An utterly literal translation would be very dificult to read.
Here is Luke 1:50 as literally as I can make it.
'And the mercy of him into begettings of begettings to the fearing him.'
I don't think anyone would want to read a chapter of that! One interesting point is that there is no verb in the sentence. Here is what the KJV makes of it.
'And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.'
The KJV has added a verb, but put it in italics so that we can know that it's an addition. It has also tidied up the bit about begettings. The NKJV is almost identical.
Here is the NIV:-
'His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.'
The NIV has omitted the connecting word kai, 'and.' It has also added the word 'extends' which is not in the text, and since it does not use italics, you wouldn't know unless you know Greek. I make no comment on these facts. It really makes no difference to the meaning, but is it right to omit something from the word of God and to add something without explanation unless good translation absolutely demands it?
Now here is the CEV 'translation':-
'He is always kind to everyone who worships him.'
This is an example of a paraphrase and to me it's an abomination. To be kind is not necessarily the same as being merciful. A farmer may be kind to his animals, but eventually he's not going to be merciful; he's going to send them to the butcher. And it goes without saying that to 'worship' is not the same as to 'fear.' [The Greek word is phobeo, frome which we get our word, 'phobia'] And the fact is that God is not going to be kind to everybody who worships him (Matt 7:21).
My view is that a translation needs to be as close to the originals as is possible within the restrictions of good readable English. However, to those who say that the NIV is a terrible translation, I say, 'Turn again, you will see greater abominations than these' (Ezek 8:15).
Steve