> 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.
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.