It would be understood by most people who read the Bible that the English syntax is generally correct given a translation. That's the point of translating to English language in the first place. If you told me that the translation is English but reads like lolcat, or pirate, I'd probably disagree that it's proper English. In other words, if it's a recognized English translation, it's not the syntax that's to be discussed (KJV aside, but that's its own discussion.)

Eh. There's no correct answer to be had here. "Today's English" differs from person to person. Further, none of the translations you list are actually "word for word" (ESV, NKJV, and NASB try to be, but they still bow to the tyranny of English grammar, and the first two even bow to the tyranny of English style). My personal recommendation? Go with the ESV. It's English is a bit more literary, but it's generally regarded as the best of both worlds. They're also a bit more liberal with their license, so getting free (and legal) e-copies is much easier than with some of the others.

Also, what @SrJoven said. They're all going to have correct syntax, at least if they've been updated some time in the last century or so. Well. And weren't intentionally written wrong.

@Wlerin I don't think the OP thinks that any of these will have bad grammar. They just want to know which one follows current standard grammar the best. But yes there are many different levels of formality that could be followed too.

@Mitch Aye, formality, all that nonsense about "reading level", regional differences, etc. None of which make the English any less modern or correct, just different.

I'd like to know about the differences in the speech: Mark 10:21: I'd suggest that in ESV and NIV the object "the money" is missing. Mark 9:29: "by anything but" is rather uncommon compared to "only by". Mark 8:21: compare the yet in ESV and NCV: "Don't you understand yet" sounds for me better as "Do you not yet understand?" because in most cases the "yet" is placed at the end of the phrase in a question.

@laminin re: Mark 10:21 "Give" doesn't need an object. I'd have to check to be sure, but the Greek probably doesn't specify.

As a side note, english is the spin you put on a ball in billiards. And frankly, I don't think any version of the Bible was ever adapted to that.

I believe if you're trying this hard to determine the answer to a question that is seriously supplanted by the content, you've missed the point of the content. It's also trivial to do comparative studies of translations online if one version isn't sufficiently understandable by the reader.

@SrJoven That's absolutely the point. Even with smartphone you can use tools (e.g. Olive tree) to read different Bible translations parallel. For this I probably will read a Bible translation which is most adapted to today's English: GNB (and CEV), NIV, The Message or NLT. I like now to figure out which of those uses a better syntax. I've to find out if there is a language difference between the NIV and CEV (which I personally like). (Parallel I will use probably the KJV or NKJV.)

But the point is more: Why do you care? Are you so interrupted because the word yet is being used, or used in a different place that it prevents you from understanding the gist of the content? What problem does your question solve? How is your problem of interest and with an acceptable answer that someone else can benefit from this question existing?

In all three version H-J) I understood the meaning without problems. If I read over years sentences like "Do you not yet understand?" to my colloquial English I will adapt wrong grammar. So my guess is, if this sentence uses a not perfect grammar than the other phrases from the ESV will probably also not be the most reliable one to learn a good grammar.

@SrJoven: I think that is disingenuous implying that there is no good answer to "What problem does an answer to your question solve?". For scholars or language learners it is very important what the great implications there are in a subtle change in wording. Literally, religious wars are fought over what particular words mean. These works are literally the word of God, so if you mess up that one word, watch out. But anyway, I think the OP just wants a Bible that, if he picks up English from it, that he won't sound too weird trying to speak that way.

If one wishes to learn proper English structure and grammar from a book, literature is not necessarily an optimal place to establish a baseline. Especially one that was translated. If your only source of grammar is a single human interpreted/translated book, your peers will look at you askance.

@SrJoven: Two birds, one Bible?

The summary of the question should be "What is the best translation of the Bible by which I can speak proper English if I read it enough times?"

@Mitch english.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask "there is no actual problem to be solved"

I think it's incredibly hard to keep a translation of anything, particularly something as sensitive as the Christian Bible, from coming across as somewhat "stilted". For learning vernacular English I'd recommend reading other works -- novels, newspapers, and probably most of all popular magazines (though avoiding any targeted toward a young audience or some group such as movie lovers or music lovers).

Laminin: This question was unfortunately closed for being primarily opinion based. Even though I answered, I can't disagree with the closure because there are too many to choose from and there's no good objective measure of them, even if you say contemporary standard semi-formal English. E.g "from seeing more examples of "The Message", it may be colloquial but it says a lot of things I would expect are very jarring to believers already accustomed to ESV.

@SrJoven: Your summary sounds like a perfectly good problem to be solved.

@Mitch My summary then is primarily opinion based and affects only the asker. It's not a good question to answer because it implies that any particular version of the Bible is an authoritative source of English usage, which it isn't established to be and doesn't claim to be. The translation attempts are only that the context be understood, and to the point that such care is taken, adheres to the meaning of the original text moreso than "Speak this way" grammar. One might as well ask which book of Harry Potter is best for this purpose.

if you included http:// in your parentheses it would be links.

@Mitch I absolutely agree and wouldn't consider "The Message" as a Bible translation, it's rather a paraphrase. See: german, reading-level. If you know some Bible passages, may be it would help when comparing to CEV, NLT and GW which are all close to paraphrase. I have also to consider rsc