A FEW COMMENTS IN REPLY
Contrary to your protestations – and with due respect – Calvin did not entirely base his translation on what has come to be known as 'the Received Text' (your observation is anachronistic). At any rate, he often departs from Erasmus' edition (which you may know, contains passages translated from the Latin into Greek!), basing his translation on his own (scholarly) understanding of the Greek text. I produced a dissertation in my university days and was surprised at Calvin's handling of the Greek.
The Church has never possessed a non-eclectic text. The idea of a purely uniform, received text is a historical myth! Providentially, thousands of manuscripts have been preserved, and their collaborative evidence proves reliable in regard to transmission; variants must not be exaggerated, as explained before. Nothing like it exists in the history of literature!
I think that behind the supposed arguments lies a desire to retain the KJV (itself being a revision and by no means an accurate translation – indeed, is there one?) as sacrosanct; the parallel to the status of the Vulgate (as officially formulated at the First Council of Trent) is ironical!
As most people do not understand Elizabethan English (and even the KJV, so it seems, was archaic in some respects in 1611), TR adherents need not to shy away from using the NKJV – which, incidentally, we use in family worship.
For preaching and studying purposes I read the original languages, as well as different translations.
If we are of a truly Reformed persuasion then we, like them, must not live in the past or alter it to accommodate our prejudices. I prefer a less obscurantist approach to the New Testament text, but to be fair, a case can be made.
I have come across
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_receptus but have not ascertained whether it is reliable.