As said before, there is no such thing as a perfect translation. Bias runs through all of them, and because the idioms, vocabulary, and culture behind two languages are always different, the translator must strike a compromise between literalness and readability. When Jesus says "I am the bread of life" in the Gospel of John, that's going to mean something very different to someone in rural Mexico where bread is an expensive luxury while tortillas are the basic staple. That is why some Mexican Spanish translations render the phrase as, "I am the tortilla of life," which is not literal but it gets the right point across. When the idioms and concepts are much more abstract, as they often are in the Bible (i.e. sin, love, forgiveness, spirit, repentence, justification, etc.), the problems become much more complex and one often has to make choices on what one believes are the original theological concepts in the work.
Then there is the problem of which text to translate. Because of its complex literary history, the Bible has thousands of manuscripts all different from each other. A textual critic can compare them and reconstruct what is likely the most original version of the text, but that in no way takes one back to the original autographs. In fact, in many cases there might never have been any one "original version," with different versions circulating concurrently of a single work. The author, in making multiple copies of a work to be published, might make a little change here a little correction there, so that none of the first manuscripts were identical with each other. Then, further additions and editorial changes may be made....the canonical Gospel of Mark in our Bibles is probably the third edition of the work (being an expunged version of Secret Mark, which itself was an expanded version of the Mark used by the authors of Matthew and Luke) and manuscripts of Mark have no less than four different endings to the book. The Gospel of John is also in a state of irretrievable disorder, with some chapters out of order, some chapters like ch. 8 and 21 added later to the book, and other more subtle changes. The problem is worse with the OT. The Hebrew Masoretic text that most Bibles use is separated by 1,000 to 1,500 years from the autographs, and it is substantially different from the older Septuagint (which is a Greek translation of an older Hebrew text) and the Hebrew versions of the Dead Sea Scrolls which date much closer to the time the OT was compiled. If you want to get a taste of what a different textual tradition is like for the OT, I would recommend the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, recently published.
I suspect tho that you are just interested in reading a Bible that is just different from the NWT, but scholarly, and I would also like to join with those recommending the New Jerusalem Bible (or the old Jerusalem Bible, which I still use for its wonderful references). The translation is scholarly and a little more idiomatic than literal, but its main strengths lie in its presentation, readability, and completeness. It puts verse numbers in the margins and is thus not constrained to present the text in arbitrary chapter blocks but as each book is literarily organized. Each subsection has headers stating the theme, and on a whole this is a boon for readability. So many times in reading the NWT, I would get bogged down in, say, Romans, wondering, "What is the main point? Where is this going?" as the work just seems to ramble on. But in the Jerusalem Bible, it is very easy to read along and see where the argument is going and what each of the points are that are being made. So I think its presentation greatly enhances comprehension. Also, it takes the liberty of rearranging verses that have become mixed up in the textual tradition, and this also helps in readability as the thought becomes more coherent (most translations just stick with the traditional verse order, even if it is wrong). I also like it because it includes the full Catholic canon, and thus contains all the Apocrypha not found in the NWT and Protestant translations. Finally, it renders the tetragrammaton with "Yahweh" which is more original to the text than "LORD," and not the less-accurate "Jehovah".
It is best, though, to have a library of translations to compare how others render a given passage, as well as commentaries to explain nuances in the Greek and Hebrew text.
