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

The New Testament authors used the Greek Septuagint (3rd - 2nd century B.C.E.) over the Hebrew documents from which the Mesoretic Text (10th century C.E.) got its readings: Heb 10:5 (KJV) Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me... Ps 40:6 (Brenton"s English Translation of the Septuagint) Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me... Ps 40:6 (KJV) Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened... Heb 10:5 quotes this prophecy of the incarnation, but the Masoretic Text omits the key phrase entirely, replacing "but a body hast thou prepared for me" with "mine ears hast thou opened." The KJV New Testament and the Greek Septuagint agree with each other against the reading of the KJV Old Testament, which was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The Jews clearly edited this passage in their Hebrew text in order to deny the incarnation was prophesied in the Old Testament. 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. Heb 1:6 ( KJV) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. Deut 32:43 (Brenton"s English Translation of the Septuagint) Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him... Deut 32:43 (KJV) Phrase omitted. The Masoretic Text completely omits the phrase "and let all the angels of God worship him" from Deuteronomy 32.43, but Paul"s quotation of it in Hebrews 1:6 shows that it was there and that the Septuagint is more correct than the Mesoretic Text. So the NIV, NASB and ESV are more accurate than the KJV because they use the Septuagint as a base. Matthew agrees with the Septuagint that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, where the Mesoretic text has born of a maiden. (Matt 1:23; Isa 7:14) The New Testament agrees with the Septuagint is 93% of the time but only aggress with the Mesoretic Text 68% of the time. Strong evidence that the Septuagint is a more accurate text on which to base the Old Testament. Pro argues that the Great Rabbinic Bible (ben Chayyim) went unquestioned for nearly 400 years, so does the fact that the reading "mine ears hast thou opened" (Ps 40:6) went unquestioned for 400 years prove that it was correct? And if so, then is the KJV New Testament wrong for reading differently at Hebrews 10:5? How long did that reading go unquestioned? Both were unchallenged for a long time, does that make both of them right? I look forward to the answer to that! While "other sources" like the Septuagint may not have been considered by modern scholars till 1881, manuscripts containing these same readings were clearly being used by the NT authors, and that validates them as more authoritative then those on which the KJV were based. The argument that the Old Testament was given in Hebrew doesn't show that a late Hebrew copy must be more accurate than a much older Greek copy that was made from an even older Hebrew manuscript. The Hebrew from which the Septuagint was made would have been closer to the original Hebrew than the Mesoretic Text. And in fact, the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Septuagint more than with the Mesoretic Text, so we also have confirmation of the Septuagint readings in Hebrew copies. Pro argues that translation committees should not get their Old Testament from the Septuagint or any other Greek manuscript because such translations are corruptions. If that is so, then why did the NT authors use it for 890 quotes and references from the Old Testament instead of quoting the Hebrew? The translators of the KJV had this to say: "It pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translation of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way of our Savior among the Gentiles by written preaching... Howbeit the Edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and therefore was not only placed in the midst by Origen (for the worth and excellency above the rest, as Epiphanius gathered) but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their commentaries." (Preface of the 1611 KJV, THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER) So Pro's argument in favor of the Byzantine text because it was used longer than the older manuscripts which were discovered more recently holds no water, because the translators of his favorite version themselves argue that the Septuagint which he rejects was in use by the early church, and that has continued for 2000 years! That's much longer than the Mesoretic Text, which only dates to the 10th century C.E., and we do have New Testament quotes showing the correct readings in the 1st century church were different from what the Masoretic Text says today. 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. For example, the Johannaine Comma Pro mentions in 1 John 5:7 first appears (not in a Bible manuscript, but) in a 4th century treatise called Liber Apologeticus, and it was absent from all New Testament manuscripts in all languages of that time and prior. 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. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1993), says: "That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations" (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. [I will add to this, that the four oldest manuscripts don"t include it as part of the Bible text, but only as a footnote in the margin, and from there it later entered the text of God"s word in the later manuscripts. Why didn't the oldest Greek manuscripts used for the Textus Receptus include the passage if it was original?] (2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215. [Again I add the question: why is it missing from all Greek manuscripts before that? Was the true reading lost for centuries only to now be discovered again in 1215?] (3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century])." So was there a conspiracy among all the translators of all these versions from all over Rome, Egypt, Syria, Arabia, and many other places, plus among the church fathers themselves, to take out evidence of the Trinity in 1 John 5:7-8? A trinitarian church wouldn't do that, so more likely the original didn't contain it.