When I started looking into translation methodology I figured I would side with the majority of Reformed Seminaries and Theologians that the text base made no big difference in the Bible one was using. I went into the topic with the view that the ESV, NASB, were the most accurate versions word for word to the manuscripts of the Word of God that were preserved.
However, instead discovered that the changes are not minor, but, enough is changed to have an entire Book of the Bible removed if not for the use of bracketing and footnotes. That these include; the end of the Lord's Prayer, the Woman Caught in Adulatory, the 3 heavenly witnesses which teaches the Trinity, and the section related to the time before the Ascension of Christ at the end of Mark.
I do understand that some manuscripts skip these sections. However, not the majority of them only two maim text types which are called the Critical Text or Minority Text. A position which goes against the Text preserved for ages before the finding of these minority of renderings. As if God's promise to preserve his Word was a lie and we need to recreate the Word to see if it was preserved right.
To me this is going against the idea of God preserving His Word as attested to in His Word itself. It also effects the understanding of Scriptural sufficiency as it makes the claim older translations are not sufficient transmission of God's Word to all men for all time. For this reason I have come to the position that the Traditional or Confessional Text are the most accurate to the Greek passed down in all ages. Thus translating from that text base is the best one.
