First: please remember: "which is in heaven" is to be taken out, as it does not appear in most manuscripts and seems to be a gloss, that is, a word or phrase of interpretation that is written in the margin but is accidentally or purposely moved into the text into later copies.
That argument isn't going to gain ground. If you want to discuss the validity of source texts that can be done on its own time. I have no reason to suspect the King James text, it has been tested plenty of times before this and challenges are always found wanting.
Second: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man. EVEN, [except] or [whatever else someone might write into here] is in italics because it is NOT in the text but is supplied to help our interpretation and our understanding, that is, to further the orthodox 'created on earth' theology, falling under the meaning of a gloss, without such identifiers. [ Your version does not seem to conform to the norm to put added in words into some form of identifier that they are theological inserts by use of italics or [ ]s.] We have here the clear declaration that "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven."
"My version" is the traditional authorized version. Nothing unusual or obscure here.... but it has read that way since the days of Wycliffe and Tyndale as well.
John 3:13 Tyndale (from the Greek, Modern English, sixteenth century)
(13) And no man ascendeth vp to heaven but he that came doune from heaven that is to saye
the sonne of man which is in heaven.
John 3:13 Wycliffe (from the Latin, Middle English, fourteenth century)
13 And no man stieth in to heuene, but he that cam doun fro heuene, mannys
sone that is in heuene.
But since they prove to me that interpretations of a verse can be helped along by adding words, let me suggest some of my own, just as legitimate: just like, along with, the same as etc etc. (Note the use of Italics, eh?)
I am not generally persuaded by arguments that start with omitting part of the scripture and adding other words to change the meaning. I'll try to follow your reasoning as best as I can but I'm sticking with the inspired text.
Are you prepared to accept that no one has ever gone to heaven except Jesus?
Yes.
Are we supposed to believe that everyone goes somewhere else?
Yes. We are told that there is no man that lives that does not die, and that he cannot deliver his soul from the grave, and man and beast both die. It's a consistent theme of scripture, that unless we have a resurrection from death, that we are without hope, and of all men most miserable...
So, yes, we are supposed to believe the scripture, and believe that everyone goes somewhere else. It's called death, the grave, hell, also written in Hebrew as
sheol and the Greek as
hades.
And what about Paul? Considering what is commonly termed Paul's ascent into heaven in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4: I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I know such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) How that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter (on Earth).
Was he deluded? If we believe that some people go into heaven, then, it seems that, according to this verse as it so plainly reads, we must also accept that that is where those persons came from at some time or another.
I remember Paul specifically saying that he was speaking of
visions of the Lord. Mind if I look that up for a moment?
2 Corinthians 12:1 KJV
(1) It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory.
I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
A vision of the Lord in heaven is different than ascending to heaven. Paul wouldn't have been the first to have had a vision of heaven. There's a vision in 1 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 18, for example.
1 Kings 22:19 KJV
(19) And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD:
I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
More examples easily found enough, but point being that a vision of heaven is not ascending to heaven and not existing in heaven.
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto you, Today shall you be with me in paradise.
Where was the thief going to be 'today'?
The grave. Death. Hell. The common abode of the dead. Just like Jesus was entering into for the next three days, and confirmed as on the first day of the week he tells Mary that he had
not yet ascended to his Father.
John 20:17 KJV
(17) Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not;
for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
May I assume that you recognize that "
Father" means "
our Father which art in heaven" thus indicated by the word "
ascended?"
I don't want to put words into your mouth, but it sounds as if you are reading that passage as if it said, "Verily, Today you will be with me in Paradise" rather than "Verily, to day shalt thou be with me in paradise." "Today you will" would mean that the fulfillment would occur that day, which is no doubt how you are reading it, but "today shalt" means that the promise is made that day, regardless of the time of fulfillment.
1 Samuel 18:21 KJV
(21) And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David,
Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain.
Where was David that day? Read what follows when they agree to follow Saul's plan. Besides the negotiations back and forth using servants as messengers, David travels and fights at least two hundred enemy soldiers and brings their foreskins back in a cloth as a present.... and "the days were not expired" it says. Where was David
that day then? Not as Saul's son in law, that's for sure.
There are several other instances of this same pattern of speech "To day shalt" that prove the application. Or if you prefer "The King's English" (a standard publication for English grammar) also explains the difference.
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto you, Today shall you be with me in paradise. Since John knew about this, perhaps he meant something else than it appears on the surface? At least one went up, if you don't like Paul going up, which I do... But the thief could only go up if he first came down, right? <shrug> Sure, this can mean a number of things but it can also mean the thief was in [someplace] with GOD before he came to earth and went back there while the wicked return to Sheol on their death.
You're drawing an awful lot of conclusions based on a misreading of the grammar of the traditional text. The "today you will be with me" reading came about only recently in the last hundred years or so. "Today shalt" has been the English reading for as long as we have had the scriptures in English (for the last six hundred years.) You can probably find one of those recent translations and show that, and then I would show you why the
traditional translation ("to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise") is correct from other scripture.
The hope of the Christian is in the resurrection from the dead, not in "ascending to heaven" upon death, which would make the resurrection completely unnecessary. I don't find it hard to believe scripture when it tells us "no man has ascended to heaven." That's what it says, it's fairly simple to believe that is what it means.
