# Bible Translation Sales Rankings (June, 2021)



## bookslover (Aug 5, 2021)

Per the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association, here are the top ten sales rankings for Bible translations, as of June, 2021. The number in parentheses is that translation's ranking ten years ago (2011).

1. NIV (1)

2. KJV (2)

3. NLT (4)

4. ESV (5)

5. NKJV (3)

6. CSB (6)

7. Reina Valera (Spanish) (-)

8. NIrV (NIV reader's version) (9)

9. The Message (8)

10. NVI (Spanish version of the NIV) (-)

The two biggest drops are the NKJV (which has fallen from 3 to 5 over the last decade) and the NASB (which has fallen off the list completely; it was at 7 ten years ago). Also, unlike ten years ago, there are now _two_ Spanish translations on the list. The two Spanish translations are not ranked.

The NLT, ESV, and the NIrV have moved up in the rankings. The NKJV and The Message have moved down in the rankings. The NIV, the KJV and, interestingly, the CSB are all unchanged in their rankings from ten years ago.

Also, more than $400,000,000 worth of Bibles are sold in the US every year.

Personally, I also think it's interesting that, despite relentless marketing by Crossway over the last 20 years [the ESV turns 20 in September, 2021], the ESV has never (to my knowledge) risen above 4 or 5 in the rankings.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 6


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 5, 2021)

My work on behalf of the NIV-only movement is clearly paying off.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 10


----------



## user98Luke (Aug 5, 2021)

Am I wrong to assume that ESV saying they had finalized the translation and then going back on their word and revising it probably killed off a good chunk of their readers?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Aug 5, 2021)

Interesting. Even though I don't use the translation, I live in an ESV-onlyist bubble.

I thought the second Bible on the list was supposed to be, in a practical sense, unreadable today.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 5, 2021)

J.L. Allen said:


> Interesting. Even though I don't use the translation, I live in an ESV-onlyist bubble.
> 
> I thought the second Bible on the list was supposed to be, in a practical sense, unreadable today.


Although I would wish it weren’t the case, I do wonder how much of the KJV sales and thus ranking are due to its cheapness and availability as a gift Bible and other such uses, maybe purchased by people who really don’t know the difference.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## user98Luke (Aug 5, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Although I would wish it weren’t the case, I do wonder how much of the KJV sales and thus ranking are due to its cheapness and availability as a gift Bible and other such uses, maybe purchased by people who really don’t know the difference.


I wonder the same thing. Also I’m sure KJVO churches, of which many still exist, drive sales for the translation. It will be interesting to watch and see how long it takes for it to drop out of the top 5, if it ever does.


----------



## Jake (Aug 5, 2021)

Lukemk824 said:


> Am I wrong to assume that ESV saying they had finalized the translation and then going back on their word and revising it probably killed off a good chunk of their readers?


The NIV probably had the most controversial update (1984->2011 edition) out of the major translations and it's still on top.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 5, 2021)

Jake said:


> The NIV probably had the most controversial update (1984->2011 edition) out of the major translations and it's still on top.


In my humble opinion, I think the ESV's problem lies in the fact that it's not that different from the NIV. An NIV reader isn't likely to switch to ESV unless they find themselves in a more Reformed-ish environment where the ESV has been anointed as "The Received Translation".

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Aug 5, 2021)

I bought the CSB recently and really like how it reads more natural. When I read the ESV it sometimes feels like YODA is talking to me. CSB was a blending of literal translation with thought for thought. I guess it really depends on your usage. For rigid study I never just stick to one interpretation and usually gravitate towards ESV, NASB and KJV.

EDIT ---***

I should add that I find that the CSB interpretation favors a baptist perspective on covenants. I caught this in some of their dealings with the law/gospel topics. Its not so apparent in the translation itself. I have the ancient faith study bible which incorporates comments from theologians from antiquity. Very interesting to read but it does favor a specific type of translation.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Eoghan (Aug 5, 2021)

The failure to rank the NASB is the canary in the coalmine

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

Lukemk824 said:


> Am I wrong to assume that ESV saying they had finalized the translation and then going back on their word and revising it probably killed off a good chunk of their readers?


There are a number of things that they've done that have turned off some people, myself included. These include, in no particular order:


Announcing that the 2016 text was permanent, then shortly afterward changing their mind. There have been no updates since then, however.
The rendering in Gen 3:16, which was included in the 2016. The controversy over this may have led to the abandonment of the Permanent Text idea. But that's just a guess. Ironically, this is what some have termed an "NIV move." They chose one possible interpretation and excluded all others. The ESV was originally sold on the idea that "essentially literal" translation doesn't do this, that it provides "transparency" or whatever for the original text. Ironically, if I'm not mistaken, it was a woman, Susan Foh, who first advanced this translation or idea, and I think that was in the 70s.
It is alleged that it has a complementarian bias. See above. We might say that the originals have a "complementarian bias" or a "patriarchal bias." But the charge is that the translators have gone out of their way in certain passages. Gen 3:16 is the worst, but this has been alleged with some others. 
It is still widely considered to be a "Calvinist translation" although I've seen no slam dunk evidence of a Calvinist bias. More people who aren't Calvinist (or LCMS) use it than before. But that still seems to be a minority.
The ESV Study Bible teaches ESS or EFS or whatever it is called. It was basically produced by the same people that produced the ESV itself, Grudem in particular. So that controversy soured some people on the whole ESV brand.
Their treatment the word slave (_doulos_.) There's a video that has been much maligned where the committee discusses the issue and appears to be timid and uncomfortable.
Some people who may have used the NIV originally and switched to the ESV after the NIV2011 was published (although this applies to some others) decided that the language in the ESV is too awkward and archaic (e.g. "fret not," "shall") and have switched to something like the CSB instead. The NASB has always been considered "wooden." The ESV was sold as being just about as literal but also more elegant and literary, and "sounding like the Bible." (What that means is that it sounds more like the KJV, which it does in many cases compared to the NASB.) But what some people find to be literary and elegant or whatever, other people see as awkward and wooden and "Biblish" and they prefer something in more familiar language.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

While the top 6 in the rankings is pretty stable, the bottom 4 are pretty volatile. The NASB is sometimes in the rankings and sometimes not. The same goes for the Message and the NVI. I think that the Reina Valera is consistently in the Top 10 though, as is the NIrV. The NASB is usually if not always in the separate Top 10 ranking that ranks $$ spent as opposed to units sold.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

Jake said:


> The NIV probably had the most controversial update (1984->2011 edition) out of the major translations and it's still on top.


I understand that their market share eroded by maybe 5-10% but with a more crowded market now, they are still on top. Around 2000, the main choices for conservatives were the NIV, KJV, NASB, and NKJV, as well as the NLT since that is aimed at an evangelical audience. Since then the ESV and (H)CSB have been added, along with some more obscure options.

I've also seen some people say that the gender neutral controversy was overblown. Some were using the ESV but have now gone back to the NIV. Some are reading the 2011. Some are clinging to the 84. The 2011 was sort of radioactive 10 years ago. No longer. See who the contributors are to the Biblical Theology Study Bible, for example. There's also a new study Bible edited by Albert Mohler in the NIV2011. Even the MacArthur Study Bible was issued in the NIV2011 shortly after MacArthur publicly denounced the translation. Various theories have been advanced as to why they made that move. The one that is more or less official was that they wanted to get it in the hands of as many people as possible. If that's the case, I eagerly await the KJV edition.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> In my humble opinion, I think the ESV's problem lies in the fact that it's not that different from the NIV. An NIV reader isn't likely to switch to ESV unless they find themselves in a more Reformed-ish environment where the ESV has been anointed as "The Received Translation".


Although I'm not a fan of it and rarely consult it, I disagree. I think even some people who reprobate all critical text translations would disagree. The ESV is much closer to the NASB than it is to the NIV, especially the NIV11. But that applies to the NIV84 as well. When it comes to translation philosophy, the NKJV, NASB, and ESV are basically in the same class, although the NKJV and NASB are somewhat more literal. (Most of the biased charts have the KJV and NKJV being much less literal than they are.) The NIV is less literal than the CSB, and the CSB clearly has a different philosophy than the ESV.

The NASB is so similar to the RSV in many places that it seems pretty clear that they substituted synonyms at times when the RSV carried over renderings from the KJV and ASV in order to differentiate the translations. And the ESV is still a light revision of the RSV even thought it is now in the 4th "text edition." This is one reason why some prefer the ESV to the NASB because the ESV "sounds like the Bible." I think it is safe to say that some of those differences have nothing to do with accuracy.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Aug 5, 2021)

Just goes to show the NASB is clearly still the best...may the Lord open blind eyes

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1 | Funny 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

JTB.SDG said:


> Just goes to show the NASB is clearly still the best...may the Lord open blind eyes


Which one would that be? 1977? 1995? 2020? Or MacArthur's Legacy Standard Bible, which is a light revision of the 1995? All four of them are currently in print.

