Why I am a Textus Receptus man.

So I could write and explain so much as to why I am a TR man but these few pictures below do an excellent job at explaining it better than I could put in writing.

I grew up using the KJV (King James Version aka: Authorized Version) and I have a deep love and appreciation for its literary style and its absolute accuracy over the modern versions.

However, I am willing to support any translation that is based on the Textus Receptus. Why is that you ask? Because, I firmly believe in the literal translation of the Scriptures.

Some of the translations I would personally find acceptable are:

1) KJV

2) Jubilee Bible

3) Modern English Version (MEV)

4) October Testament (New Mathew's Bible)

5) Youngs Literal Translation

6) J. P. Green's Literal Translation

7) KJV2016

8) The Scriptures 2009 (Messianic Translation, TR-based)

9) Julia E. Smith Translation

10) Webster's Bible 1833

There are those who would or might disagree with me on some or all of the above and approach with a KJV-only position and I can understand why but my own study has led me to understand that while all the modern translations are missing verses, skipping or weakening doctrine, the TR-based translations do not do this.

This also extends to the foreign translations I read: Reina Valera Gomez (Spanish), Синодальный перевод, The Synodal Translation (Russian), De Statenvertaling van 1637 ( Dutch), La Sankta Biblio 1926 (Esperanto).