Because my parents are Bible translators, I probably have a harder time understanding why anyone would deliberately choose to use a translation that is obtuse and hard to understand. It seems bizarre. Missionaries spend decades translating the Bible into foreign languages so that people in remote parts of the world can read God’s word in their own language. Yet here in America, I see people deliberately avoiding the use of modern English-language translations.

If the topic of English Bible versions is one you are interested in, here is a very active blog you might want to check out:
http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/

Here is a link to a chart on the International Bible society website that lines up English versions according to how literal they are (although it omits my personal favorite, the TEV):
http://www.ibs.org/bibles/translations/

As for “paraphrases,” I recently read the preface to The Message. I know lots of Christians really dislike The Message, but the preface was rather eye-opening when Peterson explained that his congregation just plain could not understand when when English bibles were read, and his work of a pastor for all those years had been basically to “translate” the scriptures into words that his congregation could actually understand.

I wish folks like the Gideons (a great organization) would pass out Bibles in a newer version, but as far as I know, their English bibles are KJV only.

BTW, if you read the Gullah translation out loud, you might be able understand a little of it!

I’m not qualified to say which is the best translation. I am skeptical, however, about the idea that certain modern translations use more reliable manuscripts. My limited understanding is that the manuscripts deemed to be older are supposedly more reliable. I just have a hard time with that, since some of these modern translations omit certain passages. But its all gravy. I read from all the translations except the paraphrases, which aren’t actual translations anyway.

Hey, Kenneth. Maybe you or someone would like to write an article dealing with the manuscripts…or not.

I use the KJV for personal study because I like the translation. It has familiarity and a poetic structure, which makes memorization easier (not that the is my primary goal at the moment). I also don’t think that tradition is a bad reason to use it. Yes, understanding of what is written should come first, but I think traditions in the church can be a good thing.

Not want what? Not want the shepherd? Not want the Lord?

Maybe if I memorize it, then it will make more sense.

Or MAYBE IF I SAY IT LOUDER, it will make more sense.

I’m not just making this example up. For many years when I was young, I did not understand what that verse meant. Yet what it means is not all that complicated. So why did I have to read it without understand it for so many years? Isn’t it better to put the message in words that are commonly understood? After all, it is an important message! A message for everyone–even children, even non-native speakers, even pagans–not just for those of us with degrees in biblical languages.

My sentiments exactly. A pastor friend of mine once said that the King James Version was written in a time when everyone was a wordsmith. There is just something about the way the language is used that communicates to me. Its sort of like reading another language because of the different way the words are used (and I don’t mean the archaic stuff). I understand it almost as clearly as I do any other translation. And the stuff I don’t understand, I compare with other translations to get a clearer picture, or I read my Baptist KJV Study Bible with footnotes and whatnot. I will say that the Old Testament part of the KJV is a lot more difficult passages than the New Testament.

That is exactly Kenneth’s point–it is a different language! It is not the language we speak. Yes, the language we now speak is a direct descendant of KJV English, but it is not the same.

http://forums.zealfortruth.org/viewtopic.php?p=66443#66443

Thainamu wrote:
I’m not just making this example up. For many years when I was young, I did not understand what that verse meant. Yet what it means is not all that complicated.

My criticism of you position is that it assumes the meaning of all passages of Scripture should just be obvious on a casual “lazy” reading. This isn’t true, and CAN’T be true because it is absolutely impossible to fully translate one language to another. You should know this having worked in Bible translation.

Many times, it is entirely impossible to entirely translate a meaning from the original languages to the target language without ending up with awkward word structures and abnormally precise terms. There is also the problem that when using a “modern” phraseology the meaning of the terms and currency of the usage shifts rapidly. A translation of the Bible into 80’s slang would be dated and confusing to readers even a decade later. Because language is a moving target, maintaining a “current” translation is impossible.

Worse, by translating “idea for idea” as opposed to “word for word”, you make it far harder to research the original meaning. With translations like the NASB and KJV, you can go look up the original word translated “justification”. This would be far harder in a modern translation that attempted to define justification in a natural way. Few modern translations will use a “modern” term for justification, even though almost no other modern English literature uses it. We use MANY “special” terms like this. There is a value to doing so though, in that it encourages additional research into the meaning and usage of these terms. The use of “archaic” language allows a level of precision not possible when attempting to match infrequently used terms to modern day expressions of the same idea (especially since these expressions change so rapidly).

