Scrivener's list of differences numbers much more than six. Even your friend D. A. Waite lists 130 some changes. For the person arguing for the perfect preservation of the KJV (which is not directed at you, Thomas), they cannot legitimately admit even one error of any kind (printer, spelling, puncutation, etc) because it ruins their premise. One error is all it takes to ruin perfection (cf. the principle of James 2:10). To admit an error is to admit imperfection. Thus, to use their own line of reasoning, God's ability to preserve his word is compromised. At least that's what they say when a version they don't like makes a change; when a version they do like makes a change, they just call it "printing," "spelling," "punctuation," "obsolescence," etc. Thus, they hold a double standard.
Which leads me to my original statement (that doesn't apply to you since you don't hold to perfect preservation): Why did it take God four times (which is actually more than four) to get a perfect Word? Could he not have prevented printer's errors in the first place? This is a point of inconsistency in the arguments of the KJVOnly movement. They argue that God has perfectly preserved his word through 1600 years of human copyists but admit that he could not perfectly preserve it through one printing in 1611. Thus various changes were needed.
Once they have admitted the need of correcting human errors, they have arrived at the position of the eclectic or Majority text proponents, namely that we must survey the evidence to ascertain the most likely original reading. When you stop and look at the situation they are in, they have not helped themselves at all. They have a "Perfect Bible" and "Final authority" that took several tries to get it right.
