If it is true that having multiple translations of the Bible undermines the authority of God's Word, then the 1611 King James translators would have to take part of the blame for that. In the preface to the AV1611, they stated, "we affirm and avow that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English . . . containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. . . . Therefore, as St. Augustine sayeth, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures, so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the sense is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. . . . They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."
So does this means that the King James translators were guilty of undermining the authority of the Word of God, starting from the year 1611 forward? With regard to the many English translations produced during the 16th Century, the KJV translators said "we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God for the building and furnishing of his Church and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance." Shouldn't they have said, "our AV1611 is now the final authority so you need to gather up all those previous translations and burn them all up and make a Bible barbecue out of them, so that the common people will not be confused by all those alternate renderings?"
The KJV translators clearly did not hold to any form of "KJV Only" dogma. So why should we? Not only were the KJV translators not "KJV Only" but they clearly and specifically repudiated such a notion.