Are these really legitimate criticisms?

The NIV/TNIV have been criticized for rendering various phrases and clauses differently than that which is found in the KJV text. Unfortunately, I find it difficult to take any of the criticism seriously when I find such outrageous examples as I seemed to have found in a list from which I will exhibit some samples. Here is one involving Isaiah 44:8 (KJV) --

Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any]. ​

Apparently, the second occurrence of "God" in the KJV has been otherwise rendered as "Rock" in the NIV/TNIV. Is this really a problem? The KJV itself applies "Rock" as a term for Deity at Deuteronomy 32:4 & 15, from the same Hebrew word tsuwr (Strong's #6697, meaning rock or stoney cliff) as found in Isaiah 44:8.

 

Why did the king's revisers use "God" in Isaiah 44:8 rather than the more literal "Rock"? Other recognized literal translations have "Rock" --

Fear not, nor be afraid, Have I not from that time caused thee to hear, and declared? And ye [are] My witnesses, Is there a God besides Me? yea, there is none, A Rock I have not known. (Young's)

Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have I not declared unto thee of old, and showed it? and ye are my witnesses. Is there a God besides me? yea, there is no Rock; I know not any. (ASV)​

 

Another two criticism examples from an anti-modern version website list are found at Leviticus Chapter 24 where the NIV/TNIV do not include the inserted words (usually taking an italicized form in print) "of the LORD" as found in the KJV (verses 11-16) --

And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name [of the LORD], and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name [was] Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan
And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death. (KJV)​

Should leaving out these added words originating with the KJV translation committee really be included as an example of the deliberate 'perversion' of leaving out the word "Lord"?

 

The accusation against the NIV/TNIV is again made in reference to Numbers 23:15,16 --

And he said unto Balak, Stand here by thy burnt offering, while I meet [the LORD] yonder.
And the LORD met Balaam, and put a word in his mouth, and said, Go again unto Balak, and say thus. (KJV)

Balaam said to Balak, "Stay here beside your offering while I meet with him over there."
The LORD met with Balaam and put a message in his mouth and said, "Go back to Balak and give him this message." (NIV) ​

The NIV ©1973, 1978, 1984 did not utilize capitalized personal pronouns for Deity (and neither does the KJV). It is clear from the context that "he" is referring the Lord. So, why would this rendering be a problem?

Other verses included on the list where the NIV/TNIV supposedly 'perverts' the Scripture by omitting the inserted words "the Lord" are 1 Samuel 3:17, 1 Kings 13:22, and James 2:1. Again, the modern versions are criticized for excluding the KJV translator's added words of "the Lord thy God" from Deuteronomy 16:10. Another NIV/TNIV verse criticized for not having the word "Lord" is 2 Chronicles 17:4 --

But sought to the [LORD] God of his father, and walked in his commandments, and not after the doings of Israel. (KJV)

but sought the God of his father and followed his commands rather than the practices of Israel. (NIV) ​

 

Why would the KJV men insert the word "LORD" before "God" in 2 Chronicles 17:4? The Hebrew word for Jehovah is not present (only the word Elohim, which is "God"). Did they think the antecedent was somehow unclear? Of course, the addition of "LORD" has no negative impact on the meaning of the verse.

 

Three more examples from the PDF list entitled "5,000 Documented Word Perversions in the NIV/TNIV" (a collation work based on comparison between the KJV, 1984 NIV, and 2005 TNIV) --

Acts 10:48 - the Lord (KJV), Jesus Christ (NIV), Jesus Christ (TNIV)
Acts 16:10 - the Lord (KJV), God (NIV), God (TNIV)
Acts 18:25 - the Lord (KJV), Jesus (NIV), Jesus (TNIV) ​

These differences represent true textual variants between the Greek texts underlying the translations. But should "God" rather than "the Lord", or "Jesus Christ" rather than "the Lord", really be considered 'perversions' in these contexts? (KJV) --

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:48)

And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them. (Acts 16:10)

This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. (Acts 18:25) ​

Just a few of the other similar criticisms include:

"Jesus" in the NIV/TNIV rather than the KJV's "the Lord Jesus" in 2 Corinthians 4:10 and Galatians 6:17;
"Christ" in the NIV/TNIV rather than the KJV's "the Lord" in Ephesians 5:29 and Philemon 20;
"God" in the NIV/TNIV rather than the KJV's "the Lord" in Colossians 3:16, 2 Timothy 2:14, and James 1:12;
"Jesus Christ" in the NIV/TNIV rather than the KJV's "Lord Jesus Christ" in 2 Timothy 4:1, Titus 1:4, and 2 John 3 ​

Are you offended by these 'perversions'?

 

In the section concerning the word "Lord" (190 entries in the PDF list) I have quickly determined for myself that more than 20 entries (10%, exhibited in the posts above) are not legitimate criticisms.

Next, the vast majority of the criticisms are a result of the difference between a primarily literal translation method (the KJV) and a primarily dynamic method (the NIV/TNIV). For example, the NIV/TNIV would in many places substitute a personal pronoun (like "he" or "him") rather than closely repeat in the same verse a proper noun (like "Lord"). The PDF lists at least 10 times where the NIV/TNIV has used the (dynamic) word "temple" rather than the more literal KJV rendering of "house of the Lord". These kind of differences are predictable and to be expected. Again, to me this does not seem to be problem (much less a 'perversion') given the known difference in translation methods.

Finally, there are some criticisms in the PDF list that result from actual textual differences. These are not unique to the NIV/TNIV; so, this is really a criticism of the underlying Hebrew or Greek texts.

I don't think that there are any really legitimate criticism left in the "Lord" section of the list (at least, I'm not inclined to expend any more effort to actually discover one if any actually exist among all these false accusations).