Which Bible Translation?
In my opinion the best translation out there is the old, 1978 NIV (not the 2011 NIV). I think it's the most accurate, although I do have some complaints about it.

Next in line for me would be the Holman Christian Standard Version (CSV). 

Philosophy of Translation
All translation involves some interpretation. To convey the same meaning as the original, we have to use some explanation, and the more explanation, the more possibility of error.

For example, the Genitive case. You can tell by the spelling if a noun is in the genitive case, but you can’t tell from the spelling if it’s a genitive of possession, description, an attributive gen., relationship, time, place, reference, subjective, objective, partitive, apposition, simple apposition, partisan, absolute, content, value, direction, purpose, result, predicate, measurement, superlative, hanging, genitive required by certain special terms…. Or if it has an ablative sense (in which case you would have to decide which of the 17 different kinds of ablative it is).

Case in point:
1 Cor.1:5-6  For in him you have been enriched in every way-in all your speaking and in all your knowledge- 6 because our testimony of Christ was confirmed in you.
The word Christ is in the genitive case, so the literal translation is of Christ. But what does that mean?  It depends on what kind of genitive it is. I won’t go through all 47 – let’s just take two:
* If it’s a subjective genitive, that means Christ is the subject doing the action (Christ is testifying – the testimony that comes out of Christ’s mouth).
* If we take it as an objective genitive, then Christ is the object of the action (it is testimony about Christ – the testimony comes out of the Apostles’ mouths, and it is about Jesus).

NIV:  For in him you have been enriched in every way-in all your speaking and in all your knowledge- 6 because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you.
NAS: that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, 6 even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, 
KJV: That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; 6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you

The NIV and NAS include some commentary – an element of opinion.  So why not translate it literally like the KJV?  Because in English “of Christ” is ambiguous, and in the Greek it probably wasn’t ambiguous. So if we take something that clearly meant something, and translate it in a way that is unclear and ambiguous, we have distorted it. It may be that it was ambiguous in the Greek, and that it was intended to be ambiguous.  But if the translator decides that’s the case, that’s a matter of interpretation as well. There is no way to avoid some degree of interpretation.  

Heb.13:4 is in a form that can be either indicative or imperative.  So the translator either has to translate it “Marriage is honored by all” or “Marriage should be honored by all.”  Either way you are making an interpretation.  

So every translation that comes out tries to strike the best balance between formal and dynamic equivalence. A totally wooden formal equivalence translation would be unintelligible, and going too far the other way results in a paraphrase. So everyone tries to find a good compromise, and they all find it in a different place. Perhaps the best approach is that of the Holman CSV. In each case where there is a dilemma where meaning would be lost with a literal rendering and meaning would be lost with a thought for thought rendering; whichever one they pick, they tend to put the other in a footnote. So if the word-for-word translation appears in the text, the footnote will say, "In other words..." and give the thought for thought translation. Or if the more thought for thought translation appears in the text, the footnote will say, "Literally ..." and give the word for word translation. So it hits the best of both worlds. You can understand what you are reading on the one hand, but on the other hand you don't have to trust the translators as much as with the NIV. 
 
Idioms
The purpose of a figure of speech is to create an image or word-picture.  So should we leave the picture, or interpret the meaning?  

In Amos 4:6 God says He will give the people clean teeth.  If we translate it that way, someone might have to do a little study to understand that it’s talking about a famine.  But if we translate it “famine” we lose the image. Or when God says He will throw His sandal upon Edom, someone might read that and think it’s a judgment (“I will stomp on them”) rather than a blessing (“I will claim them for my own”). Ps.60:8, 108:9

Exact equivalence is impossible 

Or what about when you have the same word used two different ways in one verse?  Should you translate it with the same English word and obscure the meaning, or use two different English words and lose the impact of the word play?

Example:
Rev.2:2-3  I know your deeds, your hard work … that you cannot tolerate wicked men, … You have…endured hardships…and have not grown weary.

If we wanted to preserve the play on words we would translate the same Greek word the same way:

Rev.2:2-3  I know your deeds, your exhausting labor … that you cannot tolerate wicked men, … You have…tolerated hardships…and have not become exhausted.

The problem with that is it creates other ambiguities. “Exhausting labor” adds an adjective into the verse. And saying “you have tolerated hardships” might make it sound like they have a choice and decided to allow hardships to go on in the church.

Some Greek or Hebrew words have no English equivalent. Should parakletos be translated, “Comforter,” “Helper,” “Advocate,” “Encourager,” “Consoler,” “Counselor,” or “Friend”?

