At the same time, I don't hear honesty about the doctrine of preservation coming from the other side. I see and hear tactics in an attempt to win. What does the Bible say about its own preservation, regardless of what you think about manuscript evidence? What have Christians believed, said they believed, about the scriptural teaching of preservation? Are you guiding your position on the teaching of the Bible on its own preservation by your interpretation of manuscript evidence? Where does our faith lie and where do our doctrines come from?
There is no developed doctrine of scripture, no historic doctrine of preservation of scripture, that precedes the critical text, modern textual criticism, and the modern versions. Those who support the critical text and modern versions don't start with biblical presuppositions. Can't they just be honest and admit that they conform the biblical teaching to what they see as the reality or the science of manuscript evidence?
There is other dishonesty, but the above is the start and the crux of it. Can't men just admit that Warfield set up an all new concept of inerrancy in the late 19th century to conform the understanding of biblical inerrancy to manuscript evidence? Can't they be honest that textual variants do change doctrine? Not only are doctrines changed in individual passages, but doctrines change overall. An example is the textual variant in Matthew 18:15. You can't find that exact teaching anywhere else in the Bible, so the variant changes the doctrine of the whole Bible. The biblical and historical doctrine of preservation doesn't clash with the "translators to the readers" in the original King James Version. They were advocating for future translation improvements, not a continued tweaking of the underlying text. Those are not the same. There are many, many more examples.
James White complains about how bad he has been treated by King James Onlyists. You will have a difficult time finding anyone who will treat you worse than James White. Bad treatment of him is an argument for him. His bad treatment of others is not. The assumption seems to be that how he treats others is always deserved and to the extent that he regularly lectures his opponents on their poor style. Let's be honest: no one has a corner on bad style and poor treatment. I go door-to-door evangelism almost every week of the year and James White treats his foes worse than 95% of the bad treatment I get from unbelievers at the door. The same goes for many other critical text proponents. Everyone needs to be honest about poor style.
Daniel Wallace wrote one article about the doctrine of preservation. It only deals with what he says that others believe on the doctrine. He will point you to that article if you want to know his thoughts on preservation. He has made no attempt to improve upon it. There are numerous problems with the article. He doesn't deal honestly with legitimate criticism. He calls it cherry-picking or the like. He's not honest about it.
Many fundamentalists say they believe scripture is preserved in the preponderance of the manuscripts. They are saying every Word is found among all the manuscript evidence -- we just don't know what those Words are. They don't even believe that. Can't they just be honest about it? They believe that in certain incidences, there is presently no extant manuscript that contains particular words in the original manuscripts. So they don't even believe in the preservation of every Word of God in the preponderance of the manuscripts, even though they haven't showed from the Bible how that is even a scriptural position. They've just made up that belief or teaching.
When someone has the truth, they don't have to make things up and be dishonest about what it is. They let the truth speak. They want the truth. I don't find that with the version or preservation of scripture issue. The norm is dishonesty in fitting with an age of political correctness.