Majority Greek Text Vs. the Critical Greek Text - Updated

I will post links and articles of information I find on this subject when I can.  I want to define a few things. The Traditional text is the total majority of manuscripts that were used predominantly before the mid-twentieth century and come from the area of the old Byzantine Empire where the early church originated. The Critical Text is the modified version of the Greek text assembled by modern scholarship and primarily based on the Alexandrian Texts, which originate out of Alexandria, Egypt. The Critical has to borrow from the Byzantine mainly because the Alexandrian is lacking in many areas. 
Some think I am unnecessarily obsessed with this subject, but I think it is foundational to our faith as Christians. If the Bible is in question, then we begin to stumble down a slippery slope of unbelief which can result in a destructive end if we are not careful. 
I personally don't like it when I see a footnote in the text of the Bible that puts its reliability into question.  Many scholars like Dan Wallace do not believe that the Traditional or Majority Text is a credible witness.  What lead to this lingering doubt? In fact he and many others aren't even sure if what we have in our possession is the entire preserved Word of God. They will say things like: "The originals are inspired." Most likely they have deteriorated, so what good is that to us? Is it possible that God preserved His Word through the copying of men even though they are fallible? While it is true that Wallace and many others are well educated in Greek and the Science of Textual Criticism, the collective witness of texts, history, reason, and providence seem to paint a different picture than their assertions. 
The claims that are made in opposition to the Traditional manuscripts in my opinion aren't strong enough to warrant deleting Bible texts from our English translations or the Greek Text. Yet, many have consented to do so based on a biased Eclectic Textual Theory.  In my opinion, the manuscripts with the most decendants is probably more credible. From the 4th century on, the Byzantine (origin of the Majority or Traditional) manuscripts were predominant in the church. The Alexandrian text (origin of the Critical text base) is of questionable origin and wasn't chosen to be used until the late 1800's.  It only makes up 10% of all Greek New Testament evidence. Even though it is older in origin than the Byzantine witnesses, that doesn't prove they are more credible or accurate.  In fact it could mean the opposite. Also, the Alexandrian contained some Gnostic writings. The Gnostics had a strange view of the Bible and altered it in many places.  Texts like 1 Timothy 3:2 are fragmented. In this case the Byzantine text says: "The bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate....." The Alexandrian text says: "The bishop must be blameless, temperate...." Why? My guess is that since the Catholic Church doesn't believe a Bishop can be married that it would be a cinch to take it out. The Alexandrian consists of two categories. The Vatacanus and Siniaticus. Vatacanus was found in the 1400's shelved away in the Vatacan library but wasn't even considered for use until the late 1800's by two Anglican Priests. Why?  Siniaticus was discovered at a Monastery located at the base of the traditional Mt. Sinai (Some recent findings suggest that the real Mt Sinai is in Saudi Arabia).  Siniaticus was actually found in the kindling pile and brought back for examination. The monastery didn't want it.  
There is historical witnesses of the Vaudois in the Italian Alps who preserved the Byzantine tradition. Theodore Beza who was a pupil of John Calvin testified of this group. I am currently reading a book about it. 
Probably the one verse that has been debated over more than any in the Bible is 1 John 5:7.  There is very little Greek evidence for this text in either set of manuscripts, and all we have of this verse is very late in age.  Does that mean that it isn't inspired? Many scholars are not viewing the story of the woman caught in adultery as inspired either (John 7:53-8:11). Augustine said in his day that many didn't want this story in the Bible because they had a prudish fear that it would promote adultery.  Isn't it funny that Augustine lived in North Africa and that is where the Alexandrian text originated?  Perhaps the Byzantine manuscripts were used a lot and were worn quicker than some of the others.  Also, the climate is more favorable in Egypt than in the old Byzantine Empire. 
There is a story that Dan Wallace likes to tell concerning the text of 1 John 5:7 and how it made its way into the Erasmus Greek New Testament. He claims that the text of 1 John 5:7 was added by Erasmus in his edition of the Greek Text through a fabricated manuscript by a scribe named Roy. However, Bruce Metzger at one time not many years ago claimed this same story but had to retract it because he found that it was a fabrication. In the 3rd edition of The Text of the New Testament Bruce Metzger corrected his false assertion about Erasmus as follows: “What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” (Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd edition, p. 291, footnote 2). It is kind of strange about that update because Metzger didn't correct the body of the text in his book to correct the claim. Instead, the footnote was added several pages later. Very strange. I don't understand why Dan Wallace and others are still making this assertion. You can go to and look up his work on the KJV and look at a youtube video of him on the John Ankerberg show and see him still making these claims even though they have been refuted. Why? I don't know. Maybe nobody has told him or he never read Metzger's update. I don't know. There is also another article on making this claim, and no correction has been made. I encourage you to read both sides of this issue, but be sure before you subscribe to any one's opinion to review the evidence. The evidence is why I stand by the Traditional text. 
We all come to this issue with presuppositions. I do think that man is fallible, but more so, God is infallible. I personally believe that God preserved His written word and all that modern scholars have done in the English speaking world since the late 1900's is confuse many people. I know people who gave up because of the small seed of doubt planted by the scholars when it comes to the Bible's credibility. God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).
I encourage you to check out the links below, and check out the video of Wallace making the refuted claim.

The Majority Text vs. The Critical Text

Erasmus and 1 John 5:7

What About Erasmus?