In The Translators To The Reader, the original preface to the KJV, the translators of the KJV tell us "...we affirm and avow--that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the king's speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the king's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere."
The 47 scholars who translated the KJV did not view themselves as being divinely inspired, nor guided by God. Nor did they believe themselves to be creating the final, authoritative, supreme Bible translation, be it in English, nor in any other language. In their eyes, as indeed the case is, they were men seeking to bring the word of the Lord into their language. As they said, in their eyes, the Bible is the word of God, even "the very meanest translation" set forth by men of their profession.
Many years after these great men passed on into the presence of the Lord, other men rose up, forming some very extreme views about their work. "If you do not have a KJV, you do not have a Bible", to quote one such person, whose name I have forgotten. Some of these people, referred to as KJVOnlyists, even believe that to read any other Bible than the KJV results in the loss of salvation.
Although they are not all that heretical, there are many people who genuinely believe the KJV is the one and only infallible translation of the Bible, even believing Satan himself has a hand in any other translation.
Perhaps the biggest irony of this claim is that other groups make the opposite claims. Whereas KJVOnlyists will accuse modern translations of trying to make homosexuality more permissible, Liberals will claim modern versions actually attempt to make it seem more condemned. KJVOnlyists also fail to note that they, themselves, cannot decide who supposedly corrupted modern translations. Was it the Jesuits? Was it the Liberals?
The truth is, none of these groups actually corrupted the Bible because the other translations are not corrupt. There are, of course, some exceptions. You don't need to know Greek to know that The Watchtower intentionally produced the New World Translation to support their views. But ultimately, much like the KJV translators said, the very meanest translation of the Bible is the word of God. As a result, there is absolutely nothing missing from these other Bibles.
For this reason, you can often point out that the only meaningful doctrinal difference between the most reasonable KJVOnlyists is KJVOnlyism itself. Do we still believe the Trinity? Yes, because it is in the other Bibles. Do we still oppose homosexuality? Yes, because the other Bibles still condemn homosexuality. Do we become Catholic? No, because the other Bibles are still not Catholic.
This leaves KJVOnlyists with a dilemma. Ultimately, for all their differences, every reputable translation of the Bible is just that: a translation of the Bible. And just as a translation of the king's speech in Parliament remained his speech in French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, so also does a translation of the Lord's word in English remain His word.
So, what does that mean for those who so arrogantly quip that the NIV is the "Not Inspired Version"? Let's put it this way: When I became a Christian, I was also in the process of "coming out" as gay. My first Bible, however, was the NIV, which I read in canonical order from Genesis to somewhere in Samuel, along with reading from other Scriptures within. When I went to church, the reading was typically from the NIV. When I searched things on Bible Gateway, my primary translation was the NIV. The NIV was, without competitor, the most influential translation on my early faith.
And atheists, wanting to shake my faith, were very quick to show me where my Bible says "“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." (Leviticus 18:22, NIV). Or where it says "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:26-27, NIV). Or where it says "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NIV).
Should I have covered my ears and sung Ging Gang Goo? This stuff wasn't the KJV. So I guess it's not the word of God? Would a KJVOnlyist have advised me "oh, ok, maybe double check to make sure the KJV agrees"? What would that even look like? A world in which only the KJV was observed would, realistically, look no different than a world that exclusively adheres to the NIV. Because much like the translators of the KJV believed, the Bible is the word of God in every translation. When KJVOnlyists diminish the other translations, they are diminishing the word of God, as surely as if I was to say the KJV is not the word of God. It is therefore my contention that both for sake of unity within the Church, and for sake of avoiding the sin of blasphemy, that we should regard KJVOnlyism as an unnecessary, divisive doctrine, marking those who spread it, and avoiding them (Romans 16:17). May the Lord be allowed to speak to His people through whatever translation He has provided them, and may He be praised for the wide range of translations He has blessed us with, allowing us to compare them, and understand exactly what He is saying.