Okay, but the passage isn't about scripture. The words.. may be scripture..

but it's not what

the passage is about.

Preservation of scripture through all generations I agree with.. but that being thru the
mountains of manuscript copies..not one particular translation.

Even the KJV translators themselves allowed what they wrote to be modified. And the 1611
included the apocrypha.

I only read the KJV and it may be the best translation in English but I don't agree with it
being perfectly preserved.

The words of God (verbal) which were already written just as we are reading right now are
called scripture. Although, I cannot completely defend the ‘Translators to the Reader’ of the
KJB, I assumed you have read them very well. However, I haven’t had any idea that the text
of the KJB was still imperfect in the sense it is not complete. Your argument about
Approcrypha is a fundamental view relative to the Bible Version issue. Apocrypha were not
part of the canon of the scripture and they were placed in between the Old and New
Testament in the KJB. For your information, previous English Bibles have their apocrypha
as well intertwined but not inserted in the Old Testament just like the Rheims-Douay Bible. If
you look at the original 1611 replica at the end of the book of Malachi it states “The end of
the Prophets” and if ever you look at the original title page of the KJB, you will not find the
Apocrypha as an integral part of the KJB (do I need to paste the original Title page?).
Approcropycal books as called means spurious hence, they were omitted in the year 1666 if
I am not mistaken.
Btw, here is what the Preface says about the making of the KJB “…but to make a
good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to
be excepted against;”

So here is what the Psalmist says about the purification of the word of God to make
into ‘one principal good one’. The translators treated earlier English Protestant
Bibles were good ones yet a need for purifications

As to the ‘original autographs’, it is generally agreed by both critical and

conservative scholars which are no longer with us. They were not preserved for
ever. The words in it are those that have been preserved to us today in English as
translated in the KJB. This might be a hard way to understand but it takes a logic of
faith that God will preserve his words and he will. The objection has been raised
whether Psalms 12:6-7 is either poor people vs. the words of God. I believe it is the
words of God for the following reasons:

1. The nearest antecedent of ‘them’ is the words of God rather than the poor people.
2. If we let the poor people be the ‘them’ will contradict about the godly man cease and
the faithful fail. The being that poor has been oppressed, sighing of the needy
connotes negatively and it does not speaks of the preservation for ever
3. The context is all about the words of ‘the children of men’ vs the pure words of God.
It is to be noted the purification of the words of God is 7x and the words of men were
described as 7x too thus signifying them in contrast.

1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2They speak vanity (1) every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips (2) and with a double
heart do they speak.(3)
3The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips,(4) and the tongue that speaketh proud things: (5)
4Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail;(6) our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
(7)
5For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I
will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times.
7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.