Translating is inevitably an interpretive process, therefore no translation is free of bias. Some are looser than others but then retain meaning just fine. It is good to remember what has been said many times here, the compilations of manuscript varients called Master Texts do not represent any single version/form of the text found to have been in use. What we have is a hypothetical reconstruction of what the text may have looked at at the time the major branches of bibles manuscripts diverged. This then does not in any way suggest that this form is original. Because the bulk of redaction and harmonization logically took place earlier, texual criticism has limited value to someone interested in Christian origins. There are a half dozen other forms of literary critism that have been used to postulate more original foms of the books we are familiar with, but their work is very rarely consulted for translation purposes. All that aside, the New American Standard has a reputation for readability and minimal sectarian bias.