What is your favorite Bible translation and why?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I find that I use the NRSV and RSV most. They strike a nice balance between the beauty of the English language and the meaning of the Word. I'm a little ashamed to admit I get very little from the King James Version, even though the language is most poetic and should be appreciated for that.

I'm currently reading the Gospels to a guinea pig. What is going on with my life.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I guess the King James Version because I love old English, even though it is a bit hard to follow.
The 'correcter' answer would be the CEI version, which of course is what gets read at an Italian Catholic Mass, but I don't care about specific Italian translations.

I read the Bible less often than I should but when I do it's normally my Gideons KJV New Testament.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I tend to use the KJV and the NASB most if I have a choice. Despite its age, the KJV is still the most elegant and poetic of the available English translations. The NASB tends to have the clearest and most precise translation into English, but it's phrasing is sometimes awkward.

[Santander]

KJV

[Lechasseur]

I guess the King James Version because I love old English, even though it is a bit hard to follow.

This

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I read from the CSB.  Honestly, a lot of it is that I never enjoyed English class in school (especially stuff like Shakespeare with the odd language), so I like that it is a little more readable than something like the KJV while still being a fairly close translation.

It was also the translation that the first church I went to upon accepting Christ gave me, so I've read from it ever since.  I do sometimes find it interesting at a Bible study when someone shares a slight difference between translations.  My current pastor usually reads from the NASB.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

RSV is the perfect balance between gravity of language and fidelity to modern translation standards, although it retains a few archaisms that seem jarring outside the overall KJV/Douay-Rheims context, like the word "fatness" in Judges 9:9.

[Del Tachi]

I guess the King James Version because I love old English

Not to nitpick, but the KJV is not written in Old English.  Old English would not be intelligible to any present-day English speakers.  The coolest (secular) aspect of the KJV is how its publication in 1611 was actually a major catalyst in standardizing modern English spelling and grammar.   

[Kingpoleon]

KJV and NIV are the best. NRSV and NASB are decent alternatives.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     My preference is NKJV. I use the Orthodox Study Bible most frequently, which uses that translation for the NT, so it's what I'm used to.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

NRSV when I want to know what it means, KJV for poetry.

Wen I really want to dig into a controversially translated passage, biblehub.com has a word-by-word Hebrew/Greek concordance at the bottom of every page which is very helpful.

[Lechasseur]

I guess the King James Version because I love old English

Not to nitpick, but the KJV is not written in Old English.  Old English would not be intelligible to any present-day English speakers.  The coolest (secular) aspect of the KJV is how its publication in 1611 was actually a major catalyst in standardizing modern English spelling and grammar.  

Ofc, Old English was spoken before the Norman Conquest; it's our equivalent of Latin basically.

It's true that the KJV standardized Early Modern English to a large degree; but he meant old simply in the sense archaic, and I do agree. I think the English of 400 years ago had something to it.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I guess the King James Version because I love old English

Not to nitpick, but the KJV is not written in Old English.  Old English would not be intelligible to any present-day English speakers.  The coolest (secular) aspect of the KJV is how its publication in 1611 was actually a major catalyst in standardizing modern English spelling and grammar.  

I am well aware of that, which is why I wrote "old" with a small O, to signal I was using the common qualifying meaning of the word. I maybe should have used "ancient" or "archaic" to clarify. I obviously couldn't read Old English (capital O) in any way whatsoever.

Thank you @Lechasseur for recognizing what I was signifying.

[DC Al Fine]

English Standard Version for religious study and lectionary use, King James Version for literary study and liturgical prayers and the like. (Cliche Reformed answer).

Also, not that this applies here, but the folks who spend more time arguing about their translations than reading it need to rethink their priorities. As long as the translation isn't complete trash you should be fine.

[Lechasseur]

I guess the King James Version because I love old English

Not to nitpick, but the KJV is not written in Old English.  Old English would not be intelligible to any present-day English speakers.  The coolest (secular) aspect of the KJV is how its publication in 1611 was actually a major catalyst in standardizing modern English spelling and grammar.  

I am well aware of that, which is why I wrote "old" with a small O, to signal I was using the common qualifying meaning of the word. I maybe should have used "ancient" or "archaic" to clarify. I obviously couldn't read Old English (capital O) in any way whatsoever.

Thank you @Lechasseur for recognizing what I was signifying.

Same, but it's an incredibly cool ancient language nevertheless. I prefer it to Latin myself.