Since KJ preceded the NIV, I interpret that to mean the KJ is more accurate.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That does not follow logically. I’m not sure if there is an official name for the logical fallacy you just engaged in, but it is one.
I admit I don’t know enough of the history of either version to actually argue the accuracy of one over the other. It does seem reasonable to me, however, to argue that the closer an account of an event is to that event, the more likely it is to be accurate. Flop them all out sometime side by side; NIV, KJV, and NKJV just to get past the old English. What you thought the NIV was saying is often not what the KJV is saying. What new information changed the meaning? What could have been dug out of the ground to change that meaning in the time since the KJ was written? Does it convince you? It hasn’t convinced me.