Baby steps away from KJV onlyism

I always had questions because I grew up reading the Bible in another language. When I heard the teaching that the KJV was "perfect" in EVERY word, and the modern versions condemned as "imperfect" and therefore "perversions" because there were different words used in translation and the KJ ones were the perfect ones, I knew I had a problem. My Spanish Reina Valera and my Italian Diodatti couldn't be "perfect" and by definition would have to be "perversions" since they at times used different words or phrases than the KJV. ( I understand now the underlying textual issues much better than I did then, but still, the NKJV was as hated if not more than the modern versions even though it came from the same textual family.) Anyway... I could never fully buy in, because to buy in would be to condemn my Bibles as perversions. I knew something was fishy. Then I had the expereince of spending my senior year in High school at a church that taught King James Regenerationalism and the heresy that the Gospel had to be presented FROM the KJV translation. It was exposure to this far right nonsense that undermined even more my ability to swallow the whole KJV pill.
It wasn't until my first year in the pastorate, when I had to weekly preach bilingualy and reconcile the texts of the Spanish Reina Valera and the KJV that I had my breakthrough. In the words of Micky Carter... "Things that are different are not the same." Week after week I would run into differences in translation. Now mind you, I'm not talking about major differences, but clear examples of different words being used in each language, bringing out different flavors from the original. Sometimes I would look at my TR and feel like the KJ had come closer to representing the text. On other occasions I would find the opposite and feel the RV was more exact. Many times, they were both bringing out a slightly different shade of the greek word (NT) and were in fact complimentary, though somewhat different.
What was I to do? Throw my Reina Valera away? Was it a "Perversion?" Or was the KJ the perversion? Or, as I already suspected in my heart, had I been fed something that simply wasn't true. I knew about translation. I'd done it all of my life! I knew you always lost SOMETHING in translation. Yet I had been asked to suspend this knowledge and accept "by faith" the perfection of the KJ when I KNEW in my gut there is no such thing as "perfect" translation!!! I realized they were both simply that... translations - period. Neither perfect, both translations. Why was that so hard to grasp?
So even before I began a 3 year study of the textual debate and came to some different conclusions from what I had been taught, I knew that the ground below my feet was shifting, and things would never be the same.
I am NOT anti - KJV. I believe it to be a very good translation (for someone living in the 1700's) of the Bible. I have found the NKJV to be a more consistent transaltion of the TR, and it is easier to understand as well. I wish there were a solid translation in English from the Majority Text. I do not believe the "Critical Text" translations to be "perversions." Though I am uncomfortable with some of the missing readings, I believe them to be the Word of God and am grateful for them.
I do NOT believe I have all of the answers. I am very thankful however to be free from equating man's work (translation) with God's -- inspiration and preservation.

Tony