Textus Receptus vs modern critical text

I was recently asked why I don't read the KJV. I personally feel that that not many people even know how we got the KJV, or any of the other modern translations.

Believing sincerely that they were improving the New Testament text, Westcott and Hort rejected a number of familiar readings in preference for what they thought were more accurate readings. Since 1881 the majority of English translations of the New Testament - including the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Revised English Bible, and the New Revised Standard Version - have used a text that is much closer to the one published by Westcott and Hort than the one issued by Erasmus. The main exception to this is the New King James Version, which is based on the Textus Receptus. Major differences between the Textus Receptus and a modern critical text include the following: (1) the omission or addition of substantial passages (Matt. 16:2b, 3; Mark 16:9-20; Luke 22:19b, 20, 43, 44; John 7:53-8:11; 1 John 5:7, 8); (2) the omission or addition of shorter passages (Matt. 6:13; 17:21; 18:11; 21:44; Mark 9:44, 46; Luke 9:56; Acts 8:37; Rom. 16:24); (3) the substitution of a word (or words) for another (1 Timothy 3:16; Rev. 22:14); and (4) the omission or addition of a single word or group of words (Matt. 6:4, 6; Cor. 6:20; 11:24; 1 John 3:1).

In the twentieth century the New Testament in Greek has been edited by both Protestant and Roman Catholics scholars. The most widely used forms of the text are the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (26th ed.) and the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th ed.). Other scholars, arguing that the text underlying the King James Version is closest to the originals, have edited The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (1982). The differences between these various Greek texts are often significant, and cab be seen in the marginal notes provided in the standard English translations.