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.
Like I said, those were my opinions.
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.
I don't think I ever mentioned or even thought that a single group of people was ever in charge of all the manuscripts. In Old Testament times God had the Levitical priesthood. Those men were in charge of keeping the Old Testament. They, and the scribes that attached themselves to the Levites, faithfully preserved the Old Testament text.
Fast forward to New Testament times. The Christian church does not have an institutional priesthood like the Jewish people did. However, God made every believer a priest. It was the believers which God preserved His text through.
Each local congregation had copies of the manuscripts.
Exactly, and it is amazing that on three continents, Europe, Africa, and Asia, the majority of those manuscripts were Byzantine in type.
Realize that these are really fragile and were copied by hand. Manuscripts stored in dry places, like Alexandria, survived longer.
I don't think Alexandria is any drier than Antioch or the rest of the Holy Lands. Vaticanus was found in the basement of the Vatican, I don't trust the RCC and it's manuscript evidence especially after the Isidoran(Sp?) Decretals and the Donation of Constantine fiascoes. Sinaiticus was found in a trash can of an Orthodox church.
To me those don't sound like very reliable places to find the text upon which to base a whole new generation of Bibles.
Not only were the NT manuscripts copied into to the original Greek, they were translated into both Syriac and Latin.
True, and the oldest, the Peshitta, has Byzantine readings.
None of these were "lost to the church," they were actively used all along.
I said that I didn't believe that God's Word had ever been lost to His people.
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.
Since I've never compared the variants I will take your word that most of them are relatively benign. But, that still leaves a minority that are not so benign, by your own admission.
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.
NO doctrine is compromised in Westcott and Hort's text?
The problem though is that what some call 'manuscripts' are really nothing more than a verse or two upon a 'FRAGMENT'.
Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts
If you click on the link above, then click on the button 'table', you will see a list of 'manuscripts', which are for the most part, merely 'fragments'. On the right hand side you can see just which verses are contained in said 'manuscript'. So, while some claim thousands of manuscripts exist, which would imply 'whole' manuscripts, that is not the actual case. For the most part what exists is 'fragments'. A verse or two here, a verse or two there.
There are actually very few 'manuscripts' that contain more than one chapter's worth of text. Two come to mind. P45and P75, both from the third century.