I made a long drive to Washington, D.C. this past week to have the opportunity to examine an edition of the KJV printed in 1769 at Oxford. In this thread, I will share some information learned from that 1769 Oxford KJV edition and other KJV editions as it relates to a number of KJV-only claims. It is often claimed that our present KJV editions are the 1769 edition. Here are some statements by various KJV-only authors that relate to this claim. 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). D. A. Waite referred to “the 1769 edition of the King James Bible that we use today” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 55). Alan O’Reilly maintained that “the AV1611 of today is Dr. Blayney’s edition, published 1769” (O Biblios, p. 35). David Cloud wrote that "an update was made between 1762-69 to correct any lingering printing errors and to update the spelling" (Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions, p. 589). Douglas Stauffer asserted that "the 1769 edition merely continued the process of spelling standardization begun in the 1762 edition" (One Book Stands Alone, p. 348). Robert Sargent claimed that "the spelling was standardized to its modern form in the 1762 and 1769 editions" (English Bible, p. 229). Gail Riplinger proposed that "standardization of spelling" was "completed" in 1769 (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 602). Riplinger asserted that “the spelling of the KJV was standardized and made uniform beginning in 1762, by Dr. Thomas Paris of Cambridge, and finally in 1769, by Dr. Benjamin Blayney of Oxford” (p. 601). Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 42). Al Lacy maintained that "the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible is perfect" (Can I Trust My Bible, p. 144). Joey Faust maintained that "nothing after 1769 is a true edition" (Common Man‘s Defense of KJV-onlyism, p. 43). Hugo Schonhaar wrote: “The final two editions of the 1611 King James Bible took place in 1762 and 1769” (Woods, King’s Bible, p. 277). 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). Dennis Anderson claimed: “We know it [referring to the 1611 KJV] has gone through four revisions to correct misspelled words, the last one in 1769” (Flaming Torch, Summer, 1995, p. 6). Lloyd Streeter claimed that the perfection of the KJV "should be looked upon as a winnowing or refining process extending from Tyndale through 1769" (Seventy-five Problems, p. 104). Streeter asserted that God used "those who corrected printing and spelling errors between 1611 and 1769" (p. 104). Another consideration is to see whether KJV-only advocates are consistent in whether or not they accept alterations in KJV editions. KJV-only author Dave Reese claimed: "If words are changed, it is not the King James Version. It is another Bible" (The Book No One 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?" (Mickey Carter, Elephant in the Living Room, p. 142). Are the above claims and statements by KJV-only authors applied to the actual alterations or changes in various KJV editions, including those made after 1769? Is it being claimed that if KJV-only advocates use an edition of the KJV that changes any words in the 1769 edition that they are using another Bible?