I want to start off by saying when it comes to the textual basis of our Bibles I am firmly on the Textus Receptus or Received/Traditional Text side. This means that I do not agree with the translational methodology of most more modern English Translations.
However, I would never think to break fellowship with or pit Textus-Receptus people against Eclectic text Christians. My Church which is part of the United Reformed Churches of North America uses the English Standard Version for the main working translation of our Church. I would never think of not being part of it simply because of the differences in Textual issues.
I think breaking up over either side of the debate is uncharitable to say the least. We do not want to make an issue of translation an idol with which we judge fellow Christians. Some TR people that specifically think the KJV/Authorized Version is the only worthwhile TR translation will call me a sellout or even deceived.
However, there are numerous Received Text Bibles out there. It is all about the textual basis and not the specific translation of it. KJV of course, but, also NKJV, 21st Century King James, KVJer, Sword Bible, Modern English Version, King James 2000 Bible, Tyndale Bible, Geneva Bible and The Bishops Bible. As well a Textus-Receptus English Standard Version is available for all Exclusively on The Gideon's Bible App.
TR proponents are to often mingled up with Ruckman styled second inspiration types. Do I love The Authorized (KJV) Translation? Yes! Being against breaking up or becoming sectarian over use of the KJV Bible does not mean I do not understand why it is loved. Nor does it mean I do not understand why some Churches decide to use it as their main Bible.
Do I think it is the ONLY proper Translation of the Traditional/Received/Confessional Text? No! My main working version for taking to Church with me is the New King James not the 1769 KJV. Meanwhile, my usual go to Audio Bible is the Authorized/King James 1769 Translation. I also, however, have listened to the NKJV audio bible and even the ESV both Gideon's TR and the Eclectic text versions.
It does not help when KJV proponents use as out of touch arguments as they do at times. If you think KJV is the Best it should be because you think it is the best English Textus Receptus and not treating the KJV itself as some sort of idol. Allowing people to be the front people for KJV choice whom are the most out too lunch simply makes it look like there is no good argument at all for the KJV.
When there is an argument based on its TR translation and such an argument is rational. I agree it is an excellent TR translation and for that reason someone could choose the KJV as their main bible. However, the translation is not inspired the manuscripts behind it was and it is those that are preserved. One should not be throwing Eclectic Text Brothers and Sisters under the bus calling the ESV or NASB evil or unholy.
