I am well aware of the arguments claiming corruption in bibles. It doesn't mean I agree or accept them as valid. If an evolutionist presents evidence supporting his view, it doesn't mean he's right either.
I would encourage you to find the evidence for yourself. You are far more likely to accept it direct from the sources than from me. James White's The King James Only Controversy is a good start.
Once again, your meaning is difficult to determine, because your sentence structure is poor. This isn't a slight on you personally, just an area in which you could improve significantly.
If you want to quote the Preface to the Reader from the 1611 KJV, then do so... and read the part where it declares that, as Augustine said, it is profitable to study several different translations to get the full meaning of a passage... and the part where it says that even the meanest translation of the word of God is still the word of God. The Preface is no friend to the KJVo philosophy.
If I've understood your wording correctly, you are claiming that the KJV was translated from "the original manuscripts". That would be incorrect, because it (the NT anyway) was translated from published Greek editions, not from manuscripts.
By the way, why would I give two hoots what "the masons" (I presume you mean "Freemasons") say? They aren't a valid source of anything except perhaps information on the occult garbage they propagate. Their comments mean little to me.