Does Matthew 4 and 5 Teach that God will Providentially Preserve the Hebrew Text or KJV 1611?

Does Matthew Chapters Four and Five Teach that God will Providentially Preserve the Hebrew Text or KJV 1611?  In short, No.

My heart goes out to the pastors and professors who are trying to teach God's word.  However, academic honesty requires me to exposes the faulty exegetical handling of the biblical text.  Matthew 4 and 5 serve as another test case for how the text of scripture is misused to try and teach God chose to preserve his word only through the means of the Hebrew text and one particular Greek manuscript.  Of course this must then extent to the language of English alone.  This texts in question are used to teach Jesus believed God providentially preserved the Hebrew text (and only the Hebrew text) of scripture.

So what's our texts under discussion,

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Mt 4)

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Mt 5)

The phrase "it is written" (which occurs throughout the NT) appears in conjunction with the Septuagint (LXX), not just with the underlying Hebrew OT text (NT, eight times): Acts 7:42-43, Rom 2:24, 3:4, 11:26, 14:11, 15:21, 1 Cor 1:19, and Galatians 3:10.  To be fair, Jesus here is quoting from the Hebrew text.  However, Jesus also quotes the LXX Matthew 13:14-15; 15:8-9; Mark 4:12; 7:6-7; Luke 4:18-19.  So to deny that Jesus used the LXX puts you in a historical inaccurate situation.  Also to deny that the phrase "it is written" also applies to the LXX puts you in violation of the actual text of scripture.  Both of these texts are used by many KJV only advocates to teach God chose only to preserve the Hebrew text (which underlies this particular English translation).

Further, to try and use this "jot" and "tittle" terminology to claim God would only preserve his OT text in the Hebrew language is incorrect on multiple accounts, As previously stated above, the phrase "it is written" is also applied to LXX texts (not just quotations from the Hebrew text).  Second, since Jesus quoted from the LXX, God in-flesh himself did not have a problem quoting form a Greek OT text (that apparently he also stated here in Mt 5) was only to be in the Hebrew text.  Third, and this is more my concern, there is such an attempt to look for proof-texts to defend this modern KJV only defense position, that nearly anything and everything looks like a proof text for their position.  Yes, we must admit this last point could be applied across a large spectrum of both doctrinal issues as well as daily practical issues.

So what then was Jesus actually teaching here?  What point was he trying to get across?  I would suggest that Jesus is teaching the abiding or present authority of the Old Testament which will continue till all points of prophecy and typology are fulfilled.  Again, to be fair, some identify the concept of inspiration taught in these verses.  Let's back this up with the view with other current writers,

"He was specifically affirming the utter inerrancy and absolute authority of the OT as the Word of God—down to the least jot and tittle" (The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1400).

"Jesus confirms the full authority of the OT as Scripture for all time " (The ESV Study Bible, p. 1828).

"The Lord’s point is that every letter of every word of the OT is vital and will be fulfilled" (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1520).

"Divine inspiration extends to the smallest parts of the prophetic writings, and therefore God will bring to completion all He has said in His Word without fail" (The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, p. 1363).

So as we can see these text do not necessarily imply that God chose only to preserve his word in the Hebrew text (nor is authority found only in the Hebrew text).  God has preserved his word and it is still authoritative today.

As always comments encouraged.

Historical Quotations on the Translation issue,

(1881) "No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right, as though it represented the ipissima verba, * written by the inspired men in every case. . . . It is therefore not asserted to be above emendation (Robert L. Dabney, Works, vol. I, p. 398; borrowed by Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).
* Latin for "the very words"

(1881) "Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and the Authorized Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments.  For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner, whether it would confirm certain religious opinions and practices, or work against them.  All we want is the exact mind of the Spirit, as far as we can get it. . . . By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge that so the word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand." (C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. XXVII, pp. 342-343; from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).