You do not know what was in the "Original Greek Byzantine".
Nor do you. But then you opt to tell us:
There are very solid evidences that the original Greek had the verse.
In other words, you can know what's in the original but you insist someone else doesn't. Hubris is putting it mildly.
And as far as the Johannine Comma, it's so obviously intrusive that we can say with 100% certainty we know it wasn't written by John.
You can claim that it is not in our extant manuscripts beginning around 400 AD,
That isn't a claim, though, it's a realistic fact.
and those are very few till about 800 AD.
And they're all against the reading, so this isn't exactly a good argument for you to invoke.
You are conjecturing about what happened between c. 60 AD and 400 AD to 800 AD.
No, we don't have to conjecture because the evidence is clear. You, sir, are the only one conjecturing (and projecting, might I add).
The grammatical, stylistic and internal evidences massively support the originality in the Greek.
Actually, it proves the opposite. The so-called grammatical argument is a reach of apocalyptic proportions, the style is contra John, and there is no "internal evidence" for this passage. Indeed, it's so weak that Bultmann actually dismissed vv. 6-9 as a redaction
Jerome's Vulgate Prologue and Cyprian (solid in Greek) are also powerful evidences for the original Greek.
My goodness, the superficiality of modern Bible studies. Cyprian isn't preserved in Greek, so this argument is meaningless. (He also didn't quote it, but that's a separate issue entirely). And appealing to the so-called Vulgate Prologue that nobody holds was written by Jerome is a convenient way to ignore the text of the original Vulgate.
Sir - there is much more to the world of biblical scholarship than what you are apparently consuming online.
There is more, such as the Athanasius Disputation with an Arian at Nicea.
The mere fact your position requires this level of desperation reveals the conflict within your conscience that reality shows contrary to what you wish to be true.
The fact that you are not familiar with these evidences is understandable, as you are played by the textcrits.
Ah, the old "finisher insult."
"You, the person reading this, are stupid and I, on the other hand, am smart" is what you're alleging.
But it's crystal clear to the rest of us that once again these insults and poor mouthing of those whom are attempting to merely disagree with you are bothersome to you at some point. What's amusing (sad?) is that this passage doesn't even meet the standard of being in two of the three lines that you yourself tell us are major lines.
Why not just come right out and say, "I don't really care about any of that stuff, I just know the AV is perfect, preserved, whatever"? Because it is very clear that you're allowing your KJVOism to determine what you accept as evidence rather than following the evidence where it goes.
Have a blessed day.