Ideally we would all read the scriptures in their original languages of Hebrew and Greek and would not need translations such as the NASB, ESV, NIV, NLT, YLT, etc. 

Because most of us cannot do that, we must rely on translations of the original language.  I advice using the NASB and the YLT which seem to get closest to the original language and using the NIV, NLT or the Message to get the sense of a passage.

With all due respect, this is a lot of dead tradition talking here.

A.  If you don't know the Greek text, you will never really know what was said - all the English texts contains distortions.

B.  Textual Criticism is entirely appropriate - this has already been commented on.

C.  IJn5:7 is a false text - the view needs to be that we are glad this false text was eliminated from the Word of God - that is in fact what happened.  A Catholic scribe entered into the text - most likely as the trinity doctrine jelled.

D.  Many others have commented on the same thing that I have - the Textus Receptus debate is for young men who have never really studied the matter with an open mind - they have been fed a line by someone and were not astute enuf to be aware of the difference - nothing new about that.

Lastly - just remember the people writing the majority texts were also the ones practicing transubstantiation, etc.

Best,
Aner

Another excellent book is the late Dr. Jack Lewis' The English Bible from KJV to NIV, which examines the strengths and weaknesses of all of the major translations.

While it was one of the best translations when the Church of England produced it in 1611, it is just a fact that in the last 300 years the KJV has been superceded by better translations. The KJV translators were working with 12th century Byzantine texts of the Bible, whereas the more recent ones are based upon much older GK mss, like the 4th century mss Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Many people argue so passionately for the KJV largely out of blind devotion. If it was good enough for their grandparents it's good enough for them. The attitude of many of these folks is "Don't bother me the facts because I've already made up my mind."

Pax.

Personally I like NKJ, but find that a variety of translations are very helpful as well, though there is not any other I would prefer to use if I had to chose just one.
 
So my foundational version is the NKJ, combined with the nuances I get from the NIV, NLT, ASV, the Amplified and for some verses God's Word Translation and JB Phillips

I have to combine any translation with the use of Strong's 

Unless you are very, very accomplished in the Greek language of the day, I think that you are not likely to be any better off than simply having several English texts available.  That requires years of study.  Because it will not be sufficient to just have the Greek text, but you will also need to have available the relavant literature of the day.  And who will be the teacher?

A. Most of the major translations into English are not distorted--to many scholars working on the translation for that to happen.

B. Texual criticism is usually detrimental to the pure word of God. It is usually carried out by skeptics and those who do not fully believe in the inspiration os Scripture. These are the people that believe Daniel was written much later tha it was, that there were 2 maybe 3 Isaiahs involved in its writing, and also present the Documentary hypothesis as fact.

C. 1 John 5:7 is found in most of the oldest manuscripts it is found in all translations of the Bible and all Greek New Testaments. It was not entered by a Cathlic scibe due to the fact that it is in manuscripts dated before Cathlocism and in the Syriac version of the Bible from the 2nd century.

D. The Textus Receptus was used to translate the KJV of the Bible most modern translations do not use th Textus Receptus, but older more reliabe manuscripts.

Your final statement appears to be false also. For example transubstantiation had it beginning by Hildebert de Savardin, Archbishop of Tours who died in 1133.

If you really like the name Jehovah, check out the New World Translation, it is just chock full of Jehovah references.  Of course, it is a Jehovah's Witness Bible, which I am trying to get rid of, so if you like it, you can have it!