I have heard so many thoughts and opinions on this matter. So many say that the King James is the only true WORD of GOD, and all else is not the full truth. To these people I say--the King James was not the first BIBLE! The Hebrews were the ones that wrote the Old Testament--under Divine Inspiration--and they used Hebrew to do it! Another thing, the Hebrew that they used is very obscure in today's world! Not many people know this dialect of Hebrew, so how do we actually know that the King James is the best? I myself have a King James, and it is painfully difficult to read through. I also own an NIV, NASB, NKJV, and Living BIBLE. I've used them all. Here's my opinion. It's does not really matter what version of the WORD of GOD you read. As long as you are trying to listen to HIM, the HOLY SPIRIT will help you understand what is meant! If you think that the King James people have a point, then get yourself a King James as well. I think that it is a good idea to read several versions and compare them. As long as they do not really change the truth of GOD's WORD. I believe it is fine. The Bible warns us about getting into arguments that really are not benficial and just usually end up with everyone thinking that they know all the answers. I really feel that this is one of those kinds of arguments. If you have any opinion on this matter at all. Don't be afraid to let me know.

I used to be strongly of mind that the KJV was the best and most accurate to use. In fact, all of my bibles are KJV, and I don't have any problems understanding them.  That being said, I feel SLIGHTLY less dedicated to the idea after spending several years as a saved Christian.  I know KJV had a lot of research put into it and was painstakingly put together, but I'm sure a few other versions were as well.

However, I do tend to get weary about what I read.  Many bible versions leave verses out.  Also, sometimes a single word can make quite the difference in interpretation.  Unfortunately, the only way for us to know what is most accurate is we ourselves learn Hebrew and the correct dialects.  As you said, I think we just need to be careful about what and how we read.  This is one reason it's so important to always pray before studying God's Word, and to ask Him for guidance and understanding. If one interpretation seems to be out of character with God, you should be concerned about what you are reading.

I don't see why any conflicts between versions of the bible are necessary. From my knowledge; an atheist mind you, the same important lessons and messages are still getting putting across just worded differently. 

I don't believe in God or Jesus, however I do believe that some of the messages being taught are important in our society. I feel all of these books are social policies put with analogies. You should alway love thy neighbour and think of others equally, no matter how you word it.

There are certain people who are dubbed "The KJV Only movement" and they claim loyalty to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.
Beyond the NKJV, other attempts have been made to make minimal updates to the KJV, only "modernizing" the archaic language, while using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These attempts are rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus. KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers.  I fall into that category  It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. However, any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God.
When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true in English. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people at that time. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change. The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking. Why should people who read English be forced to read the Bible in outdated/archaic English, while people of all other languages can read the Bible in modern/current forms of their languages?
A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations.
[Source - gotquestions.org]

After I posted this I felt I should just mention that I'm not at all against the KJV and I'm not "dissing" anyone using it.  It is after all one of the literal translations.  I personally use the NKJV because I find it a bit easier to read since my first language is not English.  

I personally feel that some translations are better than the others, and that some are not good or even heretical.

Case in point: the Joseph Smith Translation. Written by the founder of the Mormon's himself, from my understanding it is little more than the KJV of the time with certain changes that have some pretty impactful theological effect. Also, the New World Translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses goes the same way.

I'm also not a fan of heavily paraphrased "translations" of the Bible. Not necessarily because they are heretical like the above, but because it is a dangerous thing to read a version of the Bible that is more of a commentary than Bible itself. There is no way of knowing if a verse is what the original text says or what a person thinks it says or, even worse, WANTS it to say.

Literal (word-for-word) translations are nice and arguably the best, although if it gets taken too far then the wording might not make sense or a turn of phrase is missed. On a related note, of the average person, who would know what the phrase "gird up your loins" means if there wasn't a note explaining it in their Bible?

Then there are the dynamic (thought-for-thought) translations that give themselves a little more leeway in translating in order to make the translation more understandable. These are different from the paraphrase in that they usually keep the basic structure/wording of the original language and alter it only to better convey the meaning - such as "brothers and sisters" instead of the literal "brothers" or "people" instead of "men".

Personally, I like the idea of using multiple translations as a way to better understand a passage. You can get the literal phrasing of the passage from translations like the NASB or ESV and use something like the NIV, NLT, or - my favorite - NET.

I call the NET my favorite because it comes with 61,000 translator notes to help the reader understand the original language and understand conflicts in manuscripts and why the translator chose to translate the way they did. However, I try to balance that out by using the ESV as well.

To directly answer your question: I do not think that the translation a person uses is of much importance, unless it is one that has been altered to reflect the translator's personal beliefs. And I do not consider the KJV to be the only true bible translation, or even the best. It is a decent translation in its own right though.

I also like play4fun:'s explanation of this, that different translations offer different things to the table. Which is again why I like using multiple translations when doing serious study.

I'm guilty, yet I don't have the courage or the humility to admit it

i wish someone would love me unconditionally