I fail to see how there is a difference in most cases between what you say are not error but reasons for studying and what I say are not errors in the NIV. You say they are error in NIV but I say it's a more accurate translation. I say there are errors in the KJV you say they just need to be studied to understand. What's the difference?
Just as another example of what I believe to be a error but not necessarily a huge error but only one that can affect our understanding as English speakers.
You brought up the example of John 3:16 because modern translations leave out "begotten". In my understanding, to say "only begotten" gives us the impressions that Jesus was created. It's as if it is saying that God created His begot or caused him to come into existence. To me this is not correct because it can lead us to believe that Jesus never existed until God caused Him to exist. Why is this important? Because the bible tells us in John 1 that "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." Jesus has always existed from eternity. If my dad adopted someone it would still make perfect sense to say I am His only son. Jesus was and is God's only son at least in the natural sense goes. Look at these notes from the NET Bible found at http://www.bible.org
I don't believe the KJV is completely wrong, I would call it an mistake of judgment on their part but nothing that affects doctrine seriously. I just believe some newer translations are more accurate and have chosen better words in this case. The newer versions decision to leave out "begotten" seems logical to me. Which is why I tend to believe that KJV only people are not open to logical reasoning or discussion but would rather just hold their ground in the name of faith and call everything else a perversion.37 tn Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).
I'm not saying you are doing this, it just happens to be the position taken by many KJV only people. Read past discussions, read other discussions, they just get mad and start name calling. As Jim pointed out many are almost cult like. But again, you have been willing to discuss this with us and for that I'm grateful. So, please don't take my generalizations of KJV only people to be always direct at you personally.
Zach