I noticed that nobody is contributing to this thread.
However, in the hopes of finding out a little more about this matter, i.e. Dynamic (or Functional) Equivalence vs. Literal Translations, I thought I would bring a little bit of the discussion here.
Though I favor literal translations, reading that particular thread made me realize just how little I know on the issues.
In the following url, someone give what I concider to be a good reason not to go with a Dynamic Equivalent translation.http://www.fellowship.ca/theology/translations/pitfalls_of_dynamic.htm
However Dr. Mark Naylor gives the reason why he favors a Functional Equivalent.
“On the superiority of a Functional Equivalence approach to translation: (A response to a friend's objection to my article)
In my work in translation the OT into the Sindhi language, I have never come across a word in Sindhi that has exactly the same range of meaning, impact, significance or function as a single word in Hebrew (or English). This is to be expected because words reflect culture and the cultures of the Sindhi language are different from the cultures of other languages (Note, for example, the Hebrew "vaw" which is often translated as "and" but largely left untranslated and many times translated with a myriad of other words). What we must not do is read our cultural understanding of a specific English (or Sindhi) word back into the passage. We must determine the meaning of the passage and then represent that meaning in an equivalent way in English (or Sindhi). For example, in The Message, Peterson used the word “hurt” to translate the Greek “hamartano” in Mt 18:15. Most other translations use the word "sin". The validity of such a translation choice lies in the communication intent of Jesus and its equivalent representation in English. If the Greek word “hamartano” used in the NT includes aspects of broken relationships that are not sin as we use "sin" in English, then his translation choice is validated. And I suspect that Jesus' intention was broader than those deliberate acts of selfishness that we call "sin". Otherwise the thrust of Jesus' saying would be, “If a fellow believer hurts you by sinning against you, then do this. But if the person hurts you in another way, you do not need to do this.” It seems to me that the more inclusive meaning of “hurt” as in Peterson’s translation, which includes "sin", grasps the essence better than by trying to distinguish between “sin” (according to our theological understanding) and “hurt” in this passage. One important lesson from this illustration is that we cannot take a "dictionary" approach to translation. That is, we cannot look at a word in Greek with its dictionary range of meanings and find a suitable English word with a similar dictionary range of meaning and use that same word as a substitute in all places. Language does not function in such a fashion. At the very least a range of English words are required out of which the most suitable is to be used where appropriate in context. But translation is even more complicated than that.” Mark Naylor

When I looked at how the other side responded to this, I noticed they were strangely silent and though every part of me wanted to say something. I came to the realization that my knowledge of the issues is so limited that if I tried to defend Literal Translations, I would probably be eaten alive.
That is quite humbling actually.

Tom

Last edited by Tom; Thu May 06, 2004 2:59 AM.