Can Critics of KJVO Be Consistent?

One argument that critics of the King James Only-ist movement give goes something like this: If you believe that the King James Version Bible is the only perfect inspired word of God, then you're going to have difficulty pointing to a particular Bible, because there are different versions of the KJV. The KJVO have a response, which goes something like this: Granting for the sake of argument that this is a difficulty, then you have the same difficulty because you can't point to a particular Bible that you think is a perfect word of God. And that's tantamount to just not believing the Bible is not really from God. You can see examples of that argument here and here. So because a critic can't point to an authorized version like they can, critics have no business raising the problem. 

There are two possible responses. The first is that it isn't equivalent. Because the critic isn't making the same claim as the KJVO, they don't suffer the same problem. KJVO claim that only a particular kind of translation is acceptable. But critics don't claim that. They can claim that multiple translations, like the ESV and NIV, are acceptable because they communicate the same truths and messages, just in a different style. The problem only arises if you're going to insist on a single version. But critics don't hold on to just a single version. So it's a false equivalency. It's not analogous.

The second response is of more interest to me because I think only a Catholic, and not a Protestant, can give it. KJVO will say that skepticism in the Bible as being authoritative and inspired and perfect (whatever their standard of perfect is, whether it is word for word, idea for idea, some blend of the two, who knows) arises when you don't have authoritative translations. You see that in the 2nd video linked above. And for Protestants, this remains largely true. They don't have an authority which tells them that this translation is acceptable and this one is not. But Catholics do. Catholics do have an authority which tells them which translations are acceptable and which are not. We do have a small list of authorized, or acceptable, versions. The NIV isn't one of them. Neither is the ESV. In fact, no Protestant version of the Bible will be acceptable because they are incomplete Bibles. 

This is an amusing response because it gives Catholics the ability to use the KJVO arguments against them. KJVO will say that the translators of the NIV (or some other translation) takes words, or entire verses out of the Bible. They will say that the translators are putting themselves above God, and that man thinks they can improve the word of God, since in their view, the word of God is imperfect. But of course, if you're familiar with Catholicism and their differences with Protestantism, we can say the same thing about KJVO. I, as a Catholic, can say, "Why did you take out, not just verses, but entire books out of the Bible? Why do you think you can improve on the word of God? Why do you trust the men who gave you the KJV, but not the consensus of the entire Church on what counts as the Bible? I think the authority of the church is infallible, but you obviously don't the translators were infallible (especially if you read the translator notes of the KJV)." 

So, while the KJVO may raise the problem for other Protestants, they can't raise it to Catholics. What they think Protestants have no answer to, we Catholics do.