Seriously, I have probably been reading more from the 1995 NASB than any other version over the past decade. But much of that is because the Side-Column Reference Bible is my favorite text block of all time, although some new rivals have emerged in the last few years. (I used to prefer the NKJV but until about 3 years ago it was impossible to find one in black letter that wasn't a study Bible, and red letter causes too much eye strain for me these days.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Aug 5, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Although I would wish it weren’t the case, I do wonder how much of the KJV sales and thus ranking are due to its cheapness and availability as a gift Bible and other such uses, maybe purchased by people who really don’t know the difference


Yes, I suspect there's a difference between most-purchased and most-read, and the KJV probably gets significant sales among the crowd that wants to have a Bible but might not be planning to read it much.

I also suspect, just from informal talks with publishers, that bulk sales are important to these numbers. With other Christian books, sales figures are highly impacted by churches or other organizations that will buy a title in bulk, and I have to think this might be doubly true with Bible sales. I wonder if the NIV and KJV lead is driven in part by being traditional choices made by traditional churches that still supply pew Bibles and and classroom Bibles, and by the Gideons who purchase a ton of KJV Bibles. I'm guessing that younger, less traditional churches where worshipers are more likely to open a Bible app on their phone during the sermon or Sunday school, so that you don't have hundreds of printed Bibles in the building, are also more likely to be ESV- or CSB- or even NASB-leaning churches.

It'd be interesting to see if the publishers have any hard data on this, but I would guess that the ESV, CSB, and NASB all skew toward younger Bible readers, while older consumers are more likely to choose the NIV. Might younger readers also be more likely to download a free app rather than actually buy a printed Bible?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 5, 2021)

Jack K said:


> It'd be interesting to see if the publishers have any hard data on this, but I would guess that the ESV, CSB, and NASB all skew toward younger Bible readers, *while older consumers are more likely to choose the NIV*.



Given that Moses translated it into Hebrew, who would want to ignore the wisdom of one's elders?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

Jack K said:


> Yes, I suspect there's a difference between most-purchased and most-read, and the KJV probably gets significant sales among the crowd that wants to have a Bible but might not be planning to read it much.
> 
> I also suspect, just from informal talks with publishers, that bulk sales are important to these numbers. With other Christian books, sales figures are highly impacted by churches or other organizations that will buy a title in bulk, and I have to think this might be doubly true with Bible sales. I wonder if the NIV and KJV lead is driven in part by being traditional choices made by traditional churches that still supply pew Bibles and and classroom Bibles, and by the Gideons who purchase a ton of KJV Bibles. I'm guessing that younger, less traditional churches where worshipers are more likely to open a Bible app on their phone during the sermon or Sunday school, so that you don't have hundreds of printed Bibles in the building, are also more likely to be ESV- or CSB- or even NASB-leaning churches.
> 
> It'd be interesting to see if the publishers have any hard data on this, but I would guess that the ESV, CSB, and NASB all skew toward younger Bible readers, while older consumers are more likely to choose the NIV. Might younger readers also be more likely to download a free app rather than actually buy a printed Bible?


I think it is quite the opposite with the NASB. I think that definitely skews older unless 55 is younger these days. The NKJV probably does too. I think its drop in the rankings is an indication of that. The popularity of the NASB has really dropped over the past two decades. The NASB was somewhat popular with Boomers and Gen-X. The NIV was the Bible that Gen-Xers were raised on more often than not. I think it is more diverse with millennials. 

Pew Bible sales are likely a factor in the ESV sales as well. It is widely used in the LCMS as well as Reformed churches and Calvinistic Baptist churches and others. The Gideons are now printing modified ESV Bibles. I don't know whether or not they are still printing KJV. They printed some NKJV for a while. I don't know if their license expired or what.

The KJV is still the choice by far in Black churches. It's not just IFBs. Southern Baptist churches in some areas (typically rural) practically veer toward KJVO as well, or so I've heard. They might not be Ruckmanite, but its just what they've always used and others would be viewed with suspicion. I suspect many of those are older congregations, but perhaps not all of them are.

But I think that the KJV and NIV both probably have a higher percentage that are given as gifts that are never read. Those are the two versions that are most recognized by people who themselves might not read the Bible much.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 5, 2021)

Also, as I continue to think about it, I suspect the top two on the list, NIV and KJV, both appeal to a particularly broad consumer base. I'm guessing that both of those translations have a strong following among traditional evangelicals, due to their heritage, and at the same time also pick up large numbers of sales in mainline churches and among Bible readers who are uncomfortable with evangelicalism. I've been inside a few mainline churches recently where the RSV has been replaced in the pews with the 2011 NIV (which is now acceptable to mainliners), but I was also in a conservative and Bible-believing church just yesterday that has NIVs in the pews. Very different churches, but both using the NIV.



Reformed Covenanter said:


> Given that Moses translated it into Hebrew, who would want to ignore the wisdom of one's elders?


It's hard to convey to you youngsters the passion with which my generation of evangelicals embraced the NIV when it first came out. That kind of excitement leaves a heritage and has made the NIV a hugely popular brand—even though it isn't the same Bible anymore.



Pilgrim said:


> The KJV is still the choice by far in Black churches.


Yes, an excellent observation, and a significant slice of the market, I would guess.


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 5, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Given that Moses translated it into Hebrew, who would want to ignore the wisdom of one's elders?


Yes but we all know the NKJV was translated by Noah directly onto Adam’s fig leaves… so this must be a consideration.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

Jack K said:


> Also, as I continue to think about it, I suspect the top two on the list, NIV and KJV, both appeal to a particularly broad consumer base. I'm guessing that both of those translations have a strong following among traditional evangelicals, due to their heritage, and at the same time also pick up large numbers of sales in mainline churches and among Bible readers who are uncomfortable with evangelicalism. I've been inside a few mainline churches recently where the RSV has been replaced in the pews with the 2011 NIV (which is now acceptable to mainliners), but I was also in a conservative and Bible-believing church just yesterday that has NIVs in the pews. Very different churches, but both using the NIV.
> 
> 
> It's hard to convey to you youngsters the passion with which my generation of evangelicals embraced the NIV when it first came out. That kind of excitement leaves a heritage and has made the NIV a hugely popular brand—even though it isn't the same Bible anymore.
> ...


The NIV has long been used by some mainliners who were sort of evangelical or conservative by mainline standards, although I don't know what percentage that would be. I'd hate to stereotype, but maybe the percentage is higher among those who actually crack open a Bible on a semi-regular basis. I don't think it has ever been mandated that the RSV or NRSV had to be used, at least not in the UMC. The mainline denominations produced the CEB about 10 years ago, which is supposed to be sort of a NIV for mainliners, although it is not quite that literal. But it was aimed at those who find the NRSV to be too formal. They had the Today's English Version/Good News Bible, but maybe what was contemporary in the 70s is considered out of date in the 21st Century. Congregations bought a lot of those in bulk back in the 70s and 80s.

I'm in a lot of Bible groups on Facebook. It's interesting to see some of the comments about versions. You're right about some mainliners and others who probably wouldn't have used the NIV in the past but who are using the NIV11 now, at least as one of their main versions if not the main one. A number of them had been fans of the TNIV, which was a bit more radical than the 2011 is with gender neutral renderings. You'll see an evangelical or Reformed person here or there who expresses admiration for the NRSV. Every now and then I'll say "Come on man, you're not supposed to like that for reasons X, Y, and Z." Sometimes they know the issues and sometimes not. Then you'll get some people who don't seem to realize what the issues are and why versions came into existence. Some who are more mainline but who like the NASB will wonder why more NASB fans don't like the NRSV, etc. Not being from any kind of Bible-believing background, one of the first things I did after being converted was to research Bible versions. I think I already had some knowledge of the controversy over Isa. 7:14.


----------



## user98Luke (Aug 5, 2021)

Jack K said:


> It's hard to convey to you youngsters the passion with which my generation of evangelicals embraced the NIV when it first came out. That kind of excitement leaves a heritage and has made the NIV a hugely popular brand—even though it isn't the same Bible anymore.


I would love to hear more on this, if you haven't already exhausted yourself in other threads.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

Jack K said:


> It's hard to convey to you youngsters the passion with which my generation of evangelicals embraced the NIV when it first came out. That kind of excitement leaves a heritage and has made the NIV a hugely popular brand—even though it isn't the same Bible anymore.


And there were people a lot older than you who were excited about it too. I remember Francis Schaeffer saying good things about it, and he used it in later books.

