King James Onlyism

In a nut shell: "What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on Debate.org who has read your argument is now dumebr for having read it. I aware you zero points and may the Flying Spaghetti Monster have mercy upon your soul." I would also like to say that I had to read your argument several times because I could not comprehend what you were saying because your spelling and grammar is horrible. Please use the spell check.1. Verses missingAt no point in his argument did he attempt to prove that the verses he claims to be "missing" from ALL the translations are in the original Hebrew. Moreover, I have proved that the Johannine Comma was NOT found in ANY Greek manuscript -- a claim that he has not even proved.I also brought up the passage of Mark 16 that is missing. Let's take a look at what he states:"Now this argument for the KJV can be proven using the Bible. The corrupt manuscripts Vaticanus (sic) and Sinaiticus (sic) are from Alexandria, Egypt. Egypt is always a bad place in the Bible. God called the Jews out of Egypt with Moses(Exodus 14). He called his Son Jesus out of Egypt after Herod was dead(Matt. 2:20). God had Jeremiah tell the Jews to not go to Egypt(Jeremiah 42:19). God pronounces a bunch of judgements against Egypt in Isaiah 19 concluding in destruction(verse 1) ,war(verse 4), plague(verse 5) and drying up rivers(verse 5). The Alexandrians are also mentioned in Acts 6:9 where they have Stephen stoned for being a Christian(Acts 7). Alexandria, Egypt, is not the place to go for Bible Manuscripts!"Wow! A ton of logical fallacies in this argument. This is the genetic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org...;) because my opponent is making a claim of irrelavence based soley upon the origin of the manuscript rather than the meaning of it or the context. It overlooks any difference to be found in the present situtation. It is also guilt by association (http://en.wikipedia.org...;) because my opponent is asserting that the quality of one thing are inherently the qualities of another. In a logical syllogism form, this would be his argument:1. Anything from Egypt is bad because Egypt is a bad place in the Bible. 1. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are from Alexandria, Egypt.2. Therefore, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts are bad. "In contrast, the KJV got its manuscripts from a Byzantine text. This means the manuscripts it came from were near Antioch, Syria. Now in the Bible, Antioch, Syria, is a good place. It produced the first Bible teachers and missionaries (Acts 13:1-4, Acts 15:35). Furthermore, in Acts 18:24-25, a Jew named Apollos from ALEXANDRIA was teaching the wrong things about the Bible. Aquila and Priscilla have to expound and teach the Scriptures to him(Acts 18:26). He did not no (sic) his Bible as well as Aquila and Priscilla and Apollos was from ALEXANDRIA(Acts 18:24). I want a Bible whose manuscripts come from Antioch and the KJV is just that. Its Greek text is the Textus Receptus (sic) or Majority Text(Majority text because the majority of manuscripts agree with it). This Textus Receptus is based on Byzantine manuscripts, meaning manuscripts from Antioch, Syria."Once more, the same fallacies are in this line of reasoning. For clarification, I will also post the argument in syllogism form:1. Anything from Antioch is good because Antioch was a good place in the Bible.2. The texts from the KJV are from Antioch.3. Therefore, the texts from the KJV are good; thus making the KJV also good.Once more, we clearly see the irrelavence between his statements and the facts.Another thing is that my opponent overlooks the fact that a good majority of the early heresies found their roots in the Antioch school (http://www.newadvent.org...;). My opponent states, "Now my opponent also did not bring up John 7:53-8:11 which is a whole passage removed from modern versions. Interestingly enough, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not have this passage either. Ain't that somethin'?" The truth is that the earliest manuscripts and lots of other ancient manuscripts and witnesses do not have that passage. Only a minority of manuscripts include such passages, wholly or in part, after John 7:36. (http://www.biblegateway.com...;). The Burden of Proof rests upon my opponent to prove that the portion of scripture is original.In short, my opponent has failed in every way to meet his burden of proof. 2. Words missing My opponent brought up the "fact" that words were missing from modern translations. I asked him for two examples of such to which he did. Let's examine the claims.A. SLAYING OF GOLIATH"Now my opponent wanted me to cite 2 examples of the new versions translating differently. Well, let me give two examples of what conservative Christians would call heresy and contradiction. In 2 Samuel 21:19, the KJV says,"Elhanan slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath." Yet the NIV and other translations removes the phrase, "the brother of" making it read that Elhanan killed Goliath. This is a contradiction, though, because David killed Goliath in 1 Samuel 17:49-51."The fact of the matter is that the phrase "the brother of" does not appear in the Hebrew manuscripts. It was added to the King James Version. In fact, we know that Elhanan did kill Goliath's brother from 1 Chronicles 20:5 which says, "And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan, the son of Jair, killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." Moreover, the solution is that it appears to be simply a copyist error. (http://carm.org...;). No contradiction and no worries. B. The morning star. "Another example is this: Christ is called "the morning star" (sic) in Revelation 22:16. Lucifer is called "son of the morning" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV. Yet the NIV calls Lucifer "THE MORNING STAR" in Isaiah 14:12. What utter blasphemy to give Christ's title to Luifer! (sic) Further the Hebrew word for star(Kokab) (sic) is not found anywhere near Isaiah 14:12. Now, don't tell me that the new versions are just updating "archaic" words. Of course the KJV is superior!" The Hebrew word used here is הֵילֵל or heylel which is the following meaning: Lucifer = "light-bearer" 1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.) 2) (TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of Babylon http://www.blueletterbible.org...In the context of Isaiah 14, the heylel being described is the king of Babylon, King Nebuchadnezzar. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to meet the burden of proof. Vote negative!