Why would we want to be 'originalists'? What we want to know is what does God say!
The divine inspiration of the literal words took place in those languages, not in Latin or English or Russian or what have you.
2Tim.3:16 says all scripture is given by inspiration...thus, if we have scripture (and we do) it is inspired (Heb.4:12,1Pet.1:23,1Thess.2:13)
Argue with the secular Nestle compilation all you want, but it does give the most objective statistical view of the New Testament manuscripts that we have, and is the reason why most modern translations have footnotes on the variant readings.
There is nothing objective about Nestles. It understates the number of ms support for Receptus readings and readings found in church fathers.
I'm the opposite of an onlyist; I'm an "allist." To ask the question of which one Bible we should trust, foolishly presupposes an answer of a certain kind. It's like asking what one food you would eat.
That is not a foolish question at all. We should eat the food that God gives us,
But now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all, besides this manna, before our eyes (Nu.11:6)God has given us His 'manna' in the AV1611, but men want to 'lust after flesh'(Nu.11:4)
I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food (Job.23:12) And for those who reject God's words,Behold the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water but of hearing of he words of the Lord (Amos 8:11)So, asking what food to eat is a very good question!