The noose tightens...

Two excellent comments:

Critical Text advocates tend to deny the findings of Herman Hoskier. In his book, "Codex B and its Allies", he lists 3036 references where Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contradict each other in the four Gospels. These are very real differences, not a matter of punctuation or differences in spelling. In every case one or the other must be in error; and in a multitude of situations both of them err.

Hoskier, a distinguished scholar, in a magnificent rebuttal of the outrageous claims made in favour of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, has published over 900 pages of scholarly refutation. The differences in the four Gospels alone amount to 3,036; as follows:

Matthew 656+ Mark 567+ Luke 791+ John 1022+ Total 3036+

It is my contention that the liberal scholars of the 19th and 20th Century made use of these differences in order to create a text that is more acceptable to their theological persuasion. In other words: by claiming that Aleph and B were the "older mss" they could substitute whatever change in the Greek Text they wanted. That they were successful in arguing that the older texts are better despite the errors of these texts is exemplified by some Reformed types, such as [James] White and Carson, who make similar arguments.

I would suggest that Accuracy is far more important than Ancientness.

And...

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/div-orig.asp

Early Greek and Latin writers -- The "Fathers"

The writings of early champions of the truth (and heretics) contain copious references to the Scriptures and again testify concerning the Greek text as it was in the 2nd century onwards. The majority of these witnesses support the "Byzantine" or "Received" or "Traditional" text underlying the Authorised Version, and they establish the antiquity of this text and its superior acceptance in the early period.

So who is lying?

Both quotes from this forum.

There are many excellent voices - just everyday believers - on that forum defending God's Word against the corrupt manuscripts, but I highlight the above two because of the blunt force nature of them and to show how easy it is to refute and expose the corrupt manuscripts and the people who champion them.

[Note: for the record, James White only mentions the name of a scholar like Hoskier in the context of stating he wasn't "KJV-Only." He isn't, in other words, one of the scarecrows in the little tare field White cultivates in one of the deep corners of his little mind. He doesn't comment on his scholarship though. He can't. In the exact same way Madame Blavatsky couldn't comment on, say, 1 Timothy 3:16 AV. It kind of blows her entire enterprise out of the water...]

[Note 2: anything written by Jerusalem Blade for instance here and here is worth reading. He's dedicated and passionate on this subject, and he's rather strikingly gentlemanly at the same time.]