Dr. Bock,
In your article you say: "Formal translations claim to be more literal but that is really not true. They simply are more circumspect about how far to press the implications of their translation choices in wording."

I find this pair of sentences baffling. What do you mean when you use the word "literal" in regard to Bible translations? How do you justify the thought that pressing "the implications of their translation choices in wording" is not directly related to literalness? I think they are directly related and that your statement that certain Bibles are not more literal is incorrect.

In my opinion the dynamic-equivalence approach to translation gives up a lot of ground that the Protestant Reformation gained in regard to the Bible. The Reformation removed the Roman Catholic priest from defining what interpretation was correct. But the dynamic approach just puts the priest right back in business by making his interpretation into the translated text of the Bible. In fact, we may be even worse off now than we were before; comparing dynamic translations of a specific verse is like going to two (or more) different movies.

If you think someone out there has adequately answered Leland Ryken's book The Word of God in English, I would like to know who it is. As a DTS grad, I have not seen an adequate answer.

-Barry