Sure, here's one from the KJV:
Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Is there an interpretation that says that only the OT words of the Lord are pure, but His NT words needed purifying by the Church? I hope not. Although I would say that Christ validated OT and NT scripture, He inarguably validated OT scripture. If so, then we know that all the words of the Lord will be preserved.
Obviously, God showed great interest in planting the seeds of His Church and was interested in it growing. He knew a time would come for a text to be assembled. If anyone thinks He left that to chance, or to the (hopefully) good decisions of men, then God was rolling the dice. It seems much more likely to me that He ensured the results of the Canonization from the very beginning to the end. If He DID roll the dice, then we DO have the Church to thank for them making all the final decisions and making it all official, etc. If, however, God really was in full control, then we really only have Him to thank.
Words and canons are two different things FK. God did not neatly put into a package a full canon for us to use. That was left up to the Church to sort out 23 out of some 200 circulating scrolls purporting tom be the "words" of God.
Even though you portray this Spirit-guided process, the canon was not finalized even after the end of the 4th century (the authenticity of the Book of Revelation of John having been questioned as late as the 8th century in the East), the issue of Apocryphal books, the Epistle of Barnabas (included in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest surviving complete Christian Canon), and so on.
Although I would say that Christ validated OT and NT scripture, He inarguably validated OT scripture. If so, then we know that all the words of the Lord will be preserved
FK, there are so many different versions masquerading as God's word that it is impossible to tell which is which. All three oldest Codices are but 4th and 5th century copies. One of them (the 5th century edition) is quite different from the 4th century ones. KJV, is the best example how a politically-correct Bible managed to be the "official" Bible of western Christendom. It is full of man-made changes to fit the Protestant palate.
Of the OT sources (LXX, DSS, MT) they all differ from each other in words, context and length. How many versions of the OT and NT did God actually deliver FK? Snap out of it!
What strikes me however about your post is that you are suggesting that the Church was Spirit-guided in its canonization of the Bible, because he wanted to preserve the Church, yet when it comes to the Church organization (papacy was well established by the time the Bible was canonized) you dismiss it as man-made.