For those who wanted a modern translation, there weren't a whole lot of choices in 1978 when the full NIV was published. There was the KJV. I think Nelson may have still had the ASV in print. (Arguably that's harder to read than the KJV.) The NASB was respected but considered too difficult by many. Most of the RSV was fine (which is why Crossway revised it with the ESV) but the liberalism of the translators was obvious by how they translated several passages, especially in the OT. That was significant enough that relatively few evangelicals used it, especially in the USA. The Living Bible (a paraphrase) was very popular for a while. But all of those were considered flawed by people who wanted a conservative, accessible, and accurate translation. Some pastors eventually cooled toward the NIV when they realized that it wasn't as literal as they would have preferred in some places. But for regular folks, it was THE Bible to have if you were only going to get one. You got the NASB if you wanted to get "serious" about your Bible study.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> My work on behalf of the NIV-only movement is clearly paying off.



Are you a NIV fan now?


----------



## iainduguid (Aug 5, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> And there were people a lot older than you who were excited about it too. I remember Francis Schaeffer saying good things about it, and he used it in later books.
> 
> For those who wanted a modern translation, there weren't a whole lot of choices in 1978 when the full NIV was published. There was the KJV. I think Nelson may have still had the ASV in print. (Arguably that's harder to read than the KJV.) The NASB was respected but considered too difficult by many. Most of the RSV was fine (which is why Crossway revised it with the ESV) but the liberalism of the translators was obvious by how they translated several passages, especially in the OT. That was significant enough that relatively few evangelicals used it, especially in the USA. The Living Bible (a paraphrase) was very popular for a while. But all of those were considered flawed by people who wanted a conservative, accessible, and accurate translation. Some pastors eventually cooled toward the NIV when they realized that it wasn't as literal as they would have preferred in some places. But for regular folks, it was THE Bible to have if you were only going to get one. You got the NASB if you wanted to get "serious" about your Bible study.


Ding, ding, ding! Growing up in England in the 60's and 70's evangelical churches that didn't use the KJV generally used the RSV. No one would ever have chosen a pew Bible that had the word "American" in it. Liberal churches used the Good news Bible, complete with tacky line drawing illustrations. When the NIV came out, evangelicals generally welcomed its more conservative stance on hot button verses (less noticed but more profound was its return to the priority of the Masoretic Text over the RSV's love affair with the Septuagint). By the time the ESV came out, I was preaching regularly from the NIV and often wished for something slightly more literal. After using the ESV for a while, I generally liked it but wished they hadn't tried so hard to make it "sound like the Bible", which inevitably takes normal Hebrew and Greek and turns them into KJV language, rather than into normal English. Hence my interest in the CSB project when it came around.

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jack K (Aug 5, 2021)

Lukemk824 said:


> I would love to hear more on this, if you haven't already exhausted yourself in other threads.


As Chris said, when it arrived in 1978, the NIV was the only translation of its kind. It was written in our everyday English, yet it retained a sense of Bible-worthy seriousness and elegance that the everyday-English paraphrases (Living Bible, Good News Bible) lacked. And its evangelical credentials were solid, unlike the RSV. The marketing and packaging was spot-on, too. Other modern-English translations either tried to look like an everyday book with a hip cover (Living Bible) or included those silly drawings Iain mentioned (Good News Bible). But the NIV looked and felt like a real Bible for serious study.

By the time I started college three years later, I think every campus ministry I knew there was using the NIV except for the Navigators, who still held on to the NASB (published ten years earlier) as more accurate despite its clunkiness.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 5, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> After using the ESV for a while, I generally liked it but wished they hadn't tried so hard to make it "sound like the Bible", which inevitably takes normal Hebrew and Greek and turns them into KJV language, rather than into normal English.


I agree with this though it has to be said that Psalm 23 in the ESV sounds more familiar (I grew up with the KJV) than the CSB.


iainduguid said:


> Hence my interest in the CSB project when it came around.


I am wondering if the New Legacy Standard Bible will nicely compliment the CSB? The CSB is esteemed because it aims to balance readability and accuracy. The LSB aims to be very literal and bring out the nuances of the original languages. Time will tell I guess.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Aug 5, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> Which one would that be? 1977? 1995? 2020? Or MacArthur's Legacy Standard Bible, which is a light revision of the 1995? All four of them are currently in print.
> 
> Seriously, I have probably been reading more from the 1995 NASB than any other version over the past decade. But much of that is because the Side-Column Reference Bible is my favorite text block of all time, although some new rivals have emerged in the last few years. (I used to prefer the NKJV but until about 3 years ago it was impossible to find one in black letter that wasn't a study Bible, and red letter causes too much eye strain for me these days.)


The 1995. Ah, so you are an SCR guy. People will pay insane prices for those SCR Allen's on Ebay!! Never tried the SCR. But I've been working through the NASB Ultrathin Reference Bible for almost 20 years strong!


----------



## Taylor (Aug 5, 2021)

Grant said:


> …the NKJV was translated by Noah directly onto Adam’s fig leaves.


This is the scholarship we need, brother!

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

JTB.SDG said:


> The 1995. Ah, so you are an SCR guy. People will pay insane prices for those SCR Allen's on Ebay!! Never tried the SCR. But I've been working through the NASB Ultrathin Reference Bible for almost 20 years strong!



I recently picked up an 07 LPUT. (Those that know, know. LOL) 

From what I understand, the paper isn’t all that great in the Allans. They were just using what Lockman provided, which wasn’t too good in that era. That being said, some people care a lot more about the cover than they do the paper. It’s totally the opposite with me. 

Certain USA printings of the SCR, especially the 02 with the French Milled paper, are the most highly sought after by those for whom paper is paramount. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 5, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> Are you a NIV fan now?



I have liked the NIV for a long time. I carry an old black leather NIV (1978) to church, which people often mistake for an AV. I respond with suitable outrage at such an insinuation, "If it's not 1978, it's not great!"  

More seriously, I am not convinced that it is the best Bible for using in church. It is quite useful for reading long portions of scripture.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I am wondering if the New Legacy Standard Bible will nicely compliment the CSB? The CSB is esteemed because it aims to balance readability and accuracy. The LSB aims to be very literal and bring out the nuances of the original languages. Time will tell I guess.


. 

I think that will depend on one’s opinion of the propriety of having “Yahweh” in the text every time. Some who are not die-hards about it will find that awkward. Some people who have read the Psalms in the LSB have said that. Otherwise I don’t know that there will be a whole lot of difference between the LSB and the 95. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bookslover (Aug 5, 2021)

The NASB's main problem was the NIV. That is to say, the full NASB was published in 1973 - a stodgy translation promoted by the Lockman Foundation's stodgy marketing. Then, just five years later, the full NIV was published in 1978 and, from a marketing standpoint, that was the end of the NASB. The NIV just blew the NASB out of the water over the years. Then the ESV came along in 2001 and a couple of other translations, as well, and that's why the NASB is no longer seen on the sales statistics charts. For all intents and purposes, it's a dead translation.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I have liked the NIV for a long time. I carry an old black leather NIV (1978) to church, which people often mistake for an AV. I respond with suitable outrage at such an insinuation, "If it's not 1978, it's not great!"
> 
> More seriously, I am not convinced that it is the best Bible for using in church. It is quite useful for reading long portions of scripture.



That Bible must be older than you are! 

I have a few 1978 NIV Bibles. I need to get rid of all but one. I’ll probably keep the Scofield since it is in the best condition. (Just go ahead and throw me out if you need to LOL). Maybe I’ll bring it to a Reformed church, or better yet, Lutheran, and see what happens. It would get a negative reaction in many Southern Baptist churches today as well. NIV+Scofield is really bad, right? Or is ESV+Scofield even worse somehow? Maybe I should come up with something like an intersectionality score from a TR perspective when it comes to combos of translations and Study Bible notes. 

Years ago when I belonged to an OPC congregation, I saw a Scofield in the hand of an older woman who was a longtime member. It was a Scofield III which was a recent publication at the time. I don’t know whether or not someone ever said “Hey, we’re Reformed here, you’re not supposed to have that!” 

I don’t know what all of the factors were, but after the 1978 NIV was published, as part of the update process, the committee consulted with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). They had a number of suggestions, most of which were accepted from what I understand. Wesleyans and maybe some others have always considered the NIV to be a “Calvinist translation.” I wonder if the 1984 version is more or less “Calvinist?” The WELS (or perhaps more accurately, some men who are associated with it, and perhaps some others of like mind) have now produced the Evangelical Heritage Version after deciding that the NIV11, HCSB, and ESV were all unacceptable for one reason or another. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

bookslover said:


> The NASB's main problem was the NIV. That is to say, the full NASB was published in 1973 - a stodgy translation promoted by the Lockman Foundation's stodgy marketing. Then, just five years later, the full NIV was published in 1978 and, from a marketing standpoint, that was the end of the NASB. The NIV just blew the NASB out of the water over the years. Then the ESV came along in 2001 and a couple of other translations, as well, and that's why the NASB is no longer seen on the sales statistics charts. For all intents and purposes, it's a dead translation.



