It seems that those who advocate Dynamic Equivalence sometimes take pot shots are those who advocate Formal or Optimal Equivalence. And the reverse also seems to occur. Lets examine this concern using John 1:9. Most modern translations have something like, The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.(ESV). By reading this translation, we understand that (1) the True light was not in the world, but is coming into the world; (2) that the true light "enlightens everyone" means causes everyone to grow in understanding; (3) and indirectly everyone "in" the "world" envisioned here by John is enlightened. But is this "literal" translation anywhere close to the mark? Probably not. Another of the common renderings is this: That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. (NKJV) As you can see this rendering is starkly different: (1) The true light is already in the world; (2) the true light gives light to everyone (but does not imply everyone understands and learns, the implication of "enlightened) and (3) indicates everyone coming into the world, i.e all mankind, is given light somehow by the true light. I will just mention but not attempt to explain the difficult grammar of this verse which allows either rendering to be seen as sound from a grammatical view. So the translators must look at the context here, and the context where John handles similar grammar and subject matter to arrive at their rendering. Which brings us to our topic: Some on the formal, word meaning for word meaning, side say by translating word for word the translator can "pass through" the ambiguity (in the mind of the translator) rather than picking one side or the other. The dynamic equivalence folks have as a primary goal to eliminate ambiguity and so will choose a side and present it as if it was gospel. This I believe is a cheap shot. All that needs to be done is present the clearest rendering of the translator's understanding, i.e. The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. (NIV) and then footnote the alternate understanding prefaced by "or". This gives the reader the clearest understanding of the text from the translators perspective, yet allows the reader to be aware of a possible alternate rendering. For example the NET reads the same as the NIV, but has this footnote: Or “He was the true light, who gives light to everyone who comes into the world.” Bottom line this is a silly disparagement of Dynamic Equivalence.