In a sense, what I’m trying to say is that two “simple” a translation leaves the reader overly convinced they understand the original meaning, without doing the necessary research to confirm the accuracy of the translation (due to improper word choice or shifting meaning of words). The terms in the KJV have been the same for centuries, with detailed research into their meanings. We have Strong’s numbers which make it simple to determine the original word in Greek or Hebrew, and extensive commentaries that explain the intended meaning of words chosen.

So why did I have to read it without understand it for so many years?

Because you were too petty to ask someone? Is it your expectation as a translator that you will be able to translate the Bible so well that every native reader of the translation will be able to fully understand every sentence without any need for clarification? Might it be possible that some readers would need to ask assistance from other native readers in understanding a sentence, or that study might actually need to be done into the original languages in some points? Do you believe that this was possible even for native speakers of the original letters sent by the apostles? Sometimes one just has to humble themselves enough to ask for help.

Note that the “poetry” of the language is part of why “Shakespearian English” is admired today. It might not be clearly understandable, but it does have a pleasant sound to it to many modern speakers. Is it really so strange that those of us who HAVE a very complete understanding of the modern KJV would enjoy hearing it read aloud? Must all readers prefer a third grade reading level (like the excellent NCV) over an acoustically pleasing expression that requires experience to understand? I always find it strange that people clamoring for “more variety” in translations are often so completely hostile to those who want to include the KJV as part of that variety. Must we say, as the article does, that “the KJV is bad”? Or can we instead agree that it is appropriate in specific contexts, and that in others another translation is preferable?

If this viewpoint exists at all, it is extremely rare.

I considered mentioning manuscripts in my article. I decided against it because I’m not qualified to offer an informed opinion. My layman’s understanding is that the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, and that the only people who defend the primacy of the Textus Receptus today are the KJV-only people.

I agree, its not the same. I still like it. Its sort of an intellectual exercise to think about the English language from a different perspective by route of YE OLDE SCHOOL. But let me ask you a question, and I would like an honest answer: Do you think my use of the KJV in my articles has prevented you from understanding the scriptures presented? And anyone else can feel free to chime in on this. The reason I ask is because if this is the case I would consider using a different translation in future articles.

And Thainamu, how about an update on that missionary who was ill. Do you know whether his condition has improved? Please let me know.

What prompted me to write this article was Mark Cahill’s book One Thing You Can’t Do In Heaven. It’s a good book written in an easy-to-read colloquial style, but deeply flawed by his choice to use the KJV.

I wouldn’t say that your use of the KJV has prevented me from understanding, exactly. After all, I’m old, I grew up on the KJV, and I’m versed in translation theory. How I did react is with annoyance, I guess, or something like that. Don’t take this personally, because I don’t mean it as a personal attack, but I can’t even imagine why anyone would use the KJV in this context. We would expect that readers of ZFT could come from anywhere on the internet–so why use an archaic dialect of English that they would not likely be able to understand?

Or to take that thinking a step further, sometimes subcultures use a given variety or dialect to intentionally exclude non-members of the subculture. For instance, there are cultures where there exists a dialect only spoken by women, to keep the men out of certain conversations. Or a dialect spoken only by witch doctors, for the same reason, to protect the witch doctor priesthood.

Sometimes it feels like certain Christian subcultures are trying to preserve their own little space to the exclusion of others when they insist that only KJV (or some other) translation be used. I’m not accusing you of that, but I encourage you to make your writing as understandable to as wide a spectrum of readers as possible, especially here in an open forum on the internet.

Chris said, “And Thainamu, how about an update on that missionary who was ill. Do you know whether his condition has improved? Please let me know.”

His memorial service will be Friday at 7pm. I don’t expect this to be a sad service, however, as many will be there who praise God for his decades of wonderful service to God and his family. We continue to pray for strength for his frail wife.

Point well taken. I might go to the NKJV. That is a good middle ground. My next article will be KJV because its just about finished, but going forward I think I might change it. After all, I’m not writing for myself even though I do sort of enjoy it.

And I’ll be praying with you.

If you really don’t trust which ever English translation you happen to be reading, then why use it? You should instead study the biblical languages themselves. Or of you’re disinclined to do that, then at least use an interlinear along with the books you quote.

Atanamis also said, “Because you were too petty to ask someone? Is it your expectation as a translator that you will be able to translate the Bible so well that every native reader of the translation will be able to fully understand every sentence without any need for clarification? Might it be possible that some readers would need to ask assistance from other native readers in understanding a sentence, or that study might actually need to be done into the original languages in some points?”
No, I wasn’t too petty to ask, I was too young to know that the book wasn’t written in my language. Yes, yes, there are PLENTY of places in scripture that are hard to understand; why make it worse by obscuring the easy things by using archaic language as is the case in my example?

