David Sorenson wrote: "The King James Version of the Bible in America at present is in fact the 1769 edition" (TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING, p. 17). KJV-only author Al Lacy maintained that "the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible is perfect" (CAN I TRUST MY BIBLE, p. 144). KJV-only author Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that the 1769 text was "free from any man-made error" (WHICH TRANSLATION, p. 42). Joey Faust maintained that "nothing after 1769 is a true edition" (COMMON MAN'S DEFENSE, p. 43). William Bradley claimed that "the last one in 1769 made no changes in the text, only standardization of spelling, punctuation, and updated typeface" (TO ALL GENERATIONS, p. 71). Dave Reese claimed: "If words are changed, it is not the King James Version. It is another Bible" (THE BOOK NNE CAN READ, p. 56). Jim Ellis asked: "How could it be a King James Bible if it is different from the King James Bible?" (ONLY TWO BIBLES, p. 17). Attacking the idea that the New Scofield Reference Bible has the same basic text as the KJV, William Grady contended: "A lost man would laugh at the suggestion that a particular text could be promoted as the same text with even one alteration" (FINAL AUTHORITY, p. 311). Charles Perkins wrote: "Personally I cannot find anything ‘Godly’ about changing even one word in the King James Bible" (FLAMING TORCH, April-June, 1998, p. 7). Bill Bradley asked: "Would you allow someone to take your King James Bible and change it in more than 130 places, and still call it a King James Bible?" (Carter, ELEPHANT, p. 142). Was the 1769 Oxford KJV edition "free from any man-made error" as claimed by one KJV-only author? Is it possible that the present day Oxford text in the Scofield Reference Bible differs from the text in the 1769 Oxford edition in more than 100 places? While the actual evidence showed that three so-called Oxford "errors" actually came from earlier standard Cambridge KJV editions, there was an error first introduced into the text of the KJV in the 1769 Oxford edition that may have remained in the Oxford KJV's text for 100 years. Does anyone have a guess concerning what this actual Oxford error was?