Andrew's position doesn't really exist or isn't mainstream according to Robert Truelove. We really need to figure out *what* the TR position is so that there is a definitive version that can be critiqued. After all, the preservation of God's Word is at stake.Andrew, you are well illustrating some of the reason for the frustration non-TR folk have had debating a wide variety of viewpoints within the TR position. For you, no doctrine changes going from TR to CT. For other TR folk, the doctrine of Scripture itself is at stake, and a huge difference exists between the TR and the CT. For you, not as much is at stake. For other TR folk, guys like me don't even have the Word of God at all. I have been clanging on this bell for years about the minuscule differences between the TR and the CT. You are therefore directing your complaint to the wrong party. Tell your fellow TR guys that they need to formulate their position in more moderate ways. Or are you ignorant of the full-frontal assault on the CT that has been gaining traction in the last year and a half or so? We non-TR guys are arguing because our entire structure is under full-blown attack. We have the feeling that if we did not argue for our position, then we would be ousted as being not Reformed at all. We are being told that only the TR position is confessional.
As for the value of discovering new manuscripts, that is easy. The discovery and collation of new manuscripts only demonstrates the truth that God's Word has been preserved and kept pure in all ages. The way you put it is prejudicial (this happens all the time with TR folk: creating a non-level playing field by asking prejudicial and slanted questions). We are not in this for finding new variants. It is for finding the original reading.