Bible translation review

Wild Eagle said:

I am currently using NKJV as my primary Bible, but it looks like there is no future to this translation. It doesnt get updated and lately I see that it becomes less popular. Are there any RECENT Logos books/articles which go over Bible translations and give recommendations which translation is recommended to use? I am leaning toward literal translation. 

I would highly recommend The Word of God in English by Leyland Ryken.

Lee, your AFAIK, is apropo.  As one moves past the Byzantine era with the slow erosion of 'the east', the text slowly is annealed to the theology.

Not diverting into theology, but one need only compare the Old Syriac (gospels) to a recent NA/UBS, and then Metzger's notes to see the dynamic. Even Carson, when faced with a 50/50, quite honestly appeals to his theology, as does Metzger.

But true ... recent translations will be annealed, if only to be sold.  I'm not disagreeing with you.

Though not a Logos resource, I find the site linked below is helpful in regard to your inquiry:

Bible Research > English Versions > 20th Century

These Vyrso eBooks are recent:

The Complete Guide to Bible TranslationsRon Rhodes

Which Bible Translation Should I Use?Andreas J. Kostenberger, David A. Croteau, Joe Stowell

How We Got the BibleRose Publishing

It is worth reflecting on the potential lasting impact of a translation.

Verily, Verily: The KJV – 400 Years of Influence and BeautyJon M Sweeney

The following linked thread includes relevant discussion and comments:

In 2016 What is the priority order of your Top 10 Bibles in Logos and why?

http://bibletranslation.ws/comp.html#.Vsm4flvhDIU
... is a webpage with a comparison from some years ago, there are Bible versions until 2001 included. I differ on somewhat many points though, but this gives a clue. It's mostly passages from the Gospels. A somewhat revealing and detailed comparison.
(Btw I still have the HCSB as hidden in Logos/Verbum. A competitor offers a Reverse-Interlinear, I'll see lather whether I need and afford that, I also have to see whether I can get hold of any disks with older versions of the software or if some user could transfer their old books to me, because years ago there was a much wider variety of books being offered, see: http://maybetoday.org/scriptura/software/wordsearch/ .) I've been reading some comparisons that have the HCSB, I don't own a copy yet. I have a post in the 2016 prioritations -thread. I was thinking whether I should switch prioritations between the 2009 HCSB and the 2004 Good News Translation 3rd Edition UK-English 66-book Bible placing the latter higher. In passages where the gender-neutral language of it doesn't matter, I rate the latter higher. Many of the books of the Bible I will never read from the HCSB.
For most people the 2010 NABRE OT is certainly worth a look. I much rather use that one than the HCSB.
Until about 1½ years ago I've been reading some older books with comparisons of English Bible versions and an older parallel New Testament. There is some defence of the Good News Translation (=TEV) in the book Eugene H. Glassman (1981). The Translation Debate - What makes a Bible Translation Good?. InterVarsity Press. About 125 pages.
The vocabulary and some details of the word order of the 1971 NT 1959 OT RSV 2nd Edition, is really an asset.

I find it important to look at specific features of the Bibles I have prioritized the highest: #1-7 and to often look at if the version I have prioritized in the 8th place render something differently or are to be preferred for a passage.

I continuously create a reading list of preferred Bible versions, do the advanced prioritations, and memorize which Bible version to use for what. Also setting workspace layouts in the softwares I use for comparisons.

Seminary training and You build a hunch for which parts of the Bible require a certain approach to choosing a(n) (level of) English Bible version or where there are concepts which You need to understand before or while reading passages. My last longer reading session was the Gospel of Mk, The 2004 Good News Translation 3rd Edition being a good choice for several parts and fitting the style of this book of the Bible, but there are concepts such as redemption that need to be understood better, see the Facebook page . But I would use the 1971 RSV 2nd Edition for the background narrative. There are key passages in Mk for which greater consideration is needed. I believe Jesus did predict beforehand in Mk that the temple would come down. It's also important to read Mk together with choice monographs and a study of 1 Pt. For Mk 14.33f I'd probably choose the 2009 HCSB. I'll leave it at that. For the Passion narrative a more important question is which Biblical book to choose.

Thanks for pointing out Brunn's book. I read the reviews -- I'm probably in complete agreement with his points. Very sensible and shows a wealth of field (applicational) experience.

If Logos adds One Bible, Many Versions I would probably snap it up.