"The most accurate contemporary editions of the KJV" is adding a value judgement that wasn't there before. fastball's assertion was "most modern KJVs do not include it?"
Now, the question is what "most" means here (by number of publishers, by copies sold, ...) but it certainly doesn't mean "most accurate", true as it might be (or not)
Is it really a "value judgement" to draw a distinction between complete and abridged editions? All complete editions include the Apocrypha; abridged editions generally omit it, and often more than just the apocrypha – abridged editions frequently omit the introduction written by the original translators, and also their dedicatory epistle to King James I. And that is what makes the Oxford World Classics edition among the "most accurate" – the fact that it is complete and unabridged. The only way to be more accurate is by going for a facsimile edition – facsimile editions are available, but the original unaltered typography and spelling can make them quite a challenge for the modern reader. By contrast, a complete and unabridged edition such as Oxford World Classics uses modern spelling and typography, but (unlike abridged versions) does not omit any significant component of the original text.
Is it wrong to insist that we reserve the title of a work for its complete and unabridged editions, or at least view them as preferentially deserving of that title? There is nothing stopping anyone from publishing an abridged version of Tolstoy's War and Peace, and indeed at least one abridged English translation of it has been published (and it would not surprise me if abridgements in other languages, including the original Russian, were available as well) – but let us not pretend that an abridged version of War and Peace is the same as the original, or deserving of being passed off as it unmarked – and suppose that abridged versions of War and Peace ended up being printed far more than unabridged versions were, would it then make sense to argue that "Tolstoy's War and Peace" (without further qualification) now referred to an abridgement instead of the complete original? But, if one objects to that, does not the same logic demand that one object to abridged versions of the KJV being presented as "the KJV" without further qualification? A complete and unabridged edition of a work is more deserving of its title (without qualification) than an abridged and incomplete edition, and that applies no matter what text we are talking about.
> does not the same logic demand that one object to abridged versions of the KJV being presented as "the KJV" without further qualification
The statement in question referred to "modern KJV" and the absence of a dedication to King James should be a rather good clue that it's not quite original.
What is a "modern KJV"? The complete and unabridged 1997 Oxford World classics edition?
And many (but not all) of the abridged versions keep the dedication, even while removing the Apocrypha and original translator's introduction.
Going back to my example, if abridged versions of War and Peace outsold complete ones, I don't think it would make sense to claim there was such a thing as the "modern War and Peace" which differed from the original.
Now, the question is what "most" means here (by number of publishers, by copies sold, ...) but it certainly doesn't mean "most accurate", true as it might be (or not)