"The Jehovah's Witnesses are still adding to and changing the Bible."
The vast majority of Christians believe the Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult. Their New World Translation is not true to the original Scriptures, and the people that rendered it were not language scholars. In fact, many "real" scholars the Watchtower Society claims support the NWT have, in actuality, spoken out against it.
"King James of the King James Version fame had it reinterpreted."
I don't know about this. I haven't looked into it, but that's a another good reason to have many versions - so that no one can privately interpret the text. It's also handy to have a concordance.
"Mormons have their own bible."
Mormons (also believed by a majority of Christians to be a cult) have many texts, most of which were written by Joseph Smith. The LDS Church traditionally uses the King James Version Bible, though.
"Catholics only read a set cycle that repeats every five years of certain stories in their mass (I was Catholic so I know)."
I'm not too well versed in Roman Catholic orthopraxy (I am a Protestant). Could you please expound on that?
"The Bible has been changed throughout the history of Chrisitanity so although there are some parts that may still be accurate to the original texs, but there are many parts that are not."
Could you please list a few examples?
"By the way, the Catholic Church does not like the mention of the Dead Sea Scrolls as it speaks about Jesus in ways the hierarchy of the Church does not like."
As I said, I am a Protestant. One of the reasons for the Reformation was to escape what Renaissance Christians believed was a corrupt Church hierarchy.
"Let's also speak of the Apochryphal texts as well, things that were removed from the Bibles because human authors did not like them."
Catholicism and some Eastern denominations have their own deuterocanonical texts. Jews have never considered them authoritative and neither do Protestants. The "Apocryphal" books seem to conflict with the Bible on some issues, and although they may be fine for historical reference, we do not accept them as canon.
"The Bible has always been a document that is easily interpreted, by the way are we talking New or Old testament as the rules to follow and punishments that are handed out for breaking those rules vary widely between the two."
There are two forms of law in the Torah: moral law and ceremonial law. Christians believe that ceremonial law is no longer necessary because of Christ's ultimate sacrifice. Moral law, however, is how we believe God would like us to live - now and always. The reason the two Testaments appear to differ is because of their themes. The Old Testament's theme is justice. The New Testament's theme is mercy. And one thing we believers find wonderful about the Bible is that God is able to show His love and mercy without compromising His perfect justice. I hope this helps you understand.
"After all, anyone who eats fish on Fridays is going to hell right?"
Eh? lol No, no one is reprobate for eating fish. ~.^ I'm not familar with a passage that condemns people for doing so on the Sabbath. It was, however, forbidden to eat fish without scales (on account of the toxins).
