The battle between believing the Bible and modernistic thinking

I asked some ardent modernists the following:

What is the Scriptural basis for arguing that the original source texts are more authoritative than present copies, and what in Scripture-based doctrine indicates any specific divine sanction to Greek or Hebrew MSS?

The answer? Basically, they say, it is because the science of textual criticism says so, that the Scripture doesn’t say anything about textual criticism/transmission and that the science is valid because after all, the Bible fails to address elements of things like evolution, Einstein’s special relativity, etc.

My response to these kind of folks is as follows:

You are, incidentally, confirming that this debate is between an Enlightenment-based philosophy versus a Biblical doctrine interpretation of Scripture. That is, the debate is between reasoning as though the Scripture says nothing on Biblical transmission versus an interpretation of Scripture where many such references are identified.

I can also understand how people can then start from some point out of the Scripture, and arrive at all kinds of views such as evolution, Einsteinian special relativity, etc., which are thoroughly un- and anti-Biblical. I do not want to say it belligerently, but I think your side’s modern bible textual criticism view falls into that category, alongside the unbelief of higher criticism.

The foundational issue is to then question why do I see references to the Reformation, perfection of the KJB, nature of transmission of the Bible, etc., in Scripture, while you do not interpret so. I think it is because of a vastly different hermeneutical presupposition.

Here’s what’s really going on in my approach:

I reject modernistic textual criticism as relating to the Bible (but not secular works) not because of fear (not of Rome nor of uncertainty) but because when one begins from Scripture statements and believing interpretation, its logical conclusion must be like Edward Hill’s received-from-Providence approach which aligns to fulfil Scriptural promises and prophecies about its own transmission.

And what’s really going on with theirs:

Sometimes those against KJBO call it “circular reasoning”, but it appears that to have a pro-modern textual criticism view is just as circular.

Objectively speaking, one “circle” has Bible interpretation in it, the other does not. However, while the side which is against KJBO might say that this Biblical interpretation is false reasoning, I could point out that not interpreting something is in itself an interpretation, that is, whatever the modern approach sees in Scripture, it doesn’t see the Biblical transmission spoken of. But then I could retort that there is an agenda, i.e. of the devils, to ensure that the Scripture is to be never interpreted thus.

So the circle of modern textual criticism is naturally-based, in whatever it is reasoning, so as to never see that the Scripture ever points to the KJB. Rather, it starts from a flawed, imperfect foundation, and unsurprisingly produces many flawed and imperfect works.