3nd in the Study please go to 1st one here.

NOT FINISHED YET
need MLV quotes fixed and OT added 

a. Jesus said, (as recorded in the New International Version, NIV):  Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. (Luke 12:51 NIV)
(MLV) Luke 12:51 You* think that I have come to give peace in the earth? I tell you*, No; but rather division: 

b. Paul teaches us later (as recorded in the New International Version, NIV):  Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time.  After that, have nothing to do with him. (Titus 3:10 NIV)
(MLV) Titus 3 :10 A factious man refuse after a first and second admonition; 

Romans 1:17 is a perfect example of this. The New International Version, NIV reads, "For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last." There was such a public outcry over this rendering that the translators felt compelled to put the more literal "from faith to faith" in a footnote in their later editions.
(MLV) Romans 1 :17 For* in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith: just-as it has been written, ‘But the righteous will live by faith.'

Notice also the following representative weaknesses and faults of the New International Version:

#1 --- Ephesians 1:13 leaves the impression in the minds of many that one is "included in Christ" at the point he hears "the word of truth," and that he is then sealed with the Holy Spirit when he believes. The wording here is very unfortunate, and certainly implies the doctrine of salvation by faith only, which is a direct contradiction of such passages as Gal. 3:27 and Acts 2:38.
(MLV) Ephesians 1 :13 in whom you* also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your* salvation,– in whom, having also believed, you* were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 

#2 --- Psalm 51:5 is perhaps one of the most criticized passages in the New International Version, NIV: "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." This seems to clearly teach the false doctrine of "inherited sin" (or "original sin"), which in turn has led to such false practices as infant baptism.

#3 --- Romans 10:10 in the New International Version, NIV reads, "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Much like #1 above, this seems to imply a justification and salvation at the point of confessed faith, apart from obedience. In point of fact, the verb "are" is not in the Greek text here; it is rather the preposition eis which means "unto." Also, by noting the context of the surrounding verses, one will clearly see that the verbs dealing with salvation and not being put to shame are future tense. All of this clearly shows that these things are anticipated through confession and belief/faith, and not already acquired.
(MLV) Romans 10 :10 for* it is being believed with the heart toward righteousness and it is being confessed with the mouth toward salvation. 

#4 --- I Corinthians 13:10 in the New International Version, NIV reads, "But when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears." This passage literally says, "But when that which is perfect comes" or "when the perfect thing comes." The word "perfection" used in the New International Version, NIV is felt by many to be too general and non-specific, and that it has opened the door for the interpretation that the time of miracles and tongues has not passed away.
(MLV) 1 Corinthians 13 :10 but when the finished thing comes, then what we have partially will be done-away. 

#5 --- Sometimes footnotes can be a cause of confusion to the reader of a particular version. This is the case in a footnote to I Timothy 3:11. With reference to deacons, Paul writes, "their wives are to be...." In a footnote, the New International Version, NIV says, "Or: 'deaconesses.'" The Greek word for "deaconess," which is different from the word for "wife," is not used in this verse! To imply in a footnote that Paul is referring in this passage to deaconesses, rather than to the wives of deacons, is very misleading to the reader.
The Greek word ... Strong's # ... can be translated as "wife" or "woman": context determines which is proper.
 

#6 --- As was true of the KJV, there are places in the New International Version, NIV that can be embarrassing to read, especially if they were to be read publicly before a mixed assembly. For example, in Genesis 31:35 Rachel tells her father, "Don't be angry, my lord, that I cannot stand up in your presence; I'm having my period." Genesis 19:5 in the New International Version, NIV, reads, "They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'"

#7 --- What material was Noah's ark made of? Most say "gopher wood." The New International Version, NIV, however, has changed this to read, "cypress wood" (Genesis 6:14), with a footnote added which reads, "The meaning of the Hebrew for this word is uncertain." Since the meaning is so "uncertain," would it not have been advisable to remain with the traditional "gopher wood" and thus forgo the obvious confusion to the reader?

