Thus from what was more or less casual phrase advertising the edition (what modern publishers might call a 'blurb'), there arose the designation 'Textus Receptus', or commonly received, standard text. Partly because of this catchword the form of the Greek text incorporated in the editions that Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs had published succeeded in establishing itself as 'the only true text' of the New Testament, and was slavishly reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions. It lies at the basis of the King James version and of all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe prior to 1881. So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege. Yet its textual basis is essentially a handful of late and haphazardly collected minuscule manuscripts, and in a dozen of passages its reading is supported by no known Greek witness.Sound familiar?
I have no problems with folks using the 17th century King James translation. It's when without any supporting evidence say things like:
What we are saying is that God has one Bible in the English language and that is the KJV!This is exactly what Metzger was referring to which I emphasized above.
I have it but I haven't read it yet, too many other things going on, but I understand that it is one of the better defenses of the KJV.
I would consider myself KJV-only, but I'll be the first to admit that my side of the argument has had its share of shoddy scholarship. However, I don't think that invalidates the position. ;^)