Thank you for being committed to accuracy, which is commendable. However, that is what i find fault with in new translations, that of too much paraphrasing (and usually without identifying supplied words as the KJV often does), and or relying upon the supposedly better mss, going so far as to exclude the end of Mark as being in the original text based upon about 1% of mss missing it.
But the primary thing is that we heed the basic Truth in any translation.
The Markian passage (snake handlers special) and the Johanine passage (woman taken in adultery - John 8) are both episodes not found in the oldest of mss. I do not bring this up to offend, but just to point out that the jury is still out as to whether these are actually Scriptural or spurious. Erasmus did not have the benefit of later findings and he was without question, sympathetic to Rome.
But, with respect to "paraphrasing", I offer the following thoughts. Occasionally, "supplied" words are not necessarily "supplied". For example, the wooden word-for-word translation of a remark in Koine' Greek, does not mean the same thing in English UNLESS (occasionally) the missing (but understood by Greek speakers) words are "supplied". Are those words then actually "supplied" or are they "required"?
During the years I studied Koine' Greek in college, I began to recognize this important factor when it came to "translating". Thus, sometimes "paraphrasings" can be closer "translations" than what we have ordinarily called, "word for word translations".
Further, words in the King's English (such as "prevent")meant something quite different 500 years ago. In this example, "prevent" meant "go before" or "go in front of" rather than "stop from doing". Thus, the idea that the KJV moved into English, today leaves one with an incorrect understanding of the intent of the passage, although it was spot on 500 years ago. Our Greek professor embarrassed us all with some of these examples.
When one couples this with the issues of trying to make idiomatic remarks of Koine' move into idioms of the King's English and then into modern idioms, we sometimes have a very difficult time. Again, our objective is to apprehend exactly what the original writer was getting at. No more, no less.
I completely agree that there is no modern translation that seems to hit on all cylinders (idiom). But, reading and re-reading all of the translations, examining the good original language composite texts, using our lexicons, and continuing to "heed the basic Truth in any translation", is very good advice. Thank you for that.
I believe the folks at McKenzie Study Center combine all of this into an "authorial intent" objective. That is, they assume that any particular writer (principally of the NT epistles) is developing (primarily) a single argument throughout their letter. They strive to get the gist of the argument thread well-understood before deconstructing the individual passages or thoughts. Everything in the letter is assumed to support or add to this central argument. Thus, out goes "bumper sticker" theology supported by odd-ball single phrases or even "Verses". For example, how many folks have used John 3:16 as an "offer" rather than a "statement of fact".
Frankly, Chapters and verses were the construct of a medieval monk and often get in the way of the argument, yet KJV, NASB, Geneva, et al, continue to use this formatting. But, to have the text of any "book" translated into a single letter format is actually a very good exercise. That is the way the message came to the original readers, but we modernists tend to love our "references".
Anyway, I ramble. However, I deeply appreciate your remarks on this subject and the others to which you respond. Keep up the good work, my FRiend and brother. Grace to you.