What version of the Bible is closest to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts?

The Holy Scriptures, especially the Gospels, had enemies from the beginning (Matthew 27)

12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

So, even when apostle Matthew wrote - until this day - the enemies were a reality. Saint John Chrysostom mentioned in 4-th century, in his Homilies on Matthew:

For many sects have had birth, since their time, holding opinions opposed to their words; whereof some have received all that they have said, while some have cut off from the rest certain portions of their statements, and so retain them for themselves. But if there were any hostility in their statements, neither would the sects, who maintain the contrary part, have received all, but only so much as seemed to harmonize with themselves; nor would those, which have parted off a portion, be utterly refuted by that portion; so that the very fragments cannot be hid, but declare aloud their connection with the whole body. And like as if you should take any part from the side of an animal, even in that part you would find all the things out of which the whole is composed—nerves and veins, bones, arteries, and blood, and a sample, as one might say, of the whole lump—so likewise with regard to the Scriptures; in each portion of what is there stated, one may see the connection with the whole clearly appearing. Whereas, if they were in discord, neither could this have been pointed out, and the doctrine itself had long since been brought to nought: for every kingdom, says He, divided against itself shall not stand. But now even in this shines forth the might of the Spirit, namely, in that it prevailed on these men, engaged as they were in those things which are more necessary and very urgent, to take no hurt at all from these little matters.

This sad reality become more intense over the time. Lot of false prophets has mutilated the Scriptures, in books full with heresies, lies, fables, miss-interpretations, false-named as: "Gospel of Thomas", "Revelations of Abraham, Isaac, Iacov", "Psalms of Solomons", etc. The fathers of the early Church, guided by Holy Spirit, had ecumenic concils and states lot of canons to keep the church safe from heresies. One of the canons is the canon of Holy Bible which established the biblic books which we know today.

If these were the facts in early ages of the Christianity, what can we say today?
Since we have bible scholars, translators, historians, printers, computers, can we say that we succed to keep our books safe and clean?
Without have a tradition built upon keeping God's words alive this is not possible.
And this tradition is based on this principle: the apostles keep the God's words unchanged, the disciple of apostles keep the God's words unchanged, the disciples of disciples of apostles keep the God's words unchanged... and so on.
But how can we keep God's words unchanged?
By having super-printers and super-translators, super-scholar academies?
No.
Words of God are alive, and they will stay with us only if we work in our life these words.
Because these words are not letters to be printed on papers.
These words are semantics to be collected with hearts.
We can reach them only if we dedicate our life to them.
But from where we can take these words?
From our ancestors which had maintained this tradition: to practice God's words in their life.
The best examples we can find in the life of the martirs, parent of deserts, the askets, the monarchs, which run away from a secular life, only for God.

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26-27)

To conclude, having perfect translations of the Bible, is not so important.
Having a scholar community, doesn't help too much, because our modern minds became weak to keep the God's words. Our saturated minds became lazy, and hearts become hardened, excited by modern pleasures and confort and sins.
They cannot keep the spirit, cannot reach the semantics, just only the letters.

Salvation cannot be obtained by studying Bible, it comes from the practicing word of Bible (saint Gregory Palamas against heresy of Valaam).

Solution is to read our bibles, not exercising our modern minds, by giving our personal interpretations, or group interpretation.
We need to go back to the old texts, to early fathers of the Church, to catch their semantics, and their spirit, and to translate in personal actions of our life, not in discourses to the audience.
When we will read their interpretations we will be surprised that we, the moderns, are not so evolved comparing to them.
Actually we are much devolved, our "academic" semantics are too weak comparing with theirs.
Within one simple sequence we can see to them one or few heresies destroyed with few words.
By killing the heresies from our souls, one by one, we will reach to the semantics of life - ethernal life.
Because Holy Spirit, talk through them.

A practical exercise is to read again any Gospel of Matthew translation, following the interpretation of saint John Chrysostom, in his Homilies of Matthew: http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/522-chrysostom-homilies-matthew-link
And you'll be gladly amazed and suprised with the conviction that: the teaching of Holy Spirit cannot be changed or stopped.
Because this church:

the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

This is Orthodoxy.

There's even better sites for questions about Bible - hermeneutics.stackexchange.com; perhaps this questions should be migrated there. I have searched there and found a few related questions: "Which 'modern' English translation of the Bible is considered the 'closest' or most accurate translation?" and Why do different English translations differ on Matthew 24:36?

Being Czech, I don't know details about these English translations, but certain principles are the same for translations from Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic to any language.

First: you can't just take a dictionary and translate on "word to word" basis - you would lose idioms and reduce the original word to some nearest equivalent, which often doesn't cover the full meaning of the word in original language or add some connotations that were not in the original language. Some translations focus on the "literal" aspect and are closer to the "word to word" (while meaning of idioms is either recorded in footnotes or lost), while others emphasize meaning and often translate idioms by idiomatic meaning, not by the literal one. There are not binary states but poles, and every translation is somewhere in between. Off course, there are translations which don't pursue any of these two goals very well, but emphasize readability over accuracy. Anyway, lot of information is lost. Looking to versions in original languages is good, but unless you understand them quite well, it's easy to miss some meaning. Do it, read the original languages, but remember that no translation is the "correct" and "perfect" one. Every translation catched only a part of the whole meaning just because the languages are different.

