The Scriptures had been translated into English years before 1611. The Church of England makers of the KJV changed the pre-1611 word of God in English. From its beginning as a revision of earlier English Bibles and as a translation, the fact is that the 1611 KJV has been considered to be changeable, amendable, improvable, or revisable. Later printers and editors made many changes, amendments, improvements, or revisions to the 1611 edition of the KJV. Later printers or editors added some words to the 1611 edition and omitted some words found in the 1611 edition. The varying editions of the KJV printed in the 1600's differ from the varying editions of the KJV printed in the 1700's. The varying editions of the KJV printed in the 1700's differ from the varying editions of the KJV printed in the 1800's. Besides the 1611 reprint editions, the present thirty or more varying editions of the KJV in print today are a revision or revised version of the 1611 edition of the KJV or are a revised version of the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. Today's varying KJV editions are not the same as the 1611 edition of the KJV. Do KJV-only advocates use the actual 1611 edition of the KJV or do they use a later revised, amended, improved, changed, corrected edition of the KJV? Do KJV-only advocates consistently apply the assertion that things that are different are not the same? How would it be sound, scriptural reasoning to suggest that an English Bible revision/translation in 1611 that is evidently claimed by some to have been given by inspiration of God, to have every word of God, or to be absolutely pure and perfect was actually changeable, amendable, improvable, and revisable?