Bible geeks will keep it alive. It is a big seller for Schuyler, etc. But unless more younger men preach from it, it will continue to decline. 

We’ll see what happens. If you count the Legacy Standard Bible, four different editions of the NASB are currently in print. I suspect that will be a negative, especially with the big chance they took with the 2020, but I could be wrong. Apparently Lockman holds the copyright on the LSB. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 5, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> More seriously, I am not convinced that it is the best Bible for using in church. It is quite useful for reading long portions of scripture.


Do you think the CSB has an advantage in this regard.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 5, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Do you think the CSB has an advantage in this regard.



I am not sure, to be honest.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 5, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> Although I'm not a fan of it and rarely consult it, I disagree. I think even some people who reprobate all critical text translations would disagree. The ESV is much closer to the NASB than it is to the NIV, especially the NIV11. But that applies to the NIV84 as well. When it comes to translation philosophy, the NKJV, NASB, and ESV are basically in the same class, although the NKJV and NASB are somewhat more literal. (Most of the biased charts have the KJV and NKJV being much less literal than they are.) The NIV is less literal than the CSB, and the CSB clearly has a different philosophy than the ESV.
> 
> The NASB is so similar to the RSV in many places that it seems pretty clear that they substituted synonyms at times when the RSV carried over renderings from the KJV and ASV in order to differentiate the translations. And the ESV is still a light revision of the RSV even thought it is now in the 4th "text edition." This is one reason why some prefer the ESV to the NASB because the ESV "sounds like the Bible." I think it is safe to say that some of those differences have nothing to do with accuracy.


I'm sorry but I cannot agree. I've interacted with all of these translation extensively over the years and the ESV follows the NIV much more frequently than the more literal translations. Much of the ESV's aura of being a very literal translation is owing more to marketing than reality. In terms of it's place on the formal/dynamic spectrum, it's more formal than dynamic, but it's nowhere near as literal as the NASB. It's a middle of the road translation, in my opinion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Aug 5, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> I recently picked up an 07 LPUT. (Those that know, know. LOL)
> 
> From what I understand, the paper isn’t all that great in the Allans. They were just using what Lockman provided, which wasn’t too good in that era. That being said, some people care a lot more about the cover than they do the paper. It’s totally the opposite with me.
> 
> ...


Right, I've definitely heard about the "French Mill" paper. Haha. I've had the same Bible now for 17 plus years; the NASB ultrathin. The paper is from China and it's holding up just fine. How crafty Satan is to get us obsessed with cool bibles but not necessarily use them. I'm preaching to myself. I'm always on the lookout for the allan NASB highland goatskin. But I don't need any more bibles. I need to treasure the word.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Do you think the CSB has an advantage in this regard.



For church use? Some churches that might be considered more “liturgical” will prefer something that is a bit more elegant for public reading. Arguably the CSB is less elegant than the NIV in some places, such as the Psalms. If it’s the type of church that where worship mainly consists of singing and preaching, that may be less of an issue. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

JTB.SDG said:


> Right, I've definitely heard about the "French Mill" paper. Haha. I've had the same Bible now for 17 plus years; the NASB ultrathin. The paper is from China and it's holding up just fine. How crafty Satan is to get us obsessed with cool bibles but not necessarily use them. I'm preaching to myself. I'm always on the lookout for the allan NASB highland goatskin. But I don't need any more bibles. I need to treasure the word.



Same here. That’s why I need to get rid of most of mine. I’ll find a good deal and then I’ll see a better one. The one that I use most often is a hardcover SCR from 1999. I saw somewhere that Sproul preached from a hardcover Bible. I once knew a preacher who preached from one of the hardcover pew Bibles. 

Except for the exceptional 2007 LPUT, I don’t think I could deal with a Lockman Chinese printing because the ghosting or show through or bleed through or whatever you want to call it is too bad. Aside from the ethical concerns though, some more recent Chinese printings by some other companies has been exemplary. 

Along with some of the reasons I listed above, one reason why I don’t read the ESV is that I’ve never found a text block that I’m satisfied with. Either there is too much ghosting or the print is too small or it has red letters or something else. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I'm sorry but I cannot agree. I've interacted with all of these translation extensively over the years and the ESV follows the NIV much more frequently than the more literal translations. Much of the ESV's aura of being a very literal translation is owing more to marketing than reality. In terms of it's place on the formal/dynamic spectrum, it's more formal than dynamic, but it's nowhere near as literal as the NASB. It's a middle of the road translation, in my opinion.



It’s less literal than the NASB and NKJV (and KJV) for sure. It’s definitely somewhere between the NASB and the CSB, with the NIV on the other side. That is, unless you think the CSB is more literal too.  I have seen a few people who have said that the CSB is every bit as accurate as the ESV and others who say that it is pretty close. But for some people, if a version doesn’t “Sound like the Bible” it might as well be The Message. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chuckd (Aug 5, 2021)

Where does the Hawai‘i Pidgin translation stand?

John 3:16 God wen get so plenny love an aloha fo da peopo inside da world, dat he wen send me, his one an ony Boy, so dat everybody dat trus me no get cut off from God, but get da real kine life dat stay to da max foeva.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Aug 5, 2021)

I’ve said this elsewhere but I’m convinced if the NKJV came out a few years earlier (like in the late 60s, early 70s), it might even now be the standard conservative Bible in English. It’s more literal than the NIV, more readable than the NASB, and had the cadences and text of the KJV.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## iainduguid (Aug 5, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> The LSB aims to be very literal and bring out the nuances of the original languages.


Possibly, although very literal translations can often obscure the meaning of the original and convey a false sense of understanding to the naïve.


Pilgrim said:


> It’s less literal than the NASB and NKJV (and KJV) for sure. It’s definitely somewhere between the NASB and the CSB, with the NIV on the other side. That is, unless you think the CSB is more literal too.  I have seen a few people who have said that the CSB is every bit as accurate as the ESV and others who say that it is pretty close. But for some people, if a version doesn’t “Sound like the Bible” it might as well be The Message.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Please don't confuse literal with accurate. They are not the same thing at all, though it is a common mistake. For example the apocryphal story of a computer translating "The Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" into Russian and coming up with "The vodka is good but the meat is rotten." Otherwise, we should all use Young's Literal Translation and be done.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Jack K (Aug 5, 2021)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I’ve said this elsewhere but I’m convinced if the NKJV came out a few years earlier (like in the late 60s, early 70s), it might even now be the standard conservative Bible in English. It’s more literal than the NIV, more readable than the NASB, and had the cadences and text of the KJV.


I think you may be right. I'm pretty sure my family and my church at that time would have loved it.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 5, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> Possibly, although very literal translations can often obscure the meaning of the original and convey a false sense of understanding to the naïve.


The LSB is getting a lot of praise from people associated with John MacArthur and the Masters Seminary. It would be good to read an honest review from the Reformed community.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 5, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> The LSB is getting a lot of praise from people associated with John MacArthur and the Masters Seminary. It would be good to read an honest review from the Reformed community.



That's because people associated with John MacArthur and the Master's Seminary are behind it.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 5, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am not sure, to be honest.


I am open minded on this issue myself. The CSB follows a translation philosophy called “optimal equivalence.” It seems to me there are particular strengths using this translation philosophy.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 5, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> That Bible must be older than you are!



Fact check: 100% correct. It is from 1978, while I was born a few years later.


----------



## Edward (Aug 5, 2021)

J.L. Allen said:


> I thought the second Bible on the list was supposed to be, in a practical sense, unreadable today.


Just because granny buys a KJV for little Jimmy to take to college doesn't mean it's going to be read.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I’ve said this elsewhere but I’m convinced if the NKJV came out a few years earlier (like in the late 60s, early 70s), it might even now be the standard conservative Bible in English. It’s more literal than the NIV, more readable than the NASB, and had the cadences and text of the KJV.


You may be right. It was maybe 10-15 years too late in that regard. The NIV was set in motion in 1965, I think. Portions of the NASB were printed as early as 1963. So it probably would have to have been before that or it would have ended up competing with the NIV. But would the conditions have been right at that time? Nelson had been sold and moved to Nashville by 1975 (I think) when the NKJV project began. They were in NY prior to that. Before that, they were a big printer of the RSV and they were the original printer for the RSV. At that time, I'm not sure that they were considered particularly "evangelical" the way they were afterwards. They were also the major printer for the ASV. I think it might have had to come from a different publisher.

