One of the most compelling arguments against the KJVO position is the fact that the King James Bible itself is a "multiple version" Bible - that is, it recognizes multiple versions of the same Scripture as being inspired, and therefore acceptable for our use.
One way the Bible recognizes and accepts multiple versions is when a New Testament writer quotes an Old Testament passage. While I have not checked every instance where the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, in the vast majority of places where I have checked, the New Testament does not quote the Old Testament exactly, which of course means that there exists the original text, as well as a slightly different New Testament version of that same text. Sometimes the same Old Testament passage is quoted several times in the New Testament, and none of the three or more passages agree with each other exactly.
The Old Testament also accepts multiple versions. In I Kings and II Chronicles we have parallel passages about the same events. While it is acceptable for one account to include material that is not included in the other account (just like the Gospels accounts do), the problem for many KJVO people arises whenever one passage directly quotes someone, while the parallel passage quotes that same speech with different wording.
I realize that this is not a problem for all KJVO people, since some of them don't take the position that every last detail of the KJV is perfect right down to every punctuation mark. Some KJVO people find that variant readings of the same quote are OK as long as they mean the same thing.
But there are many KJVO people who do take the position that what we have today in the KJV is without error in every respect, right down to the last detail. For example, if we read a quote in I Kings they believe that we have that person's words recorded exactly as they were spoken (as translated into English, of course).
It is for those people that the KJV itself actually contradicts their position.
Here is an example:
In I Kings 22:19-21 we read:
And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
Here is the same speech as recorded in I Chronicles 18:18-20:
Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and [on] his left. And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner. Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him....
If you compare them carefully you will notice a number of differences in wording. There is even a slight change in meaning in at least one place. In II Kings the Lord says, "Who shall persuade Ahab", while I Chronicles records Him as saying, "Who shall entice Ahab".
I believe that both of these accounts are inspired, even though they have different wording of the very same speech. The writers of these historical accounts probably used different source documents that varied slightly from each other.
Yet for those people within the KJVO position who demand absolute precision in the wording of the text I would ask this question: What exactly did the Lord say? Was it ""Who shall persuade Ahab", or was it ""Who shall entice Ahab"?
