How is it possible to have a high view of the authority of the Bible and a positive view of textual criticism? I know not all people will have the view that is programmed into the question. But for someone who does, or who understands someone who does, how would you answer this?
Perhaps another way to answer the OP is to say that it is based on a false contrast. As an analogy, consider the following sentences:


  
  Jazz is the best kind of music and country is the best kind of music.
  Jazz is the best kind of music and the trumpet is the best instrument.
  


In the first sentence there is a contradiction because the contradictory opinions relate to the same category. But in the second sentence there is no contradiction because the categories are not the same. A musical style is not identical to a musical instrument.

In the same way, textual criticism and authority are not the same category. Textual criticism answers the question, "What is the correct content of the original document?" Authority answers the question, "Is this document one which I should accept as true and normative?" Two different questions.

A simple illustration may assist. The apocrypha are a set of inter-testamental writings that are accepted as authoritative by some but not all sections of the Christian church. A Catholic may accept 1 Maccabees as part of his authoritative bible; a Baptist may not. But both of them, if they choose to read 1 Maccabees, would want to read the most accurate version of that text that is available. The debate over the authority of 1 Maccabees is based on different grounds than the mere determination of the text.