To demonstrate that the NT authors did not quote the OT word for word. I am going to give you an example.
When Luke was writing the book of Acts, he quoted Amos 9:11-12, but he did not quote the Old Testament verbatim. Please have a look.
Amos 9:11-12 (
11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the
heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this.
16 After this I will return, and will build again the
tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins
thereof, and I will set it up:
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of
the world.
Amos 9:11-12 (LXX)
Septuagint in English
11 In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days:
12 that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek , saith the Lord who does all these things.
LXX Amos 9:11-12
Septuagint/OT in Greek
11 ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἀναστήσω τὴν σκηνὴν Δαυὶδ τὴν πεπτωκυῖαν καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω τὰ πεπτωκότα αὐτῆς καὶ τὰ κατεσκαμμένα αὐτῆς ἀναστήσω καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω αὐτὴν καθὼς αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ αἰῶνος,
12 ὅπως ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ἐφ᾿ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς, λέγει Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν πάντα ταῦτα.
My observation:
Amos 9:11-12 and Acts 15:16-18 aren’t word-for-word replicas. Luke paraphrases Amos to fit the context and message of the early Christian community. James is addressing the council about Gentiles being included in the church, using Amos’s prophecy to support his point. The focus is on the restoration and inclusion, even if the words aren’t an exact match. This exemplifies how Scripture can be adapted to convey timeless truths in different contexts. I assume Luke was quoting OT from LXX Septuagint.
Müller argues that the LXX became the OT of the NT for the early church to an even greater extent than the Biblia Hebraica. He concludes, “For the New Testament authors, the original text, that is, the text they drew on, was primarily the Septuagint. (Müller, The First Bible of the Church, 116.)
Jobes wrote, "We cannot forget that the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament (Septuagint LXX) was nevertheless the Bible of the earliest Christian writers." (Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 9.)
The Septuagint scholar Sidney Jellicoe wrote, “He who would read the New Testament must know Koiné; but he who would understand the New Testament must know the LXX.” (Sidney Jellicoe, “Septuagint Studies in the Current Century,” JBL 88 (1968): 199.)
My conclusion:
In term of choosing a good Bible Version. For academic study, go for word-for-word translations (like the New American Standard Bible) offer close adherence to original texts. But for everyday reading and application, thought-for-thought translations (like the NIV or New Living Translation) can be more accessible and engaging. Ultimately, the goal is to convey the essence of the message in a way that resonates and inspires. It's a balance between fidelity to the original and clarity for the modern reader.
I hope we could come to conclusion that since Luke did not quote the Old Testament word for word, not word by word in his writing in NT; therefore, we should not expect modern Bible translators to do the same. We should not assert that the KJV is the most and only accurate Bible translation. The NIV, like Luke's translation of the OT, might be received as God's word.