The Christian Booksellers Association recently released its list of the top ten selling Bible translations for December 2014. The CBA actually provides two lists: one by dollar sales; and the other by unit sales.
Top Ten Translations Based on Dollar Sales
- New International Version
- King James Version
- New King James Version
- New Living Translation
- English Standard Version
- Holman Christian Standard Bible
- The Voice
- New American Standard
- Reina Valera 1960
- New International Reader’s Version
Top Ten Translations Based on Unit Sales
- New International Version
- The Voice
- King James Version
- English Standard Version
- New King James Version
- New Living Translation
- Holman Christian Standard Bible
- Reina Valera 1960
- Nueva Version Internacional (Spanish)
- New International Reader’s Version
What is your preferred Bible translation? What do you think about these two lists? Let me hear from you.
Posted on December 10, 2014
With nearly 40 years of ministry experience, Thom Rainer has spent a lifetime committed to the growth and health of local churches across North America.
More from Thom
175 Comments
Someone listed the NLT as a paraphrase, which I believe is inaccurate. As I understand it, it started out as an attempt to update the Living Bible, a true paraphrase, but in the process became a new translation based on the Hebrew and Greek texts, with some style influence from the Living Bible. IMO, the Second Edition is noticeable better, maybe because it seems less influenced by the LB paraphrase.
It does lean heavily toward the “dynamic equivalence” side of the spectrum, but I like that. It allows the NLT to use more words to communicate concepts in more detail. That makes it the longest of the translations.
I almost always preach from the NLT, but I do have to say that sometimes the way a particular passage is worded just kind of bugs me and I end up going to another version, usually the NIV or NET. I often use the NASB, ESV, NKJ and NRV to shed a little extra perspective on any given verse or passage.
I was surprised to see only one mention of the NET, and that in the comments. The translator’s notes alone are worth buying one. I gain such insight from understanding why a particular reading was used, or even more, why a particular reading was NOT used. Not to mention the fact that the copyright allows it to be freely quoted. And it’s free in a digital format. It’s a surprise that more people don’t use it, at least as a study reference.
I have not used the HCSB, but I will be checking it out.
I usually use the NASB for sermon and Bible study preparation (it’s not the most readable translation out there, but it’s great for exegesis). For devotional reading, I generally use either the NIV or the HCSB. For preaching, however, I’m still enough of a traditionalist to use the King James Version. When people love Shakespeare, they’re seen as “cultured” and “sophisticated”. When people love the King James Bible, they’re seen as “backward” and “out of step”. Am I the only one who sees a paradox on those sentiments?
I use the NLT and the CEB. I preach from the NLT.
I prefer the ESV and wish that we had it in our Literature in place of the HCSB. The HCSB uses Hebrew translation in the NT when it should be Greek. In the NT, Jesus is Christ, not Messiah. Also, the HCSB doesn’t coincide with other translations in wording and can cause confusion when used in the pulpit or in teaching. As most SBCers do not know, but the HCSB is the SBC answer to the Zondervan updates of the NIV, and the Editor is Weslyan, not SBC. Plus, the ESV seems to align with the Baptist Faith & Message where the HCSB does not. Overall, the HCSB is not a horrible work, just not a true Essentially Literal Translation, and if it isn’t an Essentially Literal work, isn’t really just another paraphrase?
John, thanks for your comments about the HCSB. Let me take a minute to offer a few corrections about some of the things you mentioned. Most of the following info can be found at both of these websites: lifeway.com and hcsb.org.
First, in all our major curricula lines at LifeWay (Gospel Project, Explore the Bible, Bible Studies for Life), the ESV is available in either print or digital formats. So, there you go! Win!
Second, on the technical side of things, the base text for the NT is the Nestle Aland, 27th ed., respected by all scholars as the definitive eclectic Greek text. I’m not sure what you mean by the “Hebrew translation,” but hopefully this comment helps resolve the basis for the NT translation in the HCSB.
Third, you are right to point out that, at times, the HCSB does not follow the traditional renderings of most translations. Part of the reason is due to the translation philosophy, aiming to be both accurate and comprehensible to today’s Bible readers. Another reason is because many translations are simply following the KJV (such as ESV, etc.), and seek to follow the style and “feel.” We love the Bible and want to get it into the hands of as many people as possible, so praise God for the many translations we have that speak to so many people in the way and style that ministers to them.
Fourth, since there were uncertainties with some trends in contemporary Bible translation, we did decide it important to steward the production of an accurate, yet readable translation that wasn’t going to follow decisions like the TNIV. Interestingly, the ESV was produced just slightly before the HCSB (and we are grateful for it!), following in the KJV tradition. We wanted to be more contemporary in terms of readability than the ESV. The general editor was Presbyterian, however, not Wesleyan; and, we had 17 denominations total represented among the scholars that produced the HCSB, including many SBC representatives. We believe this is a strength among evangelical Bible readers and not a deficit. The Bible is central to all we do, and LifeWay is pleased to have stewardship over the HCSB.
Fifth, I commend your love for an essentially literal translation, like the ESV or NASB. Stick with those and you won’t be disappointed. But for many Bible readers who don’t want to sacrifice comprehension for wooden literalism, our belief is that the HCSB is the best option. It is faithful and clear.
Many blessings to you, and Merry Christmas!
Dr. Micah Carter
HCSB Translation Spokesperson
B&H Publishing Group
Micah,
Thanks for your comments.
Messiah is Hebrew, not Greek and should be translated Christ to be correct.
Also, the use of Yahweh and not following the conservative trends can cause confusion to the reader.
No, Explore The Bible is NOT available in print format with the ESV.
Would it not be proper to drop the NIV in our literature and opt to the ESV?
