According to the Association for Christian Retail, the following are the best-selling Bible translations by number of books sold (as opposed to dollar volume) —
1 New International Version
2 New Living Translation
3 King James Version
4 New King James Version
5 English Standard Version
6 Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish)
7 Holman Christian Standard Bible
8 The Message
9 New American Standard Bible
10 Other Translations
And so, some questions —
* What’s your reaction to the venerable KJV dropping to third place?
* What’s your reaction to the NIV being at the top of list?
* What’s your reaction to a Spanish translation making the list?
[poll id=”5″]
Jay,
I wonder if the stats include sales from those like the Gideons and groups that give away Bibles on mass scale? I can see the NIV being on top of the list because individuals and group give-aways normally choose it. Gideons still use NKJV (I think). I like the ESV, but use the NASB most of the time. I am not surprised the KJV has dropped given its discrepancies archaic language. I don’t mind the NIV at top, but the NLT is a slight concern. I am surprised the NASB is so low. The Spanish Bible making the list might be attributed to the rise of Hispanics in the US and groups purchasing them to give them away. We have many Spanish Bibles at our congregation, some for give away. Good post!
I'm thrilled the KJV has dropped … impossible to read fluidly. No surprise the NIV remains at the top.
I use the NIV and ESV for study, but The Message for reading.
I'm just glad sales continue at such a brisk space. That's a good trend, regardless of the translation.
In my growing up in the church of Christ sermons were preached every time a new version came out. All that was wrong was pointed out and once again we were reminded there was only one that had the 70 blessed by God translators and any other was not guided by God but was of one mans thinking and interpretation. How can that possibly compare to 70 blessed and guided scholars?
The first time I heard a man pray in our wooden church building in Lewisburg, Alabama and not use Old English language in the prayer it was shocking. Everyones eyes popped opened, heads lifted (you could tell as all the women had on big hats "coverings" and they went from being slanted forward and downward to being level) and the men came off their one knee. How dare anyone stoop to call God YOU.
Thee and thou is still part of my prayer vocabulary at times as it is for many of us older folks and I guess it always will be.
I don't believe any of the two generations down (grandchildren) will even know there is a King James Version.
I started using the NIV when the first new testament came out in the 70's. It's the translation I'm most familiar with, and it just "sounds right" to me. But I'm well aware of some shortcomings. For serious Bible study, I use several translations. I use the free e-Sword Bible program and often use its "compare" feature to see a verse in all of my installed translations (currently 16 different Bibles including several Greek texts). ASV, KJV, ESV, NIV, and the NET Bible are the ones that I refer to the most. In particular, the NET Bible comes with excellent translation notes that explain many word choices that were made by the translators.
The "KJV only" crowd has done a disservice to that translation. It was a masterpiece in its day, and remains a solid translation worthy of great respect. But it's no longer one of the better options for teaching the Bible to the world or to the next generation.
Once I learned in high school that the original New Testament was written in common Greek language instead of classical, I began a quest to find an accurate Bible that was written in common English rather than classical (KJV). The biggest problem with the KJV was not a lack of scholarship but the drastic changes in our English language make it nearly impossible to understand without a strong Bible dictionary. I mean, did the early church really honor and show favoritism for those wearing "gay clothing"? James 2:3
The NASB was my first choice as I started college. It was a major improvement but was still too choppy for my taste as a daily reader.
A few years later, the NIV became (and still is) my first choice when I purchased one in 1978, the first year it was published. I still remember how the drama of Paul's shipwreck seemed to jump off the page.
I've attempted to use the ESV but it stills feels too old (like the NASB).
Last year's daily reading was in the NLT. This year, I'm being entertained by The Message.
I have the following installed on my smartphone:
NIV
NIV 2011
The Message
NLT
ESV
NKJV
KJV
Amplified
I use the ESV as my primary study Bible and others just to see how they might have translated a particular word or phrase.
I can't think of a good reason to use a Bible whose language is outdated by 400 years. The KJV will continue to fall in popularity. It is a very, very good translation. It is the antiquated language that is causing it to not be as useful.
I guess some people don't know that Paul or Peter ever said "thee" or "thou" to God in prayer. I once sold Bibles door to door and in my script I pointed out 4 or 5 verses that the modern person (1967) would not understand, except for our Bible which had the modern word in the center column.
Not one translation of the original documents is perfect but God reveals himself through all of them.
