I think I answered this in my #28 which I pinged you to. If not then please let me know where I need to clarify my position. Thanks.
I don't like Westcott and Hort based texts because it seems to me that in holding to them you would have to have a position that essentially says that God's word was lost to the church for at least 250-300 years and most likely lost for as long as 1,000 years.
This is simply fallacious. The church was dispersed geographically, beginning with the first persecution in Jerusalem. God actually used this dispersion to preserve the text. No single group was ever in charge of all the manuscripts. Each local congregation had copies of the manuscripts. Realize that these are really fragile and were copied by hand. Manuscripts stored in dry places, like Alexandria, survived longer. Not only were the NT manuscripts copied into to the original Greek, they were translated into both Syriac and Latin. None of these were "lost to the church," they were actively used all along. Quotes from the early "Church Fathers" show this. All these features lead to manuscript families that show lineages. We have this vast abundance of manuscripts that actually gives us what we scientists call "oversampling". The variations can be traced by geography and the original wording deduced with great certainty. Most variants are simple things like changing nouns to pronouns. There are the usual variants that one would expect from copying - words inserted, repeated, or deleted. Often the scribe used wording from a familiar parallel passage. All this is easily deduced from the large number of manuscripts. No doctrine is compromised by these variants. The ESV. NAS, NIV, and KJV are reliable copies. A believer can be edified by any that he/she reads and studies.