I don’t know much about the debates in textual criticism but I know a small amount about Presuppositionalism. But I know that a group uses presuppositionalism to argue for TR priority. I think the position has issues that would possibly push it towards being Clarkianism and not Van Tilian. In TR priority thought is that God preserves his word by later and possibly throughout time giving us a document with no mistakes. This is to because it ties in with the doctrine of preservation. Now, TR priority folks don’t like that Textual Criticism done by a few folks are an inductive and abductive method to figure out what was originally written. They think this undermines the certainty of the Christian faith. The issue with that notion is that interpretation often requires both abductive and inductive methods to get to the original meanings of the Bible. Suppose they provided a complete manuscript of the Bible, call it X. Suppose we knew X was original but didn’t know the ancient languages that X was written in. That is because we know the Bible from a series of inductive and abductive inferences. Mixed in with deduction from understanding what was stated but we only know what the words mean through historical studies of other documents to figure out what the terms in their times meant. So, the TR priority proponent is set with a dilemma. He either grants induction is valid in figuring out the meaning of the Bible and grants its validity for other areas concerning the Christian faith(manuscripts) or he denies induction can be used for an ultimate standard and leaves himself unable to interpret the Bible. All interpretations of the Bible become merely probabilistic. Another option is to become Clarkian and maintain you know what the Bible means via intuition. But I doubt they wish to do that.
TAG is used in reference to saying God is necessary for preconditions of intelligibility. It isn’t against induction but rather grounds our ability to use inductive methods. It is difficult to say why the TR priority proponent finds an issue between the two.
The other issue has been that it seems a bit arbitrary to say that the TR is needed to ground rationality itself. Why suppose the NASB, ESV, ISV can’t ground rationality? In what way does the TR specifically do such? Why is their alternative superior to KJV onlyism?