A lot of the difficulty in approaching the Bible is that we are unaware of just how much modernism and the Enlightenment affects our worldview, and the ancient world did not see the world that way. A good place to get an introduction to their worldview is Language of Creation by Mattieu Pageau or another book called The Unseen Realm by Michael Heiser.

I made the same mistake as yourself. Read from the beginning. To make it worse in 16th century english. This is a good resource, https://www.biblegateway.com/.

I enjoy the NWT translation, it's in modern English but also very true to the original text.

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/

It's also available in the JW Library app. Both are 100% free, no signups or membership, and makes reading so much easier and more enjoyable.

Be aware that the NWT is a translation produced by a single church, a single sect of Christianity. Those wanting to study the Bible as a literary exercise should consider a translation accepted by more than only one sect of Christianity. Another comment here suggests an interesting translation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30735352

It's important to compare translations and understand why they exist and where they differ. Books like "New Age Bible Versions" by G. A. Riplinger give insight into changes with modern versions like the NIV and NKJV that make deliberate alterations to the text. But even still, it's important to remeber that translations like the KJV has replaced words like "She'ol" and "Hades" with "hell", or even replacing the name of God with "God".

I personally find myself comparing the KJV with the original Greek as well as the pre-Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims when I want more insight into certain passages.

Commentaries also provide interesting insights. They typically cite the translations that were used as well so you can see how their conclusions were drawn

I agree that there is a huge difference between literal and dynamic translations of the text. That being said, I was recommended "New Age Bible Versions" before and was not impressed, I read through the first several chapters and compared the accusations to the other translations actual text and found most of them to be blatantly false. False as in, her charts said the other translations used words they did not use. I really enjoy the KJV also but do not consider other translations satanic like the Riplinger's book attempts to portray.

I'll have to look into that further. I wasn't aware of there being discrepancies between her book and the sources she used. I wonder if it's related to some of the newer translations being constantly updated. For example, the NKJV has been revised since it was originally printed. Here's a short example showing it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD_r3_aCvsw

Another book similar to Riplinger's is "Corruptions in the New King James Bible" by Jack Mundey. The writing style is a little enthusiastic, but the author compares several editions of various bibles, showing where and how they changed over time. Both Mundey and Riplinger draw the conclusion that the NKJV and NIV are deliberately changed to mislead people, and therefore are Satanic, though neither one makes any point about the KJV's edits themselves, such as the name of God or translations of "Hell" as I've mentioned earlier.

I guess my conclusion from reading different literal translations is that most of them do not deviate significantly from each other. Personally, I haven't really found any significant differences that would change a person's understanding on who Jesus was and what He taught, contrary to the point "New Age Bible Versions" is trying to make. Comparing single words or phrases between translations is not an effective way to demonstrate that the meaning as a whole has changed. Reading the NKJV, I feel the same need to honor Jesus Christ both as Lord and Savior and obey His teachings. In the end, we need to hear what we read and obey it. https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-19.htm

Overall, I agree with this. Though there are some interesting cases that people bring up around certain translations, like certain translations referring to Joseph as Jesus's father, calling Jesus the "morning star", and ones that lend themselves more to the Trinity being real versus it not existing. Those cases are more interesting as deeper knowledge and whose debates shed a lot of insight on the history of the Bible and its translations. But overall, the teachings of Jesus and His disciples are not often debated between versions since they do not change significantly, as you've noted.

The only translation of the bible that I can tolerate is the "plain english" translation. Otherwise it's just too cryptic and give me a headache

Do you also read commentaries or study guides? They can help with grokking some of the more difficult parts of the text

For the benefit of other readers, as is mentioned elsewhere the NWT is a translation which amongst Christians is only accepted by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Mainly because they produced it.

It's actually reasonably readable but there are differences in meanings due to the decisions of the translators. This is true with all translations, so not a direct criticism, but the NWT tends to differ on areas where the JW belief system itself differs from the mainstream. So personally I'd suggest avoiding it as it will give the new reader a very exclusive perspective on the faith.

I've commented elsewhere (in this same discussion), but it was a long one so in summary here's my own perspective on the order: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30745865

1. Luke and Acts 2. Genesis and Exodus 3. (1 and 2) Samuel and (1 and 2) Kings

There are lots of answers to this question floating around the thread. Maybe mine will be helpful:

First of all, so much of the Bible references and builds on itself that it's a battle to establish the initial framework of knowledge so you can try to fill everything in.

The most important question of Christianity is, as Jesus put it, "who do you say that I am?" Start working on this with a Gospel (either Mark, more focused on a clear message; of Luke, more of a detailed narrative). (Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, so the perspective isn't as helpful, and John is just different in ways that make it better saved for later.) After this, read Acts, which finishes the story begun by the gospels. If you pick Luke, then you have the advantage that Luke and Acts have the same author.

Read Genesis. There's so much to unpack in this huge book. Jordan Peterson released lectures on many stories of Genesis as early podcasts of his; they do a good job of presenting the stories in the modern day, and are probably his best work, far better than recent work.)

Exodus. It is narrative and explains God's relationship with the Jewish people.

If you want to keep digging into that story, you could go next to Joshua and Judges. But I recommend next reading 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. They're the story of David, who is the archetype of a God-fearing, yet only human, Jew.

As to a "proper" way: slowly, carefully, repeatedly, with humility, and with help.

I tried the same, gave up after Lot's daughters got their father drunk and raped him.

The bible is the story of Israel, the life of Jesus, and the birth of the new testament church. It is history, teaching, prophecy and songs. The penny dropped for me many years ago that because it says it in the bible doesn't mean God is happy about it. Just as I am not happy about my own mistakes or many of the goings on in the world today.

p0d's comment is right - much of the Old Testament is an illustration of fallen human nature. It's a stumbling walk towards redemption. The characters of the OT do not always act heroically. In fact the point is largely that they do not - that they need to be saved somehow. How that happens is described in the New Testament.