Most conservatives who wanted something more modern than the AV favored the critical text. Even some fundamentalists used the ASV. Some others who didn't use it didn't really have a problem with the textual base. The Majority Text movement, such that it is, may not have started picking up steam until around the time the NKJV was produced. Some of the reasons why the NKJV gained traction (and perhaps why Nelson saw an opening in the market) was because laypeople complained about changes to the Lord's Prayer, etc.

The New Scofield of 1967, which has a somewhat modernized KJV text, had the same aim, more or less. But the problem was that you had to get the New Scofield to have that text. Once other options rapidly became available in the 70s, I think it slowly became less prominent.

Even if that would have happened, a lot of people would say that the NKJV is too difficult by this point. I think it is more difficult at times than the NASB, if not more difficult overall. The NASB isn't elegant, but it sometimes has modern vocabulary or modern equivalents when the NKJV will have Hebraisms in the text (which might be a plus depending on your point of view) or old KJV language that isn't necessarily more accurate. That being said, it may have helped keep some other versions from being launched.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 5, 2021)

Another factor in the NIV's success was the original NIV Study Bible, published in 1985. Some will say that it is "watered down," "compromised," or "lowest common denominator" now, but I think its safe to say that it really set a new standard when it was published. What else was on the market at the time besides Scofield and Ryrie? The Harper Study Bible comes to mind (RSV and later NASB) but it has less meat than the NIV Study Bible. 

Them taking sort of a middle of the road approach was a plus for those who didn't want an explicitly dispensational Study Bible. The book introductions are good at rebutting liberal views on authorship and dating. It was a godsend for somebody like me who had been exposed to the New Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV) in college.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Aug 5, 2021)

Edward said:


> Just because granny buys a KJV for little Jimmy to take to college doesn't mean it's going to be read.


Tsk-tsk, little Jimmy!


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 5, 2021)

Edward said:


> Just because granny buys a KJV for little Jimmy to take to college doesn't mean it's going to be read.


True enough. But conversely, little Jimmy's granny buying him a KJV doesn't mean it _can't_ be read.

One could argue that no liberal arts education could be complete _unless_ or _until_ one had read the Authorized version of the Bible. But I suppose even college educated people can't be bothered with such things these days. The dumbing-down of America continues apace.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## B.L. (Aug 6, 2021)

Jake said:


> The NIV probably had the most controversial update (1984->2011 edition) out of the major translations and it's still on top.





Pilgrim said:


> Some are clinging to the 84. The 2011 was sort of radioactive 10 years ago. No longer. See who the contributors are to the Biblical Theology Study Bible, for example. There's also a new study Bible edited by Albert Mohler in the NIV2011.



I was surprised by the soon to be released Grace & Truth Study Bible that Mohler edited. I received a Christianbook.com catalog earlier in the week and it caught my eye on the cover. There is a promotional video for it where Mohler explains why the NIV 2011 was selected as the first translation for this new study Bible.

I can recall many instances where the new NIV was discouraged from being used in SBC churches when it first came out and here we are today with the President of Southern Seminary featured in a cameo talking about how reliable and trustworthy the NIV is. I couldn't help but call to mind the Resolution that was brought forward at the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention here with the following remarks:



> RESOLVED, That the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011 express profound disappointment with Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House for this inaccurate translation of God’s inspired Scripture; and be it further
> 
> RESOLVED, That we encourage pastors to make their congregations aware of the translation errors found in the 2011 NIV; and be it further
> 
> ...



For the record I don't have an issue with the NIV 2011 and like it better than the CSB, which in my opinion is a wholly unnecessary translation -- _no disrespect intended to the fine scholars who contributed to it._



Pilgrim said:


> Years ago when I belonged to an OPC congregation, I saw a Scofield in the hand of an older woman who was a longtime member. It was a Scofield III which was a recent publication at the time. I don’t know whether or not someone ever said “Hey, we’re Reformed here, you’re not supposed to have that!”



I noticed something similar when attending a Bible Study for a time at a PCA Church. Several older folks used either the Scofield or Ryrie, which amused me endlessly.



PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I’ve said this elsewhere but I’m convinced if the NKJV came out a few years earlier (like in the late 60s, early 70s), it might even now be the standard conservative Bible in English. It’s more literal than the NIV, more readable than the NASB, and had the cadences and text of the KJV.



I like the NKJV a lot and use it as my teaching translation when doing lessons with my kids. Some of the curriculum helps I use are keyed to it, which is nice. However, for our family worship and Bible reading schedules I have the kids using the ESV and I'll probably transition to it as my family's primary for all things next year.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 6, 2021)

Lukemk824 said:


> I wonder the same thing. Also I’m sure KJVO churches, of which many still exist, drive sales for the translation. It will be interesting to watch and see how long it takes for it to drop out of the top 5, if it ever does.



I would be willing to hazard a guess that those who read the KJV are indeed buying KJV Bibles. More research may still need to be done, but I think the preliminary results are quite persuasive.

The problem for the ESV, without getting into translation and textual issues, is that it's an ugly and perfunctory translation. It has no elegance, no poetry, nothing to recommend it as English literature. The NIV cornered the market for _the _modern, easy-to-use English translation with mass appeal (across liberal and evangelical churches) long ago. As has been noted above why would someone switch to the ESV? The more charitable reading of the ESV project is that it was conceived as a "conservative" alternative to the NIV. But if that has ever been true how long will that last? A less charitable reading (and the more accurate in my opinion) is that it was a money-spinning project. Well I suppose it succeeded there. But does anyone actually _love _the ESV? I find that impossible to conceive.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Aug 6, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> The NIV cornered the market for _the _modern, easy-to-use English translation with mass appeal (across liberal and evangelical churches) long ago.


TBF I don’t know many liberal churches that jumped on the NIV. To a man they use the NRSV or the CEB. (I think the CEB was published because the NIV was too conservative for the mainline.)



alexandermsmith said:


> A less charitable reading (and the more accurate in my opinion) is that it was a money-spinning project. Well I suppose it succeeded there. But does anyone actually _love _the ESV? I find that impossible to conceive.


I wouldn’t say it’s just a “money spinning project” but I think it was a reaction to some upcoming revisions of the NIV by people who preferred the RSV but wanted to purge the liberalism. The ESV isn’t bad but I think it was unnecessary and the NKJV or NASB would have served just as well. That’s a moot point note though.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 6, 2021)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> TBF I don’t know many liberal churches that jumped on the NIV. To a man they use the NRSV or the CEB. (I think the CEB was published because the NIV was too conservative for the mainline.)



Growing up in the Church of Scotland the NIV was pretty ubiquitous (once the love-in with the ghastly Good News "Bible" was over).

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Aug 6, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> Growing up in the Church of Scotland the NIV was pretty ubiquitous (once the love-in with the ghastly Good News "Bible" was over).


Interesting. Here the RSV was ubiquitous in mainline churches that didn’t use the KJV until the NRSV came around.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 6, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> True enough. But conversely, little Jimmy's granny buying him a KJV doesn't mean it _can't_ be read.
> 
> One could argue that no liberal arts education could be complete _unless_ or _until_ one had read the Authorized version of the Bible. But I suppose even college educated people can't be bothered with such things these days. The dumbing-down of America continues apace.


I think that's correct. KJV Nevers should be denounced as anti-intellectual. I once had a pastor who was quite negatively disposed toward the KJV, in part due to KJV onlyism. But I'm pretty sure he is one who also said that Bible readers ought to have a copy due to its historical significance. (This was when the availability of Bible versions online was in its infancy at best. Most people who were online were still on dial-up. I'm not sure what he would say now over 2 decades later.)

I've seen some surmise that the KJV may still lead today in what is actually read. It has been pointed out that Google searches for Bible passages followed by KJV (like Psalm 23 KJV) are very popular and that there are more searches like that than there are with any other version. But it may also be true that people searching like that seldom do so, and that people who are really looking at the Bible online with any frequency go to Bible Gateway or another similar site. 

One reason why the NLT is so popular today is that there are some people who find the NIV too hard to read. And most of them don't have English as a second language either.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 6, 2021)

I am, to be honest, a bit disgusted that the NIV is still at number 1. Back when the stealth NIV controversy was heating up, I thought even at the time that Zondervan was being more than a little underhanded in the way they were going about things. Fast-forward to 2011, and Zondervan put many of the gender-neutral changes into the NIV without changing the title, or alerting anyone to what they had done. No doubt feminism has advanced to the point where such changes are not objectionable to a majority anymore. The original NIV says, in 1 Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." The 2011 version says, " I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." The inceptive translation of _authenteo_ is extensively argued by egalitarian scholars. This would allow for women to exercise authority over men as long as it has been granted to them, and they didn't take it on themselves. 

