The king James Version of the bible is the one of the best. Over 200 scholars were hired to work together and produce a translation that is very close to the original language. This does not mean that other translations are not worth reading. In fact it is recommended that anyone who reads the bible should compare the different translations to get a more rounded understanding of the texts. But for the critical eye the KJV continues to show itself as a sound translation. However, it is in the old kings language and as such is not an easy read for the 21st century man . I recommend you search the internet and compare translations until you find one that is understandable and easy to read.
If you have any more questions about theology I would be happy to correspond futher.
Mike

Hi I would read the living bible.
Paraphrased version,
It doesn't have all the thys and tho's in it ,its easier to understand.
But mose bible say pretty much the same thing..
We have a least 6 diffrent ones floating around home here...and we refer one to others...
Also ,there is the NIV...study bible ,which also explains ...what things said in the bible..means

I would recommend studying the bible with other people so you can talk about it. It is a great book but it wasn't written for the layman, in truth. Many people who simply read the bible and think they understand it don't. You run into a lot of problems that way.

Yes there are many different 'versions' of biblical texts, but the most traditional, the oldest and most exact is the Douay Rheims. It is derectly translated from the latin vulgate of st. Jerome and is the bible used in catholic churches for over 600 years. It was written in 1582 and revised about a hundred years later too a more normal english tone. One might ask why whould you read from a old style of the bible when you got a more modern sence of text. well 1.it seems more prayer full too read and 2. you arent stupid. If in latin st jerome wrote 'et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam'. the derect translation would be 'and gates hell not shall prevail against it'.(thats how it whould be before it was edited into more nautral english. It now reads as it has for 600 years 'and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' while the modern cold version of the NAB sais 'and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it'. The new king james reads 'and the gates of HADES shall not prevail against it'. While the NIV reads ' and the gates of hades will not overcome it'. AS you can see the most exact translation is the Douay Rheims

Manuscript Production
Every book written by hand on flexible material and intended to be placed in a library is called a manuscript. We must therefore set aside from the study of manuscripts (1) books graven on stone or brick (Library of Assurbanipal at Ninive; graven documents discovered at Cnossus or Phæstos in Crete); (2) all public acts (diplomas, charters, etc.), the study of which constitutes the object of diplomatics. Manuscripts have been composed from the most remote antiquity (Egyptian papyri of the memphite epoch) down to the period of the invention of printing. However, Greek manuscripts were still copied until the end of the sixteenth century, and in the monasteries of the East (Mount Athos, Syria, Mesopotamia, etc.), the copying of manuscripts continued well into the nineteenth century. On the other hand the most recent Western manuscripts date from the last years of the fifteenth century.
Unfortunately, except for the Egyptian papyri, none of the works copied in ancient times has come down to us, and our oldest manuscripts date only from the beginning of the fourth century. The copyists of this century, several of whom were Christian priests, seem to have displayed great activity
The most ancient and the most precious manuscripts of our collection date from this period; Biblical manuscripts: Codex Sinaiticus, a Greek fourth century manuscript discovered by Tischendorf at the monastery of St. Catherine of Sinai (1844-59), now at St. Petersburg; Codex Alexandrinus, a Greek Bible executed at Alexandria in the beginning of the fifth century, now in the British Museum; Codex Ephræmi Rescriptus,

Q: Which manuscripts are in general the most reliable?
A: All of the manuscripts have basically the same words, with a difference of only 2.6% (about 3,523 words). However, some Christian scholars energetically debate the differences in this 2.6%, with primarily three different views.
The Alexandrian manuscripts are the earliest and some think the most reliable (except for John 6:53-8:11). Aland et al. the NIV translators, and a majority of scholars today hold to this view. A church father named Origen extensively studied many Bible texts we do not have available today, and his work undoubtedly influenced the Alexandrian manuscript family. Besides many later manuscripts written on common papyri, two early manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, were written on expensive vellum (deer hide). These were apparently "official copies"; Constantine ordered to be written just after Christianity was legalized. These go back to about 325-350 A.D.
The Byzantine manuscripts some think are most reliable. In the east, manuscripts being written gradually "standardized", and there are 1,100 manuscripts of the Byzantine Lectionary. This viewpoint is growing among scholars, as the manuscripts typically agree with quotes from John Chrysostom, which takes this tradition back to 407 A.D. For large changes there are least 54-word modifications between the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscript families and 577 words absent in the Alexandrian and present in the Byzantine. This about 0.5% (631 words). In other words, 20% of all text variations are due to Alexandrian vs. Byzantine issues.
The Textus Receptus (TR), also called the Received Text, some think is the most reliable. In the West, manuscripts being written became more and more standardized. This Latin standard is called "the textus receptus". The King James Version follows the Textus Receptus, except that it adds 1 John 5:7-8. Jay P. Green, Sr. primarily uses the Textus Receptus in his a Greek/Hebrew to English parallel Bible.
Bible Query - NT Manuscripts
July 2001 version. Copyright (c) Christian Debater(r) 1998-2001. All rights reserved except as given in the copyright notice.

The use of the new KJV (in conjunction with a course in ancient Greek) is probably as accurate as one can come to seeing what the apostles were saying. The English translation is problematic, in that the use of single words (with multiple definitions) will force reference to the Greek for nuances in meanings.

I am in agreement with Mike about the original King James version as being the closest to the original Greek, but I do not recommend reading the other versions as did Mike, because the other versions leave out words and insert new words. example; I can't recall which version changed words in the sixteenth verse of chapter two of Galations. The King James version reads like so; Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith "of" Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith "of" Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. The two "of"'s were changed to the word "in", which makes the verse read like it is our faith that justifies us and not Jesus's faith. I am assuming the translaters were of the belief that their works saves them eternally. So if you explore the other versions, be careful to compare them to the King James to see if they changed the meaning of the verse. I stick with the original King James version so I don't have to keep a close watch for infractions.