We of the KJV ONLY belief believe what God said when He said "He will preserve His word" We believe God preserved His inherant breathed Word in the English language in the KJV, just like He preserved His word thousands of years ago in every major world Western language.
Your view of preservation seems to be inconsistent. According to what the Scriptures state and according to the definition of preservation, would not a consistent, sound, scriptural view of Bible preservation be true both before, in, and after 1611?
Baptist pastor and KJV defender Glenn Conjurske suggested that many KJV-only advocates “have never yet understood so much as the meaning of the word ‘preservation’” (
Olde Paths, Jan., 1997, p. 14;
Bible Version, p. 177). Glenn Conjurske asserted:
“In its very nature preservation must be continuous, from beginning to end” (
Ibid.). Glenn Conjurske added: “The ‘final form’ of anything which is preserved is just the same as it was the first day of its existence, and
every day thereafter. This is the
meaning of ‘preservation, and is certainly necessary to
their doctrine of
perfect preservation” (
Ibid.;
Bible Version, p. 177). Glenn Conjurske concluded: “The very meaning of ‘preservation’
necessitates that he [God] should
keep it pure always, and not merely that he should
restore it to purity after the passing of hundreds of years” (
Bible Version, p. 63). D. A. Waite asserted: “Bible ‘preservation’ that is not ‘perfect’ is not ‘preservation’” (
Fundamentalist Deception on Bible Preservation, p. 117). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “We can have no
restoration, no
final form, no
coming into being, of anything which has been preserved in perfection” (
Bible Version, p. 178).
Glenn Conjurske wrote:
“If God has actually promised to preserve his word in perfect purity, 1611 is much too late to begin keeping that promise” (
Olde Paths, Sept., 1995, p. 198;
Bible Version, p. 63). In another issue, Glenn Conjurske asserted: “The King-James-Only traditionalists have ransacked both Testaments—and wrested and contorted them too—in order to produce some promise or prophecy which will secure the perfection of their standard” (Sept., 1996, p. 196;
Bible Version, p. 16). Glenn Conjurske maintained: “The assumption that we may apply the supposed promises to one Bible, and not to another, is absolutely groundless. No promise of Scripture is
dated, and if any promise of Scripture secures the
infallible working of the Holy Ghost for the production of a
perfect translation, that promise must be as applicable to one version as to another” (pp. 196-197).
> It is a question that needed to be answered! Thankyou Bro David 
