It is amazing to me how many people think that the Bible is English in origin. It is not, it comes to us from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The English language has changed over the centuries, and many words have become obsolete or changed meaning. For a list of these changes click here. Here is an example:
"Then said Iefus vnto them, My foule is veary heauie, euen vnto death: tarie yee here, and watch with me." Matthew 26:38 Geneva Bible 1602 edition
"  then saith he to them, `Exceedingly sorrowful is my soul--unto death; abide ye here, and watch with me." Youngs Literal Translation 1884
"Then he said to them, 'My soul is sorrowful to the point of death. Wait here and stay awake with me." New Jerusalem Bible 1985
When we translate from these ancient forms of these languages, one English word may not always suffice. For instance, the greek word "theotes" has a few different meanings, such as "divinity, godhead, deity, divine, godship". The translator will then take the meaning that best fits the context. This is where his beliefs/theology come into play. Looking at a certain scripture in different versions of the Bible usually gives us a more rounded view of the word in question.
Colossians 2:9
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." KJV
"For in Him all the fullness of the deity dwells in bodily form." NASB
"For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity." TEV
"For it is in him that the immensity of the Divine Wisdom corporately dwells." Schonfield
"Because in him resides al the fulfillment of the divine." Lattimore

These slight theological differences account for an extremely small portion of the Holy Bible. The main message of the Bible has not changed. I can show people the truth about God in the King James Version, the New World Translation, the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible or the ecumenical Good News Bible-TEV. In fact, these Bibles together would greatly complement each other in serious Bible study.In fact these are some of my favourite versions. You can throw in the New English Bible, Revised Standard Version, and my Interlinear Bibles. I also recommend the Revised English Bible, The Original New Testament by Hugh Schonfield, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, the American Standard Version and An American Translation by Smith&Goodspeed and you have a great set of Bibles.
"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the Bible who are trying to appreciate to learn the Hebrew or Greek languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or 'gloss' translation, especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG, DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, Bible Translations and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie [emphasis his]
"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages. we suggest either a very literal version like NAS, NWT, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version [Kingdom {Interlinear Translation}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your Bible Wisely, Duthie

Are these differences Trinitarian in nature? Yes, alot of them are. The Trinity is a post- scriptural theory/doctrine that many use to explain God. These were formulated thru a series of creeds starting 300 years after Christ. This doctrine has done more to damage scriptural integrity than any other. This is evidenced early on by adding scriptures and substituting words like the Comma Johanneum(Johannine Comma) at 1 John 5:7. You will notice that most modern Bibles have removed this spurious insertion. That is where a well placed footnote will clear up the error, like the one in the King James Version-Ryrie Study Bible, where it says these words, "are not in any Greek manuscript, only in later Latin manuscripts."
   Bruce Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament- Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration" gives us this interesting statement: "Jesus' statement, 'But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only' (Matt. xxiv. 36 and Mark xiii. 32), was unacceptable to scribes who could not reconcile Jesus ignorance with his divinity, and who saved the situation by simply omitting the phrase OUDE O UIOS[nor the Son]." p.202
   In Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words under the heading "Cross" it goes on to say, "By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had oether departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches aprt from regeneration by faith, and were permitted to regain their pagan signs and symbols." I sincerely believe that the doctrine of the trinity is one many beliefs carried over. It is widely known that the ante-Nicene Fathers were heavily influenced by greek(platonic) philosophy. Plato's trinity consisted of 1. The ONE 2. The IDEA 3. The SPIRIT. This closely resembles the trinity of the mainstream churches where it is the The FATHER, The WORD and the HOLY SPIRIT. There is another similarity. The ONE in Plato's trinity was nameless...so is the FATHER in christendom's trinity. Which leads to my next point.....

Is God really called LORD or GOD? In the Bible there is one name used that is used more often than any other name...and it has been removed in most Bibles. This name is represented by four hebrew letters, YHWH or JHVH and is either translated Jehovah or Yahweh.  The removal of this name has helped the doctrine of the Trinity as it has blurred the lines between Father and Son. As one of my critics puts it, "After all, with the 'Lord' in both testaments, it  would be impossible to separate them as two persons, one who is God, and one  who is 'a' god, as the Watchtower Society has attempted to do."

So if we read aloud passages like Psalms 110:1, "The LORD said unto my Lord"(KJV), it sounds like God is talking to a part of himself. But if it is translated correctly, like the Darby translation, it makes better sense, "Jehovah said unto my Lord"
"One of the proper names for God, perhaps the better known one, should be used to translate 'YHWH' throughout the OT; but most especially in Ex. 3:14-5 [NEB]; 6:3 'By my name Jehovah' [KJV, NEB]; 1 Ki. 18:39 'Jehovah, he is God.'-which hardly even makes sense without the actual name; similarly, Ex. 5:2; Gen. 31:49-50; Lev. 24:16; 2 Ki. 2:24; 5:11; Ps. 83:18 [KJV]; 110:1; Ex. 34:6 [NEB]. [Osborn, Name] Gen.15:2; 1Sam.15:21, 30; 2 Sam.7:18,19,20,28; Ps. 68:20 could then have 'Lord Jehovah'.
  But, in place of the actual name, 'the LORD' [all in capital letters] is substituted in most Bible versions in English [KJV, RV, FEN, GOS, RSV, NBV, NAB, GNB, NAS, NIV, RAV, REB, NRS, CEV], even though capital letters are obviously inaudible when read aloud [and giving a misleading impression of emphasis]. " p. 90, How to Choose a Bible Wisely by Alan S. Duthie