Royce
I just realized I didn't really answer Jay's questions:
* What’s your reaction to the venerable KJV dropping to third place?
I'm surprised it is still this high. It was second on dollar sales so it's not because it has no copyright.
* What’s your reaction to the NIV being at the top of list?
It's been on top for a long, long time. There must be a good reason. The TNIV was meant to replace it, but the translators went too far in gender neutrality for many evangelicals.
* What’s your reaction to a Spanish translation making the list?
I'm glad those for whom Spanish is their first language are reading their Bibles. This is a rather conservative version that is roughly equivalent to the NASB in style and readability.
Alabama John,
I didn't use thees and thous in my prayers as a teenager although everyone else did. I was asked why (as if I should be). I told them in the KJV, thee and thou meant the person was addressing a single person. Ye and you meant they were addressing a crowd (plural). I showed them with examples from context and Vine's dictionary. Jaws dropped.
I switched to the English Standard Version as my primary Bible about a year and a half ago. I like its accuracy. It's very similar to the RSV and NRSV. I also like and use the New International Version and the New Living Translation. Every evening, I read the New Living Translation to my son before he goes to bed. It flows very well in reading aloud. I have a lot of respect for the King James Version; and I'm glad to see a Spanish translation being used so widely these days.
I am not surprised the KJV has fallen to third place as many find the language difficult. And the NIV may be first as it is popular b/c it is easy to read – I regard it as a little closer to a paraphrase than a standard translation – though not all the way to being a paraphrase. It seems like many churches use it as their pew bible and that may help sales.
When I studied Spanish years ago we learned there is a formal and a familiar version – usted being formal and tu being familiar. I asked why there wasn't a formal and familiar version of English and was told there was but it wasn't used anymore – thee and thou being familiar. In Spanish people pray using the familiar b/c no one knows you better nor loves you more than God. That was interesting as I had been told (when I was a teenager) that people used Thee and Thou in prayer to God as a sign of respect – not b/c it was the familiar form of English.
FWIW,
Randall
Interesting thoughts. Out of respect. Good point. Some that pray today talk to God as if he is just a buddy and might be invited over for a beer and a ballgame.
Its also interesting to look in grave yards and see the thee and thou on many grave markers.
By far most members of the church of Christ used that language, they just happen to be dead.
Of course that was not required but it was the only written word we had for many years and quoting scripture was just that, quoting exactly like it was written.
The Bible is translated in many languages, Cherokee is one and when they quote they do just as the Spanish speaking do or anyone else, they quote exactly as it is written. Other wise it is not a quote but sinning by going beyond what is written.
Seems to be confusing yourself when you have many translations. How in the world do you quote a passage? Could it be called a quote to use part from one translation and a sentence or two from another? Decisions Decisions!
How anybody could read the Psalms in anything other than the KJV is beyond me.. It's so poetic.. 🙂 ESV for me.. My worn out personal Bible is NASB.. My camo Bible is Holloman.. (it fit in my hunting jacket) !! I use blueletterbible.org for greek/translation comparison.. Insistence on the KJV is silly…turns young people off.. Even ole Alexander Campbell came out with his own version, believing that the Word should be in contemporary vernacular..
No, the sales do not reflect Gideons, etc. In fact, these numbers are a bit flawed because they only reflect stores that are members of the CBA. The NIV has been atop the list for the last 7 years. At one point the NKJV went to number one for a month, then the NIV went back to her spot. The ESV seems to rank #5 every month, and the NLT has been climbing rapidly. The NASB has recently resurfaced after being missing from the list for a while. Though the KJV has dropped, I would expect it to be back at #2 before too long, where that is usually where it is, though it drops to the #3 or #4 from time to time. I think that this is because the gift and award KJV Bibles are so cheap from CBD and the KJV-only crowd can buy them by the cases.
Alabama John,
I've not seriously read the KJV in years, and yet, when I quote scripture, I quote the KJV. That's what I learned as a child. I sometimes still unconsciously slip in the occasional "thee" or "thou" in my prayers.
It is funny that so many insist on calling God "thou" when in English of the KJV, "thou" is informal – that way you'd address a family member. That puts a different spin on some of the old hymns, doesn't it?
One would think that a major factor contributing to the order of "translation" versions on this list is the size and "name" of the publisher and the aggressiveness of their advertising and distribution channels to bookstores.
