Greetings,
The general answer to your question is “No, religions do not *usually* have their own translations.” Certainly different religions have their favorites and many times this is determined by the translation somehow supporting their theology.
But, outside of the Mormon’s revised bible by Joseph Smith and the Catholics adding the spurious Apocrapha most translations are limited by the original texts. Usually translations are so close that, excluding paraphrases, what version you use is the least concern. The meaning is usually clear when taken in context.
There are some Translations which are better than others in some or many aspects. But, no translation can make the claim of being the best in every way.
As a result of my personal research I can wholeheartedly recommend the New World Translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses as one of the best translations in existence. When they translated the NWT, their intent was to produce an accurate translation that correctly reflected the original Hebrew and Greek as close as possible and yet still be English.
Witnesses feel that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and are intensely interested in making sure that we understand what the original text really says. But, they will use almost any modern translations when they study with others.
Of course, all translation is interpretation. *Every* translation reflects the theological views of it's translators to one degree or the other. No translation is perfect and so each will have it's own faults. As Edgar Goodspeed said in his preface to his translation, "It has been truly said that any translation of a masterpiece must be a failure. . ."
Paraphrased versions (such as the NLT) are the worst followed by "dynamic equivalence" type versions (e.g., NIV). These translations tend to loose important details and add ideas that distort the original meaning. But, even literal versions cannot avoid some influence from the beliefs of the translators.
Some translations are "the best" when it comes to comfortable or ease of reading. Others are very hard for many to read but are best because the do not lose details of the original words. The NWT is in the latter class, but I'll take this over any other translation because it is the necessary result of a very literal translation. And if a person finds some wording hard to understand they can refer to a looser translation.
Outside of the NWT, I don't have a single favorite now but I like and recommend the Catholic NAB, the ASV and of course the KJV is still a better translation than most modern versions.
Perhaps I can mention a couple of examples that I use to determine how precise and accurate the translation is.
I like to check how the word EPIGNOSIS is translated at Rom.1:2. I want a literal translation that gives me the details so I want to see a difference between GNOSIS (knowledge: KJV) and EPIGNOSIS (accurate knowledge: NWT). If a version does not give me the particular nuance of the original prefix by using adjectives such as true, full, complete, higher, or correct then I inductively conclude it is not good for *my* use.
Another quick test I look for is how the present active infinitive AMARTANEIN at 1John 3:9 is rendered; is it "does not sin" (KJV) or "does not *practice* sin" (NWT, NIV)?
Robertson, who in his Word Pictures, explains it as follows: "Doeth no sin ([amartian ou poiei]). Linear present active indicative as in verse 4 like [amartanei] in verse 8. The child of God does not have the habit of sin."
This is important because giving the wrong translation can cause a contradiction in the Bible since John already has made it clear that Christians can sin (2:1).
There are many other examples I could give, but the basic fact is that I have found the New World Translation to be one of the best translations in existence.
People who claim that Witnesses needed to translate "our own bible" in order to support our beliefs are being misled. Most of JW's beliefs had been long established before the NWT ever came into existence and at that time they used the KJV and the ASV.
What I personally found over the years is that in every case where the NWT is criticized by so-called "scholars" it has usually proved to be accurate, and at the very least its rendering is solidly based on the laws of translation such as following the original grammar and word definitions.
That is why you mainly hear prejudicial comments and unsupported accusations against Witnesses by regular posters here. They know that when they raise a specific translation difference they will receive a scholarly response proving that the NWT translation is an accurate rendering of the original.
Yours,
BAR-ANERGES