Westcott poisoned his own well by espousing doctrinal errors and elevating the seriously flawed, clearly counterfeit Sinaiticus manuscript above all others.
Well I was going to apologize for saying that "you're not qualified enough to make that decision," and ask what you think makes you qualified, but I see from this post that you've rather proven my case. It would be waste of my breath to say that you are quite in error about the Sinaiticus manuscript and suggest that you actually do some research on your own. I'm just beginning to understand that there are some people who revel, if not glory, in their own ignorance.
Indeed, you have been sorely misled by others who are also not qualified enough to make those decisions.
Westcott poisoned his own well by espousing doctrinal errors
Which ones?
And yes, I'm asking YOU which "doctrinal errors"
you have discovered and feel qualified to charge Westcott with, not repeating the slander and misrepresentations from other authors you may have read.
If you're qualified, you will have read Westcott's works (and I don't think you have) in order to cast such aspersions of character.
And if you're honest, you'll just admit you have only second hand information about this topic.
Men like Westcott favored flawed manuscripts
You cannot call them flawed if you cannot enumerate these flaws. (So list one...)
You are just hurling insults at things you don't know about, because you're also denigrating the work of Nestle, Aland, Wallace, Marshall, and Metzger. YOU can't even read Greek, and yet you feel qualified enough to reject the work of nearly the entire field of Greek studies.
(What ballsies, man.)
Rhema