Of course, the last phrase "she must be quiet" negates the inceptive translation, since it is impossible to assume authority over a man while remaining quiet, though one wonders why the NIV translates _hesuchia_ as "silent" in the original and "quiet" in the 2011. Maybe the new translation is not intended to forbid all speech in front of men? But then, the original would not have done so either. 

When a cultural moment of ideology dictates a change in translation of God's Word, we can be assured that the game is up. We all know that the English language changes over time. Such changes may be good or not, and there needs to be wisdom and discernment in translating the Bible in such a way that people can understand it, without making the Bible subservient to the ideologies of the day. I do not trust the NIV.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Edward (Aug 6, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> One could argue that no liberal arts education could be complete _unless_ or _until_ one had read the Authorized version of the Bible.


Since I'm so liberal and tolerant, I'd give the option of reading the complete works of Shakespeare as an atlternative. Because any college graduate should be literate.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 6, 2021)

B.L. said:


> I was surprised by the soon to be released Grace & Truth Study Bible that Mohler edited. I received a Christianbook.com catalog earlier in the week and it caught my eye on the cover. There is a promotional video for it where Mohler explains why the NIV 2011 was selected as the first translation for this new study Bible.



Do you have a link to that video? I saw some others but none where he addresses the NIV specifically. (EDIT: I found it here under the title of "Using the NIV Translation.") Sometimes the choice of Bible version comes down to money. For example, I understand that the New Geneva Study Bible (later renamed the Reformation Study Bible) was supposed to come out in the NIV. But Sproul & co. couldn't come to terms with Zondervan and it came out in the NKJV instead. I think that may have also happened with MacArthur and the NKJV. I would think he would have preferred it be in the NASB. But the NKJV may have also helped it gain a wider audience.



B.L. said:


> I can recall many instances where the new NIV was discouraged from being used in SBC churches when it first came out and here we are today with the President of Southern Seminary featured in a cameo talking about how reliable and trustworthy the NIV is. I couldn't help but call to mind the Resolution that was brought forward at the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention here with the following remarks:



A resolution is basically just something that the majority of messengers at the convention assent to. This case is a perfect example of resolutions having no official status. The resolution asked Lifeway not to carry it. (Lifeway hadn't carried the TNIV due to the gender neutral issue.) But Lifeway carried the NIV2011 anyway. Their response was basically "Thanks for your opinion."




B.L. said:


> For the record I don't have an issue with the NIV 2011 and like it better than the CSB, which in my opinion is a wholly unnecessary translation -- _no disrespect intended to the fine scholars who contributed to it._



I don't think that I like it better than the CSB. I do think that the CSB fills a niche, although it will be interesting to see what direction it takes in the future.

I picked up a NIV Heritage Bible a couple of years ago at a good price because I really liked the formatting. I liked it so much that I actually wanted to like the translation. The weird font aside, I think it just goes a bit too far with the gender neutral renderings. Among people who allow for some gender neutral rendering in cases where it doesn't affect doctrine (which would include some ESV people--the ESV is more gender neutral than the NIV84 is) I think there are only a handful of passages in the NIV11 that are truly controversial. But they removed "Son of Man" from Psalm 8. And other passages were totally rearranged to accommodate gender neutral language. Maybe I'll read it at one point, but it's not on the top of the list at this point to be sure. But sometimes I'll see things that I've missed when reading an unfamiliar translation.




B.L. said:


> I noticed something similar when attending a Bible Study for a time at a PCA Church. Several older folks used either the Scofield or Ryrie, which amused me endlessly.



Dispensationalism definitely had a presence in the PCA in the 70s and maybe the 80s. Seeing that in a Dutch Reformed (which has confessional membership) or Lutheran church would be much more surprising. The people I was referring to were in a congregation that originated with a split from a PCA congregation. And given their age, they probably grew up in the PCUS if they had been Presbyterian all along. So they weren't the typical OPC church members. Some of the older people there just sort of tolerated the confessional pastor.


----------



## JM (Aug 6, 2021)

I bought two NKJV last year for personal use but still buy KJVs to handout. I'm back to using the KJV mostly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 6, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> I would be willing to hazard a guess that those who read the KJV are indeed buying KJV Bibles. More research may still need to be done, but I think the preliminary results are quite persuasive.
> 
> The problem for the ESV, without getting into translation and textual issues, is that it's an ugly and perfunctory translation. It has no elegance, no poetry, nothing to recommend it as English literature. The NIV cornered the market for _the _modern, easy-to-use English translation with mass appeal (across liberal and evangelical churches) long ago. As has been noted above why would someone switch to the ESV? The more charitable reading of the ESV project is that it was conceived as a "conservative" alternative to the NIV. But if that has ever been true how long will that last? A less charitable reading (and the more accurate in my opinion) is that it was a money-spinning project. Well I suppose it succeeded there. But does anyone actually _love _the ESV? I find that impossible to conceive.


There is a whole generation of pastors here who will likely never abandon the ESV unless it takes a hard left turn in the future. (Most of them had been raised on the NIV and many had little familiarity with the KJV.) There are young laypeople who have only known the ESV. Many people do in fact love it. It is here to stay. It has been THE translation among Calvinistic and Reformed people since about 2003 or 2004, maybe 2005 at the latest. The same goes for many Lutherans. Some joke about "ESV Only" because some people are so attached to it. Perhaps it hasn't gained that kind of traction in the UK, but I understand that it is more popular there than the NKJV or NASB ever were. Several years ago, I viewed a FCoS service on SermonAudio. The minister preached from the ESV.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 6, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> There is a whole generation of pastors here who will likely never abandon the ESV unless it takes a hard left turn in the future. (Most of them had been raised on the NIV and many had little familiarity with the KJV.) There are young laypeople who have only known the ESV. Many people do in fact love it. It is here to stay. It has been THE translation among Calvinistic and Reformed people since about 2003 or 2004, maybe 2005 at the latest. The same goes for many Lutherans. Some joke about "ESV Only" because some people are so attached to it. Perhaps it hasn't gained that kind of traction in the UK, but I understand that it is more popular there than the NKJV or NASB ever were. Several years ago, I viewed a FCoS service on SermonAudio. The minister preached from the ESV.



I could accept there is an ideological attachment to it, but not an emotional one. Many phrases of the KJV are threaded throughout the English language (even as spoken today). It is loved by its readers for its beauty and nobility as well as its faithfulness and accuracy. The ESV was an ideological project and the intellect is as far as it reaches. It is the Bible translation equivalent of easy-believism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 6, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> I could accept there is an ideological attachment to it, but not an emotional one. Many phrases of the KJV are threaded throughout the English language (even as spoken today). It is loved by its readers for its beauty and nobility as well as its faithfulness and accuracy. The ESV was an ideological project and the intellect is as far as it reaches. It is the Bible translation equivalent of easy-believism.


Many of the worst purveyors of easy-believism use the KJV, for what its worth. Many heretics and cults do too. (There are some groups that are widespread in some parts of the USA that are probably unheard of if not nonexistent in the UK.) Usage of the KJV does not necessarily equate with soundness. In the USA, more often than not, it is the opposite. That's one reason why many who weren't raised on the KJV are suspicious of it. That's not my view, but it is one that is widespread. The belief that the KJV is inaccurate is also widespread.

People are going to tend to have an emotional attachment to whatever version they first used, or have used most often. For an increasing number of people, that's not the KJV. The fact that you apparently can't conceive of that doesn't mean that it isn't true. Adherence to the ESV on the part of the minister as well as the laypeople in many churches may be higher than it ever was with the NIV. In some churches, you hardly see anyone carrying anything other than the ESV. To be sure, no version will ever have the dominance that the KJV had until the 1950s.

Some might say that the KJV was an ideological project. Would it have been produced at all if the Geneva Bible didn't have features that offended the King and the Bishops?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Taylor (Aug 6, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> They chose one possible interpretation and excluded all others. The ESV was originally sold on the idea that "essentially literal" translation doesn't do this, that it provides "transparency" or whatever for the original text.


In their defense, they do give a footnote with an alternate rendering. Furthermore, the rendering in question isn't new to the ESV. The NET went with that rendering at least a decade prior, giving extensive defense of it in a characteristically lengthy footnote. I'm not saying it's right—although it could be, feminists notwithstanding. All I am saying is that the ESV didn't invent this rendering.



Pilgrim said:


> The ESV Study Bible teaches ESS or EFS or whatever it is called. It was basically produced by the same people that produced the ESV itself, Grudem in particular. So that controversy soured some people on the whole ESV brand.


