The problem relates to what makes a "good" translation. If the goal is to mimic the underlying grammatical structures of the source, then the NASB is the best Bible. When you read the Greek, you can catch the preference for participles and identify (more often than in other translations) what exegetical decisions the translators are making. In the OT, you can feel the parataxis of the vaw stringing together sentence with sentence. I have always found the NASB to be the BEST snapshot of the underlying text.

If, however, the purpose of a translation is to communicate accurately and idiomatically into the receptor language, then other translations are "better." Translation is as much art as science. If you hear the word "Watergate" in English, it would make no sense to translate it into Spanish, German, or whatever as "water" + "gate." In fact, the wooden attempt at exactitude would mislead rather than illuminate. That is why the ESV, HCSB, etc. are counted as "good" translations. They strive to be as formally equivalent as possible without sacrificing meaning.

Dynamic equivalent translations, in my opinion, err on the side of paraphrasis to convey what the translators believe to be important. But, for those of us in the conservative wing of the church, we believe that this is God's holy book and that "getting the general sense of it" is not enough. We want to capture the literary allusions, references to the OT, and take with greatest seriousness and care with what the divine author intends for us to receive.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)