My position on the Bible version controversy is pretty straightforward.
1) I am convinced that the Byzantine text best represents the original text of the New Testament. I read the Greek New Testament in the Majority Text edition by Hodges and Farstad and the Byzantine/Majority Textform edition by Robinson and Pierpont.
2) I am convinced of the general integrity of the Masoretic text for the Old Testament. I do, however, follow the Dead Sea Scrolls where they differ from the much-later Masoretic text. I suspect that the Masoretes intentionally changed a handful of passages that concern the Messiah or Israel, which is why some New Testament passages disagree with the Old Testament counterparts, and that the true reading of these passages is to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the LXX, and the Syriac.
3) I believe that literal translations of the New Testament made from the eclectic (Non-Byzantine) textual tradition are still the Bible. They are still the sword of the Lord despite their dings. They are chipped swords not non-swords.
4) I love the KJV. It is the Bible of the revivals, the great missionary movement, and the return to the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy. But I emphatically reject the notion that this dear version is inerrant. There are errors in its translation. For instance, “Easter” in Acts 12:4. And there are several textual errors where the KJV follows a Textus Receptus reading that agrees with Vaticanus and the Vulgate against the Byzantine textual tradition.
5) The Textus Receptus is not the majority reading of the manuscripts that comprise the Byzantine textual tradition. The Textus Receptus is a New Testament edition based on a small handful of Byzantine texts, a few of which reflect unique Vaticanus/Vulgate readings in several passages which were incorporated into the Textus Receptus and hence into the King James Bible. These incorporations are purged if men pursue a true Byzantine majority edition made by examining all of the Byzantine texts. And these Vulgate readings are not rejected with a tiny majority (as 51/49) or a significant majority (as 60/40) but an overwhelming majority (in the vicinity of 95/5 or 98/2). These readings are first found in very late manuscripts as marginal notes.
6) My main English Bibles are the KJV and the NKJV. The latter, in my estimation, has added more shortcomings than it fixed. In general, there are too many unnecessary changes. One of my biggest beefs is that it, following the lead of most modern versions, employs the periphrastic present and past approximately seven times more frequently than we do in standard English. This results in renderings like Matthew 25:8 where we read, “our lamps are going out,” as if they were low on oil. But verse three tells us they “took no oil with them.” The translation “are going out” isn’t just contextually wrong. It is doctrinally wrong. It portrays these men as losing their salvation in that very moment. But their lamps weren’t sputtering on the last fumes of a dying salvation. They weren’t saved. The fact that they had no oil is a picture of not having the indwelling Holy Spirit.
7) I often use my own translations of the Greek and the Hebrew when I teach. This is generally based on the King James with the grammar and archaic words updated, Holy Ghost everywhere changed to Holy Spirit, charity always rendered love, and any changes necessary for accuracy.