The first point I want to make is that one should never condemn a translation for its choice of textual basis. Many KJV-onlyists say that Bibles based heavily on Alexandrian texts (basically any major translation since 1880 except the NKJV) are corrupt and/or perverted. This is absurd. While I do lean towards traditional readings on textual variants, my views on textual criticism are not infallible, and neither is the Textus Receptus, the Greek text on which the KJV was based. The fact is that whether you use the Textus Receptus, or the Byzantine majority text, or a critical Alexandrian text, your Bible contains all you need to know pertaining to life and godliness. No textual choice alters doctrine or, to any notable extent, historical accuracy.
The second point I would like to make is that I believe more literal translations are better for serious Bible study than more dynamic translations. I do believe in verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture, which means that the Spirit led the authors not only in the thoughts to express, but guided the choice of words used as well, all without overriding the authors' natural style and voice. Because of this, I think that there are elements of Scripture which can be lost when translations become less literal. Now, I do not at all condemn dynamic translations, and indeed find them extremely useful for general reading(especially long narratives, ritual instruction, and laws in the Old Testament). However, I think for deep, serious study, a literal translation is far superior. After all, both Jesus and Paul made points based on elements of single words (Mark 12:26-27; Galatians 3:16).
So, now on to my opinions about individual translations.
King James Version (Authorized Version) - KJV/AV
Textual Basis: Masoretic Text w/ Septuagint influence (Old Testament); Textus Receptus (New Testament)
The Masoretic Text is pretty well the standard for Old Testament Hebrew, as there aren't really any other well-preserved options. The Septuagint readings, found in places such as Ps. 22:16, are also justified.
The Received Text is certainly not a corruption or perversion, but it does have many readings which simply are not original, many of which will not be found in any other Bible you read. Nevertheless, it is fairly close to the Majority Text, which gives it some further credibility.
Translation Type: Highly literal
The KJV is arguably one of the most literal translations of the Bible available. It ranks along with the NASB as suitable for word studies where it is required to be as close as possible to the original Hebrew and Greek. However, this compounds with other issues to hurt readability at times.
Names of God: El and Elohim are usually "God." YHWH is generally "Lord," though is written a few times as "Jehovah," and Adonai YHWH is "Lord God."
Readability: Slightly difficult
The KJV isn't exactly known for its readability. While it is not as hard as some (the only that comes to mind is Young's Literal Translation, which almost no one uses), it is harder than almost any other Bible you can buy today, primarily because speakers of modern English are not familiar with inflected verbs (-est, -eth, etc.) and old pronouns (thou, thy, thine, ye), and many words have changed in meaning. Nevertheless, while it can be difficult to become acquainted with unless you grew up with it, once understood it is very elegant. Many places where the original languages were written in a poetic prose appear with the same poetry originally intended, even though the flow is lacking from other translations.
Notable Features: The nuances of inflected verbs are valuable for study to anyone who knows how to use them. The use of "ye" as the plural of "you" is also helpful in distinguishing to whom a second person statement refers. Other such elements of early modern English abound. The lack of quotation marks, while seemingly a problem, is good for those who realize that the original manuscripts had no quotation marks, and therefore allows for interpretive opinions regarding the extent of some quotes.
Overall: The King James is a very good Bible, and was probably one of the best translations ever made for a single generation. However, since it is hundreds of years old, this benefit has worn, and there are many differences in contemporary language that make is seem somewhat unapproachable. Final thought: if you learn how to read it effectively, you will find it to be extremely close to reading in the original languages, though some textual discrepancies still exist. Just a thought: if you like old Bibles, I think the Geneva Bible is superior to the KJV.
New King James Version - NKJV
Textual Basis: Essentially same as KJV
Translation Type: Very literal
While the NKJV is still essentially a literal translation, it is slightly less literal than the KJV, making several of the changes used in most modern translations, such as changing historic present tense verbs to past tense and simplifying "Verily, verily" to "Most assuredly." Still, it is a very literal translation, and preserves much of the original syntax as the KJV does.
Names of God: Same as KJV, though no use of "Jehovah."
Readability: Average
By removing inflected verbs and old pronouns from the KJV, the NKJV is about on par with any other modern translation in readability. It is not especially readable, but it is certainly simple for the average English speaker.
Notable Features: Much of the poetry of the KJV remains, which is good. Pronouns referring to deity are capitalized (for example: "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...' So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Gen. 1:26-27). The introduction includes valuable textual information, and this continues throughout the Bible, as many notable textual variants are mentioned in the footnotes without charged phrases such as "The best manuscripts" or "The most reliable manuscripts."
