Brother Tim: I don't do anything with that verse: I believe it. The works and power of God has nothing to do with the strength of faith of the believer.

He said, in 1 Peter 1:21, 23:

"Being born again ... by the word of God"

That means that we are actually born again right here on Earth by a Word we hear and believe right here on Earth. Unless the Word is on Earth perfectly, then it would be a lie to say in that verse "incorruptible". "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

"the word of the Lord ... And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

The Word of God which is incorrupt, which endures, is the same Word which is preached by the Gospel. Regardless of whether manuscripts and copies have slight mistakes or whatever in them, the Word of God must fully exist on Earth right now. Otherwise how can there be a link between the "Word of God" and "you"?

While it is true that various copies and versions have contained errors, it is both logical and of God's providence and power that there should manifested a Bible without textual and translation error. We can believe this because it is line with what 1 Peter 1:23, 25 says, see above.

Yes, the Word of God is not only forever settled where the roses never fade (Ps. 119:89) but also endures forever where the flower falls away (1 Pet. 1:24,25)!

That is a good point.

In the verse before, Peter writes about purifying our "souls" "through the Spirit", "with a pure heart". Obviously he is referring to our spiritual rebirth, and I contend that the following verse (which you quoted above) can be read to mean "being born again" (spiritually, not bodily yet) by the living ("which liveth") "word of God", that is, Jesus.

Maybe I'm reading it differently, but I see that the verse...

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Pet 1:23)

... implies that we are born of incorruptible seed (Jesus), not an incorruptible (written) word on earth. This verse does not support an idea of an incorruptible written word on earth.

I disagree, since the verses do not say that, from what I see ... it is very logical, to my human mind, that God's Providence could preserve His written Word on earth perfectly. Logic aside, I don't believe Scripture supports the idea that God did that.

Catchy phrase, and nice try, but 1 Pet 1:24,25 does not support your thought that the Word of God endures forever where the flower falls away. Nowhere in the verse does it say where the Word of God endures forever.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

When Adam, Noah, and Abarahm heard the Word of God, they were on earth. The Spoken Word of God came to people on earth and was heard on earth.

When Moses received, broke, and rewrote the Word of God, Moses was one earth, he wrote it on earth, with the material from the earth. All the prophets and apostles spoke and wrote the Word of God on earth. The Copies and translations of the Written Word of God was done on earth.

The Incarnate Word of God came on earth and will come again on earth.

I can see that the Word of God has more relevance and importance on earth. The incorruptible and eternal Word of God is more needed where the flowers fall away, not where the roses never fade. There's no use of preserving a perfect Word in heaven and losing it on earth. I see no point in the Bible's emphasis on the eternality of the Word of God when it is lost in this planet.

The fact that it's called the "Word of God" is to serve its purpose on earth -- the God of heaven to reveal Himself to all flesh. That the word of the Lord endureth forever makes sense on earth where corruption exists.

The nearest context (four verses away) would be:
1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

The written word is in view. I observe that when the Incarnate Word is referred to, the word "Word" is capitalized. (John 1:1,14; 1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13)

There seems to be a disconnect between your first two statements - you seem to acknowledge that the Incarnate, Living Word - Jesus Christ - was on earth, and is no longer on earth, but will come again; why not the Written Word?

Is it pointless for God to emphasize that Jesus Christ is eternal, but that He is no longer physically here on earth? If it isn't pointless, then why not also the Written Word?

Yes, there is corruption on earth - why did God take Jesus Christ back to heaven when it seems like He is more needed here on earth, right now, and in the past 2000 years? Wouldn't it make more sense that God would keep Him here? Why can't this argument be made also for the written Word of God?

Capitalizations in English were the interpretation of the KJV translators; the "word" or "Word" is the same "logos" in the Greek.