There are several problems with this approach 1.Except one is using the same translation all the time for a particular language, or except one (still) dreams in the original language(s), which it seems to me only a few of us here do, one is reduced to a couch ensconced sports fan, as it were, composing a fantasy team to assist oneself in forming doctrine in the National Polemics League.
2.It seems to me that this also opens up the question of whether the Textus Receptus and it's English KJV is the inspired words of the Holy Spirit, which I had thought the traditional Protestant, Fundamentalist, while perhaps not Evangelical (that team is free agent all the way) persuasions.
3.It seems to be one should use the same translation for a native tongue, except your Hebrew and Greek are flawless, and be consistent. Do not cherry-pick translations to argue doctrine.
If one uses the Greek a lot of catholic teachings, especially those on mary, fall apart quickly. Perhaps this is why I've rarely seen any catholic on this blog refer to the Greek. It's usually the catechism or a handful of verses the catholic has learned, usually out of context, to attempt to illustrate their point.
I do agree that the translation one uses influences their take on the Scripture. For this reason I rely upon the 4th Edition United Bible Societies for the Greek and NASB for English. The USB is recognized for its scholarly accuracy while the NASB is the closet word for word translation currently available.
Greek scholars such as Mounce, Wallace, and others have forgotten more Greek than I'll ever learn. Having completed two seminary level Greek classes has really opened a deeper meaning of the NT.
I interpret this to mean you have rejected the Greek Textus Receptus of the Protestants and Fundamentalists and think the 4th Edition is the best latest and greatest available. It seems to me that concedes to larger point on inspiration of the scriptures to Catholic Church, and completely abandons the Fundamentalists, this one verse notwithstanding. If you reject the Latin Vulgate, hold that better manuscripts have been found recently, it suggests you have neither had the complete Bible until now, and since other manuscripts may be found in the future, you may not have it now. Forth edition you say ? How many editions will it take to settle the original manuscript issue ? I think there is one frequent poster who believes all the original manuscripts were written in Hebrew. With that position, one could do what you are essentially doing, but by projecting what thee Hebrew was like that the Greek was based on and forming doctrine based on those hypotheses, a risky proposition.