[xzins]

Your premise, it seems to me is this: If you change something in favor of a new thing, then the original thing must have been flawed. Or, stated differently...if thing A is changed in favor of thing B, then thing A must have been flawed. Two issues that come immediately to my mind are: 1. What if your thing A has been changed by someone else into thing A₁, so that it isn't really the thing A that you proposed? 2. Is an update, based on a new stage of a staged process, indicative of flaws in thing A, or is it based on advances getting us to thing B?

[Kerberos]

"Your premise, it seems to me is this: If you change something in favor of a new thing, then the original thing must have been flawed."

Only when the attribute of inerrant in assigned to thing A. That would be akin to what the framers tried to claim in the DOI, that there were going to create a more "perfect" union.