A related topic. This will not be in the list of the top ten, but if anyone likes to study using a Greek-English interlinear, verse by verse, with parsings and Strong's numbers, with word searches by root word, actual use word, or Strong's number, that is one of the more intuitive based lexicon/interlinears I have seen, that you can download on your computer and not have to be on-line,
and (the best part) … all for FREE: It's called ISA.
http://www.scripture4all.org
Decades ago I would spend hours and hours pouring over analytical lexicons to get definitions and, especially, the parsing. I certainly would never base teaching, writing, or doctrine formation on my own grammatical skills [?!] – only confirmed by genuine scholars. What used to take me hours now takes seconds. That's a benefit of computer technology.
I quit preaching from the KJV c. 1970 when I was in New Zealand. My congregation had not grown up reading any Bible, and when I read from the KJV their faces looked blank until I would translate the translation. I decided this was foolish, so I tried a few times reading from the RSV. The faces showed comprehension, so I could preach without further translation. Before making the switch permanent, I did a verse by verse comparison of the RSV and KJV in the New Testament. When there were significant differences, I consulted the Greek – finding in each case that the RSV was superior. Thus, I used the RSV for several years.
I switched to the NIV after graduate school under a major professor who was on the NIV translating committee. I used (and still do) until last year when I bought an ESV. I am now doing my daily reading in it, but serious study is still across a range of versions. For the most part, I'm happy with the ESV, but have some reservations about it (e.g., "rules" instead of "just decrees" as in the foot notes). I had grown increasingly dissatisfied with the NIV (original – I have not seen the NIV-2010/11) because I've decided it leans a little too much to the dynamic equivalence end of the translation spectrum, though I still prefer it to the KJV.
I encourage (without insisting on) the use of a newer translation than the KJV, so I'm not disappointed that the KJV is dropping in popularity.
I would love to see the KJV fall lower and lower, the truth is, however, that this will never happen. On this list it usually falls to the #3 or #4 spot, and has not been at #1 in 10 years. Usually the KJV and NKJV trade places at #2 and #3. I'm sure that before long it will be back at #2. There are many, many, KJV onlyist who will never let it slip too far away. I like the ESV and am actually surprised that it never moves past #4 or #5 because so many people seem to use it and because of how well Crossway markets it. They also have really influential people endorsing it, Francis Chan, Mark Driscol, John Piper, etc. It also seems that I hear of more and more ministers and churches switching to it, yet this never seems to be reflected in the numbers…hmmmm. I am interested to see how the NIV 2011 (2010) does. I don't think many people will even notice or know that it has changed. As of November no more NIV or TNIV are being printed, so the NIV 2011 is it, which I think is great because I'm actually a TNIV guy and the NIV 2011 is almost a mirror of the TNIV.
I know some don't like the TNIV and it has caught a lot of criticism about gender usage, but much of that is simply unfair and undue. To hear some talk about it, you would think the TNIV has God as a woman and Jesus as a daughter, which is silly, and simply not true. I find that it is totally right in most places where it refers the plural adelphoi as men and women, which fits the context. Really anthropoi and adelphoi are the only words that are typically translated as he and she/brothers and sisters/they or them. In English grammar the singular they/them is becoming more acceptable. They also occasionally translate autoi in the same way.
As far as paraphrasing, I used to hate this method, because as a Church of Christ minister I was supposed to. However, the more I learned about the process, the more I have come to love it. In fact, every translation uses this method and they do it a lot. I find it funny that many Greek scholars and professors prefer paraphrase translations over literal ones. In fact, paraphrasing is what we ministers do all the time. We read a text, then we say something like, "What's being said is _____________," or "What this means is _______________," or "Another way of saying this is ___________." What did we just do? We paraphrased.
Anyway, for me the TNIV is best, but I am switching to the NIV 2011 this month (they are to ship on the 21st). My second choice is the ESV and my third is the HCSB. Oh, and I think it is great that a Spanish Bible is on the list because our country has come to be greatly populated with Spanish speaking people, and though I wish they would just learn English, they have souls and need the Word.
I gained an interesting insight this week into how certain translations make the cut. We were baptizing a woman and I try to go out and get a Bible that meets their specific needs. (Reading level, addictions, level of intended study, background, etc.) If you want say the X study Bible, you will discover that it is only available in Y translation. I wound up buying a translation I might not normally have gone for because the helps were what she needed. I also note thios week that I taught out of the NIV, did one study in the NIRV and another in the Holman and did my personal reading out of the ESV and the NKJV.
