A critical approach consists of considering each manuscript on its merits and being thankful that the various traditions of manuscripts support all the Church's doctrines with amazingly few troubling variants.
What we should not do is to pick a manuscript (well actually a synthesis of manuscripts) almost at random and prize certainty in every detail over truth.
Christianity is a historical religion where truth matters, I thought that only the Pope would come up with a post apostolic revelation and argue that any disagreement was a disagreement with God.
Grymir is right what is important are the presupositions underlying a translation and this really is not as simple as only accepting one historical text.
This is really an issue that does not benefit from being aired again and the assertion that using anything other than the AV is unconfessional really needs to be rested.
Ditto.
I don't think that most KJV only people really take the time to look at the translation process or historical developments that lead to the KJV. The bottom line is that whatever underlying manuscripts a translation committee chooses to use there is still a choice that must be made. This means that even the mighty KJV translators had to use some kind of criteria for their choice of manuscripts and in their translations of specific words. The real argument should center around whether or not they always made the right choices since as mere translators they were not divinely inspired as were the original authors.
On the contrary. KJV people put a lot of emphasis on the history of the manuscripts. And they reject such manuscripts that were found in a trash heap, or manuscripts that were pulled out of the Pope's library which is were some of the manuscripts that are being used for modern translation.