Overall: The New King James Version is an excellent translation, easily one of the best. It maintains much of the good of the traditional King James, and one reading the NKJV could easily follow along with someone else using a KJV. The textual basis is good, if not the best.
New International Version - NIV
Textual Basis: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Masoretic Text (Old Testament); Novum Testamentum Graece: Nestle-Aland 27 (New Testament)
The NA27/USB4 Greek New Testament is a critical text that relies heavily on Alexandrian manuscripts. I personally do not believe it is as accurate at the Majority Text, but nevertheless I think it is still rather accurate, and probably better than the Textus Receptus.
Translation Type: Slightly dynamic
The NIV is certainly more dynamic than the KJV or NKJV, but it does remain relatively conservative in most verses. Some renderings are seemingly more dynamic than they need to be, and a few seem to have interpretive opinion where the original text is ambiguous. Still, it is probably middle of the spectrum, and therefore is fairly well-rounded for reading and studying.
Names of God: El and Elohim are usually "God." YHWH is consistently "Lord," and Adonai YHWH is "Sovereign Lord."
Readability: Fairly easy
Being somewhat dynamic, the NIV is a very smooth read most of the time, especially compared to the KJV. Some of the poetry of the KJV is absent, however. Still, the NIV is an easy-reading translation, which is probably why it is so incredibly popular. Every once in a while, though, the NIV takes an unexpectedly difficult rendering.
Notable Features: The NIV is gender-inclusive to an extent, which is not necessarily a good thing, but it is done in slight moderation, not being as radical as many other more dynamic translations. Many of the gender-neutral renderings are justified, though just as many are entirely unnecessary or even occasionally detrimental. Many traditional readings absent from the NA26 are dropped entirely from the text and relegated to a footnote, which is still better than not including them at all. Most other new translations are slightly more conservative with traditional readings.
Overall: I personally don't love the NIV, mainly for reasons of personal preference. I am not a fan of the dynamic renderings taken in many cases. However, I do believe the NIV is a good Bible, and its popularity makes it widely recognizable and useful. It was the herald of a new era filled with Bible translations that ordinary people can read and understand without a learning curve.
New American Standard Bible - NASB
Textual Basis: Same as NIV
One interesting issue I have with the NASB is its unswerving commitment to following the exact text of the NA26. There are certainly places where it is incorrect, and it is only wise to compare other textual bases.
Translation Type: Highly literal
The NASB is arguably the most literal of all modern translations, sometimes to a fault. Nonetheless, the precise faithfulness to the wording of the original texts is admirable and provides numerous study opportunities not available with less literal translations.
Names of God: Same as NKJV.
Readability: Somewhat difficult
The NASB is far more readable than the KJV, but lacks the poetry. The ulta-literal style of the translation makes it in many places one of the most awkward of the modern translations. It is still certainly readable by most English speakers, but don't expect much clarity or smooth flow. While I greatly admire this translation, it is far from a pleasure to read.
Notable Features: The very literal translation philosophy allows for extensive, in-depth study. In the introduction, helpful facts about Greek verb tenses are presented, and the historical present, which most translations simply convert to past tense, is past tense in the text but is marked each time. Most editions have the verse-per-line format instead of paragraphs.
Overall: The NASB is a very good Bible for serious study, but probably my last pick for reading, especially in the Old Testament. I would suggest using the NASB in conjunction with another translation to delve deeper into questions you find. If you feel scholarly, I'd say use it for everything.
New Living Translation - NLT
Textual Basis: Same as NIV
Not much to say about this beyond what I said for the NIV, but I will mention that the NLT seems just as quick as the NIV, if not more so, to relegate verses not in the NA27 to the footnotes.
Translation Type: Very dynamic
The NLT is a very dynamic translation. Indeed, the project began as a revision of the paraphrased Living Bible. While it does adopt many literal renderings, it is characterized by its use of dynamic renderings for clarity and easy reading. This makes it less useful for serious study, especially related to aspects of the original languages, and occasionally involves loose interpretative renderings, but it is very readable.
Names of God: Basically the same as NIV, but YHWH tseba’oth is "Lord of Heaven's Armies." Kurios, the Greek word for "Lord," is often rendered "Lord" when the NT quotes from an OT passage that has YHWH.
Readability: Very easy
The NLT is a very readable translation, as its translators specifically designed it to be so. In the introduction to the NLT, they write: "Clarity was a primary goal for the NLT translators, not only to facilitate private reading and understanding, but also to ensure that it would be excellent for public reading and make an immediate and powerful impact on any listener." Out of modern translations, the NLT is probably the closest you will get to a Bible that seems like a regular English book.
