Well, I do know this: I'm the type of person who reads the introduction to the various translations. Some were done by single-denomination translators.
The King James Version was done with the best manuscripts available at that time, but there are more manuscripts to work from now than there were then. The language is also archaic, while it was perfectly understandable to the reader of the time, much of the language has actually changed, such as the meanings of words used.
For example, one of the most common misunderstood words is "vanity", as used in Lamentations. Nowadays, everybody uses the word to mean "narcissism", but back then, it was used to mean "the state of being in vain". This has caused much confusion among new readers of the Bible.
Many scholars who have learned Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic try to give their own interpretations, but again, they do so from an agenda. Bart D. Ehrman is one who comes to mind. I think it's egotistical to say, "I'm the only one who got it right."
The New International Version was translated by a committee of hundreds of translators from multiple denominations. It is not afraid to admit that there are alternative ways certain verses could be translated, and includes those translations in the footnotes. It also lets the reader know that some verses may not have been in the original texts, though it still includes them, too.
Caption this Meme
