King James Onlyism

I would like to point out my opponent is grasping at straws in his arguments now. First off, he said the Johannine Comma was found, and I quote, "ONLY in the Vulgate and the KJV." However, to answer my opponent, yes the Johannine Comma is found in Greek manuscripts. It is found in minuscule 629, minuscule 61, minuscule 918, minuscule 2473, and minuscule 2318. It is also in the margins of 221, 635, 88, 429, and 636. Also, I will address my opponents statement as to the missing verses. Scholars remove these verses ALMOST ALWAYS BASED ON VATICANUS AND SINAITICUS ALONE. They claim these are, "the oldest and best manuscripts" when they are not. They are from the 4th century, meaning there were manuscripts from the 1st through 3rd centuries BEFORE THEM. The papyri from the 1st through 3rd centuries also contain these missing verses and support KJV readings. For example, papyrus 45 has the Byzantine text in 33 places, but has Vaticanus in 21 places and Siniaticus in 25 places. Papyrus 66 has the Byzantine text in 38 places, but has Vaticanus in 16 places and Siniaticus in 32 places. Even papyrus 75, a supposed opponent of the Byzantine text, supports it in a good number of 33 places while supporting Vaticanus in 11 places and Siniaticus in 36 places. It should be remembered that the Greek text of the KJV is the Textus Receptus or Majority Text. Why is it the Majority Text? Because 95% of all Greek manuscripts support its readings. However, the new versions are based on the Minority Text which includes the remaining 5% of manuscripts. These manuscripts include Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae. Furthermore, Sinaiticus was found in a trash basket ready to be burned. Constantin von Tischendorf was in St. Catherine's monastery when he found scribes burning manuscripts to keep warm. He stopped them and in the process found Sinaiticus in a trash can. Do you suppose God would keep the oldest and best manuscript in a trash basket? Now my opponent failed to answer this part of my argument in Mark 16. Again, 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 know whether to include or omit it, so he left the column blank. AND AGAIN, with the passage gone, there would be 666 verses in the Book of Mark. I don't know about you, but I don't want a Gospel with 666 verses! Now, concerning the Antioch Vs. Alexandria argument, I was merely using the Bible to support my position for the KJV. After all, this whole debate is ABOUT THE BIBLE. If you don't think the Bible is an authority concerning WHICH VERSION OF IT TO USE, you, my friend, have some interesting logic. Furthermore, there were heresies that popped up in Alexandria as well. Origen believed men were to be castrated, believed in transmigration of the soul, was a universalist, and believed getting baptized would get your sins forgiven. Concerning John 7:53-8:11, Jerome (385 AD), who included it in the Vulgate after surveying older Greek copies, stating it was found "in many copies both Greek and Latin", before 415 AD. Also these bible s have the passage: The Ethiopic (5th century), Palestinian Syriac (5th Century), Georgian (5/6th century), some copies of the Armenian (4/5th century), Slavonic, Arabic and Persian versions Ambrose (374 AD), Augustine (396), Chrysologus (433), Faustus (400), Gelasius (492), Pacian (370), Rufinus (400), Sedulius (434), Victorius (457), Vigilius (484) and others The Lectionary practice of the Eastern Church, from earliest times (i.e. the 2nd century.) 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. Also, the Didache (3rd century document of Apostolic Teachings), Apostolic Constitutions (4th century) and Eusebius (324 AD) citing Papias (150 AD) as recognizing the passage. The Montanists (2nd century) were also aware of the passage. These seem pretty early to me. Now, the rebuttal my opponent makes to 2 Samuel 21:19 shows the hypocrisy of the new versions. You see, the phrase, "the brother of" was added by the translators of the KJV. However, they put it in ITALICS show you would know that they added it themselves. Now the new versions do add words and phrases to their bibles as well, but do you think they put it in italics? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Concerning Isaiah 14:12, again for a translator to translate heylel as, "morning star" is a horrible translator because the Hebrew word for star(kokab) is not in any Hebrew text. Also, that translator doesn't care that Christ is also called "morning star in Revelation 22:16. Additionally, if the passage is talking about the King of Babylon and not Satan, then this HEATHEN king knew more about God then some professing Christians do, considering this king said,(and I quote NIV) "I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.[b] 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High How about telling me how some heathen king, WITHOUT A BIBLE, knew so much about God, unless he was Satan? The New American Standard goes so far as to give a cross reference from Isaiah 14:12 to 2 Peter 1:19 and Revelation 22:16. They think this king is Jesus Christ. Amazing, the King of Babylon is now Jesus Christ! Here's the proof: Isaiah 14:12 (NASB, 1995 ed.) "How you have (A)fallen from heaven, O (B)star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! Cross references: A. Isaiah 14:12 : Is 34:4; Luke 10:18; Rev 8:10; 9:1 B. Isaiah 14:12 : 2 Pet 1:19; Rev 2:28; 22:16 Now I would also like to mention that a translation can be inspired according to the Bible. When the New Testament writers quoted from the Old Testament, such as Matthew 2:17-18, it translated Hebrew into Greek and both Testaments are inspired according to Christians. When Paul spoke to the Jews in Acts 22, he spoke Hebrew(Acts 21:40), yet the passage was written in Greek. When Joseph spoke in Genesis, he spoke Egyptian(Genesis 42:23), yet Genesis was written in Hebrew by Moses. Thus, my English KJV can be just as inspired as the original autographs, because translations are inspired according to the Bible. Moreover, God can inspire a copy that DOESN'T MATCH the original. Consider this, In Jeremiah 36:4, Baruch writes down what Jeremiah was inspired by God to say(Jeremiah 36:4). Jehudi then reads this inspired original to the king in Jer. 36:21. Jehudi then casts this "original" into the fire(verse 23). God then tells Jeremiah to write another scroll or copy and ADDS MORE WORDS TO THIS ONE(Jeremiah 36:32). They both are inspired, but they do't match word-for-word. Thus, my KJV does not have to match the original autographs and BOTH ARE INSPIRED! References: 1.http://preservedword.com... 2.http://ecclesia.org... 3.http://bbcenglish.org... 4.http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com... 5.http://www.ovrlnd.com... 6.http://av1611.com...