I had quoted several experts from the book The Challenge Of Bible Translation in the past. Every translation involves interpretation -- you can't get around that . If one believes that the literal approach is best they will come up short . Maintaining the sense of the original is the important thing . There is a difference between the form of the original and a clear meaning transferred to a given language such as English . A so-called literal rendering may not in-fact be any more accurate than a functional-equivalent rendering . Don't you think that the reader's understanding of a translation has to be taken into account before calling a particular version accurate ? Is there really anything that is in-fact word-for-word , aside from a very awkward interlinear ? And would such a " translation " really be helpful for readers ? And that brings up the subject of italics . Are they really necessary ? Is a rendering so exact that words must be counted and every word must have a corresponding word in the receptor language ?