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.
23? God left it up to the Church? Does this mean that the people of the Church had already decided that the 4 Gospels were OK, but had no idea about the other books? Are you saying that the 4 Gospels were the only written works being consistently taught in the vast majority of true Christian churches until the official Church Canon?
Now, of course, when YOU say "Church" you and I "could" actually be much closer than we think. :) I don't know. However, the subject was whether God preserves His own word, or whether He delegated that authority away from Himself to men. We both know where we stand. When I read your above, it "sounded" like you were referring to a Council of men, rather than to the Church.
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.
OK, these are all very good reasons not to tie oneself to the declaration of a Council. :) Instead, I've seen good cases made here on FR that the people of God's Church had it pretty much right before any Council. As you go on to note, there are also some issues with various translations and the like. This mirrors how the Holy Spirit leads me individually, one step at a time, according to His good pleasure, and with the most important issues being the most clear and undisputed, e.g. the most important points of the Gospels. Better "original" texts could well be sitting in a cave out there and the Holy Spirit will reveal them to all of us in His good time. If any of them are discovered in our lifetimes, a 5-spot says they help my side more. LOL!
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.
I'll do you one better. Not only do I think that the Church was Spirit-led in its "canonization" of the Bible, I also think that the men of the Council were Spirit-led in getting it right in agreeing with the Church. I don't think any of it happened by accident. :)
In the same vein, neither do I think that any man, or any group of hierarchs are infallible in their responses to the Spirit's leadings from, say, adulthood on (or whatever). [Again, it "sounds" like you are only talking about hierarchs, not the people of the Church.] The Spirit will accomplish EXACTLY what the Spirit wills in terms of these issues. On something as important as the Canon, it makes sense to me that the Spirit would take whatever measures were necessary to make sure that it was done absolutely correctly. I do not translate that into a license for infallibility from beforehand or afterward.
I am not aware of the scriptural teaching that in any group of fallible hierarchs, that a majority vote always equals the will of Christ. I thought there were even examples in Orthodoxy, where there was a vote of some kind by hierarchs that was rejected by the people in practice. That nullified the vote.