Disappointed with the book, "Why I Preach from the Receieved Text."

I recently have seen overviews of the book, "Why I preach from the Received Text." From what I have seen of it I am very and I mean very disappointed that all the authors seem to point to the AV/KJV as the only legitimate Bible based on the Traditional or Received Text. There are many and I mean many accurate and accessible English Bibles that use traditional not critical text translations. 

NKJV, SKJV (Simplified), KJVeR (easy read), The Patriarchial Text (Eastern Orthodox translations), MEV (Modern English Version), Gideons ESV, World English Bible, Literal Standard Bible, Sword Study Bibles, King James 2001, Fire Bibles (From Passio Publishing).

All of the above are available for people to read the Traditional or Received or Majority Texts in accurate and understandable English. There is no need to push the AV/KJV 1700s translation on people that have found themselves on the Received or Traditional Text side. By making a book pushing the 1700s KJV as the only truly accurate English Bible and the only preserved Word of God accurate in English it confuses traditional text advocates for King James Only advocacy. 

One can preach from the NKJV, MEV, KJVeR, Sword Study Bibles, Fire Bibles, SKJV (Simplified and Revised), WEB, King James 2001, Gideons ESV, or Literal Standard Version and still be preaching from the Received Text. The book was touted as being why one preaches from the Received Text and not why one preaches 1700s King James. 

Or another alternative is to use a standard ESV or NASB and switch to the NKJV or other modern English Traditional Text version for passages and verses missing pointing out that it should read... whatever it is. I own two ESVs and an New English Translation and did not throw them out just because I am a TR/Majority Text advocate. 

Where they do contain properly accurate translations of what is in the Majroty or Received Texts they are accurate translations of the majority of manuscripts. Or one could add it should say and then quote the AV/KJV 1700s as well. If you must use the 1700 King James. Using it as suplimimental when nessecary as opposed to your main Pew Bible. 

However, if one does have a King James Preference as it being the best one and wishes to use it for their regular reading or studying there is nothing wrong with that. The King James 1700s version is a Beautiful Bible and is still one of many accurate translations of the Received Text base. It should not be required to be the only one that someone uses.