I understand it that the AV authorised version r King James Version are direct translations from
Hebrew and Greek. The NIV however is a translation from Latin late 16th century Vulgate txts. The new inclusive language version of the NIV for instance is a translation from mans ideas and mans desire on how they think the scriptures should be interpreted.
Whoever told you that is a bald-faced liar. The NIV is translated directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It is a new translation that was not based on older translations. This is one reason for some differences in wording. In addition, different Greek versions were used for the NIV vs. the KJV. The Textus Receptus of the KJV actually has more Latin Vulgate in it than does the "critical text" used by the NIV, which is heavily influenced by the Alexandrian texts. The KJV Textus receptus is an inferior text, based on only 6 partial manuscripts, and it had several gaps, including in the New Testament. So Erasmus ended up back-translating some Latin Vulgate. There are complete non-critical texts that do tend to adhere to traditional interpretations, such as the Byzantine texts, but even the Alexandrian texts do not deviate far.
Actually, when the NIV came out in the 1980s the big problem that it was considered to have was that it was too "pro-Evangelical" in its "translation" choices. As its own organization states: "The purpose of the Committee shall be to prepare a contemporary English translation of the Bible as a collegiate endeavor of evangelical scholars" and membership was restricted to those "who are willing to subscribe to the following affirmation of faith: ‘The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and is therefore inerrant in the autographs’; or to the statements on Scripture in the Westminster Confession, the Belgic Confession, the New Hampshire Confession, or the creedal basis of the National Association of Evangelicals; or to some other comparable statement". Indeed, the NIV was originally rife with errors that creep in from attempting to pre-impose a specific Evangelical Protestant interpretation on Scripture. For example, Romans 3:25-26 has the Greek "dikaiosyne Theou", which means "righteousness of God". The NIV originally had "righteousness from God"--very different. It has since been corrected in later editions of the NIV. It also would translate a single Greek word as "traditions" or "teachings" depending on whether or not the word was used negatively or positively. If it is good, it is called "teachings", if it is bad, it is called "traditions". However the Greek word and intended Greek meaning is the same: Teachings = Traditions.
Many, but not all, of these outright translational falsifications have been corrected since the 1980s, which may not have set well with some people. Finally, the NIV did not have "gender neutral language" until 2011. Before then, there was a "TNIV" that used this, but the NIV as such did not.
But as masons been tolerant is one thing but there are things we should not tolerate, slavery, abuse in all it's forms, poverty, social injustices and distortion a of the truth (new translations) or deviations away from it or an embracing of things the the VOL deems as dark and speak against.
Your KJV is nothing but a "new translation" from the point of view of my Church. So, for that matter, would any Latin version be. Likewise, are you going to demand that lodges in Germany use the KJV? How about lodges in Italy, in Greece, in Russia? The Russians would look to their far more senior Slavonic and wonder why the new translation of the KJV is any better than the slightly more new translation of the NIV, and the Greeks? They can read the New Testament in the original Greek...