Notable Features: The NLT consistently goes out of its way to bring clarity to the reader. Weights, measures, and even money are all usually translated into modern American equivalents (I will say that, taking into account inflation and other economic factors, the decision to translate money that way was probably a bad idea). Dates are interpreted by the translators and written as full dates as they would be written for our calendar, though historical ambiguity can sometimes make this seem a bad idea.
Overall: I really like the style of the NLT. It is a pleasurable read, is easy to memorize, can bring extra clarity, and makes good public reading. Nevertheless, the liberal use of dynamic renderings limits the NLT's effectiveness for serious study, and occasionally unnecessary translators' opinions appear in the way a verse is translated. I wouldn't use it without a more literal translation to balance it out.
English Standard Version - ESV
Textual Basis: Same as NIV.
The ESV follows the NA27 more closely than the NIV, but significantly less closely than the NASB. Sometimes this results in odd rendering choices, but most of the time I agree. The Old Testament could use a little bit more Septuagint influence, but it is not that important.
Translation Type: "Essentially literal"
The ESV bills itself as an "essentially literal" translation. This is true. While it is not as literal as the NASB, it is still one of the most literal translations available, more or less equal to the NKJV. The ESV is probably one of the best in this regard, not being so literal as to obscure meaning and slow reading, but also very faithful to the original texts, traditionally literal in the vast majority of renderings.
Names of God: Same as NKJV.
Readability: Moderate
The ESV is significantly easier to read than the NASB, while less easy than the NIV. Still, this is probably one of the most readable translations I can think of that still maintains a high level of literalness. Any English speaker could understand most of it.
Notable Features: The ESV have a very useful and unobtrusive cross-reference system. The ESV Study Bible is excellent. However, for the most part the ESV is pretty plain, and few distinctive features are available in most copies.
Overall: The ESV is an absolutely excellent translation. It is literal enough for serious study and smooth enough for basic reading. It flows well and is produced in many brilliant editions, such as the ESV Study Bible. I use an ESV MacArthur Study Bible, and it is the best I have ever owned. My suggestion: if you're in the market for a new translation, try the ESV.
Overall: The ESV is an absolutely excellent translation. It is literal enough for serious study and smooth enough for basic reading. It flows well and is produced in many brilliant editions, such as the ESV Study Bible. I use an ESV MacArthur Study Bible, and it is the best I have ever owned. My suggestion: if you're in the market for a new translation, try the ESV.
New English Translation - NET Bible
Textual Basis: Fairly eclectic, but mostly the same as NIV.
The NET Bible is unique in that it gives in-depth translator's notes explaining thousands of textual variants and the chosen readings. Therefore, even in the places where I disagree on the textual choice, they still provide good justification.
Translation Type: Somewhat literal, somewhat dynamic
The NET Bible is hard to classify. It is usually rather conservative, but occasionally takes an unusually dynamic rendering. Many decisions were made to omit unnecessary linguistic features unique to the original languages and unusual in English. Odd Hebrew idioms were rarely retained. Many stylistic changes are made. The actual effect is a translation that is usually pretty literal in what it renders, but bringing the sentences into conformity with English style, editing connectors and similar pieces. The vast majority of verse renderings are excellent representations of what the original languages say. Still, there are a few places that are just strange, such as Genesis 15:6. The ESV says, "And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness." The NET Bible says, "Abram believed the Lord, and the Lord considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty." Even so, most of the renderings are conservative, justified, and accurate.
Names of God: El and Elohim are usually "God." YHWH is "Lord." YHWH tseba’oth is either "Lord who rules over all" or "Lord who commands armies."
Readability: Easy
The NET Bible is a very readable translation, almost as much so as the NLT. It is a pleasure to read, often owing to the translation decisions made for stylistic reasons. While the integrity of the text is never endangered, the variations made in the NET Bible for English readability work very well.
Notable Features: The full version of the NET Bible includes 60,932 translators' notes. These consist of translation notes, text-critical notes, study notes, and map notes. Curious about why some phrase was translated a certain way? There is an explanation. Wondering why John 5:3b-4 are missing? There is an explanation. The NET Bible tells you just about everything. It also has a loose, Internet-friendly copyright. You can use it at a whim in any context without permission, up to printing 1000 copies! You can download it without notes or with limited notes for free in a wide variety of formats, and you can purchase a digital or hard copy with all the notes for usually around $20 depending on the format.
