Monday, May 10, 2010

Trusted Translation Poll Results

The results are in for the (first?) Most Trusted Translation(s) poll. A total of 42 of you voted, and I thank you for your input. For posterity the results were:

The winner with 16 votes and 38% of the readership is the New American Standard Bible or NASB. The NASB has marketed itself as the most literal translation for a long time and it makes decent sense that the most literal translation would also be the most trusted.

There was a tie for second place between the English Standard Version or ESV and the King James Version or KJV which had a late surge. This is a fascinating tie as the ESV first came out in 2001 and had a revision in 2007, while the King James is the oldest translation that's still being regularly read. It first came out in 1611 and is working on its 400th year. Both the ESV and the KJV hold positions on the Formal Equivalent or literal side of the scale. The ESV and KJV took 15 votes each and 35% of the vote.

Third place was a tie between the New King James and the New International Version. The New King James was a 1980's revision of the King James Language, while the NIV has held its place as the bestselling English translation for at least two decades. The NIV sits on the dynamic equivalent or "thought for thought" side of the scale and for many is the "quintessential" dynamic equivalent.

Fourth Place goes to the New Revised Standard Version and the recent Holman Christian Standard Bible and fifth place goes to the Amplified Bible (which many might argue was only intended as a reference tool, but I selfishly put on there anyway because I like to read it).

The New Living Translation and The Todays New International Version received no votes and are probably the least literal of the translations.

Obviously this poll is not representative of the general Christian population as I'm guessing my readership are more prone to Bible Study and formal equivalence.

1 comment:

  1. A post about translations and a new poll are coming up!

    ReplyDelete