The first and foremost objection that should be raised against the belief that the King James translators were inspired by God is that it has no scriptural support. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles, prophets, and their closest associates never cited the King James Version as their means of discerning truth from error. Never does Scripture teach that God would someday perfectly preserve His Word in a non-Hebrew or Greek language in the form of a seventeenth-century English translation by authorization of King James. In fact, the English language did not even exist during the time that both the Old and New Testaments were written. There is not a particle of historical evidence favoring the notion that the King James translators were inspired by God. It thus follows that the King James only position is merely an extra-biblical doctrine. It is not of divine origin. It is strictly a man-made tradition, and should not be treated as a valid standard by which doctrine is evaluated. It should not be railed against fellow brethren, lest God's commandments be nullified.
The logic commonly employed by members of the King James only community is faulty, as well as it is irrational. Even if we could conclusively demonstrate that one different Bible translation is doctrinally corrupt, that would still not build a case for King James onlyism because that does not prove the King James translation to be of divine origin. Accomplishing such a research project on one translation dos not prove all to be poorer than the King James. What is even more, is the vicious circularity that exists in the argumentation developed by people who promote the view that the King James Version is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. It is merely assumed that the King James Version is inspired by God. It is merely assumed that the King James Version is the standard by which other translations be judged. Why should we use it in that manner? Why not do the same to the King James Version with older English translations such as the Coverdale Bible, Tyndale's Bible, Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, and the Great Bible? The point is that all translations should be evaluated in accordance to the best available manuscript data. King James onlyism is impossible to verify, since we do not have access to the original manuscripts. There exists no perfect set of manuscripts to develop a perfect translation of the Bible. Why is there not a King James Spanish, German, or Chinese Bible? Where was the Word of God prior to the publication of the King James Version? What mechanism exists to indicate that God would stop inspiring Bibles after the publication of the 1611 King James Version?
What needs to be understood is that errors in the process of translation will inevitably occur because we are imperfect beings by design. This includes both the scribes who translated Scripture and our up to date technology. No two sets of ancient manuscript are identical in every jot (the three primary manuscript families are the Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western), which accounts for the differences in Bible translations. There are literally thousands of manuscripts and papyri fragments lending incredible support to the overall veracity of the New Testament canon. Although copies contain minor spelling errors, grammatical errors, and textual variations, none of those are problematic for the Christian church. None of these errors bear any significance to the historical data recorded in Scripture. Not a single error endangers any article of the Christian faith. Scholars can correct most of the textual variants simply by comparing them to other renderings. The New Testament alone is almost one hundred percent textually pure. It has much wider and earlier source attestation than any other document of antiquity. Unlike the translators of the King James Version, modern translators of the New Testament have knowledge of Koine Greek. It cannot be denied that we now have access to much older and better manuscripts. This is the underlying basis for us being able to trust the Bible translations available to us today. There are literal, dynamic, and dynamic equivalence translation, all of which can prove beneficial to those who study Scripture with an open heart.
Quite to the contrary, the King James Only Movement severely endangers the overall integrity of New Testament scholarship. It is outrightly slanderous against conservative Christian scholars who love God with all their hearts and minds. This movement which was originally dedicated to the noble cause of maintaining the purity of the gospel has actually proved injurious to the Cause of Christ. It has resulted in much bitter contentions throughout Christendom. It has resulted in fellow Christians having unnecessary concerns regarding the reliability of Scripture. The King James Only Movement has made Christians become skeptical, as well as puffed-up against each other. It has enabled the growth of arrogance among King James only advocates against those who refuse to read exclusively from the King James Version or from translations based on the Textus Receptus. The King James Only Movement has given Christians the false sense of security that they are greater than others in the eyes of God. It has assisted greatly in the spread of the "we are the only ones who have the truth, whereas all outsiders do not" mindset. This also reveals to us that the King James Only Movement is in a sense rooted in Gnosticism; people who reject this position have simply not been "enlightened" as to the "secret truths" regarding tainted manuscripts and conspiracy theories. This particular fundamentalist effort has been a failure altogether, and so should be abandoned.
One would have to be severely misguided in order to believe that the King James Version is error free. The 1611 King James Version originally contained the Roman Catholic deuterocanonicals, along with marginal notes making reference to them. Ironically, King James Version only advocates absolutely refuse to accept these books as inspired. What is even more, is that the King James Version has been modified ten times since its original publication. Which one is correct? Take into consideration a handful of illustrations of the King James Version containing translational errors and textual ambiguities. It wrongfully calls the Holy Spirit "it" (Romans 8:28). It makes God sound as though God needs to "repent" (Exodus 32:14). John the Baptist's name is not "John Baptist" (Matthew 14:8). What about "unicorns" (Psalm 22:21)? Would that not cause an unwary reader to start doubting the validity of the Judeo-Christian worldview? Would not the reference to "gay clothing" (James 2:3) confuse the average modern reader? Can God be "limited" (Psalm 78:40-41)? The King James only view is just as unfounded as the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate only view, as both use the same tactics in order to obtain their conclusions.
The greatest proof against the King James Version only hypothesis is the fact that the King James translators themselves did not believe their work to be inspired. For proof of this, all that one is required to do is read the translator notes to the reader as found in the preface to the 1611 King James Version. In other words, the mindset reflected by the professing Christian King James only sects today regarding the work of the King James translators is diametrically opposed to the views that they themselves held regarding their endeavors to transmit the Word of God. He had transmitted His Words in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages, which proves that He would want His words to be spoken in the vernacular tongue. The King James translators agreed, "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar." Again, ponder these words of the translators: "But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem maior parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, out not to object infirmities to oth"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay 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."
In conclusion, the King James Version should be viewed as an excellent translation, but nothing more. It was truly a great contribution to modern biblical scholarship, but is not inspired. Only the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were breathed out by God. There is no reason to remain in the King James Only Movement, especially considering the overwhelming evidence that can be pitted against such an untenable worldview. The people who are dogmatic on this issue should feel quite ashamed of themselves. It is pure heresy, for all faithful Bible translations can rightly be considered the Word of God. The issue of Bible translation preference is something that Christians can and do disagree on. The best translation for a person is the one that he or she chooses to read. Those who cast judgement on fellow Christians for not reading the King James Version should be more focused on serving the God of the Word, rather than debating over the Word of God. May God bless the Christians who humbly bow their heads in respect of each other's beliefs after expressing areas of disagreement.