I can appreciate that we own a translation, but why should we as SBCers be content with anything less than an Essentially Literal work?
To be accurate, “Christ” is a transliteration of the Greek word “Christos” – which means “anointed one.” It is acceptable to translate it as Messiah, as many translations do on occasion.
As for curriculum in ESV, I said print OR digital. Sorry to mislead — but it IS available!
This is not the space to discuss translation theory. It’s clear you have heard the ESV pitch about “essentially literal.” But even ESV is not word for word, and often translates more dynamically than the original languages. I’d encourage you to read Dave Brunn’s book by IVP called “One Bible, Many Versions.” He demonstrates exhaustively how all versions make translation choices so that contemporary people can understand it. Worth your time.
Blessings again,
Micah
Thanks Micah.
Micah, since you are the HCSB Translation Spokesperson, I would like your feedback on something I addressed to Jeremy earlier in the thread, after his comment to someone else that the translation committee is looking it over for further updating. Here is what I wrote:
…if I may offer my two-cents worth on the HCSB, I hope they are going to “tighten” it up a bit – in aiming for readability, the language pendulum swings a little too far over and gets a little loose and is quirky in places. I also believe it loses some distinction of literature (poetry vs. historical narrative, etc. – the Psalms should not sound like a merely animated testimony across a dinner table). Additionally, I disagree with the translation of 2 Timothy 3:16 and 4:2. In a time when the idea of inspiration is understood as only the prompting of a good idea, everybody needs to understand that the Bible is “God-breathed” (the literal and most powerful translation of “theopneustos”). And in a time when so many preachers are trading the preaching of God’s Word for preferred and personalized messages, they need the exhortation to “preach the word” (I do understand that “proclaim the message” is textually acceptable, but it is not contextually accurate, when Paul’s subject is the life-changing power of Scripture in Timothy’s life and ministry – “preach the word” is crisp and strong while “proclaim the message” is flat and weak – I just do not understand the reasoning behind the translators’ choice here).
Just FYI, I am a 39-year-old pastor in Oklahoma, not raised in church or on the KJV. I do like what the HCSB is aiming for in its translation philosophy. Overall, I do believe the HCSB is a good translation, but not nearly as good as it could be. It has a lot of room for improvement (just like me), and I commend the Committee for taking a fresh look at it with fresh feedback. I pray for our Lord’s blessing on their efforts.
The King James 1611 Authorized Version is by far superior. It comes from a pure Greek text, untouched by the philosophies of Egypt and Westcott and Hort. In an age where education is worshipped you would think the complaints about it being hard to understand would go away. Children were taught to read from this Book and now college graduates parrot the same thing, “it’s hard to understand”. Its also amazing that the King James is available to print by anyone, anytime and anywhere. You must have persmission from the publishers of new versions to even quote from them. The Bible is not clothing. I prefer collared shirts to polo shirts. But, when it comes to the Bible, you had better use the one that has been proved through history to be blessed by God. Real revivals took place under those who preached from a 1611. Today, we have Christians who will receive anything and everything as long as it sounds pleasant and positive. I preach expository as well. To preach from any other Book would be a complete embarrassment to my character.
I am a King James kind of guy. I do have most all other translations. I study some out of the ESV and NKJV. I will stick with what I know.
Brother Rainer, do you have any statistics on the trend for overall sales of Bibles? Are sales trending upward, downward, or stagnant?
I use the KJV for preaching and liturgy, but generally the NIV for study.
I use New Revised Standard and some Common English Bible because they were produced by a wide ecumenical committee with, in the NRSV, Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds. So many translations in the list are either belief or publisher based. The NIV is a case in point as a creature of Zondervan, and the NASV as a conservatives only project. An authoritative text has to come from the widest scholarly base. I accept the use if neutral or both sex pronouns not because they are politically correct but because they are accurate.
My translation of choice is the HCSB. I use it for reading, teaching and preaching. I had used the NIV from 1978 until the the TNIV debacle and the fact that the NIV2011 is nothing more than the TNIV.
I occasionally read the ESV But frankly it is too much like the KJV, it does not read the way we speak today like the HCSB does. Full disclosure, I grew up in a KJV-only church which also impacts my tnoughts.
I would like to see a few updates to the HCSB in the Psalms. I think using “O” within poetry is acceptable to English readers today.
I believe that a translation must be as accurate as possible while maintaining readability that is not wooden or out of date. Therefore, I do wish that paraphrases such as The Voice, the NLT, NIVr and the Message were not included as translations in these lists but unfortunately many publishers are simply not honest in shilling their wares. The paraphrases may have a purpose but it is time we not use them for teaching, preaching, memorizing and high visibility pastors should cease using hem for those purposes.
My intent is not to offend but to be candid.
I have the HCSB on my Mantis Study Bible. Whenever I think of the HCSB, I’m always reminded of Dr. Adam Greenway. When he was serving as our Interim Pastor at Far Hils Community Church in Dayton, OH, he always preached from the HCSB. I can still remember him saying, “…and as always, I’m reading from the Holman Christian Standard Bible.”
Adam Greenway is one of my favorite people!
I love reading the NLT. However, I’ve not read a better study Bible than the ESV Study Bible. I keep both close to me.
I went through seminary with a hardback Ryrie NASB. It is now held together by duct tape. I love NASB. For verse by verse in depth sermon prep and study. I have used both ESV and NIV in preaching and every time I get close to just using the ESV I hig something that is difficult for my congregation. I have many newer believers and at times NASB and ESV have been less accessible for preaching. I generally use NIV then. My personal favorite for reading is the NRSV but it isn’t widely known in SBC circles. HCSB is a good translation but I just personally haven’t gotten used to it.
The great truth we shouldn’t miss is that we are blessed with NUMEROUS quality translations.