King James Onlyism

My opponent says I have to "PROVE" verses are actually missing." Well, I just gave the verses, and you can look an any modern translatiuon to see for yourself. Further, my opponent says its only "some" modern translations that remove verses and WORDS as well, well he's wrong. Check 1 John 5:7 in any modern version and see how many words have been removed(Even my opponent would admit to this I believe). Now, my opponent says Mark 16:9-20 is interpolated. He uses a source that says its lacking in the "earliest" manuscripts. First off, there are only two early GREEK manuscripts that don't have it, B and Aleph,(Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).There are another two very LATE Greek manuscripts 304 and 2386 that dont have it, but they are from the 11th and 12th centuries! While manuscript 2386 is listed as lacking this verse, we should note that the reason for this lack is due to the fact that this manuscript is missing the sheet upon which these verses would appear (which makes one wonder why textual critics would bother to include it pro or con at all). A similar problem arises when dealing with ms. 304. While this manuscript is usually cited by textual critics as lacking the long ending of Mark, the evidence for this assertion may be less sound than they believe. Maurice Robinson states, "The primary matter [in 304] is the commentary. The gospel text is merely interspersed between the blocks of commentary material, and should not be considered the same as a 'normal' continuous-text MS. Also, it is often very difficult to discern the text in contrast to the comments....Following gar at the close of [16:8], the MS has a mark like a filled-in 'o,' followed by many pages of commentary, all of which summarize the endings of the other gospels and even quote portions of them. Following this, the commentary then begins to summarize the eteron de ta para tou Markou, presumably to cover the non-duplicated portions germane to that gospel in contrast to the others. There remain quotes and references to the other gospels in regard to Mary Magdalene, Peter, Galilee, the fear of the women, etc. But at this point the commentary abruptly ends, without completing the remainder of the narrative or the parallels. I suspect that the commentary (which contains only Mt and Mk) originally continued the discussion and that a final page or pages at the end of this volume likely were lost....I would suggest that MS 304 should not be claimed as a witness to the shortest ending...."4 This is important because Greek was the language of the New Testament and so the earliest copies would be in Greek. This leads me to say that there are only TWO early GREEK manuscripts(Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) that don't have this passage out of approximately 1600 GREEK MANUSCRIPTS that contain the Gospel of Mark. Now these two manuscripts(Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are two of the most corrupt manuscripts available. They disagree more with each other than they do with any other manuscript available. Vaticanus, actually contains an entire blank column after v. 8 which is close to the right size to fit vv. 9-20, suggesting that the scribe who copied this manuscript was aware of the existence of this ending, and was unsure whether to omit the passage, so leaving a space should it need to be filled in later. Furthermore, there are 678 verses in the book of Mark. If you remove those last 12 verses, you end up with 666. Just a thought man. Concerning 1 John 5:7, the verse is found or quoted in the Old Syriac versions(170 AD), Tatian(180 AD), Old Latin versions and Tertullian(200 AD), Cyprian(255 AD), Priscillian and Athanasius(350 AD), Council of Carthage(415 AD), Jerome's Vulgate(450 AD), Cassiodorus(480 AD) Fulgentius(510 AD), Codex Wianburgensis (750 AD), Miniscule 88(1150 AD), four different Waldensian Bibles(600-1400 AD), miniscule 629(14th century), miniscule 61(1519), and finally the KJV. My opponent is wrong about it being ONLY in the Vulgate and the KJV. 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'? 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. Another example is this: Christ is called "the morning star" 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! Further the Hebrew word for star(Kokab) 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! Now this argument for the KJV can be proven using the Bible. The corrupt manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus 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! 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 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 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. References: http://www.bereanresearchinstitute.com... http://www.youtube.com... Ruckman Reference Bible, second edition, 2009 http://www.studytoanswer.net...