Elberfelder Bible – the equivalent of Darby's translation. It's a very literal translation, rather tough reading, but very accurate even in translating the Greek tenses of the verbs (which sometimes make a huge difference).
I vote for any literal translation for the following reasons:
a) If a translator just wants to transmit the meaning he has to grasp the meaning. If he just translates a language he just has to know the language.
b) I do believe in the meaning of each verb – just note how Paul makes a big deal about the seed of Abraham being in the singular (Gal 3:16)! If a translator fails to note such details and imagines he could transmit the meaning of e verse, we lose a lot!
I vote for any literal translation that follows the best Greek manuscripts
The Textus Receptus (on which the KJV is based) was a "critical text" compiled according the same reasoning as the Westcott & Hort (or Nestle Aland) text, but with just a handful of medieval manuscripts at hand. Now we have found several thousands of manuscripts that date back to even before 70 AD (e.g. 7Q4 & 5). Thgis dioes not make the task easier, but we can be alot more confident about the wording of the original texts.
I vote for any OT-translation that's based on the Septuagint
So far there are no Bibles around that have the OT based on the LXX (the Elberfelder is no different here) and the NT in one volume. This leaves us with the dissatisfying situatiuon that quoite from the OT in the NT quite often don't match the verses we have in the OTs of the same Bibles, which affects some key Messianic prophecies as well. I am convinced that the Holy Spirit confirmed the LXX by His use of it in the NT. Until the 5th cetury (in the Eastern churches until today) the LXX was the OT of the church of Christ.
Alexander
Alexander there is an "Orthodox Study Bible" which uses the LXX for the OT and the NKJV for the NT (and apparently in many places where the LXX and the Masoretic texts agree.) Interesting as it includes the opinions of the Fathers in the study notes at the bottom of the page.
Jay,
We were raised in an environment most on here cannot understand. Even songs have changed words and phrases in them to make them more accurate to our thinking. No more when we ALL get to Heaven. Now its when the SAVED get to Heaven.
Since anyone can write a Bible today, (I like LeGard Smiths) I'm surprised no one has come up with one that coincides in every way to what everyone believes. Most disagreements are not over anything made real clear but vague passages included or left out for or against like IM debated for 150 years. A little tweeking could solve that.
In two generations it would be gospel.
It would be the best seller in 100 years, maybe the only seller.
I voted "other" because I find myself on the internet a lot and when there I use the NET (New English Translation). For decades I used the ASV and then the NASB and liked both, but they (for me) do not make for smooth reading. I have the NIV Archaeological Study Bible as the one carry with me to worship and class. I am not an NIV convert, but really like the archaeological study notes in it. I find the NIV easy to read. I have not tried an ESV. So right now I am all over the place. And BTW I was raised on the KJV and while it was a good Bible for its day, that day was centuries ago. 🙂
Klingon! http://crosswire.org/study/fulllibrary.jsp?show=K…
Just kidding… ESV.
Great! Do you have a lik for this?
It was only two years ago that the LXX appeared uin a German translation …
Alexander,
You may find more information at http://orthodoxstudybible.com.
Ran into it Friday in a local clearance store and snapped it up. It is a Thomas Nelson publication with a 2008 copyright. The OT is called the St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint(SAAS). Again the entireity is called "The Orthodox Study Bible." The footnotes are fascinating.
There it is…
The point on the hymns is really striking to me. I remember as a boy that "Holy, Holy, Holy" included a reference to the Trinity. Then someone decided we didn't believe in that anymore and so the line became "God over all and blessed eternally." Then in the early '90's we switched back and so did the song. I remember a brother getting angry with me about some minor point (admittedly to me) and claiming that the Church never changed her doctrine on anything. We had in our building two editions of the same popular hymnal, one late '80's (non-Trinitarian) and the other early '90's (Trinitarian). I pointed this out and the argument ceased.
I use the ESV primarily. I use ACU's CD with Coffman's Commentary and Theophilos with ESV, KJV, ASV, etc. for comparison study. I use the NET a lot now too – I like the copious notes available with it. KJV was not a problem for me as I learned the archaisms early in life and when I quote it's still KJV. I'm not surprised it's fading though, after 400 years…
The Spanish language being on the list is no surprise. Decades ago I attended a workshop at Getwell Road coc in Memphis. One older brother, I don't remember who, presented a detailed argument on why one should pray using the archaic pronouns from the KJV. My wife and I still get quite a chuckle about what happened immediately thereafter – the prayer – and the leader used only contemporary language throughout. We guess he didn't get the memo…
Yet, It still means something that 70 scholars were picked and had to agree to the translation and as importantly, the choice of the letters to be used.
