Which King James Version?

In a previous post, I defined a particular kind of belief that I call a Radical King James Onlyism or RKJO. In this article, I want to examine the claim of RKJO adherents that the King James Version is the word-for-word inspiration of God.

This claim is implied when authors of RKJO books create their ubiquitous "comparison tables" where they excoriate other versions for "leaving out God's words." They complain if a version chooses a word that is different from the KJV. To see this, just do a Google search on NKJV and see what comes up.

They also make direct claims for the inspiration and inerrancy of the KJV:

I am saying that the Authorized Version is every word of God that was in the original autographs, preserved to this day." - Sam Gipp, An Understandable History of the Bible, Chapter 9

“The King James Bible was ‘given by inspiration of God.’” - Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, pp. 271-272

These are bold claims that should be easily to put to the test. If the KJV is perfect, inerrant, and unchangeable in every word, then we would expect to find just that - an unchanging document. However, that is not what we find. When we examine the history of the KJV, we see that it has been revised at least four times since its first publication in 1611. The revision most commonly used today is the 1769 version made by Benjamin Blayney.

When confronted with this revision history, RKJO adherents quickly dismiss it by claiming that the revisions were limited to spelling and punctuation changes. They assert that no words were changed. This is an important argument for them, because their claim of word-for-word inspiration and inerrancy is made for the 1611 version. If they use the 1769 version (and most of them do), then any documented wording changes would seriously undermine their argument.

Well, there is bad news for their argument. The revisions did make wording changes. F.H.A. Scrivener outlines a number of wording changes between 1611 and 1769. In the approved RKJO manner, I will show the comparisons. First, I will show the wording of a passage as it is in the 1769 version, then an image of the same passage in the original Authorized Version printed by Robert Barker in 1611.

In Deuteronomy 26:1, the 1769 version adds the words "thy God":

Deuteronomy 26:1 And it shall be, when thou art come in unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and possessest it, and dwellest therein;

The 1769 version adds "the children of" in Joshua 13:29.

Joshua 13:29 And Moses gave inheritance unto the half tribe of Manasseh: and this was the possession of the half tribe of the children of Manasseh by their families.

The 1769 version changes "seek good" to "seek God" at Psalm 69:32.

Psalm 69:32 The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God.

Jeremiah 49:1 says "inherit Gad" in the 1769 version, but says "inherit God" in the 1611.

Jeremiah 49:1 Concerning the Ammonites, thus saith the LORD; Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth their king inherit Gad, and his people dwell in his cities?

The 1769 version says "the Christ" at Matthew 16:16. The 1611 omits "the."

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

The 1769 version changes "no man" to "none" and then italicizes "there is."

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

The 1611 version says "aproved to death", the 1769 says "appointed to death" at 1 Corinthians 4:9.

1 Corinthians 4:9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

Now, if you are the least bit tempted to think that this line of argumentation against the RKJO position is nit-picking, please remember what the RKJO position is. The RKJO position is that the King James Version is the word-for-word inspired, immutable, and perfectly preserved Word of God. They say that other versions are "corrupt" because they "change God's Words." The acid test of the validity of an argument is whether it works both ways. Is the KJV corrupt because its words have been changed?

Here is the truth: the King James Version itself is not perfectly preserved! Even to this day, there are differences between the Oxford Authorized Version and the Cambridge Authorized Version at Jeremiah 34:16, 2 Chronicles 33:19, and Nahum 3:16.

So here is a question any RKJO must answer and then defend: if the KJV is God's perfectly preserved Word, then which KJV is the prefect one, and why?