The de facto standard Benjamin Blayney edition of 1769 says in 2 Sam. 23:20 that Benaiah the son of Jehoiada "slew two lionlike men of Moab."
However, an earlier printing, a London edition of 1638, said he "slew two lions like men."
This is not just an accidental typo: there are two different, contradictory, and intentionally typeset phrases in this verse. There's a clear difference in meaning between slaying two men and slaying two lions.
This leaves KJV-onlyists in a bit of a dilemma. If God supernaturally preserved the King James Version from error, why didn't he preserve both the 1638 and 1769 editions? They'll make excuses for "printer's errors" and the like, as though, to the reader, an error of typography is any different from an error of translation or transcription.
The baseline standard for KJV-onlyism is absolute inerrancy. If not believing in the pure inerrancy of the King James Bible means I "do not have a Bible" at all, then there is no middle ground to be had between total certainty and pure skepticism. But once the excuses start coming out, the KJV-only doctrine of verbal plenary preservation sure starts to look like the ordinary human process of revising to correct obvious mistakes made by previous translators. If I don't have a Bible, then by his own standard, Knox doesn't have a Bible either.
