God was just as faithful to keep His promises before 1611 as after 1611. The Scriptures indicate that preservation of the Scriptures concerns the Scriptures in the original languages.

God never promised to preserve His Word in any language other than the original languages used in the original autographs (Matt. 5:17-18). The "tittle" at Luke 16:17 would also indicate the original language text of the law. If preservation cannot be limited to the original languages, it could not be scripturally limited to translation into any other languages. Christ's comment about the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47) would also seem to refer to Moses' writings in the original language that had been preserved and could still be read and believed. The prophecy that came in old time would have been in the original language (2 Peter 1:21). The Scripture given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles was in the original languages (2 Tim. 3:16). Homer Massey affirmed: "God has preserved His Word in the languages in which it was originally written" (Fundamental Baptist Crusader, Jan., 1981, p. 2). In his commentary on Matthew, John Broadus wrote: "Jot, in the Greek iota, signifies the Hebrew letter iod (pronounced yod), corresponding to the English i" (p. 100). Broadus noted: "No part of the law, not the most insignificant letter was to be set aside. And this statement is further strengthened by adding tittle, --in the Greek 'horn,' --denoting a very slight projection at the corner of certain Hebrew letters, which distinguishes them from others that are rounded. Compare Luke 16:17. The word 'horn' in this sense would not be understood among us, and so 'tittle' (a very small object) was wisely used by Wycliffe, and retained by all subsequent translators" (p. 100). Marvin Vincent affirmed that "jot is for jod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet" (Word Studies, I, p. 40).

Even some KJV-only authors acknowledge that Matthew 5:18 refers to the original languages. D. A. Waite wrote: "Technically, Bible preservation has its primary meaning for the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek 'Words' and not in varying languages" (Bob Jones, p. 19). KJV-only author David Cloud wrote: "The Lord Jesus spoke of the jots and tittles of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:18), and this refers specifically to the Hebrew language" (Faith, p. 175). Cloud described the jot as the "tenth and smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet" and the tittle as "a tiny part of a Hebrew letter; in particular it is that part that distinguishes the daleth from the resh" (p. 175). In his Way of Life Encyclopedia, Cloud defined jot as "the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet" (p. 216) and tittle as "tiny marks used to distinguish between letters in the Hebrew alphabet" (p. 437). Waite's Defined KJB indicated that jot referred to the "smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet" (p. 1262). D. A. Waite noted that the tittle "is the smallest distinguishing feature between two Hebrew letters" (Foes, p. 41). Gary Webb also asserted that "in Matthew 5:18 Jesus clearly refers to the Hebrew text since 'jots' and tittles' are found in Hebrew, not Greek" (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 49). In this same book, Thomas Corkish wrote: "A 'jot' or 'tittle' is smaller than any concept, individual commandment, or even one word, and refers to the minutia of the Hebrew text" (p. 147). Do KJV-only advocates think that Matthew 5:18 teaches a completely active preservation by God in the sense that every jot and tittle of each and every individual word is protected by continual supernatural acts that prevent any possibility of human error in copying the words? Do they imply that this same-type active preservation must also be in only one English translation so that its every individual letter and part of a letter are also perfectly preserved? If that is the type preservation claimed for the KJV, it is clear that present KJV editions [except for the reprints of the 1611 edition] do not preserve perfectly every individual letter and part of every letter found in the 1611 edition.

Those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would have important implications that relate to the doctrine of preservation. These verses were important instructions and warnings given concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. These verses could be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important part of preservation. These instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of accurate copies of the Scriptures. In addition, a logical deduction from these verses would affirm that copies would need to be examined or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made and that nothing was omitted. These verses would imply that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies should be corrected. When these verses are applied secondarily to translations, they would indicate that a translation could and should be corrected by comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages whenever that translation adds to, takes away, or diminishes by a poor, misleading, or inaccurate rendering. That the preserved and accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages should be the standard for evaluating translations of the Scriptures would seem to be a valid implication or deduction drawn from those verses.