The King James Bible is more reliable than the NIV, NASB, ESV and NKJV

What evidence do I have that a B.C.E. LXX existed? The Fouad Papyri collection (Inventory No. 266) was found in Egypt and dated to the 1st century B.C.E. Fragments of this Septuagint (LXX) papyri were published in 1944 by W. G. Waddell in the Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 45, pp. 158-161. About 117 fragments of LXXP. Fouad Inv. 266 were published in "tudes de Papyrologie, Vol. 9, Cairo, 1971, pp. 81-150, 227, 228. The manuscript 4Q LXX Levb was found in Qumran Cave 4, and dated to the first century B.C.E. A preliminary report of this manuscript was presented in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. IV, 1957, p. 157. Other LXX fragments date to the 1st century C.E. It well documented that the Septuagint was made in the 3rd century B.C.E., and was THE translation upon which the New Testament (NT) authors relied. "As the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, it is also called the Greek Old Testament. This translation is quoted in the New Testament,[1] particularly in the Pauline epistles,[2] and also by the Apostolic Fathers and later Greek Church Fathers." http://search.tb.ask.com...; "The date of the 3rd century BCE, given in the legend, is confirmed (for the Torah translation) by a number of factors, including the Greek being representative of early Koine, citations beginning as early as the 2nd century BCE, and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century. After the Torah, other books were translated over the next two to three centuries...The translation began in the 3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE, initially in Alexandria, but in time elsewhere as well. The Septuagint is the basis for the Old Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Christian Old Testament." (Wikipedia: Septuagint) This predates Origen"s Hexepla contrary to Pro's unfounded assertions. When Hebrews 10:5 quotes Psalm 40:6, when Hebrews 1:6 quotes Deut 32:43, and when Matt 1:23 quotes Isa 7:14, these quotations read exactly like the B.C.E. fragments of the Septuagint and the 4th century copies. These quotes do not read like the Mesoretic Text (MT), and thus Pro has to tell us why in cases like these the NT agrees with the LXX against the MT. I asked if he thinks the NT readings were wrong and he didn't answer. I'm asking again. Was this a hard question? He argues the MT is correct because it was used by the church a long time, but that's equally true of those NT passages that contradict the MT readings! So clearly the length of time a reading was used doesn't prove its reliability. Pro claims the LXX is riddled with errors, but he has not been able to answer the contradictions I showed him between his NT and the MT. Riddled with errors? How ironic. I challenge him to give us one example of this for the Critical Text. If the LXX is a later, corrupted manuscript as Pro claims, then why do most NT quotes of the OT agree with the LXX against the MT? Instead of telling us that a remnant of Israelites will seek the Lord along with all the Gentiles upon whom the name of the Lord is called, as the New Testament quotes it in Acts 15:17, Amos 9.12 in the KJV/MT would have us believe that the Jews will "POSSESS the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen..." These two verses disagree sharply in content between the NT documents and the MT, but no such discord exists between the NT and the LXX. Pro says the Aleph and B codices disagree over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone, yet the Byzantine Text differs from the Textus Receptus (TR) in over 1,838 places (Daniel B. Wallace, "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text;" available from http://www.bible.org...), does that make TR unrealiable? More on this next round if space permits. The TR was the major base for translating the NT in the KJV. This TR is a series of reprints of Erasmus' first edition in 1516. But the inaccuracy of his translation is seen in the fact that there are some places in the TR where Erasmus' rendition of the Greek was not found in any of his manuscripts, and which have not been found in any Greek manuscript. One example is Acts 9:6 where it is said of Paul, "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what will thou have me to do?" This reading was an interpolated from the Latin Vulgate into Erasmus' text, despite having no textual evidence for its inclusion. From there it made its way into the KJV. (Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed., 1992, p.100) Pro argued in round two that since the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, we should translate it from Hebrew and not from versions in other languages, so what does he say to the KJV getting Acts 9:6 from the Latin when the book of Acts was originally written in Greek? He complains that the single word "He" in 1 Tim 3:16 is only found in one Greek manuscript, but he accepts an entire sentence in Acts 9:6 that isn't found in any Greek manuscript at all! More irony? In fact, because of heavy dependence on the Latin Vulgate, there are now numerous words and passages in the KJV that do not appear in the over 5000 Greek manuscripts available today. Pot meets kettle. Such a charge cannot be made of the NIV and I challenge Pro to prove me wrong with even a single example. Pro assumes the Critical Text is incorrect simply because it is in the minority count of all existing manuscripts. But if truth is determined by majority vote, we must also conclude that the doctrines of purgatory, intercession of the saints, and infant baptism are true, because Catholics outnumber all other denominations claiming to be Christian, and these doctrines have been the prevailing teachings for the longest period of Christian history. Just as true doctrine isn't decided by majority vote, determining the correct reading of the text does not come by counting manuscripts, but by evaluating the different readings to determine how they originated. History does not show that God prevented errors from creeping into the text the church had over the years, any more than he prevented bad practices from creeping into the church, such as slavery, which was practiced by most of the Christian world for a long time. The Critical Text-type dominated the early centuries of the church, while the readings of the Byzantine Text-type were virtually unknown. (James R. White, The King James Only Controversy,1995, 152)The earliest manuscript reflecting the Byzantine Text-type readings comes from the late fourth century. In the thousands of Scripture quotations from the church fathers before the fourth-century, not one quote is distinctly of the Byzantine Text-type. (Daniel B. Wallace, "The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations;" available from http://www.bible.org...) The early translations also bear the same evidence. There are nearly 8,000 manuscript translations of the Scripture in the early Latin Vulgate, all of which more clearly reflect the Critical Text rather than the Byzantine. (Wallace, "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text.") Their omission of the 1 John 5:7 text is just one example. The Byzantine Text type did not actually become the majority until the tenth-century when these readings finally began to multiply in copies. What is actually the minority and the majority depends upon which century one is viewing the evidence from. A fourth-century believer would have concluded that the Byzantine Text was indeed the minority reading, which by Pro's standards would disqualify it as the correct reading. I'll answer his other objections next round as I'm out of space.