My experience at the Nida School has been very eye-opening so far into the many different perspectives on translation studies. We have quite a bit to read, and I came across this quote describing the problem with the debate over whether a literal or idiomatic translation was the better approach.
As is the case in many debates, those in the two camps often wind up talking past each other. This is sometimes because of differing definitions of or assumptions behind key terms, and sometimes because of differing perceptions of the nature of the subject matter under debate. ... It is always desirable, but never easy, to agree on terms so that those debating can at least be talking about the same thing. It is even more difficult, but at least equally desirable, to achieve a perspective which will allow one to understand both sides, to see not so much what was wrong with each, but what was right as well, and how intelligent people could reasonably see each as not just reasonable but right (Tuggy 2003, 244).
That last part describes what I'm trying to accomplish here - get a perspective to understand the different approaches to translation and see what is good about each of them.
Tuggy, David. 2003. “The literal-idiomatic Bible translation debate from the perspective of cognitive grammar.” In Kurt Feyaerts, ed., The Bible through metaphor and translation: a cognitive semantic perspective, pp. 239-288. Bern: Peter Lang, 2003.