And then there is the integrity of the Translator. Because of not agreeing with the inspired words at Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, the translator of the Living Bible(Taylor) added the footnote: "These statements  are Solomon's discouraged opinion, and do not reflect a knowledge of God's
truth on these points!" This same Bible goes on to say correctly at 2 Timothy 3:16, "The whole Bible was given to us by inspiration from God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives." Taylor's disgusting comment has contradicted his own rendition of the latter scripture.
New Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV has this to say about the book of Daniel in the foreword: "The author was a pious Jew living under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, 167-164 B.C. To encourage his suffering believers he tell six stories...." The paragraph before this lumps the book of Daniel in with pseudepigraphal books. Contrast this with Daniel 7:1, "In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream and told the sum of the matters." ASV
What they are basically saying is that Daniel was written by an imposter, and by doing this they are echoing the anti-Christian philosopher Porphyry who theorized that someone took past events and made them appear to be prophecies. The genuineness of the book of Daniel was not seriously questioned, however, from that day until the "Higher Criticism" in the early part of the 18th century. Jesus Christ's own acceptance of Daniel's prophecy is an even more significant evidence of its authenticity.-Mt 24:15; Da 11:31.
The Five Gospels/Funk&Hoover has this to say about Mark 13:32, "most Fellows were dubious that Jesus was responsible for the present wording." The Fellows mentioned here are The Jesus Seminar who voted on which parts of the Bible were actually true.
Another Example: J.B. Phillips goes even further by changing the text meaning and then adding,
 "I felt bound to conclude that we have here either a slip of the pen on Paul's part or a textual corruption, and I have therefore been bold enough to alter the verse in order to make good sense." Footnote 1Corinthians 14:22 What Arrogance!! Speaking of arrogance......

From the "What were they thinking Files"

I really enjoy the New Testament by the late Richmond Lattimore, but I really have to question the use of a photograph on the cover of a cadaver entitled, "Man Beaten to Death Photographed in the Morgue". The photo was taken by Andres Serrano of "Piss Christ" fame. This is the same person that adorns religious imagery with animal dung. The publishers of this edition showed poor taste and a lack of respect for a great work by a greek classicist, and it is an even bigger insult to the author of the inspired word.
The Book of Daniel is another that is constantly under attack by translators, publishers, editors of certain Bible translations also. "The author was a pious Jew living under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, 167-164 B.C." NRSV-New Oxford Annotated Bible see also New American Bible. Who started this rumor? It was the philosopher Porphyry who hated Christians and wrote 15 books against them[in fact early writers such as Eusebius and Jerome wrote works against Porphyry]. He misunderstood Daniel's last vision as pertaining to the Syrian King Antiochus IV Epiphanes,  and so could not accept it as history written in advance by inspiration, but looked on it as a history written after it happened. Hence Porphyry viewed the author of the book of Daniel as a fraud. If early translators like Jerome condemned this man [as did the Council of Ephesus in 451 C.E.], then why is it that many modern translators embrace this theory from a man who hated God. Easton's Bible Dictionary says:

"The genuineness of this book has been much disputed, but the arguments in its favour fully establish its claims. (1.) We have the testimony of Christ (Matthew 24:15; 25:31; 26:64) and his apostles (1 Corinthians 6:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:3) for its authority; and (2) the important testimony of Ezekiel (14:14, 20; 28:3). (3.) The character and records of the book are also entirely in harmony with the times and circumstances in which the author lived. (4.) The linguistic character of the book is, moreover, just such as might be expected. Certain portions (Daniel 2:4; 7) are written in the Chaldee language; and the portions written in Hebrew are in a style and form having a close affinity with the later books of the Old Testament, especially with that of Ezra. The writer is familiar both with the Hebrew and the Chaldee, passing from the one to the other just as his subject required. This is in strict accordance with the position of the author and of the people for whom his book was written. That Daniel is the writer of this book is also testified to in the book itself (7:1, 28; 8:2; 9:2; 10:1, 2; 12:4, 5)." see also an excellent commentary on this in the Wycliffe Bible Commentary and the book Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy by the WTS.

Why The Bible?

• The Bible is the oldest religious book
• It is the number 1 bestseller
• It carries the same theme thru each of its 66 books
• It has uncharacteristic candor unheard of for its time
• It is archaeologically sound
• It's prophecies are true
• It said the world was round long before Galileo(Isaiah 40:22)
• It is the most opposed book in all history