The word in Jn.3:3,7 can mean both “again” or “from above” ("born again" or "born from above") but there is no English word that means both of those. In Gal.3:24 it says that the law is a paidogogos.  A was a kind of a mixture of a nurse, chaperon, tutor, teacher and nanny.  We don’t have any English term that means that.

There are other times when a cultural issue comes in to play.  In Jn.2 Jesus uses the normal Greek word for “woman” to address His mother.  Our English word “mother” is a perfectly good translation for the Greek word gune. But there is a cultural significance of what Jesus said.  If you addressed your mom that way, it would sound disrespectful (“What’s for supper woman?”).  In Jesus time this was a highly unusual way to refer to one’s mother, but respectful. So the NIV translates it “dear woman,” and the NAS translates it “woman.”  So when you ask which is more literal, what’s the answer? It depends on if by “literal” you mean the literal definition of the word or the thought.

Formal vs. Dynamic Equivalence 

In order to translate from one language to another, some explaining has to be done.  But the more explaining you do, the more possibility there is for error and the more interpretation you introduce, and it moves toward being a commentary rather than a translation. But no explanation at all is impossible. So the big question in Bible translation is how much explanation is appropriate? Should a translation be more word-for-word (formal equivalence) or thought-for-thought (dynamic equivalence)?  Note: the goal of both is equivalence.  The question is over how it is best achieved. 

If you just wanted to translate a newspaper article from one language to another, it wouldn’t be very hard, because if the translator knows both languages well enough, he can think of a way to convey each idea in the new language. But the Bible is different.  With the Bible we are dealing with something where every, single word is inspired. So while the general ideas can be expressed just fine in an English translation, the technical details are not all translatable in a translation. If you go to a Bible college or seminary the vast majority of students use the ESV or NAS, because they are more formally equivalent, which makes them more accurate at the technical level. But what they don’t realize is that it tends to make it less accurate at the general level. It tends to be poor English, many things come out obscure that are not obscure in the Greek, and so if you try to read through large sections, it is very difficult to follow the flow of thought. And again, things that are clear in the Greek are translated in ways that are obscure or ambiguous, thus distorting the meaning. 

On the other hand, it’s very easy to follow the flow of thought through a chapter in a paraphrase.   But at the technical level there is not the same accuracy. You lose a tremendous amount in any paraphrase, because there are so many implications to every word of Scripture, that no paraphrase could possibly include them all. Take one paragraph in the NT – say the opening blessing of Ephesians.  Preachers and Christian writers and theologians have mined riches out of that paragraph and applied it to people’s lives for 2000 years, and still we find fresh insights from it. A paraphrase can’t possibly include all those implications. So what’s the best compromise among the major translations (there is value to sticking with a major translation for the sake of corporate worship)?  In my opinion, it’s the 1978 NIV (not the 2011 NIV). I have been comparing translations for many years, and I've found the NIV to be most accurate more often than any other translations.

There are, however, problems with the NIV. For example:

•	They translate the word “flesh” with “sinful nature.”  
•	Instead of translating the name of God (Yahweh) they put LORD.
•	Very often in the NT they leave out conjunctions, and the word “behold.”
•	They don’t do as good a job as they could have translating certain prepositions. 

Nuances  
Both the NIV and the ESV are near the center of that continuum, but the reason I opted in favor of my dynamic equivalence at the expense of technical accuracy is because I believe the purpose of an English translation is general reading.  Technical study should be done in the original languages.

Gender Inclusiveness 

The hottest topic right now in the area of philosophy of translation is gender inclusiveness. Of all the major translations, the 1978 NIV is definitely the most faithful to the genders in the original languages. To satisfy modern feminists, the translations attempt to avoid occasions where the male gender is used to represent both sexes. I disagree with this trend, because Scripture teaches that there is a sense in which the male gender does represent mankind as a whole. 

Genesis 5:2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. "

In Matthew 18, where it gives the procedure for church discipline, in step one Jesus specifies that it is "just the two of you" - you and that person and no one else. But the 2011 NIV, or order to avoid the word "he" says, "If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen …"

One of the biggest points at which we tend to disobey that passage is by bringing other people into the process too soon.  This translation doesn’t help that at all.

Another problem is passages that have a double meaning regarding the Messiah.  In Psalm 8:4, where the phrase "son of man" becomes "human beings" (In Hebrews 2:6 that passage is applied to Christ). 

Translations like the ESV, NAS, and CSV do not make changes that are that drastic. However there is some attention to gender inclusiveness. Of the four, the 1978 NIV is the least gender inclusive, and the ESV is the most. Most of the ESV gender inclusive language simply translates the Greek word anthropos as human, which is a fair translation.