Hence, this was considered an important obstacle to providing a true translation of a source text. Nida, on the other hand, acknowledged these differences not so much as an obstacle to true translation, but rather as challenges to overcome in translating texts. In his work on Bible translation, for example, he acknowledges element such as context and culture that could influence the meanings of words. This led to his distinction among linguistic meaning, referential meaning and emotive meaning.

While this is closer to Skopos theory than the original meaning of equivalence, Nida nonetheless still strives for equivalence in meaning, as far as this is possible. Instead of creating an entirely new text from the source, he attempts to create a text as close in meaning as possible to the original, while at the same time being as meaningful as possible to the target audience.

In this, Nida was strongly influenced by Chomsky's "generative transformational model," which focuses on the universal features of human language. This provided a new platform, besides the concrete meanings of words themselves, to achieve equivalence. According to this theory, all language has a deep structure and surface structure. The deep structure contains the core meaning, while the surface structure changes according to elements such as culture and context. For his translation of the Bible then, Nida achieved equivalence by means of concentrating on the deep structure.

Nida's concern was then how the sign functions within a given society. In this sense, his equivalence theory is quite close to the Skopos theory, in that it acknowledges the changing nature of contextual features. On the other hand, it differs significantly in terms of the functioning of these factors. Whereas Skopos theory promotes a focus upon functional factors in constructing a translation, Nida's focus is upon concentrating on the source text and retaining its core meaning as far as possible.

In this regard, Nida distinguishes between two types of equivalence; formal and dynamic. Formal equivalence refers to the translated text, its message, form and content. This equivalence requires a close similarity between the source and target...

Dynamic equivalence, on the other hand, refers to the "equivalent effect," where the relationship between message and recipient are at issue. These should close match the relationship between the message and recipient of the original text. Hence, even in its acceptance of factors that influence meaning, equivalence is somewhat more rigid in its aims and objectives than Skopos theory.
Another element of Nida's theory is the importance of "naturalness." This means that the equivalent effect achieved by translation should not be so close as to be unnatural to the target recipient. Instead, the closest natural equivalent should be found in the target language to provide a natural message to the target recipient.

With the rise of the Skopos theory, Equivalence has received quite a large amount of criticism for its inability to truly achieve the equivalence it strove for. However, Aranda (2007, p. 24) notes that there are also those who oppose the Skopos theory of translation. At the basis of this opposition is the fact that the reader of the target text does not gain access to the source language text. Instead, such a reader is obliged to read only the translator's interpretation, without the benefit of the wider perspective offered by the source text.

In conclusion, translation is a very exciting field, not least because of the many influencing factors on the meanings and interpretations of words. Whether promoting equivalence or Skopos theory, the translator is in a privileged position regarding access to both the source text and the ability to reinterpret this into a target text in a new language.