I see in the new translations they use the exact same letters (or books) as the 70 picked and leave out the others that were under consideration by the 70.
Doesn't that give credence to the 70 by that action alone?
Why are the new ones not translated exactly but do add and subtract from the KJV?
By doing that the new version becomes something other than a translation and more of a plagerization of the KJV.
That bothers me.
I grew up on the RSV mostly, switched to NIV for a while in HS and college for various reasons, switched to NASB for a while after college, and now I'm using ESV primarily. I own all of those plus a KJV and a few others — our Bible Bowl competitions growing up were KJV based so the most conservative congregation in the region would participate.
I'm getting in a little late on this one; my wife kept me busy in the yard over the weekend.
I prefer the NRSV; I believe it to be the most accurate. I know there are many who consider it a modernist translation, but as an old liberal, I believe it to be the most honest.
However, I refuse to be frightend away from the KJV; either by the KJV only crowd, or by those who consider it dead. It is the most beautiful literature of the English lanquage, especailly the Psalms. I know of ministers and counselors who advise people who are going through tragedy and pain to read through the Psalms in the KJV. The KJV Psalms are a daily habit of mine, and the poetry and song they fill me with cannot be accomplshed by anything else I have in my book case.
Conservative denominations need more art, and I mean mostly, poetry. And the best way is to fall back in love with the KJV; there is nothing to be afraid of.
What’s your reaction to the venerable KJV dropping to third place?
I am saddened, but not surprised. There is no motvation to promote the Authorized and only reliable translation, because it is not copyright protected. Besides "scholars" have held God's Word to the English peoples in derrission since the late 19th century.
What’s your reaction to the NIV being at the top of list?
Which NIV? There are at least five revisions of which I know.
What’s your reaction to a Spanish translation making the list?
I am not surprised. We are the United States of the Americas.
I have a wonder study Bible called the "New Spirit Filled Life Bible" and it's version is NKJV. The study notes are the best I've ever read, and I love the devotional cadence of the scripture.
Alabama John,
The KJV is not "an exact" translation. It is a very good one, maybe the best, but even it is not an "exact" translation of the original manuscripts. One of the reasons is that the original languages had words that there is no English equivalent for.
Modern translators have some older and better preserve manuscripts than did the people who labored in the early 1600's.
The ESV translators tried to be as "literal" as the KJV but do so using modern language that any English speaker can understand. It, like the KJV is a "word for word" attempt. The NIV is a "thought for thought" or "dynamic equivalence" translation. The idea is that the thoughts conveyed are what is important, not the "words".
Wayne Jackson with the Christian Courier, with whom I disagree about many things, wrote a very fair and favorable review of the ESV.
Royce
I understand Royce, In my lifetime nothing but the KJV was allowed in a church of Christ of my acquaintance. We preached, taught and prayed from it.
It was the only one blessed and the 70 were inspired.
None other was or ever will be.
I'm the only one in my whole extended family that still carries it.
The question not considered here, but thoughtful is: Why are there not more Christians or churches of Christ in the Arabic or Greek countries if that language is what we translated from?
Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew with perhaps a small part in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. And, because of the dominance of th e Greek language, the Old Testament was translated into Greek and the first was called the Septuagint LXX.
By the early part of the 1st century Aramaic had become the common language of the Jews and is very likely the language Jesus spoke most of the time. In a few years (200 – 300) Greek had become the most widely used language due to the influence of the Roman Empire in the whole known world.
The reason the New Testament was written in Greek and the Old Testament translated from Aramaic and Hebrew into Greek was simply because that is what most people spoke and understood.
By the 1600's the common language for much of the world was English which is why King James VI commissioned that a translation be made in the language of the people, English. The work began in 1604 and was completed in May of 1611. The KJV was a noble work and a trustworthy translation. It is not the only inspired Bible though as some insist. I thank God for it but it is outdated because the language of English speaking people long ago left the archaic speech of the British which was the common language in the year 1600.
Your question, to be treated fairly, would require a very long answer and this is not my blog.