1

CHRIS AUSTERE: I am skeptical, however, about the idea that certain modern translations use more reliable manuscripts … Maybe you or someone would like to write an article dealing with the manuscripts

Here you go:

http://www.dyeager.org/articles/bibletranslations.php

It covers textual issues and compares the modern translations vs. KJV/NKJV and also compares literal vs paraphrase issues. Shows side-by-side renderings of various translations.

There are two issues in Bible Translation:

1. Which text you’re translating from.
2. How literal/paraphrased you translate it.

The KJV vs. NASB/NIV/NLT, et al is really an issue of Textus Receptus verses Westcott/Hort’s Alexandrian texts. Westcott/Hort edited the Greek text which had been used for centuries to come up with a new “scholarly” text. If memory serves, today it’s usually called Nestle/Ashland and forms the basis for most of the modern translations, save KJV/NKJV.

The Alexandrian texts are frequently called “the oldest and best” in Bible footnotes, but that’s quite in doubt. If you actually compare Westcott/Hort and Textus Receptus, you’ll find they differ in many places, some with bizarre implications. Jesus didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners (Mark 2:17). Call to what? Dinner? Football? … Westcott/Hort deleted “to repentance” in their text.

So the first issue you’ve got to deal with is which Greek text you use — the recent Alexandrian Westcott/Hort or the received Textus Receptus. After that, how literal do you translate.

The Bible translation discussion seems to bring out the most divisive behavior — some have said if you don’t use the KJV, you’re not saved - that’s absurd. On the other side, people who think the Bible is a jar of Prego “it’s all in there”, and edits/changes don’t matter much are equally wrong.

It’s important to understand ALL translations have problems — it’s simply impossible to translate Greek into English without issues. The question is, do you know how your translation was done, and why they chose what they did? Do you know the background of the people doing the translation?

Good English With Minimal Translation: Why Bethlehem Uses the ESV

Now let me say again that the NIV is the precious Word of God. Oh, how careful we must be not to belittle the Word of God. And yet we must not put any human translation above criticism. God has used the NIV to bring millions of people to faith in Christ. But at the same time I believe there have been negative effects that could be avoided. My biggest concern has to do with preaching. When a paraphrase becomes the standard preaching, reading, memorizing Bible of the church, preaching is weakened — robust expository exultation in the pulpit is made more difficult. Preaching that gives clear explanations and arguments from the wording of specific Biblical texts tends to be undermined when a Bible paraphrases instead of preserving the original wording on good English. And when that kind of preaching is undermined, the whole level of Christian thinking in the church goes down, and a Bible-saturated worldview is weakened, and the ability of the people — and even the pastors themselves-to root their thoughts and affections in firm Biblical ground diminishes.

Thainamu wrote:

No, I wasn’t too petty to ask, I was too young to know that the book wasn’t written in my language. Yes, yes, there are PLENTY of places in scripture that are hard to understand; why make it worse by obscuring the easy things by using archaic language as is the case in my example?

So you didn’t feel confused by it, you thought you knew what it meant and were wrong? Honestly, as a small child I read in the NCV, and am greatful I did. As I specified, I would never impose the KJV on anyone. That said, I think that it is ill advised to ignore word for word accuracy for solely idea for idea translating. This is why it is often advisable to use two translations, one for casual reading and another for more focussed study.

Did they delete it from their text, or was it never in the texts they translated from?

Bryan
SDG

My understanding is that it was not in the manuscripts they used. There are quite a few such occurrences. John 5:4, for instance, is totally absent from the NIV. Here’s how the verse reads in the King James:

“For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”

BRYAN:Did they delete it from their text, or was it never in the texts they translated from?

Westcott/Hort created a *Greek* text which forms the basis for many of the recent translations. It’s not a Greek->English issue, it’s the base Greek text manuscripts used — WH favored the Alexandrian text base over Textus Receptus for their compilation.

The article I wrote and referred to earlier goes into the detailed background on them and their Greek text, and has more examples.

If we continue down that road, the argument is going to get confusing and frustrating.

Let’s take away those symantics and look at it another way: Basically you have two types of bibles.
You have the bibles where the translators sat down and said “let’s translate this into english as accurately and beautifully as possible while allowing the original text’s ambiguity to show through.”
And then you have the bibles where the translators sat down and said “let’s write a bible that explains itself as you read it based on the doctrine we believe the original authors intended.”

