I'll let the Bible say it because it just always says it better:
Ecclesiastes 1:18 HCSB
For with much wisdom is much sorrow; as knowledge increases, grief increases.
For me this intelligently sums up textual criticism and linguistics. One of the things that comes through in any text is how NT writers often quote the OT and are surprisingly loose or imprecise. It also makes a lot of sense if you view the so-called synoptic problem in this lense, as at some level it's eyewitness accounts being written not exactly when the events were transpiring. If you dwell within the paradigm of absolutes, then this can grate a little on the core convictions, but given an omniscient God, it really speaks profoundly to his glory to transcend our words.
Rather than a sign of flippancy or that the NT is not to be trusted, one must look at the forest over the trees when viewing the NT writers quotes. We have a very old document with many thousands of manuscripts throughout history and they all pretty much say the same thing with extremely minor variation. (FWIW, I think Dr. White summarized the same way a time or two.) This isn't the case for some documents where we have far fewer copies. That to me is a testimony unto itself.
As for the TR -> AV, I can certainly respect the argument. However, it's slightly ironic that the argument is essentially that the Roman Catholics got it right, particularly when dealing with the obvious reverse translation of the end of Revelation. That's not a knock or insult, but just the reality of the position of the AV/TR in that it has its own ambiguities that long predate the WCF.
To add my inflated-out two cents to the discussion, I use and really like the HCSB or ESV. At my table I have a copy of those along with the KJV and NLT. I also frequently consult the NIV, RSV, and NRSV. I am old school and have at least one copy of each, as well as other versions like the Geneva Bible. From experience, they all say the same thing if you allow for Hebrew and Greek generally being languages with much more nuance in their semantic ranges than our own. Thus I see it as profitable to double check several versions and used the tools God has blessed us with to understand the Bible.
I still quote often from the KJV, or at least end up with a de-thee-and-thou'ed version of it. There is some science behind activating our minds a little more with more difficult diction and form, and thus those of us who grew up with the KJV (I'm 29) all remember it a little better. Google the brain and Shakespeare a little, there was a study done on it that came out a few years back that it activates more of the brain than reading, say, a modern business book. For the poster who said they quote KJV and then explain, I'd almost stick with that rather than jettison your learning. New versions are more difficult, IMHO, to commit to memory.
Lastly, one of ya'll commented on the NRSV/RSV controversy that's generally a not-controversy if you examine it. (We agree here.) While I find it impossible to say Isaiah 7:14 did penultimately mean virgin (and, if you have some time, check the Greek NT word choice vs Hebrew choice here), it becomes a bit problematic if we really want to argue for two virgin births in the Bible. Thus, the semantic range of the Hebrew word likely meant everything from a young woman to a young woman who was not married to a young woman who had not had sex. Obviously the last use is clearly intended for the Messiah as Matthew's rendering confirms (and the RSV and NRSV confirm in that passage), but the OT here-and-now use of the word probably referred to one of the former semantic meanings of the word.
I think it safe to say that none of us here with any type of Reformed background will deny that God works slightly higher than our little finite minds can always work out. While not a huge fan of the proliferation of translations and theme Bibles by any means (I'm still waiting for the IT professionals' Bible that comes with complementary ear plugs to drown out support calls...not), I think the diversity of translations clearly all say the same thing within a reasonable semantic range, which is an authentic limitation of the English language. What a wise and holy God who inspired documents 2,000+ years ago that would come to us in reasonable enough form for the gospel to spread to the nations!
