The original books are fully authorized and approved by Śrīla Prabhupāda. Anything later is less authoritative, less authentic.

Whatever is in the original books, we can be sure, has Śrīla Prabhupāda’s personal approval. It is all fully reliable and fully authorized—every sacred word. The revised books just don’t have that same authenticity.

Sounds good. But, unfortunately, if you hold to this argument you have to take it where it naturally leads you. If every word in the book has Śrīla Prabhupāda’s full approval, then

• He approved of all the spelling mistakes, Sanskrit and English.
• He approved of every error in English grammar.
• He approved of leaving out so many of his Sanskrit quotations.
• For 1.18, he approved of Abhimanyu’s being “greatly armed” (loaded up with weapons) instead of “mighty armed” (endowed with two strong arms).
• For 2.37, he approved of having niscayah mean “uncertainty” rather than “in certainty.”
• He approved of “the planet of the trees.”
• He approved of Queen Kunti’s speaking a verse that’s really from the Isopanisad.
• For 9.34 (man-mana bhava mad-bhaktah) he approved of leaving out “Become My devotee.”
• And so on.

Do such errors make the book more authentic? More reliable? Are blunders made by Śrīla Prabhupāda’s typists and editors sacred?

The book that more authentically, more reliably, more authoritatively represents Śrīla Prabhupāda is the second edition.