#8 --- In I Corinthians 13:7 the New International Version (NIV), states that love "always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." The adverb "always" does not appear in the Greek text. The phrase "all things" is what is actually used. By making this change, the translators have conveyed a somewhat different message than the one originally intended by Paul.
(MLV) 1 Corinthians 13 :7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 

#9 --- Some have also criticized the New International Version (NIV), because it doesn't put words in italics which have been added to the text (although it does on occasion place such words & phrases in half-brackets ..... Galatians 2:4 and 4:17, for example). However, in defense of the New International Version (NIV), on this point, this would be extremely difficult to do in light of the NIV's use of the Dynamic Equivalence principle in which most of the text is reworded and rephrased.

DOES THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (NIV) DENY THE DEITY OF JESUS?

Perhaps the most severe charge leveled against the New International Version (NIV) is that this translation, by its various renderings, effectively denies the deity of Jesus Christ. This accusation has been made repeatedly, and several passages are cited from the New International Version (NIV) as constituting proof of this claim. Notice some of the following arguments:
(MLV) Galatians 2 :4 But it was because of false brethren who were smuggled in, who entered in beside us to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that* they might bring us into bondage: 
(MLV) Galatians 4 :17 They are zealous for you* in no good way. But they wish to shut you* out from us, that* you* may be zealous for them. 

#1 --- Matthew 1:25 in the New International Version (NIV) reads, "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." The KJV (which most critics of the New International Version (NIV) use as the Standard of Measurement, rather than the original Greek & Hebrew text) reads here, "...till she had brought forth her firstborn son." A.G. Hobbs, in an article in Contending For The Faith, says that the word "firstborn" was dropped from the Matthew 1:25 passage in the New International Version (NIV) because of a "Satanic conspiracy!" The accusers state that by dropping the word "firstborn" from this passage, the New International Version (NIV) teaches that Mary was not a virgin at the time Jesus was born, and thus the New International Version (NIV) denies the doctrine of the virgin birth and the deity of Jesus.

The accusation is that Satan himself was in some way taking an active role in the preparation of the New International Version (NIV). Some have even referred to the New International Version (NIV) as "Satan's Handbook." Apparently, however, Satan fell down on the job, or wasn't around, when the New International Version (NIV) committee was doing its work in Luke, for Luke 2:7 reads, "she gave birth to her firstborn, a son."

Why was the word "firstborn" dropped from the Matthew 1:25 passage? Simply because that word is NOT in the Greek text!! You won't find the word "firstborn" in any other modern translation of this passage either ... and for the same reason. It was an addition to the text, made by a scribe who was trying to harmonize the Matthew passage with the Luke passage. This has been clearly proven by the work of textual criticism. The New International Version (NIV) translators (as well as all other recent translations) dropped "firstborn" from Matthew's account NOT because they were under the control of Satan, but because the evidence clearly indicates that it was never a part of the original text. The fact that the word "firstborn" IS included in the parallel Luke passage completely refutes the accusations of the critics with respect to the alleged denial of Jesus' deity by the New International Version (NIV) translators! If their intent was to deny His virgin birth and deity in Matthew 1:25, then why didn't they do so in Luke 2:7 also?!
(MLV) Matthew 1 :25 and did not know her until she had given birth to her firstborn son and he called his name JESUS.

#2 --- In I Timothy 3:16 the KJV reads, "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." The New International Version (NIV) (and all other minority text translations) do not include the word "God" at the beginning. Instead, it reads, "He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory." Again, the New International Version (NIV) is charged with denying the deity of Jesus by making this change.

The simple explanation, however, is that there is virtually NO textual evidence for the word "God" in this passage. In fact, this textual variant can be easily traced back to a late addition to the text by a scribe (see: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger, page 641).

(MLV) 1 Timothy 3 :16 And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was received up in glory.