I don’t think that the translators in the second group are evil, but i do think they are misguided. If they want to create sermons, they should do so without impersonating a bible. the New Living Translation and (more obviously) The Message fall into this catagory. I’m not sure the NIV falls into this catagory…I think it’s just a sloppy translation.

If we are blessed enough to have that privilege, we ought to read all of them.

I apologize for perhaps being too personal here, but in view of the state of the world, sometimes I weary of people arguing about which English translation is the best.

“thus for LOVES THE God THE SYSTEM AS-BESIDES THE SON THE ONLY-generated He-GIVES THAT EVERY THE one-BELIEVING INTO Him NO SHOULD-BE-beING-destroyED but MAY-Be-HAVING LIFE eonian.”

Now that’s a literal translation, which you probably recognize since it’s an extremely familiar verse.

“AND BESIDE-FALLING AGAIN TO-BE-UP-NEWizING INTO after-MIND UP-impallING to-selves THE SON OF-THE God AND BESIDE-SHOWizING.”

You’d have alot of difficulty saying which verse that is even after I’ve quoted it to you.

Notice how much interpretation even “literal” versions do:

(NASB) - “and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.”

(ESV) - “and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.”

It’s time to put the KJV to rest. Today’s English-speaking Christians should use a Bible in their own language.

Thainamu wrote

I wish folks like the Gideons (a great organization) would pass out Bibles in a newer version, but as far as I know, their English bibles are KJV only.

I apologize for perhaps being too personal here, but in view of the state of the world, sometimes I weary of people arguing about which English translation is the best.

Riiight, you’re weary of people badmouthing translations they don’t like. You’ve spent the entire discussion bashing one you don’t like (KJV), and then make the ignorant statement that all translations are equally valid. As a translator, you KNOW that’s not true. Words have meaning, and it we restrict our vocabulary to commonly used terms in modern slang, we reduce our ability to be precise with concision.

PREFACE TO THE NIV BIBLE

The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structures and constant regard for the contextual meaning of words.

A “word for word” translation requires a lot more knowledge of original language to read and understand, because the sentence and word structure takes a lot from the original language. The benefit is that it provides far better access to a deeper understanding of original meaning. I can put together an “Atanamis’s paraphrase” that summarizes the meaning of a passage to the best of my knowledge, but anything I might not recognize will be lost from the paraphrase. I guess if you believe all translators are divinely guided, I guess this might not be a problem. I’d really recommend reading the John Piper article I linked above for information about word for word vs idea for idea and the losses involved.

Honestly, I’m a little surprised to have to describe this to a translator. I’d think you’d be intimately familiar with these kinds of compromises and the relative advantages of each. Does Wycliffe not have detailed material and training on this issue? I would have thought you’d know more about the issue than anyone else here.

And then you have the bibles where the translators sat down and said “let’s write a bible that explains itself as you read it based on the doctrine we believe the original authors intended.” … the New Living Translation and (more obviously) The Message fall into this catagory.

That’s one of the reasons I’m not as happy with the NLT anymore. I do like the fact that they add phrases to explain what was implied to the original audience. I’m not an ancient Israelite so I’m not conversant with Israelite culture. It helps to have those cultural references spelled out explicitly in the text.

But too often the NLT goes further, and forces a particular interpretation of the text.

Atanamis said:

The benefit [of a more literal word-for-word translation] is that it provides far better access to a deeper understanding of original meaning.

It can do that if the audience is well educated and has access to Bible study resources. Wycliffe missionaries are usually translating the Bible for people groups who have minimal education and literacy, and no Bible study materials at all. In some languages, the newly translated Scriptures will be the only thing written in their own language. So the Wycliffe translators are generally a lot more open to a free (that is, not word-for-word) translation.

You might be surprised at the liberties taken when translating the New Testament. Basic phrases like “bread of life” aren’t always translated literally. In a culture where rice is the staple food and bread is only for special occasions, a literal translation of “bread of life” would communicate the wrong message. And that’s OK because “bread of life” is a figure of speech. It should be translated into an analogous figure of speech.

You might be surprised at the liberties taken when translating the New Testament. Basic phrases like “bread of life” aren’t always translated literally.

I have no complaint about using paraphrases to teach the basics of the faith. In fact, most people in US churches don’t learn the basics directly from a Bible, but from a teacher who “paraphrases” the passage for them to make it more readable. The sole criticism I have made in this thread is for those who believe that “the KJV is bad”, when in fact it and other “word for word” translations fulfill a useful if less common role as a “word for word” translation.

