Hi Tom,
I was just going from the literal word definitions as given by Youngs. In every case that the NIV was questioned by the particular writer the literal meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words was better reflected, actually usually exactly literally used, in the NIV. In the KJV often an secondary meaning of a word was used. Actually the NIV tended to use the literal meaning most of the time (As does NASB). In most cases I have found this to be true: The Newer translations are more literal to the actual meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words.

As for dynamic equivalence: this does not necessarily mean that the translation is non literal, rather that the idea in Greek or Hebrew is brought into the English translation as an idea, not as a word for word translation necessarily but as idea for idea. It is just a fact of life that it is impossible to translate from any one language to another word for word. Sentence structures differ from one language to another and words have differing meanings from language to language. There may not be a word in English that has the specific meaning of a particular Greek or Hebrew word, or vice versa. It follows from this that all translation is, to some degree, dynamic equivalent, including the KJV.

Actually the translation of the Bible to English is particularly difficult for the following reason:
Hebrew is what is known as a picture language. A word does not have a single meaning, rather a word is meant to call up a picture, a set of ideas.
English is a linear language: A word has a meaning, sometimes a few meanings, but never really a picture as Hebrew does.
It is simply impossible to translate the OT into English bringing out the set of ideas every time. The Amplified Bible tries but even it falls short. If the translators did give us the full set of ideas every time the Bible would be a set of books filling a shelf and not a single volume. So the translators, KJV translators included, select from the range of possible meanings what they think is the most suitable meaning in the context.

The Problem is that different sets of translators, governed by their own theological bias, may decide differently.

When we get to the NT the problem is just as complex. What we have is so called Koine Greek or common Greek, the Greek of the first century. This is not classical Greek - the difference is quite marked. But to this is added the fact that the writers, except Luke, are all Jews and so are Jewish thinkers writing in Greek, thus they are using Greek as a picture language, as they would Hebrew. This makes the NT quite unique in the world as to its use of the Greek language.

Thus it cannot be formally translated either as such. Words conjure up pictures and the translators have to choose which aspect of the picture is the right one for any given context. Again it is a value judgement based on the translators own theological biases. The KJV is not exempt from this. It is just a fact of life in translating the Bible.

My point is this: There really is no such thing as a formal equivalent Bible. The translators are all doing dynamic equivalence to one degree or another. The nature of Hebrew demands it if we are going to translate it into English. judgement decisions are being made by any group of translators as to the right shade of meaning of any word for any context. They may be right, they may be wrong. But each group of translators will have a good justification for choosing the exact rendering they have chosen. It doesn't pay to criticise them until you have found out the reason why they have given a particular rendering.

And it doesn't pay to make too much of a song and dance about which version is best because they may all be right in their variations, the variations simply showing us different shades of meaning in the original Greek or Hebrew words.
John B