I don't know about the _ESV Study Bible_, but I have found that the charge that the ESV _translation_ teaches ESS holds no water. Several writers and some on this board have accused the ESV itself of teaching this heresy on the basis of translating ἐμαυτοῦ in John 8:28 (and other places) as "on my own authority." Yet the NKJV does the same thing in several places, but nobody accuses the NKJV of teaching ESS. This is not even to mention that this rendering originates from the RSV, not the ESV. The ESV merely retained it, except in John 5:30. Furthermore, several old Reformed commentators (I quoted them in another thread a while back), including Calvin, assert that these passages speak to Jesus _as Messiah_. These passages do seem to me to _entail_ some eternal significance.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JM (Aug 6, 2021)

I'm thankful my Pastor and Elders use the KJV to preach from. During devotionals, studies, etc. they often refer to other translations but use the KJV for the Lord's Day.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 6, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> Many of the worst purveyors of easy-believism use the KJV, for what its worth. Many heretics and cults do too. (There are some groups that are widespread in some parts of the USA that are probably unheard of if not nonexistent in the UK.) Usage of the KJV does not necessarily equate with soundness. In the USA, more often than not, it is the opposite. That's one reason why many who weren't raised on the KJV are suspicious of it. That's not my view, but it is one that is widespread. The belief that the KJV is inaccurate is also widespread.
> 
> People are going to tend to have an emotional attachment to whatever version they first used, or have used most often. For an increasing number of people, that's not the KJV. The fact that you apparently can't conceive of that doesn't mean that it isn't true. Adherence to the ESV on the part of the minister as well as the laypeople in many churches may be higher than it ever was with the NIV. In some churches, you hardly see anyone carrying anything other than the ESV. To be sure, no version will ever have the dominance that the KJV had until the 1950s.
> 
> Some might say that the KJV was an ideological project. Would it have been produced at all if the Geneva Bible didn't have features that offended the King and the Bishops?



The best days of Protestantism were also when the KJV was the exclusive English translation. Go figure.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Aug 6, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> The best days of Protestantism were also when the KJV was the exclusive English translation. Go figure.


Be careful. Correlation does not equal causation. The "best days of Protestantism" were not only when the KJV was the exclusive English translation, but also when the Word was preached faithfully, worship was done rightly, the Sabbath was sanctified properly, families worshipped in their homes daily, and the Lord was recognized in every part of society. These things are not because of the KJV's dominance, though, unless you can demonstrate it. But I don’t know how that could be objectively demonstrated.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 6, 2021)

I don't know that the KJV as a particular version in distinction to others was the chief cause of the best days of protestantism, but the decline of protestantism has definitely led to more bible versions. The RSV would not have existed without higher criticism, and it being the first non-KJV, a whole lot of others probably wouldn't either.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## iainduguid (Aug 6, 2021)

Charles Johnson said:


> I don't know that the KJV as a particular version in distinction to others was the chief cause of the best days of protestantism, but the decline of protestantism has definitely led to more bible versions. The RSV would not have existed without higher criticism, and it being the first non-KJV, a whole lot of others probably wouldn't either.


I think you may be confusing the RSV (1952) with the Revised Version (1885). Prior to that liberals used the KJV, just like conservatives, though it didn't make them any more conservative....

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JM (Aug 6, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Be careful. Correlation does not equal causation. The "best days of Protestantism" were not only when the KJV was the exclusive English translation, but also when the Word was preached faithfully, worship was done rightly, the Sabbath was sanctified properly, families worshipped in their homes daily, and the Lord was recognized in every part of society. These things are not because of the KJV's dominance, though, unless you can demonstrate it. But I don’t know how that could be objectively demonstrated.


Not always...but sometimes. Thomas Sowell's line isn't biblical.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Aug 6, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Be careful. Correlation does not equal causation. The "best days of Protestantism" were not only when the KJV was the exclusive English translation, but also when the Word was preached faithfully, worship was done rightly, the Sabbath was sanctified properly, families worshipped in their homes daily, and the Lord was recognized in every part of society. These things are not because of the KJV's dominance, though, unless you can demonstrate it. But I don’t know how that could be objectively demonstrated.


I don't think it's a mystery that I'm a KJV-preferred kinda guy. Taylor, what you say here about the practice in the Church is spot on. May we find ourselves back in that practice.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 6, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> I think you may be confusing the RSV (1952) with the Revised Version (1885). Prior to that liberals used the KJV, just like conservatives, though it didn't make them any more conservative....


Yep, definitely confusing those.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 6, 2021)

JM said:


> Not always...but sometimes. Thomas Sowell's line isn't biblical.


Huh?



J.L. Allen said:


> I don't think it's a mystery that I'm a KJV-preferred kinda guy. Taylor, what you say here about the practice in the Church is spot on. May we find ourselves back in that practice.


Amen. I’m not at all against the KJV. I love it. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing that our Bible translation is the primary mark of a healthy church.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JM (Aug 6, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Huh?
> 
> 
> Amen. I’m not at all against the KJV. I love it. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing that our Bible translation is the primary mark of a healthy church.


Huh?


----------



## JM (Aug 6, 2021)

"Correlation does not equal causation." 

That statement doesn't disprove causation only points out that correlation ISN'T ALWAYS causation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Aug 7, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> Liberal churches used the Good news Bible, complete with tacky line drawing illustrations.


That was my first Bible, given to me upon my Methodist sprinkling. Even at 12 years old, I thought those illustrations were weird. I remember the Living Bible being popular as well. (It had a padded cover!)

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## bookslover (Aug 7, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> I would be willing to hazard a guess that those who read the KJV are indeed buying KJV Bibles. More research may still need to be done, but I think the preliminary results are quite persuasive.
> 
> The problem for the ESV, without getting into translation and textual issues, is that it's an ugly and perfunctory translation. It has no elegance, no poetry, nothing to recommend it as English literature. The NIV cornered the market for _the _modern, easy-to-use English translation with mass appeal (across liberal and evangelical churches) long ago. As has been noted above why would someone switch to the ESV? The more charitable reading of the ESV project is that it was conceived as a "conservative" alternative to the NIV. But if that has ever been true how long will that last? A less charitable reading (and the more accurate in my opinion) is that it was a money-spinning project. Well I suppose it succeeded there. But does anyone actually _love _the ESV? I find that impossible to conceive.



I love the ESV. I've been reading it almost since it was first published twenty years ago this September (I think it had been out around six months or so when I first started reading it). There - now you can conceive of it.

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Aug 7, 2021)

JM said:


> "Correlation does not equal causation."
> 
> That statement doesn't disprove causation only points out that correlation ISN'T ALWAYS causation.


That’s not true. Logically speaking, correlation _per se_ can never prove causation. Causation proper always needs other means as proof than simple correlation. We can never say, “These things are correlated, therefore one caused the other.” Such an argument always fallacious, _even if one fact indeed caused the other_, because correlation logically speaking needs more to prove causation. Furthermore, “correlation _might_ equal causation” is just as much a logical fallacy as “correlation _equals_ causation,” both being subsets of the “questionable cause fallacy.”

To say, “The KJV was the dominant translation during Protestantisms greatest era, and therefore caused it,” is just a bad argument, logically and biblically. That is not to say the KJV is a bad translation. Of course it isn’t. It’s a remarkable translation. But asserting that its mere presence was the cause of general church health—as opposed to faithful preaching of the Word, proper administration of the sacraments, and godly church discipline, all of which Scripture says _actually_ causes church health—is wrong-headed.


----------



## KMK (Aug 7, 2021)

What percentage of the Christian world still buys Bibles anyway? Most of the people in my church read it for free on an app. It might be these Bible sales are made up of gifts/evangelism/pews more than personal study.


----------



## JM (Aug 7, 2021)

Taylor said:


> That’s not true. Logically speaking, correlation _per se_ can never prove causation. Causation proper always needs other means as proof than simple correlation. We can never say, “These things are correlated, therefore one caused the other.” Such an argument always fallacious, _even if one fact indeed caused the other_, because correlation logically speaking needs more to prove causation. Furthermore, “correlation _might_ equal causation” is just as much a logical fallacy as “correlation _equals_ causation,” both being subsets of the “questionable cause fallacy.”
> 
> To say, “The KJV was the dominant translation during Protestantisms greatest era, and therefore caused it,” is just a bad argument, logically and biblically. That is not to say the KJV is a bad translation. Of course it isn’t. It’s a remarkable translation. But asserting that its mere presence was the cause of general church health—as opposed to faithful preaching of the Word, proper administration of the sacraments, and godly church discipline, all of which Scripture says _actually_ causes church health—is wrong-headed.


