Your point is interesting, since the translators of the Textus Receptus (KJV) did not view the variants (and there WERE variants) the same way you do, nor did the view the TR as the "preserved" version. They were pretty much of the same mindset of modern scholars, viewing all the texts with differing degrees of reliability, including tha TR. You also had your liberals (although they were far fewer in number than today) who did not hold any reverential awe for the book.
The King James translators rejected any and all readings that all found in the current Alexandrian texts.
The TR readings, in its various editions does have differences among itself, but these are relatively small compared to the differences between the Critical and TR texts.
The 'mindset' of the King James translators was that God did in fact preserve His words and that they were translating them.
They did not think God had lost some of His words and we could never really know what God said.
The idea that God preserved His word through the ages is an indisputable fact, and a lynchpin of the faith. The idea that this was only through the Textus Receptus is ignorant and uninformed. Not even the translators of the KJV believed that. I used to have a collection of quotes from some of those guys illustrating that, but I have misplaced it.
The fact is that there are two lines of Bibles.
The TR produced the Luther Bible, Tyndale, Coverdale, The Great Bible, The Geneva and the King James.
Those Bibles do not read as do the modern Bibles that were the products of the Westcort/Hort, Nestle/Aland, United Bible Society texts.
Two different lines of Greek Bibles, two different types of Bibles with different readings in them, producing two different kinds of fruit.
For example, I had a visit from the JW's the other day.
And they had their New World Translation (from the Alexandrian Greek Text) and they rejected the Trinity on the basis of Matthew 24:36, which in their 'bible' had 'nor the Son' knowing the time of the Second Coming.
All modern bibles have that reading it, a reading which attacks the Trinity.
The TR doesn't have that reading in it, nor does the King James.
An interesting point, since the Alexandrian texts were largely undiscovered before the 19th century.
The 'mindset' of the King James translators was that God did in fact preserve His words and that they were translating them.
AMEN! That does not, however extend to the idea that there was a belief that the Byzantine Text was the "pure" text vs the "corrupt" Alexandrian or other streams. That is simply a historical error, and NOT the opinion even of the men who translated the KJV.
The fact is that there are two hundreds of lines of Bibles.
There, fixed it for ya.
The fact is that given ALL the different texts we have of the NT, and with the 22,000+ "variants" we have in reading, over 95% of them are completely insignificant. Of the less than 5% which DO affect some text, not a single one affects any major doctrine of the faith. God HAS preserved his word, and all the hoopla about the "satanic attempt to corrupt the word of God" is just silliness.
As for the "New World (ahem) 'translation'", I am reminded of a funny story a friend of mine used with a Jehovah's Witness. This guy came on with all the typical crap about Westcott and Hort and the original greek. My friend said "Oh! We are talking about the Greek text? Lets get a New Testament and look at it!" He got two Greek NT and gave one to the "elder brother" in the team (hint: when evangelising a JW, always address your questions in a gracious manner to the guy who is NOT talking! He is the "newbie" and is less indoctrinated and hardened). He opened it and put it in the guy's hands, and asked him to discuss the text at hand. The guy was bluffing his a** off, trying to "discuss" the text. My friend walked over to him, removed the text from his hand TURNED IT RIGHT SIDE UP, and said "oh, sorry, I handed it to you upside down." He then returned to discussing the need for the new birth with the younger guy, the difference between the JW view of "atonement" and hammered on how the gospel transforms a man, including making him HONEST and filled with INTEGRITY (never said a word about the upside down stuff), and giving an assurance of heaven. The elder one sat there and DID NOT SAY A WORD (that is extremely unusual) and my friend had a good conversation about the gospel (again, an extremely unusual event because of the "rabbit trail" MO the elders are trained to follow).
Anyhow, the best and most respected scholars on the textual variants are solid inerrantists, and I know very few of them who are TR only advocates (although there are some, to be honest).