Yes, I have said here myself that there are nearly 40 versions of the TR. And I have said there is evidence that the KJB translators did not strictly follow the TR, there is evidence they used sources outside of it.
The exact texts the KJB translators used is not known. However, Scrivener's TR is closest, because he back translated. He developed his TR from the KJB.
It all comes down to this, did God preserve his pure word as he promised or not? If so, then the pure and preserved word of God is out there, and all we need to do is identify it. It really doesn't matter how that preserved and pure text came to be. That is what critics cannot grasp. They think they have to be able to prove which text is the preserved word with scholarship. You can study this issue your entire lifetime and you will never be able to prove preservation with scholarship. You either accept it by faith or not.
But you cannot say the CT and TR are the same, that is an absurd argument. So the KJB that came from the TR and the MVs that came from the CT cannot both be the preserved and pure word of God.
Just a little correction winman.
Scrivener did not technically "backtranslate".
He recognized that the KJV translators used different Traditional Texts from the hands of different scribal families such as Beza, Stephanus, etc.
He compiled a text by piecing together (mostly Stephanus in my reading) the portions which varied from the Stephanus from the other available texts.
The Elzivir brothers had done the same thing later and it appears that he drew from their work as well.
It is possible that they (KJV translators) translated directly from the vulgate into Greek in a few places or used late dated mss which possibly had translated from the old itala (e.g. 1 John 5:7 - which I believe is apostolic btw) into Greek.
He did not "backtranslate" rather he pieced together or "quilted" his text from several sources resulting in a Greek text in 1895 that exactly (for the most part) followed the underlying English of the 1769 AV.
Incidently, KJVO have not done any different than Mormons who accepts by faith the translation of the Book of Mormon from the hands of Joseph Smith as the word of God.
In addition there are and have been Catholic "Vulgate Only" groups who have claimed that Latin is the new language of heaven.
They cannot be proven wrong as they aslo claim to believe this by faith.
Another problem KJVO have is that there are hundreds of significant differences between the different editions (1611, 1769, etc) and "authorized" publishers (Oxford, Cambridge, Nelson).
Some say the differences are minor, however one difference would invalidate any "ONLY" argument as God is not able to make the smallest variance in His word (not a jot or tittle).
So while some KJVO groups hold up the Oxford 1611 version and claim that it is the perfect inerrant word of God another holds up the 1769 Cambridge and makes the same claim. Both cannot be right.
They are therefore in the same boat as the MV folk (though they can never admit it) as the archetype of the AD1611 has been destroyed.
That God will preserve His word is indeed a promise. However is word has been given in either Hebrew or Greek and not a translation, even the KJV translators admitted to that:
The same Saint Jerome affirmeth, and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That as the credit of the old Books (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew Volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth by the original Greek. If truth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles
No translation can be perfect and inerrant without the theory of "secondary inspiration" or "advanced revelation" which also requires the adherance to apostolic successesion as the prophets and/or apostles are the "only" authorised publishers (which - apostolic succession -both the Church of England and the Church of Rome claim for themselves).
HankD