A translation philosophy that aims to render each word, grammatical form, and sentence structure of the original text as closely as the target language will allow. Also called "essentially literal" or "word-for-word" translation. Formal-equivalent translations preserve idioms literally (with footnotes explaining), keep verb tenses and moods when possible, and maintain the original language's sentence length and clause order where intelligibility allows. Contrast with dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought) and paraphrase. Examples: the NASB, the LSB, and the ESV lean formal; the NKJV and KJV are formal-equivalent to their source text (the Textus Receptus). The Lexham English Bible pushes formal equivalence to the extreme.
The strength of formal equivalence: it preserves not just the thought but the texture of the original — allowing readers to catch nuances, word repetitions, intertextual echoes, and literary structures that dynamic equivalents often smooth away. A Hebrew idiom left literal may read awkwardly in English but preserves the flavor; a thought-for-thought translation obscures the idiom entirely. For serious Bible study, formal equivalence is better. Weaknesses: (1) Awkwardness — literal renderings of idioms ("cover his feet" in 1 Samuel 24:3 meaning "relieve himself"; "bowels of mercies" in KJV Philippians 2:1) require footnotes or explanation. (2) Gender language — formal equivalence preserves original masculine generics, which some find stumbling. (3) Accessibility — some readers are put off by awkward phrasing. Most mature Bible readers end up using multiple translations: a formal-equivalent (ESV/NASB/LSB) as primary, a dynamic-equivalent (NIV/CSB) as companion, and the original languages (or an interlinear) for closer study. The principle underlying formal equivalence is that the Bible's inspiration extends to the words themselves (plenary verbal inspiration), not merely the ideas — so the translator's job is to carry over as much of the original form as possible.