Second: what ancient versions of Bible were taken into account? Even the original manuscripts were not exactly the same, they differed in details. Sometimes the copyists just made an unintentional mistake, sometimes they "corrected" something (usually thinking they're just removing a mistake made by previous copyist). For a long time (all Middle Ages, in Catholic Church even longer) all versions of Bible were translated from latin version, Vulgate. King James Bible was translated from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts known at that time. Since then many new manuscripts were found and Bible hermeneutics evolved a lot, so newer translations avoid some mistakes caused by KJV's sources. Today's standard is to use a broad scale of ancient texts, to compare them and to pick the version deemed to be most accurate (which may differ between different schools of Bible scholars).

Regina, I am most definitely a Biblical Perfectionst, but even I have to take issue with many of your claims.

One in particular is

"how can u have Bible versions like the NIV omitting entire verses from the 1611 KJV & as I said by doing that they have changed entirely what the verse or chapter was saying or meant??"

Faulty Premise #1: What you view as "ommitted" probably wasn't there in the first place.

The verses that have been "omitted" are ones that were clearly inserted after the inerrant autographs were created. You ask how they could be left out, I ask how did these get in there in the first place. The Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7, for example, illustrates a verse that can be shown to be an addition. The earliest manuscripts simply don't have it. When the Kjv was translated, this was not known. What I can tell you, however, is that i John 5:7 looks suspiciously like an explanation of 1 John 5:8. As such, just about every scholar who has examined this has came up with the same answer - a scribe accidentally incorporated a "gloss" - just like one of those notes in your Bible today - and made it look just like it was part of the Scripture. It was an innocent mistake, but it kept getting repeated. If we go back to the earliest manuscripts, it wasn't there.

Over time, scholarship can reconstruct autographs and show what was originally said. Scripture does add a woe to anyone who would add or subtract from His Scripture (or at least the Book of Revelation) but nowhere does it say that God will prevent man from sinning in this way.

The manuscripts of the KJV were, by all accounts, a translation of the Textus Receptus - the "received text," based on the library of manuscripts stored in the monasteries of the Byzantine empire. Over the course of 1500 years, scribes copied older manuscripts, and as they did, sometimes they accidently incorporated notes that were added in the margins, or else misspelled words. These are exceedingly minor variations but they are variations. These texts can be shown to have been copied from one another, and using a critical apparatus one can even see the history of these manuscripts.

The KJV was based on manuscripts available in 1611. We've found many more and many older manuscripts since then. In the 1800s, for example, Tischendorf stole found a manuscript in a monastery in the Sinai Peninsula that does back to about the 400s. We can see the (exceedingly minor) differences - but we can also see how the scribes messed up. There are clear things, like for instance, some of the changes you point out, that can be shown to be errors that crept into the text.

The question then, is whether you believe the original manuscripts to be inspired, or the 1611 translators.

Faulty Premise #2: The 1611 translators were perfect.

Man is an imperfect, fallen creature. Man makes mistakes. This is true both in copying (remember, the printing press was not around for the first 1453 years of Christianity!) and in translating. The question is, do you want to elevate a group of translators in the early 1600s to the status of God, or are you willing to accept that man is flawed?

If man is flawed, then he will always need to contend with change. Our vocabulary changes, our body of manuscripts change (and check out my question on how little that has happened!), and the rigor with which we approach things changes.

You will not find any reasonable doctrine that hinges on a particular manuscript. The witness of scripture is too broad for that. And, in any case, I don't worship the words in a Book, I worship the Word, who became flesh and dwelt among us.

I believe that Scripture was inspired, and that Paul, the Gospel Writers, the Prophets, etc... were divinely told what to write. I wholeheartedly believe that. But, I don't believe that God inspired the copyists or the scribes. I don't see anything in Scripture that prevents publishers from making mistakes (see, The Adulterer's Bible for instance.).

The question is - who did God inspire? The original authors (whose manuscripts we know differ in precisely the ways you point out) or the later translators? I find it hard to believe that God would only bless the English with his perfect Word.

I take the Scripture very, very seriously. I have read the Hebrew, I have read the Greek. (Ok, I have not read the Aramiaic in Daniel!). As far as translating the sense of Scripture into English goes, the KJV was good but not perfect. But then again, we all agree that anytime man is involved, he never is.

Faulty Premise #3: We still speak the same language that Shakespeare did

What's charity? I'm willing to bet that when I use that word, you are thinking about giving alms to poor people, or somehow giving something to people less fortunate than you. And yet, if you asked William Shakespeare, he would have said charity is that impulse of two people who love each other and desire the best for each other, stripped of all its lustful aspects.

That's why, if you read 1 Corinthians 13 in a KJV, it says that "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up." Modern day translations say "Love." Greek scholars read "Agape." The point is that our language changes, even if the original Scriptures do not. Are there etymological roots? Sure! But don't assume that our language is fixed, because its not!

Thee and Thou, in particular, were already relics by the time of the KJV - the translators wanted to preserve the formal and informal you, however, so they used it. (And, incidentally, Thou is informal saying that we should approach God as a Father and a close friend, not a formal King!)

Even 10 years ago, if you were on a facebook, it's because the cops had taken the time to put your face into a collection that witnesses could you to pick you out as a criminal. Language changes, and that's a large part of why the KJV may not be the best text for today.