Each Bible translation committee had different goals in mind. One of the decisions someone had to make is how literal to make the translation. How would you want the ancient Hebrew or (somewhat ancient) Koine Greek word for (cooking) "pot" translated into English?
If the translators were translating literally, they might just use the word "pot." However, this means that the reader needs to understand what the word meant to the writer (who choose the word based on his understanding of his intended readers). If you were thinking of a modern day pot (made of metal), then you would have, to some degree, misunderstood a passage that discussed breaking a pot.
Perhaps the translators should instead translate the word into English as "clay pot." This is less literal and more dynamic. It helps a modern day reader have a better grasp of what the original writer meant, without having to know certain things about the writer's and intended readers' cultures.
The more literal, the more background is needed to understand what it meant to the writer (for his intended audience). The more dynamic the translation, the less background--however, that hinders seeing what words the original writer used.
Sometimes we have questions about a passage that require an examination of exactly what a word meant. When this happens a dynamic translation may very well not be useful--or even cause you to misunderstand something.
Sometimes we have questions that are only answered when we understand the meaning of the whole sentence (or paragraph), and breaking the passage into a word-for-word understanding leads one to an incorrect understanding of the passage (such as if an idiom was used).
I use several translations depending on what I am wondering about. The most literal is not a translation at all, but is the original language (which requires the most study for accurate understanding)
The most literal English translation I use is a combination of an interlinear Bible and the New American Standard Bible (NASB). The interlinear shows me exactly what words were used in the original manuscript (if I look up the meaning of each Greek word). The goal of the NASB translation team was to be relatively literal.
I like the New Living Translation (NLT) as my most dynamic translation (The Message is even more dynamic, but I personally don't care for it.)
In between the NASB and NLT is the New International Version (NIV), which has been a very popular translation (and my main Bible). (I only use the 1984 edition [for more than one reason]). The focus of the NIV translation committee was more along the lines of wanting to convey the meaning of sentences without abandoning literality.
I've glossed over a lot of things (such as the fact that there is more than one "original" Greek manuscript), but hopefully, this will make deciding on a translation easier.
0. Original language (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek)--the most literal
1. NASB
2. NIV
3. NLT
4. The Message--the most dynamic
There are other good translations, but I'm not including them because I don't know to what degree they are literal or dynamic. (Note that there are also some bad translations which should be avoided.)
To choose a translation, just read a couple paragraphs in a few places in each translation (the same passages in each translation) and see which you prefer. You might choose a Study Bible, which includes comments by the publisher to make some passages clearer. (Their comments are not mixed in with the actual Scriptures.)
If you want a deeper understanding than you are getting from reading, then seek the Lord for better understanding. If you want to know what other people's understanding has been, then you can look at commentaries (books) for that book of the Bible. Do not presume that a commentator's understanding is the correct understanding.
By the way, I would recommend the New King James Version (NKJV) over the KJV.
