In another thread, Most present KJV editions are actually based on the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV although they are not identical to it, not on a 1769 Cambridge edition. Some present KJV editions are based on the 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener, and at least a couple KJV editions are based on the 2005 Cambridge edition by David Norton. While an edition of the KJV printed at Cambridge in 1769 does have some of the new changes, corrections, and revisions introduced in the 1769 Oxford edition, it does not have all of them. Because of the fact that a 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV does not have all the 1769 Oxford renderings, because of the fact that a 1769 Cambridge edition kept some of the 1743-1762 Cambridge renderings not found in the 1769 Oxford, and because of the fact that a 1769 Cambridge edition has some new renderings or possible printing errors not in the 1769 Oxford, it could be concluded that a 1769 Cambridge KJV edition would actually differ more from present KJV editions than a 1769 Oxford. The text of D. A. Waite’s The Defined King James Bible is not the “Cambridge 1769 Text” “unaltered” as implied on the title page in its first  and second editions. A later edition printed in 2005 has this same assertion on its title page. An edition with its last copyright date of 2012 still asserted that it is “the Authorized King James Bible unaltered” “Cambridge 1769 Text.“ The word “unaltered” would be a broad-sweeping claim that not even one letter or one word of the “Cambridge 1769 Text” was altered in Waite’s edition. D. A. Waite wrote: “The Cambridge 1769 is a good standard to be used, as we do in our Defined King James Bible” (Critical Answer to James Price’s King James Onlyism, p. 130). Others may have accepted Waite’s claim about his edition being the 1769 Cambridge. For example, Phil Stringer wrote: “I identify completely with the statement by Pastor Robert Barnett (Dean Burgon Society meeting, July, 2010).” Stringer quoted Barnett’s comment about “God’s truth in our 1769 Cambridge edition of the King James Bible” (Messianic Claims of Gail Riplinger, p. 97). Kirk DiVietro claimed that Waite’s DKJB “uses the 1769 revision of the 1611 King James Bible Cambridge edition, which most of us use as the King James Bible” (Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials, p. 91). Waite’s assertion about the text of the edition of the KJV in his Defined KJB is actually incorrect, and any who believe it have been misled.