The following statements were made on another topic. I copied them here to start another thread regarding the KJV-only 'doctrine of preservation'. KJV-onlyists (and some of their counterparts, those who hold to a "TR/Received" Greek text) make claims regarding their 'doctrine' of their 'divinely and providentially preserved, inerrant, infallible' Bible, and usually make end-runs on the timely and historical doctrinal statements regarding inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility. In order to cover for their inadequacies regarding an 'inerrant' (or, inspired) KJV, they come up with their own 'doctrine' of preservation: God did a supernatural act of preserving the Bible text in the 'TR/Received Text' and the KJV reflects that 'inerrant/inspired' Greek text(s). Problem: where in the Bible do you find that God supernaturally preserved the Bible text (either in the Hebrew/Aramaic OT or the Greek NT)? According to 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, the act of 'perfection' (i.e. "that which is perfect" in the KJV, the rendering for 'to teleion' in Greek) ended with the NT canon, and the act(s) of supernatural prophecy, knowledge, and tongues ended at that time. John penned, under (theopneustos) inspiration, the book of Revelation and when "amen" was finished, the act of supernatural activity regarding the text of the Bible ended there. God did not supernaturally preserve nor did He providentially preserve the text of the Bible after the original copies were penned. Thus, we have copies-- and lots of them! All of the copies are prone to have errors in them. This fact undermines the KJV-onlyist argument of a 'providentially preserved' Bible, thus their doctrine of preservation is not able to be supported from Scripture nor from the extant copies (hence, the facts). Any view of the Bible which says that the KJV = perfect (inerrant or inspired) Bible is completely false. This is why KJV-onlyism is so divisive (and heretical), because it holds to an unbiblical view of the Scriptures.