That's because you're still focused on the printed book. The Word of God exists inerrantly because God promised to preserve it. If he decides, during one period of history that it should be preserved as ketchup written in the Sahara sand, it will be so. If he decides to preserve it as literature, it will be so. The medium is not the essence of the truth, just the vehicle. The essence of the truth is preserved revelation.
Now, where is it?
Thank you for using words this time instead of just quoting a load of scriptures and expecting us to guess your meaning.
In answer, the original statement in issue was that of GO who said
Unfortunately for his argument, God never promised that there would be a complete and inerrant Bible available for anyone.
In response to this you quoted a load of verses, none of which talk about a Bible or any kind of body of literature.
Now, you have moved the goalposts to a different question, 'Is God's word preserved'.
And still none of the scriptures you have posted refer to any body of literature. It's a different question. For instance, take John 21:25. Clearly there were lots of things Jesus did which were never recorded. There must have also been things which he said which were not recorded either. How does that fit with your naive view that all of Jesus' words would be preserved forever?
I have another question, which I wonder if BE/WD will broach in later posts.
You never answered the part in GO's post which said 'inerrant'. I am assuming that by 'inerrant' you mean simply that the text of some document or set of documents, is a 100% correct copy of some previous document or documents. Or that it is the 100% representation of some spoken word by Jesus/the apostles/prophets.
Of course it may have other connotations relating to the actual quality of the content such as it being historically 100% accurate, that sort of thing. I don't see how this kind of assertion is at all relevant because if God speaks some words, those words are his words, whatever words they are. That's why I assume when KJVO people state that the preserved word of God is 100% inerrant, they mean that it reflects the original word of God as spoken or written by the inspired original author.
Which is why also it makes no sense to suggest that the KJV is 100% inerrant. Because the KJV was an English language Bible and although in practice it was copied from the Bishops Bible, from your theological perspective it was a completely new work. So why call it inerrant? If it is a new work that stands on its own authority, then it just is what it is. Or when a KJVO believer says that God's inerrant word has been preserved, was he perhaps expecting that there was some issue over whether what God said was somehow wrong?
