What is behind the book, Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation?
The one's I read from American Bible Society concerning thought for thought makes more sense translation wise.
One given language does not translate Literally into another language because of core experience and cultural differences.
Among bible scholars there is a considerable debate about whether formal equivalency (essentially literal) or Functional equivalency (thought for thought) is the best approach to bible translation. Concerns about functional equivalent translations have grown over the last few decades as bible translators have pushed the envelope in regards to what they believe is an acceptable functional equivalent term for the original Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew words. An extreme example are the translations produced by Fronteirs, Wycliffe/SIL, etc... in Muslim contexts that use "functional equivalent" terms for "Father," "Son," "Lord," etc... that are significant departures from translation choices that have existed in these cultures for many centuries. Some examples would be the translation of "Father" as "Guardian" or the translation of "Son" as "Representative" i.e. "God is the guardian of Jesus" and "Jesus is the representative of God." Another issues is that some translators are now translating "Yahweh" as "Allah" in Islamic contexts; something that was never done in any context until the few decades. Freed from the constraints of the grammar and vocabulary of the original text, often a text the translators cannot even read, these translation choices rely heavily on the interpretation of translator who often have very little theological training.
Questions that are being asked today:
How much should the translators personal interpretation influence the text of a bible translation?
How often does the text of a bible translation resolve theological debates that are unresolved in the original text?
How well does the resulting translation capture the original intent of words that the author originally penned?
When a formal equivalent translation is unclear, should it be resolved by adopting more dynamic language or should it be resolved by the inclusions of footnotes and/or commentary that stands apart from the biblical text?
With that background, the following is a sample of a modern English "thought for thought" translation. How would you answer the questions above in regards to this translation?
This is so "dynamic" that many may not even recognize it.
=========================================================
How well God must like you - you don't hang out at Sin Saloon,
you don't slink along Dead-End Road,
you don't go to Smart-Mouth College.
Instead you thrill to God's Word, you chew on Scripture day and night.
You're a tree replanted in Eden,
bearing fresh fruit every month,
Never dropping a leaf,
always in blossom.
You're not at all like the wicked, who are mere windblown dust -
Without defense in court,
unfit company for innocent people.
God charts the road you take. The road they take is Skid Row.
