King James Onlyism

I will try to make my format as clear as I can for my opponent. John 7:53-8:11 I feel like my opponent overlooked everything I said earlier about this passage. Remember Jerome included it in his Vulgate and said,"...in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord." (See Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, vol. 23, col. 579) Jerome said the passage was in many copies of Greek and Latin. Again,These also have the passage: Codex D and the Old Latin codices b, c, e ff, g, h, j. Note that the Old Latin TEXT dates from the 2nd Century. The Montanists (2nd century) were also aware of the passage.Eusebius (324 AD) cites Papias (150 AD) as recognizing the passage. These indicate the passage is extremely earlier.Just because Vaticanus and Sinaiticus don't have the passage(which I mentioned before my opponent did) doesn't mean they shouldn't belong. I have already mentioned how corrupt these manuscripts are. They disagree more with each other! Further, the passage was known before Ambrose and Augustine because Eusebius cites Papias from 150 AD as recognizing the passage.http://ecclesia.org... Mark 16:9-20 My opponent uses the verse numbering of 666 against me, but thatWAS NOT my main argument. My main argument was, "there are only TWO GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OUT OF 1600 MANUSCRIPTS that contain the Gospel of Mark which do not have the passage:Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Additionally, there is an ENTIRE BLANK COLUMN IN VATICANUS AFTER Mark 16:8 and it leaves about the RIGHT SIZE FOR VERSES 9-20. This means the scribe knew of a manuscript which had the passage and didnt (sic) know whether to include or omit it, so he left the column blank. " That was the physical evidence that he CANNOTsay is a genetic fallacy. My note on the verses being 666 without the passage was merely an interesting side note. Cross Examination Questions Before I answer these, I would like to point out that these questions are nothing new. There are all kinds of websites against "King James Onlyism" and my opponent likely got these questions from there. If so, my opponent is not coming up with his own "original" arguments. 1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times? ANSWER: All of them are. These revisions were nothing like what modern versions do. These revisions merely updated spelling such as changing " King Iames" to "King James" or corrected typographical errors. Printing errors were common in those days, but they were corrected quickly. It's amazing how people are always focusing on the original this or that. I'm concerned about the Bible I have in my hand, and it has no errors. Remember this, the revisions of the modern versions give Christ's Title to Lucifer(Isaiah 14:12) or remove whole verses from the Bible and passages as well. Naturally, any KJV would be superior to that! 2. What Bible would you recommend before 1611? Where was the Bible before then? I would recommend Tyndale's version, or Coverdale's or Matthew's or the Geneva Bible, etc. All of these versions come from a good Greek Text: Textus Receptus. Secondly, the Bible was in the Byzantine manuscripts before 1611. This was what was used for the King James Bible, so that's what was there before 1611. If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, God had to preserve it(Psalm 12:6 and Matthew 24:35). Of course the Word of God was around before 1611, in Byzantine manuscripts from Antioch instead of Alexandria. 3. Did Paul or Jesus use the KJV? This one almost makes me laugh. No, they did not. Jesus quoted from Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament, as did Paul, and Paul wrote most of the New Testament. This question comes from scholars laughing at ignorant, hillbillies that always say," It(KJV) was good enough for Paul and Silas, and its good enough for me." Obviously untrue, but not all KJV defenders are this dumb. It amazes me that scholars never consider this though: " It(KJV) was good enough for Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, D.L. Moody, George Whitefield, John Wesley, Peter Cartwright, J. Frank Norris, Bob Jones Sr., Gypsy Smith, Charles Finney, and any other preacher from the 17 and 18OOs, BUT ITS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?" 4. Why do you reject the apocrypha since the original 1611 version contained it? There is a difference between how a Catholic Bible and the 1611 KJV contained it. A Catholic Bible has the apocrypha interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The 1611 KJV had it BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS, between the Old and New Testaments. They called it "recommended reading" but not scripture. If they had considered it scripture, it would have been in the Old Testament. So since not even the translators believed it to be scripture, I am not going to either. I would like to mention that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which new versions are based on, DO HAVE the apocrypha interspersed throughout the Old Testament! If these manuscripts are so great, why do the new versions not have the apocrypha in them, then? The translators of these new versions are not being honest. It would hurt their sales. If the Protestant Christians knew that their new version was based on manuscripts which have the apocrypha IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, they would throw that version away. Protestants don't want a Bible based on Catholic manuscripts. 5. If the KJV translators were inspired, why did they use a marginal reference to the apocrypha? Because it was recommended reading. I recommend to people to read books on Mormons, Seventh day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. Why? Because they have some things that line up with the Bible, movies do as well sometimes, and so you know what they believe. But do I think their books are scripture, not at all. So why would the KJV translators be any different? There is no harm in knowing what Catholics believe, and that's what the KJV translators were driving at. I believe the marginal reference is in Hebrews 11 where they give a reference to 2 Maccabees over a verse about persecution. Both references are just about persecution, so the apocrypha lined up with the Bible, so the translators had no problem giving the reference then. I would like to conclude by saying the KJV is superior to the new versions based on the manuscript evidence, the bad translating of new versions(Isaiah 14:12), and the missing verses in the new versions. Modern translators believe that you have to go to the "Greek" to fully understand the Bible. But why can't God translate his Word in another language? I believe He can based on what I said at the end of round 4. I believe I have the very words of God in my King James Bible. The scholars believe that they were lost when the original autographs got lost. But if so, why did God say He would preserve His Word(Psalm 12:6, Matthew 23:35)? I would like to end with a poem: I heard the old-time preacher speak without one reference to the Greek, "This precious Book within my hand is God's own Word on which I stand." And then the scholars came along and said the preacher had it wrong: "Conflations here, rescissions there, and scribal errors everywhere." A book "essentially correct" but not in every last respect. Then in despair I bowed my head. "We have no Word of God," I said. If some of this old Book is wrong, pray tell, what else does not belong?" Will still more manuscripts be found to make us go another round? Correcting, changing,taking out; creating questions, fear and doubt? How will we ever know we're through-that we possess a sripture true? If man must find God's Word, my friend, when will the changes ever end? Then to the Book again I fled to find out what my Father said. "Forever settled... never fade" This promise God the Spirit made. A thousand generations hence that seems a pretty strong defense. A "perfect Book" Then it must be man can't improve what God gave me. -R.B. Ouellette