Frank Turk at Team Pyro takes on the TNIV today:

The NIV takes some liberty with the literal source text — for the sake of communicating idioms or putting some statements into modern day terms. I guess there’s not much wrong with that if you understand that it is going on.

But TNIV has a problem in that it seems to make no assumptions about inspiration in applying its translation methodology. Rather than striking a balance between dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, it veers toward paraphrastic or idiomatic translation which abjectly removes significant meanings from the text and replaces them with other less-precise meanings.”

And Jim Bublitz at Old Truth tackles subject of the broad spectrum of bible translations today, as well:

My first bible (over 20 years ago) was a Living Bible, and I remember how dramatic the differences were when I finally gave that up for the NIV. It left me scratching my head saying “the bible doesn’t even say what I thought it said in some parts”.

Me? I use the NKJV, because I think it’s a nice middle ground between the poetry of the KJV and the readability and accuracy of a modern translation. I also use NASB and ESV for study, as well, and sometimes the NCV.