My sole argument throughout this thread is that “word for word” translations are useful for in depth study, something paraphrased make more difficult. I fully support someone making the decision that an easy to read translation is more important than a word for word accurate translation, but the idea that both are not useful and important in the long term is strange to me. Particularly hearing it from a translator, whom I would expect to best understand the differences (and to have clearly formed opinions on them). It is one thing to intentionally value readability over precise accuracy. It is another to not even admit the difference (”I’m not quite sure why people object to “idea for idea” translation.”). One might not AGREE with such objections, but to not even understand them? Unexpected.

Thaimamu, if ad hominem attacks are all you would like to make, then there is little value in your contributing anyway. Address the ideas or keep silent. You can call me names via PM if you’d like. Nobody here “objects” to “idea for idea”, but is is naive to pretend that the “idea” matching that any translator does is 100% accurate. Even if all Bible translators were renowned Bible scholars, this would still be a naive assumption. Why are you unwilling to admit that there is a place in the world for word to word translations? At some level, does doing so make you feel that your own contributions are reduced? This simply isn’t true! Proving ANY translation into a native language is a praiseworthy accomplishment. It doesn’t reduce that accomplishment in any way to admit that there is a place for both “idea for idea” as well as “word for word” translations. Why do you refuse to admit this? Do you honestly believe word for word accuracy is a completely worthless pursuit?

Darius, trolling across threads is even more immature than trolling within them. If you want to prove I’m wrong to call you immature, this isn’t the way to do so.

The debate about a word-for-word translation is interesting but orthogonal to my reasons for disliking the KJV. The KJV isn’t in the language we speak today. Whatever else it may be, it’s still a foreign language.

I like that game. It makes me feel smart. It also helps me develop my skills in “battle picking.”

The debate about a word-for-word translation is interesting but orthogonal to my reasons for disliking the KJV. The KJV isn’t in the language we speak today. Whatever else it may be, it’s still a foreign language.

Is this is the definition that Wycliff uses for “foreign languages”? If so, wouldn’t nearly every town need their very own translation? The words used are somewhat antiquated, but I have a FAR easier time reading the KJV than I would reading the original Greek and Hebrew. I don’t even own a KJV Bible at this point, but your harsh attacks on it are simply unwarranted. They are likely a response to the even more ridiculous “KJV only” position, but overreacting to an unreasonable position doesn’t make your position reasonable.

The cited article above by John Piper clearly stated that all translations of the Bible no matter how poor are infinitely valuable. Why is this idea so hard for you to admit? I never asked you to prefer the KJV, or even like it. I merely suggested that you admit it has a place. Why you and Thainamu have chosen to turn observation into a heated debate is bewildering to me.

Linguists have different ways to determine the difference between dialects and languages. The first step is to get a word list and check for similarities. If the words don’t match up at least 70% then you’re probably dealing with separate languages. Even if the word lists match up pretty closely, it might still be two different languages. The real test is whether people who speak one language/dialect will accept, understand, and use a translation into the other language/dialect. Sometimes that means taking into account social and political values as well as just the words and grammar.

I merely suggested that you admit it has a place.

I was waiting for someone to say that. Yes, I admit it has a place. That place is the rubbish bin!

Ha ha.

No, seriously, I believe it has a place. It can be used privately by those Christians who have grown up with it and who are familiar enough with the archaic language to understand it. It should be used by scholars as a historical reference document. It should not be used in church, it shouldn’t be the default translation for Gideon Bibles in hotels, it shouldn’t be used as the translation of choice in Christian books. It is not an appropriate choice for any place where the lost might hear it. The lost need to hear the gospel in a language they understand, not in archaic words of 400 years ago.

It’s not a sin to use the KJV instead of a newer translation. I’d rather people use the KJV than nothing. It’s just not very smart to use it when we have better options.

We aren’t actually talking about a living language (no vernacular argument) or a classic/original language (Elizabethan English is hardly this). It’s a translation that was made in a now dead language. That’s the only point the article seems to make and I fail to see how it’s a problem. It’s akin to what it would be like if the KJV-era had a previous bible written in Old English.

I guess it seems strange for me to agree with this, since I have used the KJV almost exclusively in my articles. But I think you are basically right. If our objective is to communicate truth, then we should take the route that best communicates. I mean, let us first speak the same language so that we have a basis for agreement.

My grandpa was a an ardent King James-only man. But he just liked to be argumentative. That’s neither here nor there, except to say that tradition is hard to part from. And some people will fight you over stuff like this and they really don’t know why. They just think they are supposed to.

