Why can you believe that God can use fallible men to give the originals yet cannot believe God would use fallible men in preserving his word through translation?
The scriptural authority we rest on in the fact that God has promised to preserve his word, we do not believe the critical text theories hold true to this.
especially considering that the flood of modern critical texts follow the theories of people like Wescott and Hort.
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).
"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).
"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).
"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).
"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits." (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )
"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)
Hort called the Textus Receptus "vile and villainous" (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211).
- This statement was made before Hort was even learned in Greek, His textual theory was built on a bias against the Textus Receptus.
"For ourselves we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety, and antiquity."
In other words: They treated the bible like any other book, ignoring it's divine character and it's divine preservation.
Your modern critical texts such as Nestle Aland build on the theories of heretics and unbelievers Wescott and Hort.
A good tree cannot produce good fruit, in these last days with unbelief and compromise on the rise are people really so naive to think that coming out with a new bible translation every few months or so is really going to be good.
Consider the fruit of the Textus Receptus: The Reformation and the putting of God's word into many hands through the translations of Luther and others.
