If a Bible translation is more "literal," ...

In English, does "His nose grew hot" mean the same thing as "He was angry?"

Sometimes literalness doesn't convey meaning.

 

I believe most of us here recognize the issue with idiomatic language, even if we have different opinions about how to translate and/or footnote it. There are differing beliefs on whether or not the general public reads notes.

I believe we should have the meaning in the main text, and explain ancient idioms in the notes.

 

I would say that a more formal translation gets more of the intended meaning than a more dynamic one does!

 

The problem is when translation turns into commentary. I would rather have "his nose grew hot" and then study the use of the phrase.

 

You won't find that wording in any legitimate translation. That's woefully obscure and doesn't do the job of translation. So your preference will not be found in the ESV, NASB or whatever. More examples from Psalms follow :
Ps. 30:50 "My bearing in my bosom."
118:22 : "The head of the corner."
140 :11 "Man of tongue."
16:4 "My kidneys instruct me."

 

Obscure or not, would you consider translating the Hebrew 'ap as "literal?"

Considering it is nearly always translated as anger, outside of Job and a few other spots where noses are actually being pierced.