All this busines of using language such as word-for-word,formal-equivalence,essentially literal is inaccurate to say the least. How many real translations --not interlinears --get remotely close to being word-for-word? Answer? None. Some folks here pride themselves that they have a real translation --a word-for-word version. They think "it's much,much better than that dynamic NIV or NLT." LOL! Well,consider the following examples from Rod Decker of actual word-for-word examples. Of the but Jesus Christ the birth thus it was being betrothed of the mother Mary to the Joseph before or to come together them she was found in belly having from Spirit Holy. (Matthew 1:18) and therefore of a new covenant a mediator he is so that since a death has occurred unto redemption of the under the first covenant transgressions the promise should receive those who are called the eternal inheritance. (Hebrews 9:15) All translations have to restructure things. And then some of you will reply:"My favorite translation does it less than that version of yours." So,it's a matter of degree isn't it? It's not an issue of the NASBU or ESV being so different than the NIV. There are more similarities than differences. If your particular favorite translations differ in significant ways from the rigid word-for-word examples I gave, then do some backtracking of your hollow claims.