Yes, there is no strict literal version, and all version at times do use a more dynamic rendering, but the formal version do indeed use it much less of the time.
Like many non-translators here on the BB and elsewhere, you are mixing up "dynamic equivalence" with other thought-for-thought methods.
Eugene Nida changed the name of his method to "functional equivalence" because of how the term DE had been misused in exactly this way. (I can give quotes on this.)
Ripping do you know any Greek, Hebrew or secondary language other than English?
I wonder how you can speak with such authority, because it seems to me you speak with so much authority but it looks like you have no idea what you are talking about.
What experience do you have speaking or translating into a second language?
I make no apologies for my statement, you are misinformed
Most of your modern translations such as the NASB, NIV and others are based on the United Bible Societies Greek text or the Nestle Aland text, I dont trust the editors of these texts such as Bruce Metzger, Kurt and Barbara Aland, or Eberhard Nestle to decide what the accurate and best readings are of the New Testament considering that they are heretics and apostates. For example Metzger questions that Peter even wrote the epistles that bear his Name
“KURT ALAND denied the verbal inspiration of the Bible and wanted to see all denominations united into one “body” by the acceptance of a new ecumenical canon of Scripture which would take into account the Catholic apocryphal books (The Problem of the New Testament Canon, pp. 6,7,30-33). “
Kurt Aland also doubted the canonicity of several New Testament Books.
Not the kind of guy I want editing the Greek text behind my bible translation.
“Nestle, of the popular Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (nearly 30 different editions now), rejected the infallibility of the Bible, and believed it was no more than a normal piece of literature. He claimed that authors of the New Testament never expected their writings to be read by others let alone be taken as the authoritative word of God.”
Kurt and Barbara Aland
“Partner with Eberhard Nestle (above), he and his wife are also contributors the UBS. Aland does not believe in verbal inspiration of the Bible, and that the Old Testament and the gospels are full of myths that were not inspired by God but merely a naturalistic process. Kurt Aland does not believe that the canon of Scripture is complete or settled.”
The people behind modern textual criticism are largely apostate heretics and the evangelicals involved are piggy backing off of unbelieving scholarship.
I would be interested in knowing more about those cases. Of course, the KJV at times departs from the Masoretic Text in favor of the LXX or Vulgate (or both).
I think it reverent for the KJV to be read during the opening scripture, for people to stand for the reading of the Word, and if there are other interpretations for the preacher to say something like, "Now the Amplified bible reads like this...." But to keep the original text in the KJV.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean. The ESV touts the "essentially literal" method, delineated in Translating Truth, and the CSB used the "optimal equivalence" method of my old Hebrew teacher, James Price, delineated in his magnum opus, A Theory For Biblical Translation: An Optimal Equivalence Model. Both of these books describe a similar method, easily defined and practical for the translator to use. (Ignore the nattering nabobs of negativism on this matter. I'm a translator, have both books, and have read them both.)
It’s kind of hard to have a discussion about dynamic equivalence with someone who has no experience with another language or with any kind of translation. I wonder f you even understand what dynamic equivalence is.
Perhaps you could define what dynamic equivalence is for me?
I'm a little saddened by seeing arguments about which translation is/are/is not/are not the word of God. Don't we know that the true Word of God is in Heaven, seated at the right hand of the almighty Father? What we have on parchments and bound into books is our copy of that word...and, as a poster up-thread commented, some people have insisted upon scribbling in it with crayons. Some of them have so distorted their results that "the message" is barely legible...but, no matter what we do with our copy, it does not and cannot change the original! "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8)."
Just FYI, I use the KJV for memorization but I prefer the NKJV for daily study, especially of OT poetic literature.
The NKJV is translated from the same Hebrew Masoretic text as the KJV.
They made use of a different printed edition, but in the very few places [eight or nine] it differed from the edition used in the making of the KJV they followed the same readings followed in the KJV.