#3 --- John 3:16 is another passage that has been used to "prove" that the New International Version (NIV) translators were attempting (under the leadership of Satan) to deny the deity of Jesus. Instead of the popular "only begotten," the New International Version (NIV) reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son." This change has raised an outcry from those who favor the reading "only begotten."
(MLV) John 3 :16 For* God so loved* the world, that he gave his Son, the only begotten, that everyone who believes in him may not perish, but may have eternal life. 

#4 --- By focusing their attention on a few select passages in the Scriptures, the accusers and critics of the New International Version (NIV) have made the serious accusation that the New International Version (NIV) does not teach the deity of Jesus Christ. This simply is NOT the case!! Notice the following passages as they appear in the New International Version (NIV) (and these are only a fraction of the ones which could be cited):

    Titus 2:13 --- "...we wait for the blessed hope -- the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." By-the-way, some have stated that the KJV in this passage has actually come close to doing what the New International Version (NIV) is constantly charged with doing: denying the deity of Jesus. The KJV reads, "...the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." This wording could be interpreted, by those seeking to "find fault," as an intentional separating of the word "God" from "our Saviour Jesus Christ," thus implying He is not God, but only a lesser savior. Would it not be fair to apply the same standard of measurement to the KJV as is applied to the New International Version (NIV), and then arrive at the same unwarranted conclusions?!! When comparing the KJV with the New International Version (NIV), in the Titus 2:13 passage, there is no question but what the latter upholds the deity of Jesus far better than the former!!
(MLV) Titus 2 :13 waiting for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus the Christ; 

    Romans 9:5 --- "...from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised." Does this sound like the wording of a translation which has as its design the denial of the deity of Jesus? Again, notice that the wording of the KJV here in this same passage could be interpreted, by those unreasonably critical, as an intentional, malicious, devious separation of the word "God" from the word "Christ" -- "...and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." Which of these two translations affirms the deity of Jesus more clearly in this passage? There is no question! The New International Version (NIV) does!!
(MLV) Romans 9 :5 whose are the fathers and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. 

    John 1:1, 18 --- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ..... No one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has made Him known." Interestingly, the word "Son" has actually been added to the text by the New International Version (NIV) translators to demonstrate it is the Son who is referred to in this passage as being "God." If their intent was to deny His deity, it seems odd that they would intentionally add a word to a passage which serves to demonstrate and prove His deity!!
Probably more likely this was done to help the Unitarians prove their belief.
(MLV) John 1 :1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. 
(MLV) John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has described him .

    John 10:30 --- "I and the Father are one."
   (MLV) John 10 :30 I and the Father are one. 

    John 12:45 --- "When he looks at Me, he sees the One who sent Me."
    (MLV) John 12 :45 And he who beholds me beholds him who sent me. 

    John 17:22 --- "We are one."
    (MLV) John 17 :22 ... just-as we are one; 

    John 20:28 --- "Thomas said to Him, 'My Lord and My God.'"
    (MLV) John 20 :28 And Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God! 

    I John 5:20 --- "And we are in Him who is true -- even in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." Again, the New International Version (NIV) has made a change in the text to make it even clearer that Jesus is being referred to as the "true God." The word they translate "He" is actually the word houtos which means "this" (which is how the KJV translates it: "This is the true God"). The New International Version (NIV) translators, however, correctly assuming that the reference was to Jesus, changed "this" to "He." In this way they affirmed the deity of Jesus, rather than denying it! 
(MLV) 1 John 5 :20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us perception, that* we might know him who is true and we are in him who is true, that is in his son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

#5 --- Isaiah 6:1-10 describes a vision which the prophet had of GOD. In John 12:41, after referring to this same vision, the New International Version (NIV) reads, "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about Him." The KJV reads here, "These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." The word "Jesus" is NOT in the original text. The New International Version (NIV) translators added it here because they believed that Isaiah's vision of God was being used with reference to JESUS in John 12:41, and they wanted to make that clear in the text. Again, hardly the actions of those who sought to deny His deity!
 

Footnotes:
Exerts taken from "NIV Rejects Jesus" & "A Critical Review of the New International Version" by Al Maxey edited and expanded.
Other Authors