You should get a Catholic translation. You don’t have to give up the NASB, but I wouldn’t use it has your only translation.
This is a very odd view. So you are saying that the Douay Rheims Bible, which as you admit is translated from the Latin Vulgate, the 5th Century translation of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible into Latin, is somehow rendering a more literal English translation than the NASB, which translates the Hebrew and Greek texts directly into English? So a translation of a translation is somehow more literal than just a translation? That is an interesting claim.
A good translation isn’t a literal translation, as translating word for word across 2000 years and different languages will cause many things to be misunderstood. A good translation is able to keep the same meaning of the original text, even if the word for word translation doesn’t match that meaning any more. Eventually, through time, you need to use different words or syntax structure to keep the same meaning and have something coherent.
copyright laws impede the work of translation, forcing translators to dance around every verse to avoid the appearance of plagiarism and copyright law violation.
This is a solid point, and one I hadn’t considered.
The Septuagint was OF the Jews, BY the Jews, and FOR the Jews – wasn’t it? I thought it was for Jews outside of Jerusalem who no longer could speak Hebrew. My impression from the JPS Tanakh and commentaries is that they are strictly based on the Masoretic text. Is that not so?
It is on my “to do” list. Still polishing up on Koine Greek.