The majority text translations (Textus Receptus as one), come from the Byzantine group of manuscripts and are significantly different from the Alexandrian group of manuscripts of which Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vatican are the earliest known complete copies.

That the Alexandrian Catechetical School (out of which the minority group of manuscripts were written) was rife with heresy, should be sufficient for us to regard very carefully the eclectic translations that have relied significantly on that minority manuscript source ( NIV, NSAB, NEB etc.).

But I would caution against dismissing every modern translation that does not fully conform with the majority text manuscripts. In all but a few instances, the differences are slight and not sufficient to corrupt and destroy the faith of those who read them. I prefer the KJV and NKJV to the NIV and NASB but I do use other Bibles for comparisons and explanatory notes -- even the Jerusalem Bible.

canuck

The story is told of four ministers discussing the pros and cons of various Bible translations and paraphrases. Eventually each stated which version, in his opinion, is the best.
The first minister said he used the King James because the Old English style is beautiful and produces the most reverent picture of the Holy Scriptures.
The second said he preferred the New American Standard Bible because he felt it comes nearer to the original Greek and Hebrew texts.
The third minister said his favorite was the paraphrased Living Bible because his congregation was young, and it related to them in a practical way.
All three men waited while the fourth minister sat silently.
Finally he said, "I guess when it comes to translations and paraphrased editions of the Bible, I like my Dad's translation best. He put the Word of God into practice every day. It was the most convincing translation I've ever seen."