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

Pro argues the Critical Text is replete with errors, but his KJV is no exception: In the margin of the 1611 KJV, the note on Luke 17:36 says "This 36 verse is wanting in MOST of the Greek copies." Other examples are the insertions of "through his blood" at Col 1:14, "him that liveth for ever and ever" at Rev 5:14, and "filthiness" at Rev 17:4. None of these are found in the Majority Text, so why should we praise the KJV on the basis of being translated from better manuscripts when the translators themselves didn"t stay true to those manuscripts? The KJV has the word "Easter" at Acts 12:4 where every single Byzantine and Critical manuscript has pasca, the Greek word translated "Passover" every other time it occurs in the Bible. (ie Matt 26:2; John 2:13) - W.E. Vine"s Expository Dictionary of Old and NT Words. Pro doesn"t tell us that almost every single KJV in use today is the 1769 edition by Benjamin Blayney and not the original 1611 edition. He doesn"t tell us because a comparison between the two reveals even more contradiction between these two editions than the differences between codex A and B. While the modern KJV at Matt 26:36 has "Then cometh Jesus," the 1611 version reads "Then cometh Judas," a complete difference in meaning. For all his assertions about discrepancies between codex A and B, he has given us no actual examples. In 1 Cor 4:9 where the 1611 had "approved" the modern KJV has "appointed." The correct term is "condemned." (Gk. ejpiqantiou: condemned to death) There is no "Amen" at Eph 6:24 in the 1611 edition but the modern KJV adds one. Blayney"s edition inserts the phrase "than godly" into 1 Tim 1:4 where the 1611 edition omits it. The 1611 edition leaves out "of the Damascenes" in 2 Cor 11:32, "and the books" in 2 Tim 4:13, and "of God" in 1 John 5:12, where the present KJV includes them all. So if differences in the manuscripts mean as much to Pro as he claims, he should be consistent and either reject his current KJV or its 1611 predecessor. In fact, the KJV contradicts the Textus Receptus, so again Pro has no right to claim superiority on the basis of the manuscripts because the translators didn"t faithfully copy them anyway. Where the KJV has "churches" the TR has "temples" (Acts 19:37), where KJV has "God save the king," the TR has "may the king live." (1 Sam 10:24) Regarding 1 John 5:7, Hartwell documented many reasons why the prologue favoring this verse couldn"t have been written by Jerome, and the majority of scholars today reject it as a forgery: "On this supposed prologue of Jerome many advocates of the disputed clause founded, as they imagined, a powerful argument for its genuineness; while others have candidly admitted that the prologue is spurious. In fact, this preface is of no authority whatever; for, 1. Its style is so barbarous as to prove that it could not have been written by Jerome; 2. It is wanting in his catalogue of prefaces, as well as in the best and most ancient manuscripts of Jerome"s version; 3. It is often found in Latin copies without his name; it makes use of the term Epistolae Canonicae, "Canonical Epistles," whereas Jerome"s title for them was Epistolae Catholicae, "Catholic Epistles;" 4. Further, this preface is prefixed to some Latin copies of the Catholic Epistles, in which the disputed text is not inserted; whence it is evident that the ancient MSS. from which such copies were made had not the disputed text, though the transcribers had the folly to insert that preface; 5. And, finally, what proves that it is utterly destitute of authority, is the fact, that "it insinuates one falsehood, and asserts two other direct and notorious falsehoods. It insinuates that all the Greek copies of the New Testament had this verse; whereas none of them had it, nor" (as we have already seen) "has any of the genuine works of the Greek Fathers once mentioned it. And Jerome, above all men, who was so conversant in the Greek copies of the New Testament and in the Greek Fathers, must needs have known this to have been a direct falsehood. Again, the preface asserts that the Latin translators were unfaithful in leaving out the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, that he [Jerome] had restored it." (Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of The New Testament, 1856, p. 372) Even the Catholic Encyclopedia says that "St. Jerome (fourth century) does not seem to know the text." http://www.newadvent.org... "Further evidence that St Jerome is not the true author of the Prologue or the addition, lies in the fact that the addition has been inserted in the margin of several early manuscripts from which that text was absent. For it was not likely that St Jerome would have spoken favourably of his own new edition of the canonical Epistles because of the changes he had made, particularly in the first letter of St John, and that there was no trace of any such change in the text".People who included this addition in the margin of their manuscripts could hardly all keep to the same wording, so that it occurs with different wording in different manuscripts. These discrepancies obviously prove that St Jerome could not have been the author of this addition which is actually the work of individuals who sought to adjust the text of St John in accordance with the Prologue." (Richard Simon, Critical History of the Text of the New Testament, trans. Andrew Hunwick (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1689/2013), p. 178-9) You can check these discrepancies and find documented evidence that Cyprian DID NOT quote this passage at http://search.tb.ask.com...; For Paul's letters we have no evidence of a Byzantine text before the ninth-century. (Daniel B. Wallace, "The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?"; available from http://www.bible.org...) If the Byzantine Text-type was the text used by the early church it should have been the basis of one of the ancient translations, but this isn"t what we find. The Old Latin of 200 C.E. evidence Western Text-type readings; the Coptic translations show Alexandrian Text-types; the earliest Syriac versions have Western and Alexandrian Text-type readings. If these versions were based on polluted manuscripts, one would expect them to have come from (and be used in) only one isolated region. This is not the case; the Coptic, Ethiopic, Latin, and Syriac versions came from all over the Mediterranean region. In none of these locales was the Byzantine text apparently used - strong evidence that the Byzantine text simply did not exist in the first three centuries. If the Byzantine was the uncorrupted text-type was used by Fathers, why do we find the non-Byzantine Texts in their writings for the first 300 years of Christian history? Why do Tertullian and Augustine quote 1 John 5:7-8 without the three-in-one passage? Were the Fathers not the same individuals who were opposing the heretical tampering with the Scriptures? Why did they use ever other verse except this one when debating the trinity with Arians? Because it wasn"t in their Bible. He cites biased KJV Only cites who deny the reality of the LXX in the B.C.E. period, but modern scholarship agrees that the fragments I cited are indeed from the LXX composed in the 3rd century B.C.E. (Ernst W"rthwein, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995) I simply suggest to all reading this debate to research the fragments I cited and you"ll see that scholars who have worked on this agree they are from the Septuagint.