KJV & Universal Salvation / Reconciliation

I got into a bit of a discussion on this topic - again - with a Baptist some time ago. The usual arguement of "Well if its in the Bible, I believe it." was thrown at me in terms of there being a fiery hell that forever torments. The KJV was ultimately quoted wherein the problem lies. Sometime ago, we also got into whether or not the KJV was the literal word of God. I am claiming that it is but one of many translations. Back when it was first created, it wasn't a bad translation by any means. I believe that given what was available at the time, it is actually a pretty good translation, but perfect? No, KJV is not perfect. I was unaware of just how vicious and pigheaded some KJV adherents could be (but I suppose we all can given the right mix of beliefs). That is to say, there are a sizeable group of people that believe that *only* the KJV is 100% God's word. A smaller subset of this group will go even farther and claim that readers of other translations are heretics, and some will even claim that readers of other translations are going to this fiery hell (so much for embodying love and mercy)

Anyway,I am often left scratching my head in confusion as to how anyone can honestly look at their one's own arguement and find it to be solid and without holes in this arena. Most of the KJV arguements I've found on google seem to be nothing more than circular in nature. They go something like this:

1) The bible (KJV) says God's word is infallible
2) The KJV is God's word
3) KJV is therefore infalliable.

The other spin is simply a direct assertion that "KJV is better because it's infalliable" without actually showing it.

Occasionally I'll find the accusation that those who have studied Greek / Hebrew and become scholars, and still suggest that other translations (or multiple) should be used, are simply parroting what they have been taught. They are not true scholars. Or so the arguement goes. This is just nonsense. Let us assume that Person A is a scholar of Greek texts and likes other translations. Let us further assume that Person B has studied Greek as well, and levels the criticism that Person A is just "parroting". How has Person B any more authority on the Greek language than Person A? Person B is also "parroting" if such a thing has occured. To the best of my knowledge (and I will wager quite a lot on this as well) Person B did not grow up in ancient Greece, and has not spoken ancient Greek in any sort of real setting, and most certainly not as a primary language. Everything Person B "knows" about the ancient Greek language is simply a "parroting" of what he has been read / told as well.

Thus we have to look at who's opinion is more valid. I have yet to be impressed with anyone that sides with Person B. But that's just me.