Most seminary students are taught that the NASB is the best translation. However, it is based on the critical text which I believe to be inferior, but not cataclysmicly so. The NASB often has foot notes or even include some of the portions left out of the critical text that help minimize the errors.
The reason most modern translations make use of the critical text is because it is put forth as older. However, since the majority text has some many manuscripts over such a long time, it is often assumed to be more recent when it may be just as old or some even older than the critical text.
The King James translation is actually pretty good. It benefits from being based on a superior text. As well as adding more pronoun differentiation.
Any translation from one language to another is going to have problems. The Wuest translation (even though it is based on the critical text) has the advantage of bringing over more verb tense information than most other English translations.
The Amplified translation is a good one because the expanded descriptions is like have the translator's notes for every verse.
As one studies tools like esword become necessary to dig into the original languages.
To really dig into the word, a particular translation is at best just a starting point.
