For those looking into the claims for the Traditional Text versus the Critical Text, it is vitally important that you don't misunderstand the issues. Men like James White use a cunning approach to call the entire Traditional Text into question by citing a handful (and it is a relative handful) of very difficult readings found in the Textus Receptus. Then, men with a more narrow commitment to the Textus Receptus than the Traditional Text positions actually demands step forward to defend those readings...and the man trying to decide between the two views think the matter is to be decided upon the matter of the most diffiuclt of cases. This is erroneous. For instance, one can acknowledge skepticism for passages such as 1 John 5:7 while still being firmly in support of the Traditional Text over against the Critical Text. As a matter of fact, I am convinced that Traditional Text advocates need to stop falling for this tactic employed by men like James White. Until someone has come around to see the doctrinal merits of the Traditional Text position, discussions about the most difficult readings in the Textus Recptus are superfluous (and even unhelpful). All the discussion of difficult variants in the TR does is distract from the main point. SO...it's pretty clear that Steve Rafalsky and myself may differ on how we would handle some of the difficult readings BUT we are both committed to the same doctrinal presuppositions. THAT is the main issue here. Don't let the arguments pertaining to individual readings side track you from the matter at hand. I hope this is helpful.