Hi Paladin, you really have no idea what you are talking about here, do you. Not a clue.
Actually, I do; more than you.
The KJB translators did not even use the Greek text of Erasmus as their primary source. They used the Greek texts of Stephanus and Beza and they compared several foreign language Bibles as well. In 99% of the cases, further mansucript discoveries have only served to confirm the readings found in the King James Bible.
First off, they used the Masoretic Text, which is no earlier than the 9th century. When you compare all the latest discoveries, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, they more agree with the Septuagint than they do with the MT, which goes to show how corrupted they became over time.
Secondly, Tyndale's translation was based on Erasmus' 3rd edition of the
Novum Instrumentium omne. Most of the language in the KJV is his, despite the twelve sources used for the NT. So my saying 7-8 with a strong Vulgate influence wasn't wrong.
Lastly, your last "factoid" is dead wrong. Most new discoveries point to the flaws of the MT and the validity of the Septuagint in terms of the OT. In terms of the NT, the most ancient resources, which may be the minority today, were the vast majority of their day. Fewer scribal errors means better material.
As for your ever changing NASB, NIV, ESV stuff, they base their omission of literally thousands of words by following primarily 2 old Greek mss. that not only disagree with the majority of Greek mss. out there remaining, but with each other just 3000 times in the gospels alone.
The Four Gospels disagree too at times. Based on your logic, Christianity is bunk.
Now your NIV, NASB, ESVs are nothing more than the "new" Catholic bible versions put together by a joint effort of the United BS made up of Catholics and apostate Evangelicals, none of whom believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Did you even bother to read the initial article before you started to post the misinformation you just gave us? Probably not.
Most Early Christians didn't believe in inerrancy as you define it. Read St. Augustine of Hippo sometime, arguably the most knowledgeable of the Western Fathers about the Holy Writ.
As such, your definition of inerrancy means diddly-poop when it comes to Christian orthodoxy.
The new translations are based on the best material, the same material the Early Church used. You chose instead to read stuff the Church had when the Popes were abusive and the East (using your same Byzantine textual family) had a theology that you would consider Pagan.
And you probably criticize the minority texts partly out of some fear of "heresy." Oye...
The KJV was based on flawed texts, and there were better known texts at the time. What kept them away was the ridiculous anti-Roman Catholicism going on, and we're talking post-Trent when many of those abuses had finally ceased.
Oh, and mind you, the KJV had the Deuterocanon in it. And don't forget: we Anglicans acknowledge those books. We had them in our liturgies back then and we still have them today. It is OUR translation. Don't tell us about its use or its reason for being;
we invented it! 
