I do not think it is true that NIV supports Replacement. Perhaps there were Calvinisitic covenantalists, but that is not Replacement and there would also be dispensationalists, etc. on the committee to negate bias.
LB, The Message, Good News, etc. were paraphrases.
NIV is a balance between formal and functional equivalence, but more to the functional side of the spectrum. It is more literal at times than so-called literal Bibles and the literal Bibles also mix in much functional equivalence and can be less literal at times. This is not paraphrasing, but a translation philosophy of emphasis on meaning or emphasis on form. Going from one language to another makes strict form impossible. All translations do what NIV does, but to a more or less degree. NIV is actually more in the middle (optimal equivalence like HCSB) trying to get the best of both. It is less so, obviously, than KJV, ESV, RSV, NASB, etc.
It is a myth that literal is always more accurate. It can be shown that being too literal can lead to wrong vs right meaning (being less literal can be more accurate). It is a case by case issue with grammar, idioms, etc.
Good arguments can be made for both sides, so it is wise to compare versions from each category and do original language work.
