Dr. Bock,
Yes, that is considerably more clear. Let’s take, for example, a narrative text such as Genesis. How much of that text do you think would be considered idiom? I concede that idioms must be translated in a non-literal manner for best results, but talking as if that justifies dynamic translation across the board is disingenuous. It is a common argument by proponents of dynamic equivalence who wish to treat 100% of the text as deserving of their dynamic treatment.

I notice your comment: “we still have to work to render the text and develop what that rendering actually means in terms of intended force. Dynamic equivalence simply says the goal is an attempt to bring out that intention more explicitly.” What I wonder is “more explicitly" than what? All too often dynamic translations eliminate ambiguity in the text by guessing at the right “intended force,” to use your words. What if their guess is wrong?

I give you the example of Genesis 6:3.
NET: “My spirit will not remain in humankind indefinitely, since they are mortal.”
ESV: "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh.”
HCSB: “My Spirit will not remain with mankind forever, because they are corrupt.”
One of the lexical options for the Hebrew word bashar shows in the HALOT lexicon as “flesh,” but the translations “mortal” and “corrupt” are not shown to be in the semantic range. So, why is the reader better off with an interpretive translation that pushes beyond the semantic range of the word? And when I do jump that gap, do I go for “mortal” or “corrupt”? NET does not discuss its reasons here.

The translation “flesh” is certainly more ambiguous than “mortal,” but why would a translator want to be more definite that the text he is translating? It seems to me that is a gamble one does not need to take. Why not put those more interpretive alternatives into the margin rather than into the text?
Finally, I think the idea of moving toward “intended force” easily becomes a bridge too far. We do not know what the original impact or reaction was to the readers of Genesis 6:3. Translation can become an exercise in audacity.

-Barry
P.S. I do understand “formal equivalence” but prefer “literal” for economy of expression.