I'll give brief quotes from various versions regarding their publicized translational methods. TNIV : The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers.This has moved the translators to go beyond a formal word-for-word rendering of the original texts.Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language,accurate communication of the meaning of the biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications in sentence structures. To achieve clarity the translators have sometimes supplied words not in the original texts but required by the context... HCSB : Optimal Eqivalence In practice,translations are seldom if ever purely formal or dynamic but favor one theory of Bible translation or the other to varying degrees. Optimal eqivalence as a translation philosophy recognizes that form cannot be neatly separated from meaning and should not be changed...unless comprehension demands it. The primary goal of translation is to convey the sense of the original with as much clarity as the original text and the translation language permit.Optimal equivalence appreciates the goals of formal eqivalence but also recognizes its limits. ESV : The ESV is an "esentially literal" translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on "word-for-word"correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar,syntax,and idiom between current literary English and the original languages.Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text,letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original. NRSV : Within the constraints set by the original texts and by the mandates of the Division,the Committee has followed the maxim, "As literal as possible,as free as necessary."As a consequence,the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) remains essentially a literal translation. NLTse : The translators of the New Living Translation set out to render the message of the original texts of Scripture into clear,contemporary English.As they did so,they kept the concerns of both formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence in mind.On the one hand,they translated as simply and literally as possible when that approach yielded an accurate,clear,and natural English text.Many words and phrases were rendered literally and consistently into English,preserving essential literary and rhetorical devises,ancient metaphors,and word choices that give structure to the text and provide echoes of meaning from one passage to the next. On the other hand,the translators rendered the message more dynamically when the literal rendering was hard to understand,was misleading,or yielded foreign wording. They clarified difficult metaphors and terms to aid in the reader's understanding.The translators first struggled with the meaning of the words and phrases in the ancient context;then they rendered the message into clear,natural English.Their goal was to be both faithful to the ancient texts and eminently readable. The result is a translation that is both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful. ISV : (I don't have their material in front of me;but it describes itself as a compromise between formal-equivalence and functional-equivalence.-- Rip) What do you think? Do you favor any of these descriptions? Do you think these descriptions accurately reflect the actual translation method of the versions? If not, please explain.