Thr reason why we are unable to give a categorical or outrightly dogmatic answer to the question of Bible translations is because a translation serves at least three different purposes, and the reader will need to assess for himself/herself what he/she is looking for.
Imagine a triangle with the words "readability" "accuracy" and "comprehension" at each of the points. Somewhere in the centre of the triangle is an invisible spot that all translations are trying unsucessfully to reach. If you are reading an "accurate" translation, ie one that is striving to tell you literally what the text is actually saying, you will find that readability, and consequently, comprehension suffer. The same goes for the other points. The more readable a translation is, the less accurate it tends to be.
A good gauge to measure a translation is to read how they have rendered the first seven verses of Rom ch 1. This is one long sentence with eight verbs and the corresponding number of clauses. The more you strive to bring out an "accurate" version, literally, word-for-word, the more readability is going to suffer, and correspondingly, one will have difficulty in understanding what the point is that Paul is trying to make. In order to make it readable, translators break down this one long sentence into smaller sentences, [as do the NIV, CEV, ]. It now becomes readable, but does not convey the complexity of Paul's introduction. To balance this, "comprehension" versions try to paraphrase the words, adding verbs that are not there, and removing some that are. Now not only is it readable, but comprehension, is increased, but then accuracy suffers. If, for instance you are tracing a certain verb, or noun, that Paul is using in his letters, this becomes impossible.
So which version? Depends. Depends on what you are looking for in a translation. Probably, because there is no one Bible that combines all three elements of Bible translation, it would be wisest to invest in several.
For literalness: New American Standard. The WEB translation, this is free internet translation available for download at esword.com it is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901, and which, because it used "Jehovah"in the OT was widely distributed by the WTS. The revision now uses the more accurate "Yahweh" Youngs Literal version, probably the most literal version on the market today [but then almost impossible to read] Concordant Literal version, KJV [in Aust and commonwealth countries called the Authorized Version] NKJV. Any interlinear, either of the OT or the New. Chas. B Williams is a NT translation that tries to bring out a consistency of verb forms. Prof Kenneth Wuerst has a NT version, that tries to do this as well, but extends literalness to all language forms, nouns, adjectives etc. Another literal version also available free on the internet, is the Analylical Lit NT by seminary graduate Gary Zeolla.
For readability: NIV, RSV, NRSV [a revision of the RSV, but not as good as the original, in my opinion] Darby Version. A genuine scholar, Nelson Darby of the Brethren Church, learned 12 seperate languages including three of the Biblcal ones [Greek, Heb, Chaldee] His translation was made by him into English, French, and German.The Jerusalem Bible [an RC version], the revision, the New Jerusalem is now on the market. Byington [this was done by Stephen Byington a maverick from Andover Bible College, noted for its "liberal" scholarsticism. It is published exclusively by the WTS, who I believe, have allowed it to go out of print.] The NET Bible. This is also a free Bible available for download at Bible.org
For paraphrase: The Message, CEV, NLT, Knox [An RC version] 20th Cent version. Weymouth NT. JB Phillips NT. Barclays NT. New American [also an RC version]
The thing to ensure is that the translator[s] is[are] someone who has a deep love and respect for the Bible as the Word of God, as is not attempting to push some private agenda
Cheers.