Dear HankD. I had some thought that it may be we understood "dynamic equivalence" differently. All the examples I gave are technically speaking called DE translations. Other terms for the same would be free translation or thought-for-thought translation, or meaning-based translation. It is indeed taking liberties with God's word(s), yea, adulterating the word of God for gain, 2Cor. 2:17.
It is not always easy to classify versions so as to know exactly where the line goes between DE and FE. Most FE versions occasionally resort to DE, example the KJV - "God forbid". But they are upon comparison with the Greek shown to be formal translations or "essentially literal translations", to cite Ryken whom I have referred to earlier.
FE translations would be e.g. KJV, Geneva Bible, Tyndale, Wesley's NT, Noah Webster's Bible, Alexander Campbell's Living Oracles NT, ERV, YLT, Darby Bible, ASV, NASB, NKJV, MKJV, WEB, Exegeses Bible, EMTV, ALT, VW-Bible, Beza's Latin NT (1556), Reina Valera 1602, Dutch Statenvertaling, Russian Synodal Bible 1876, Luther's Bible, Italian Diodati, LITV, Version Osterwald 1996 revision, Olivetan Bible, Spanish Sagradas Escrituras version 1569, Norwegian translation of the KJV, etc. etc.
DE versions, e.g. NIV, CEV, TEV, GNB, GW, The Message, NLT etc.
Then myself would say some modern versions are kind of crossbreed between DE and FE, quite hard to classify. Such would be RSV, NRSV, NET Bible, and I would almost want to include ESV as well, although it is claimed to be an essentially literal translation. ISV I think also fits into this group.
But note that these are my opinions, other might beg to differ somewhat, but on the whole I think my judgement is quite accurate. Then I want to say that many versions classified as DE do at times resort to clear FE, yet as I have pointed out the general and guiding philosophy of the projects have been that of thought for thought translation. That is sinful upon considering God's admonitions not to steal His words from our neighbour, and others of the like calibre in the Scriptures.
Harald
It is not always easy to classify versions so as to know exactly where the line goes between DE and FE. Most FE versions occasionally resort to DE, example the KJV - "God forbid". But they are upon comparison with the Greek shown to be formal translations or "essentially literal translations", to cite Ryken whom I have referred to earlier.
FE translations would be e.g. KJV, Geneva Bible, Tyndale, Wesley's NT, Noah Webster's Bible, Alexander Campbell's Living Oracles NT, ERV, YLT, Darby Bible, ASV, NASB, NKJV, MKJV, WEB, Exegeses Bible, EMTV, ALT, VW-Bible, Beza's Latin NT (1556), Reina Valera 1602, Dutch Statenvertaling, Russian Synodal Bible 1876, Luther's Bible, Italian Diodati, LITV, Version Osterwald 1996 revision, Olivetan Bible, Spanish Sagradas Escrituras version 1569, Norwegian translation of the KJV, etc. etc.
DE versions, e.g. NIV, CEV, TEV, GNB, GW, The Message, NLT etc.
Then myself would say some modern versions are kind of crossbreed between DE and FE, quite hard to classify. Such would be RSV, NRSV, NET Bible, and I would almost want to include ESV as well, although it is claimed to be an essentially literal translation. ISV I think also fits into this group.
But note that these are my opinions, other might beg to differ somewhat, but on the whole I think my judgement is quite accurate. Then I want to say that many versions classified as DE do at times resort to clear FE, yet as I have pointed out the general and guiding philosophy of the projects have been that of thought for thought translation. That is sinful upon considering God's admonitions not to steal His words from our neighbour, and others of the like calibre in the Scriptures.
Harald