Yeah, I guess so. But it is archaic by simple definition. Its not really a matter of opinion. I can read it and understand most of it perfectly, particularly the New Testament. But the real question is: does everyone understand it? The answer, of course, is no. I’m going to take a verse of scripture out of context that has a valuable application here. I will quote from the King James, of course.

“Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.”
(1 Corinthians 14:11)

11% KJV
6% ASV
28% RSV
28% ESV
37% NRSV
23% NASB95
68% NIV
40% HCSB
83% ISV

73% TNIV
59% NET
90% NLTse
88% TEV
94% CEV

To my mind, this study confirms what I have been claiming for several years, that a translation can be “essentially literal” while also being worded in high quality English.

The goal of a translator should be to maintain this “essentially literal” interpretation of meaning, while translating into a high quality of the target language. My problem with things like “The Message” has always been that a great deal of meaning changes in it when compared to other translations. My own Greek/Hebrew is too weak (non-existent) to determine whether it is the Message or all other versions which are in error. It in interesting to me that this particular study ranks the ESV so low, since I have never found it difficult to read. Perhaps my own ability to determine “quality English” is flawed.

1 Corinthians 14:11 (English Standard Version)

11but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.

1 Corinthians 14:11 (Contemporary English Version)

11But if I don’t understand the language that someone is using, we will be like foreigners to each other.

Hmm… I guess I’ll have to get myself one of each and do my own comparisons…

Excellent contribution to this thread. Keep up the good work!

How about this gurr8? We’ll try something that is apparently new to you, so try to respond. Could you address where exactly Atanamis was right? Come on, fool, for ONCE back up one of your snide remarks with more than hot air.

Recommendations
* If you want a clear, understandable, accurate Bible, useful for unchurched as well as churched audiences, adults as well as children, use the CEV. The NCV will also fit these audiences well.

* For those wishing to read from a version written in a higher social register (similar to higher reading level), with a more literary quality, the NJB, REB, and NAB are good choices.

* If you need a version which is appreciated by many conservatives, but want it to be as clear as possible, use the NLT. Otherwise, stick with the NIV. Its English is better than that of more form-oriented translations such as the NASB and NKJV.

* If it is important that you follow along with your church public readings or what your minister preaches from, use that version. If it does not meet your need for understanding, supplement it with a clearer version.

* If you need a translation based on the Received Text (RT), go with the NKJV. The English in each of the RT and MT versions is awkward, typical of all “literal” translations, but the NKJV seems to have the best English for this group.

* If your study or church Bible is from the literal or moderately literal group, supplement it with a more idiomatic version for comprehension.

* If your favorite Bible is idiomatic, supplement it with a more literal version when explicitly studying the Bible’s language forms, such as Hebrew poetry.

* If you are already content with the Bible you currently use, continue with it. But periodically ask yourself how well you understand it. If you find yourself frequently wondering what English phrases in it mean, consider reading an idiomatic version part of the time.

* I enjoy studying several versions to see how a passage is translated. I like using The Contemporary Parallel New Testament, edited by by John R. Kohlenberger, III. It contains the complete text of each of the following: King James Version · New American Standard Bible Updated Edition · New Century Version · Contemporary English Version · New International Version · New Living Translation · New King James Version · The Message

* Finally, the best translation is simply one that is well used and translated into life.

I think I’m going to go buy “The Contemporary Parallel New Testament” for study purposes, and a copy of the CEV and ESV to complement my copy of the NCV (currently my favorite “casual reading” translation). ESV seems to get a lot of respect for being “literal” while also being very readable (to me at least).

ESV Translation Philosophy:
http://www.gnpcb.org/page/esv.philosophy

Ouch, Catholic Bibles are both more literal and more readable than NIV?
http://www.sundayschoolresources.com/biblechoices.htm
(I like CEV for Matt 18:24, assuming it is accurate. Why anyone uses the word “talents” has always confused me. Using “dollars” is almost as bad, perhaps worse.)

And, for the opposition:
When literal is not accurate
http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/literal.htm

Note that while I fully agree with the above, I STILL think that a readable “transliteration” is useful in pointing out the use of idioms throughout Scripture. Nowhere have I claimed that such “word for word” translations should be someone’s first exposure to Scripture. The more I research, the more getting a CEV/ESV parallel Bible seems to make sense. One focuses on clear English, while the other tries to make the original idioms and structures accessible. Both are useful in a study Bible.