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

Much of cons counter argument involves the Septuagint. I will state a few things about the Septuagint and then move on to your other arguments. First of all, other than claiming that NT authors quoted from the LXX, what evidence do you have that a B.C. LXX existed? The LXX that is used and translated today is not a B.C. LXX but a 300 A.D. text derived from Origen's Hexepla. Unless you can provide substantial evidence that a B.C. LXX existed, your claims of NT quotations of the LXX are moot. You can just as easily argue, and with more certainty, that the LXX quoted from the NT as it was produced at least 200 years later. Your claim of NT quotation of the LXX is on the same level as the claim that Peter and Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch. Not only are you claiming that the LXX is more accurate than the Hebrew Tenakh, but you are claiming that the Masoretes took away from the word of God in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2. Again your claims are moot. You say "The fact that New Testament authors trusted the Septuagint enough to take most of their quotations from it testifies to how accurate it is. Being much older than the Masoretic Text, it was based on a much older and better Hebrew Text." One of the oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament (possibly 300 B.C.) is the Isaiah Scroll which testifies of the reliability of the Masoretic Text, whereas extant LXX mss are only as old as 300 A.D. (http://thekingsbible.com...) Also, what "older and better Hebrew text" was the LXX based on? The LXX is an untrustworthy document riddled with scribal errors. Your claims concerning the LXX are falsified (http://brandplucked.webs.com...) Your quote from the King James translation committee is meaningless as they simply conveyed the common myth of the "seventy interpreters." This myth is based on one questionable letter, the Letter of Aristeas. This letter serves as poor evidence since it doesn't fit the time period in which it claims to have been written (http://www.scionofzion.com...). Some of the men on the King James translation committee believed in baptizing babies (per Martin Luther) but does that make it true? You say, "Pro then makes and argument from the majority of manuscripts, as if truth were decided by majority vote. But this ignores the fact that the Majority Text was once in the minority. The further back in time you go, the closer to the originals you get, the more the Majority Text (Byzantine) reading disappears." Majority does not decide truth but it does play into the reliability of the Bible since we would expect most of God's church to be using the preserved word of God, not a corrupt text. In my view, majority trumps antiquity, especially when that antiquity is compounded by scribal errors, additions and omissions. Where is your proof that "the further back in time you go" "the more the Majority Text reading disappears?" This claim is false (http://brandplucked.webs.com...). Your claims about 1 John 5:7 are erroneous. The earliest attestation extant of the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 is not Liber Apologeticus but is from Cyprian 258 A.D. ". . .again it is written of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, Treatise 1, paragraph 6) You say, "If it was an original reading, then it's inexplicable why it wasn't found in the Old Latin versions of 200 C.E., or the Bodmer papyri 200 C.E., or the Chester Betty papyri 200 C.E., or the 4th century Vaticanus." Because those texts omitted the verse. The fact that we have Cyprian quoting 1 John 5:7 as early as 258 A.D. shows that the text is authentic. Again you are arguing from antiquity, but the codices you mention such as Vaticanus are corrupt. Consider that in the Gospels alone, the Aleph and B codices disagree over 3,000 times (https://archive.org...). These codices are demonstrably unreliable (http://preservedword.com...). Even the BBC ran a story on the unreliability of the Codex Sinaiticus, the "oldest and most reliable" manuscript most of the footnotes in modern versions are referring to, and concluded with ". . .more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God" (http://news.bbc.co.uk...). John GILL commenting on 1 John 5:7 says, "it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerome, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters" (Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible). Your claim that is not found "in the Vulgate as issued by Jerome" is false. Your argument based on on lack of attestation to 1 John 5:7 is moot as modern versions such as the NIV, NASB and ESV replace "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 with "He" or "He who" which is only to be found in a single manuscript of the more than 5,000 extant manuscripts, namely the Aleph Codex, Sinaiticus. Where is the evidence that it should be "He" or "He who" and not "God." 1 John 5:7 is just as authentic as 1 Timothy 3:16 (http://brandplucked.webs.com...). I think one is left with only two coherent options in relation to which texts they perceive to be the preserved word of God: either the traditional texts, which have been used for the vast majority of Church history, or the eclectic texts which have been hidden for many years in such places as a Greek Orthodox monastery in Egypt and the bowels of the Vatican library. I guess a healthy distrust of the Catholic Church and a biblical knowledge of Egypt help me to make that decision very easily, but primarily, I believe accepting these obscure texts, simply because of their perceived antiquity and in-spite of the attestation to the texts God has blessed, is quite frankly a denigration of the character of my Father. He does not work in secrecy, allowing His Church to be tossed to-and-fro without His words to hold on to. To the Christian who bothers to study this issue, he will find that such texts as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are untrustworthy (http://brandplucked.webs.com...) including the LXX. This debate is concerning the reliability (trustworthiness) of the KJV vs the NIV, NASB, ESV, AND NKJV based on the manuscripts used to translate these versions. So far all that is agreed that: The vast majority of mss attest to the Byzantine Text-type. The prospective voter should consider what exactly constitutes reliability. Majority and witness surely counts in the case for the Bible, in both manuscript evidence and early Christian quotation, as does historicity, or the fact that this was the text used by the Church for most of church history. Again this debate is concerning reliability not accuracy. The Byzantine Texts include more than 5,000 mss which, although copied by different scribes at different times and locations, reveal remarkable cohesiveness (http://www.google.com...). The less than 50 mss representing the Alexandrian text-type used for modern version's NT ad the various sources such as the LXX used for the OT do not show any cohesiveness whatsoever. The Protestant Reformation revealed many things to the world, the most important of which is the identity of the true word of God as revealed in the Textus Receptus (Byzantine Text) compiled by Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza. Modern versions not only undermine the Reformation saints but also attempt to convey that the Church of Jesus Christ has been without the "accurate" word of God for more than 1,000 years.