many cases. Often there won't be a word-for-word exact correspondence between Greek and English.

You only said in your opinion as you stated and asking the reason why "will be" is a better translation and not "can be"

That's just the way I look at it.

All the Greek manuscripts that I'm aware of use the word estai: the TR, Westcott & Hort, the Majority Text—all of 'em. If Westcott & Hort, or someone else, had intentionally inserted a new word to replace estai, that would be corruption of the Greek text.

You're looking at from the viewpoint that the KJV 1611 English text is a perfect translation and any variation from that is a corruption. I don't see it that way. I look at the underlying Greek text.

Any variation from the Textus Receptus, from which the kjv is derived, is a corruption.

Any variation from the Textus Receptus, from which the kjv is derived, is a corruption.

Any variation from the Textus Receptus, from which the kjv is derived, is a corruption.

Which edition of the TR is the only one with no corruptions?

All editions of the TR represent the true Greek text of the Bible as found in the bulk of manuscripts, translations, lectionaries, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

After Erasmus produced the first printed Greek text of the New Testament in 1516, other textual scholars worked on it for about 100 years. During that time there were only minor revisions to the text. Eventually the Greek text of Stephanus from 1550 became what is now known as the Textus Receptus. But the Elzevier brothers continued to work on it into the 17th century (again with only minor variations).

At the same time there were minor variations from the text of Stephanus which were incorporated into the KJB (since those translators had access to all the editions of the TR since Erasmus). So F.H.A. Scrivener -- the leading textual scholar of the 19th century -- produced the actual KJB Greek text in 1894 (with added punctuations). But it is almost identical if not 100% identical to that of Stephanus. Here is an example from John 1:1:

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

As you can see, Scrivener simply added punctuations in this verse. So for all practical purposes, the TR has remained the same.

Scrivener’s work is a translation from the English KJV into Greek. There is no Greek manuscript that reads exactly the same way. The TR is an eclectic text no less than the modern Nestle-Alland.

The argument can be made that either "can" or "shall" are acceptable translations in English. For the average reader reading the NASB or the KJV they would probably come away with the same conclusion: Mary is shocked to hear this because she's a virgin; and she doesn't understand how this can be or how it will happen.

I just prefer "will" or "shall."

"Can be" implies that there was an impossibility to overcome. "Will be" implies that the timing may have been off. Two entirely different meanings.

Here is a good example: "Can a human being fly like a bird?" No, because it is impossible.
On the other hand "Will a human being fly like a bird?" Yes, only if the conditions are right.

No explanation, just a preference. This is common to critical editors of the bible using only guesses without analysis but I do understand you and we can move on.

Yes, we can move on but not before I make it clear: My position isn't based on guesses. I explained in great detail. But it seems to me you really want me to say the NASB corrupted the text. I suspected as much.