For reasons unknown someone/something has posted extracts above which are in numerous old article directories and forums, maybe they intend to pop back.
The subject though is still interesting and useful to avoid a few myths:
As mentioned above, small sites are fine with a static approach but all sites shouldn't move away from this without thought.
By "Dynamic Sites", most people mean a database, with the HTML dynamically produced. Common incarnations include Wordpress, Joomla, Drupal. Do not fall for the "no skill needed" rhetoric, these type of sites are harder to manage. To use them well, you will need knowledge of database management and optimisation, URL structure and redirection, more advanced coding skills to make any tweaks. They can also be a security headache, which is not entirely allayed by keeping to latest versions (still a good idea).
The common statement that search engines prefer dynamic sites is incorrect, they are only interested in the content/HTML however produced. In reality, many people damage their rankings by poor use of this type of CMS, incoherent structure, internal duplication, slow page speed etc.
There are a fair number of alternative Content Management Systems available now which avoid much of the above. The simplest use tags to mark editable areas and can easily be combined with a good file manager, or a few offer the combination.
Not trying to put anyone off, if you want to experiment with a dynamic CMS, why not. Just be careful if you rely on your website, many small businesses have wiped themselves out by a change they thought would make life easier.