Jesus taught us that an enemy divided against itself is sure to fall. However, millions of people have come to Christ and been strengthened in their walk with Christ by reading the NIV. But if this reall were an "eviiiillll" bible, then these things could not happen. For it would be an instance of Satan divided against himself, by having this bible which has done so much good in the world go out as supposedly an instrument of the devil. Satan is a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them. If he is using the NIV as a weapon to further his kingdom, he is really a screwball!!!!
Secondly, in any comparison of the KJV versus the NIV, if you would notice, it is typically a classic example of circular reasoning and is therefore fallacious. How is this so? Namely, the KJVOnlyists assume throughout that the KJV is THE standard by which to measure other bibles. But that is the very thing that is supposed to be argued for!! LOL!!!! In any comparison chart where the KJV and the NIV differ from one another, I might as well argue that the KJV is false simply and for no other reason than that it differs from the NIV!!! And this is exactly what the KJV only folks typically do... they say the NIV is false simply because it is different than the KJV. But that fact alone proves nothing, well nothing other than the rather uninteresting fact that the KJV and NIV are not exactly like one another. But it certainly doesn't help us to see which is the better translation. And that is really the question.... are the textus receptus family of manuscripts superior to the family used in the NIV? Is the dynamic equivalent method of translation superior to the word for word? If this is the issue, then we still have to ask the manuscript question because the ASV and the NASB/NNAS versions are the same word for word translational approach that the KJV is, but none of them are literally and only word for word translations, since both add English words which are not present in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. So all versions add words where there aren't words in the original, this means that in some sense, even the word for word translations have to engage in thought for thought methodology to some extent... far far less than the NIV or the NLT...at any rate, the issue is far more complex than simply siding with the KJV because other versions differ from it, and to side with the KJV simply for no other reason than the other versions fail merely because they are not the KJV!!