Quick comment on accuracy

Harry Neumann from Deep Bible Study has another website my bible version with a neat selection tool.  He has some accuracy numbers I don't fully agree with, but are reasonable and independent of my opinions.  By adding his "form" and "function" numbers you get something close to what I've been calling "accuracy".  So here are the stats from his site.

15: NCV, TEV, NEB

14: CEV, NET, GW, NJPS, CJB

13: NAB, NIV, REB, NLT, NIrV

12: NRSV, NKJV, NJB,  

11: KJV, HCSB, TNIV, MSG, RSV, YLT,  TS

10: NASB, ESV, NLV

8: Phillips, TLB

I'm going to rare them myself just so you see that the accuracy issues I brought up in Is the ESV "essentially literal"? hold here as well.   

Great

Bolded in ESV article

Very good 

OK

Poor

Unrated

You'll notice how closely we correspond which proves my point about literalness killing accuracy.  He doesn't have a distinction between great and good.  Also we don't seem to agree at all on paraphrases, but the article didn't really address what quality in a paraphrase meant.  So now if I exclude the paraphrases and the unrated, and remove the good vs. great the chart looks like:

15: NCV, TEV, NEB

14: CEV, NET, NJPS,

13: NAB, NIV, REB, NLT, 

12: NRSV, NKJV, NJB,

11: KJV, HCSB, TNIV, RSV, YLT

10: NASB, ESV

Which is really close.  So close in fact that when I compute a statistical r it it .79.  Which means for moderate translations (classes 3-7 from the ESV article) choosing a balanced philosophy explains 79% of the accuracy using Mr. Neumann's statistics.  I couldn't ask for better evidence that attempting to be literal ends up damaging accuracy, just as I had asserted.