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

The mss you cite are not the LXX you have been referring to. There are multiple texts and portions of texts which contain Greek translations of the OT, but there is nothing linking them to the LXX. The quotes you have cited showing a supposed NT quotation of the LXX are not found in the mss you cite. "What is generally referred to as the LXX today are basically compilations of different Greek translations taken from Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, which do not perfectly coincide. . . It must be noted that not all LXX versions read the same. It would be impossible to reconstruct what a pre-Christian LXX version may have looked like, even if such a thing had existed" (http://textus-receptus.com...) "The great task of Septuagint textual criticism is to reconstruct the pre-Hexaplaric text, which means undoing Origen's labor so as to rediscover the form of the Septuagint in the second century. Without Greek manuscripts predating Origen, however, that goal is not easily achieved. . . There really is no such thing as the Septuagint. If the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible had been translated at one point in history by one group of translators in one location and for one purpose, then it would be much easier to use the Septuagint as a snapshot of the history of interpretation and theological thought. However, apart from the translation of the Pentateuch (for which we have very limited information), the when, where, and who, and why of the Greek translation of other books is basically unknown" (Jobes & Silva, Invitation To The Septuagint). "The oldest extensive manuscripts of the Septuagint that are extant are dated in the fourth century, at least a century after Origen, so we cannot always be certain that our Septuagint text corresponds to that of his day (either in its pre-Origenic or post-Origenic form). . . We do not, and Origen did not, have extant for any book what anyone would consider the original form of that translation. All manuscripts display a considerable amount of textual development-certainly unintentional changes, such as the well-known panoply of errors, but also intentional changes, such as clarifications, revisions, doublets, and harmizations" (Eugine Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible). "A considerable number of MSS. exist which give information as to Origen's Hexaplaric text and particular passages in the other columns, but these do not go far towards enabling us to recover the LXX text as it existed before Origen; and this remains the greatest problem which confronts the textual student of the Septuagint" (Sir Frederick Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible). You say, "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." There is no such documentation as revealed by the above quotes. Your Wikipedia citation concerning the LXX is unfounded; the only evidence of a B.C. LXX is a questionable letter. The experts as quoted above claim that there is no demonstrable pre-Origen LXX. You say, "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." The post-Origen LXX (which is what you are referring to when citing these NT quotes) back translated from the NT. In other words, the LXX is quoting the NT not the other way around (http://lamblion.net...). "No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D. In fact, the Septuagint 'quotes' from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New Testament Text" (Jack Moorman, Forever Settled). "'Well they had to be quoting something - it must be the Septuagint.' This is the argument of advocates of the 'Christ used the Septuagint theory.' So what were the New Testament writers and Christ quoting? There are 268 references to 'as it is written' in the New Testament. Few match the exact wording of the Hebrew Old Testament passages they refer to. Eighty-eight match (or are matched by) Origen's Septuagint. Most of the other 180 don't match any ancient document word for word. Some have suggested that perhaps an Aramaic translation of the Old Testament or a Chaldean paraphrase are being quoted but this is unlikely. Actually the explanation is simple and has been known for a long time. The Greek phrase 'as it is written' is a common one in ancient Greek writings. It is never an indication of an exact quote - in the New Testament or anywhere else. Frederick Spitta wrote a century ago, 'According to the unvarying practice in the New Testament, the citation formula 'as it is written' is never the introductory clause but rather always follows a report of something seen as the fulfillment of a prophetic word.' The phrase implies not a quotation but a reference to a fulfillment of a prediction or a prophecy. For example, see the way the phrase, 'as it is written,' is used in the writings of Justin Martyr. These passages are simply not quotes at all - they are allusions to Old Testament prophecies. These are Holy Spirit inspired allusions - they are not quotations at all. This was clear to the Reformed theologians and many of the old Church of England writers. A little bit of research gives a clear explanation. The critics of the King James position would be well served to read more widely" (Dr. Phil Stringer, http://www.scionofzion.com...). You say, "I asked if he thinks the NT readings were wrong and he didn't answer. I'm asking again. Was this a hard question?" No, I do not think the NT readings are wrong, just the same as I do not think Jude 1:15 is wrong despite it being found in the Book of Enoch. It is clear that the LXX quoted the NT in an attempt to bolster its status. Consider the places where the NT matches the Masoretic Text and not the LXX; should I claim superiority on this merit alone? No. There are over 100 quotations which don't match either the Masoretic Text or the LXX. I think the above quotation explains this succinctly. You say, "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." You cannot prove that those quotes are derivatives of a B.C. Septuagint, therefore your argument is moot. By all evidential accounts, the NT never quoted a B.C. LXX and no LXX (matching the one you quote) was used for any length of time prior to Origen of Alexandria, 300 A.D. (http://brandplucked.webs.com...). The Byzantine Text disagrees with the Majority Text that Daniel Wallace is referring to, represented by less than 500 mss. There are over 5,000, so this cannot constitute the whole of the Majority Text (Jack Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text). Your claims about the TR are unfounded. Your example of Acts 9:6 is a verse which has support from a number of sources, but your contention is that they are not in any extant Greek mss. It is found in uncial E and 431 which I believe are Greek texts (http://www.ecclesia.org...). You say, "The Critical Text-type dominated the early centuries of the church, while the readings of the Byzantine Text-type were virtually unknown." This is erroneous. There is no proof that the Critical Text was ever used in any dominating way, and there is a plethora of evidence which demonstrate the early usage of the Byzantine readings (http://brandplucked.webs.com...).