Overall: The NET Bible is an excellent translation, and, with the notes, is an excellent study resource. It is almost always highly accurate in its renderings, it is highly readable, and it is very transparent about its methodology and individual decisions. Used alongside the ESV, as I use it, it can be one of the best resources you will ever get.
Readability: Easy
The NET Bible is a very readable translation, almost as much so as the NLT. It is a pleasure to read, often owing to the translation decisions made for stylistic reasons. While the integrity of the text is never endangered, the variations made in the NET Bible for English readability work very well.
Notable Features: The full version of the NET Bible includes 60,932 translators' notes. These consist of translation notes, text-critical notes, study notes, and map notes. Curious about why some phrase was translated a certain way? There is an explanation. Wondering why John 5:3b-4 are missing? There is an explanation. The NET Bible tells you just about everything. It also has a loose, Internet-friendly copyright. You can use it at a whim in any context without permission, up to printing 1000 copies! You can download it without notes or with limited notes for free in a wide variety of formats, and you can purchase a digital or hard copy with all the notes for usually around $20 depending on the format.
Overall: The NET Bible is an excellent translation, and, with the notes, is an excellent study resource. It is almost always highly accurate in its renderings, it is highly readable, and it is very transparent about its methodology and individual decisions. Used alongside the ESV, as I use it, it can be one of the best resources you will ever get.
Holman Christian Standard Bible - HCSB
Textual Basis: Same as NIV
The HCSB conforms pretty closely to the same texts as the NIV and ESV, though it has a little bit more Septuagint influence, which I like. Footnotes with other readings are usually impartial, saying innocently, "Other mss read" or similar. I am happy that they chose the traditional reading in John 1:18 (see my previous post: The Only Begotten God?).
Translation Type: "Optimal equivalence"
The HCSB is usually fairly formal, and it very similar to the NKJV. However, it is slightly more dynamic. Here is a statement from the HCSB website: "The HCSB employs a first-of-its kind translation philosophy known as Optimal Equivalence, which seeks to achieve an optimal balance of literary precision and emotive clarity through comprehensive analysis of the text at every level. This process assures maximum transfer of both words and thoughts contained in the original." For the most part, I believe they achieve this goal.
Names of God: Most of the time, it follows the NKJV. However, there are several hundred instances in which YHWH is rendered "Yahweh," designed to emphasize the use of God's proper name as a name. For example (Ex. 34:5-6): "The LORD came down in a cloud, stood with him there, and proclaimed His name Yahweh. Then the LORD passed in front of him and proclaimed: Yahweh—Yahweh is a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in faithful love and truth."
Readability: Easy
The HCSB is somewhere between the NKJV and the NET Bible in readability, leaning toward the NET Bible's level. It is a pretty readable translation, and a pleasure to read. The very slight tendency towards dynamic translation, mainly in reference to Hebraisms and such, helps significantly.
Notable Features: Several misunderstood or unique words are explained in the back, and are marked throughout the Bible with unobtrusive dots. These are helpful for explaining many terms. The Greek word doulos is rendered "slave" pretty consistently, which is good because that is what it means, even though most translations use "servant" or "bondservant." Most editions have a plan of salvation in the front. A very moderate number of explanatory footnotes help the reader understand some things.
Overall: The HCSB is a very good translation, somewhere in style, literalness, and textual decisions between the NKJV and the NIV. I really like it, and it is very easy to memorize. Children seem to adapt to it very quickly. I used it for a long time myself. The HCSB also comes as a brilliant apologetics study Bible.
The Message - MSG
Textual Basis: Same as NIV
The textual basis is almost irrelevant for The Message, since it is so dynamic.
Translation Type: Extremely dynamic
The Message is as close to a paraphrase as you can get without actually being one. In fact, it is so loose I hesitate to even consider it a Bible. Maybe more like an innovation type of commentary.
Names of God: Both YHWH and El/Elohim are "God," but YHWH is uppercase. Kurios is consistently rendered as "Master" instead of "Lord."
Readability: Very easy
The Message is one of the easiest Bibles you can read. It is so readable it's scary. Of course, this comes at the expense of literal accuracy. Many interpretive opinions appear. Quite often it doesn't even sound like a Bible.
Notable Features: Many editions do not contain verse numbering.
Overall: What to say about The Message? If you use, don't trust it as a Bible in and of itself. Trust it equal to commentary and use a literal translation with it. That's my opinion, but I would be very wary to treat is as a normal Bible. Still, I really like parts of it. It is a fun read, and makes the Old Testament significantly easier (though sometimes using extremely bizarre rendering). I would say that if you've never used it, try reading some. It's nice, if not to be trusted as a more formal translation.