Two Philosophies of Translation
Formal Equivalence (-for-)
Strengths	Weaknesses
Greater word-for-word correspondence with the original text	Awkward English at times; less readable
Less interpretation of the original text; less reliance on the translator for an accurate interpretation	More ambiguity in the meaning of the English; relies on the reader for more interpretation
Better for in-depth biblical study	More difficult for a nonChristian or a new Christian to read and comprehend
Easier to trace the same form of a word used by the biblical writers	Not as good for public Scripture reading
More precision by using complex vocabulary and theological terminology	May lead readers to reach wrong interpretive conclusions in a casual reading
Dynamic Equivalence (Thought-for-Thought)
Strengths	Weaknesses
More readable	Less correspondence to the form of the original text
Priority on conveying meaning; thus, less ambiguity in the meaning of the English text	More interpretation of the original text
Easy for a nonChristian or a new Christian to read and comprehend	Not as good for careful Bible study
Good for public Scripture reading	Impossible to trace the same form of a word used by the biblical writers
More interpretation by trained scholars	Often more expansive by using a phrase or sentence to explain a technical term