What is the best Bible translation by which I can speak proper English if I read it enough times? [closed]

All those versions you mention will be well edited to purposefully follow a particular language pattern, so they will all be 'grammatical' with a particular stylistic bent. The

• The King James Version (KJV) is a classic of Early Modern English, intentionally artistic prose. Many of its phrasings have become idioms of current English. It is a good model for very educated but out of date speech.

• New International Version is the result of lots of study and modernization to 20th c idiomatic English. They try not to be clunky but they also try not to have too much purple prose or awkward, obscure wordings (to modern ears) like KJV has.

• Good News Bible is intentionally written to be easy reading (closest to colloquial English, not exactly Basic English but 8th grade reading level).

As to which sect a version appeals to or is intended for, that is a (somewhat) non-linguistic issue that can be derived from their introductions or wikipedia.

So you have to balance what you want to get out of your reading. To overly simplify things, if you want facility with simple native English, GNB is probably the best. But most Bible study people wouldn't recognize quotes from this. If you want good educated English and be able to communicate with other religious people about with quotes, then NIV is probably the best.

I can't judge the rest (low familiarity). All religious texts tend to have a secularist agenda behind them (even those that come from some committee from different sects). So if dogma matters, then choose according to that. If language learning matters, then choose by appropriate reading level. Good News or The Message for intermediate language learners, NIV for later.

To your actual original question "Is there a webpage ... with a lot of different Bible translations and discusses the weakness of the ... translation...?" the answer is "Yes if you ignore "discusses the weaknesses". There are two big sites with side-by-side translations:

http://www.biblestudytools.com

http://www.biblegateway.com

and (probably others). These sites do as much as is reasonable for what you are asking. They don't judge the weaknesses directly (say "NKJV says 'I plight you my troth', and The Message says 'I owe you big time' and X is better because 'big time' is not what the Greek or Hebrew meant/WTH is 'troth'"). That would be too judgmental and sectarian and push away a lot of readers. They do have general commentary though on each verse, which will include a lot of what you actually want.

I wouldn't be surprised, however, if someone has done a line by line translation comparison (of one book or chapter) for their seminary degree that emphasizes the linguistic comparison (for varieties/dialects/registers of English language), but that probably isn't a big sell at the book stores; people just want to know what it all means.

Bible translations are controversial. The AV has been so influential in English culture that its presence in our language seems ineradicable. The same is true with Shakespeare. Almost every line of Julius Caesar seems familiar to us, because it is so widely quoted.

'The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones.'

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2796883-the-tragedie-of-ivlivs-c-sar

When translators try to 'modernize' the bible, it doesn't seem so 'biblical' anymore. There was a translation that came out in the late 19th century (the English Revised Version, or E.R.V.) that is supposed to be pretty good.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

'The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak' is a classic and familiar line, but a bad translation, because nobody ever used English words such as 'sprit' and 'flesh' that way aside from in the bible itself or in allusions to that usage.

There is a tension between Dynamic and Formal equivalence. Dynamic equivalence attempts to be more faithful to the target language (here, English) at the risk of playing fast-and-loose with the source language (Greek, Hebrew).

Formal equivalence approach tends to emphasize fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structure of the original language, whereas dynamic equivalence tends to employ a more natural rendering but with less literal accuracy.

According to Eugene Nida, dynamic equivalence, the term as he originally coined, is the "quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors." The desire is that the reader of both languages would understand the meanings of the text in a similar fashion.

In order to be closer to English syntax and rhythm, you are looking for extensive use of dynamic equivalence or a paraphrase.

The cited Wikipedia article lists many versions that use:

• primarily formal equivalence
• moderate use of dynamic equivalence
• extensive use of dynamic equivalence or paraphrase
• extensive use of paraphrase

It groups the versions rather than ranking them, which I think is a wise way to proceed.