[There is nothing at all wrong with the NIV, and I absolutely gaurantee that you CANNOT prove that there is, because there just isn't]

I don't know who this "pastor" doug dodd is, but it breaks my heart that someone would have such a passion and desire to divide believers.   There is nothing at all wrong with the NIV, and I absolutely gaurantee that you CANNOT prove that there is, because there just isn't. The thing you have to realize is that though the wording of translations differ, that does not in any way mean that the meaning differs at all. The NIV is not a word-for-word translation, what it is, is a thought-for-thought translation. what this basically means is that the original meaning of the text is kept in tact, yet it is communicated in a way that is more understandable in this day and age. The meaning of the text is preserved. Again, the NIV is not the superior translation, but it is a perfectly acceptable and accurate translation. whatever translation you prefer, is fine. yes there are some exceptions, in which the actual meaning has been changed to say what someone wants it to say, but these fabrications are pretty easily spotted. the NASB, NIV, KJV, etc, are all perfectly acceptable. Which Bible is the right Bible? The one you read!

(Emphasis added)

If it could be shown that the NIV was internally inconsistent by recklessly referring to Satan as Jesus, would that be enough to convince you that the NIV was flawed?

Grab your NIV:

Compare Isaiah 14:12 (identifying Satan as the "Morning Star") with Revelation 22:16 (Jesus calling himself the "bright Morning Star")...

That's all I need to conclude the NIV was carelessly translated.  How about you?  

PS.  I didn't read the entire thread, so if this was brought up already, forgive the cumulative evidence . . .