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