I disagree. The Christian church in the West was united with one ecclesiastical text, one translation and now there are divisions within over translations. It's difficult to claim the word of God is "kept pure in all ages" and able to settle disputes, when the eclectic text is always changing.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## JM (Aug 7, 2021)

KMK said:


> What percentage of the Christian world still buys Bibles anyway? Most of the people in my church read it for free on an app. It might be these Bible sales are made up of gifts/evangelism/pews more than personal study.


Good point. Me being somewhat of a conspiracy nut I buy Bibles to handout believing the State will one day shutdown or alter our beloved Bible apps. 

I live in Canada...


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 7, 2021)

JM said:


> I disagree. The Christian church in the West was united with one ecclesiastical text, one translation and now there are divisions within over translations. It's difficult to claim the word of God is "kept pure in all ages" and able to settle disputes, when the eclectic text is always changing.


I do not believe that is a right understanding or proper application of “kept pure in all ages”.

It doesn’t hold water. Otherwise why did we not just stay with the vulgar English translations that existed prior to KJV?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JM (Aug 7, 2021)

Grant said:


> I do not believe that is a right understanding or proper application of “kept pure in all ages”.
> 
> It doesn’t hold water. Otherwise why did we not just stay with the vulgar English translations that existed prior to KJV?


I won't go back and forth over this issue on this forum. I'm way out numbered and don't have the time. Jerusalem Blade has plenty of posts worth reading on the subject and he's a lot smarter than I am.

God bless you for asking. 

jm


----------



## J.L. Allen (Aug 7, 2021)

@Grant it has to do with the underlying text rather than the translation primarily. I think most of us here on the forum who hold to the superiority of the Authorized Version say so primarily because of the underlying Greek and Hebrew. That and the ability of the translation committee on the AV move us to take more confidence in that translation than others. I'm sure those of us who are TR and/or strongly prefer the AV have varying degrees of how or why we would defend our position. I'm open to updated translations provided they don't have modernist glosses and are based on the Ecclesiastical Text.

@JM has rightly pointed you to @Jerusalem Blade for resources on the topic. It is a defensible position and strongly so. I, for one, was won over by those arguments from a Critical Text position. I think both sides need to calmly and thoughtfully address the claims brought forth. We don't need to dismiss each other because of a few bad players either. I say that about KJVO cults and tinfoil hat wearing types. That's not Confessional Bibliology and nor should it be misrepresented as such.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Aug 7, 2021)

JM said:


> I disagree. The Christian church in the West was united with one ecclesiastical text, one translation and now there are divisions within over translations. It's difficult to claim the word of God is "kept pure in all ages" and able to settle disputes, when the eclectic text is always changing.


I’m not talking about the text. I’m talking about the _cum hoc ergo propter hoc_ fallacy. You’re changing the subject. I actually lean toward the “ecclesiastical text.” But that’s not what I’m addressing.


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 7, 2021)

J.L. Allen said:


> @Grant it has to do with the underlying text rather than the translation primarily. I think most of us here on the forum who hold to the superiority of the Authorized Version say so primarily because of the underlying Greek and Hebrew. That and the ability of the translation committee on the AV move us to take more confidence in that translation than others. I'm sure those of us who are TR and/or strongly prefer the AV have varying degrees of how or why we would defend our position. I'm open to updated translations provided they don't have modernist glosses and are based on the Ecclesiastical Text.
> 
> @JM has rightly pointed you to @Jerusalem Blade for resources on the topic. It is a defensible position and strongly so. I, for one, was won over by those arguments from a Critical Text position. I think both sides need to calmly and thoughtfully address the claims brought forth. We don't need to dismiss each other because of a few bad players either. I say that about KJVO cults and tinfoil hat wearing types. That's not Confessional Bibliology and nor should it be misrepresented as such.


Firstly, be aware I use the NKJV & KJV. Further I am not on a “side” in this matter and have reservations about the critical approach as well. I am aware of the arguments and have studied them. However I will always speak up when the “kept pure in all ages” is blanketed for the 1611 KJV and that version only. I believe that to be an abuse considering the English translations that existed prior. I give a hardy “Amen” to kept pure in all ages as it relates to original writings . But we do not have those, we have man made copies that I believe our Lord has preserved through the ages for our benefit as well. Claiming the Lord’s promises ONLY for the 1611 King James is very suspect and for me is also not entirely honest/transparent application nor scholarship.

I believe the 1611 KJV to be beautiful, BUT if the rub is truly with the underlying manuscripts, then why not update some of the English? This makes me more suspicious that there is a Nostalgia/romance with the king’s English, that is fine and all, but becomes idolatrous when insisted upon since at best it is still a vulgar translation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Aug 7, 2021)

J.L. Allen said:


> @Grant it has to do with the underlying text rather than the translation primarily. I think most of us here on the forum who hold to the superiority of the Authorized Version say so primarily because of the underlying Greek and Hebrew. That and the ability of the translation committee on the AV move us to take more confidence in that translation than others. I'm sure those of us who are TR and/or strongly prefer the AV have varying degrees of how or why we would defend our position. I'm open to updated translations provided they don't have modernist glosses and are based on the Ecclesiastical Text.
> 
> @JM has rightly pointed you to @Jerusalem Blade for resources on the topic. It is a defensible position and strongly so. I, for one, was won over by those arguments from a Critical Text position. I think both sides need to calmly and thoughtfully address the claims brought forth. We don't need to dismiss each other because of a few bad players either. I say that about KJVO cults and tinfoil hat wearing types. That's not Confessional Bibliology and nor should it be misrepresented as such.


Of course, we are way off topic now, but I just want to say again that textual arguments have nothing to do with the assertion I have been addressing, which is the argument that the Church's "golden age" existed and was maintained primarily because of the dominant use of a particular Bible translation. This it not a sound argument nor even, dare I say, a Christian one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Aug 7, 2021)

@Grant and @Taylor

We are misunderstanding each other here, brothers. I wasn't defending the AV as being kept pure in the sense that the divines were intending. I also wasn't saying that the AV was the reason for a golden age. I know I was jumping into a different argument here. I'm sorry for the confusion. I was trying to address different things. Perhaps I misread. Carry on!


EDIT: @Grant nor would I defend the AV as the intent of the phrase kept pure. OK. Now carry on!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 7, 2021)

J.L. Allen said:


> @Grant and @Taylor
> 
> We are misunderstanding each other here, brothers. I wasn't defending the AV as being kept pure in the sense that the divines were intending. I also wasn't saying that the AV was the reason for a golden age. I know I was jumping into a different argument here. I'm sorry for the confusion. I was trying to address different things. Perhaps I misread. Carry on!


In your defense I was addressing statements made by JM.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Aug 7, 2021)

Grant said:


> In your defense I was addressing statements made by JM.


Crystal clear now.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 7, 2021)

Hello Grant,

This matter of understanding the writing in the WCF (& 1689) at 1.8, as regards "kept pure in all ages", has been a thorny matter in some respects. Here's my take:

"The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages…"​
So _how_, and _what_ was “kept pure in all ages”? — 1) an entire and intact Greek NT? And that throughout the church age till printing came to be? I don’t think so. 2) Or the pure READINGS of the autographs kept in various Greek mss, and then compiled in an authoritative edition, and then printed? Which edition would that be? I know of none. 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations? I hold to the third option. No reconstruction here, but keeping.

This way the WCF / 1689 is not made to bear the burden of asserting there was an entire and intact NT (and OT) extant throughout the church age before the Reformation, but rather the authentic *readings* were. 

When it is asserted that the "singular care and providence" of God's preservation applies to all the extant MSS, and it is incumbent upon the experts and scholars of the Bible industry to sort it all out for us, this misses the mark, for obviously much error was preserved; no, a different method of discernment, based upon different presuppositions, must be applied.

The preserved Hebrew and the Greek will, of course, bear on whatever translation derives from them, _and_ the faithfulness and skill of that translation is also of great importance. 

One must note, now in 2021, that it appears Rome's assault against the Protestant Reformation's Sola Scriptura was successful, seeing as the variants they introduced – and _continue_ to introduce – have taken the field. In the minds of so many – Presbyterian and Reformed included – the authority of a preserved and intact word of the LORD, is a myth (or wishful thinking) of the past.

Yes, there are a few, particularly among educated pastors, who valiantly contend for an intact preservation _apart from_ the once-universal text of the TR and its AV translation, but in the pews that skill and certainty are missing, and the foundation of the church is greatly weakened. That's why some of us continue to speak up, so that it is clear that all is not lost – text-wise (as many of the top scholars insist it is) – but God has been faithful to His promise to preserve His word not only in the main, but in the minutiae as well.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 7, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Grant,
> 
> This matter of understanding the writing in the WCF (& 1689) at 1.8, as regards "kept pure in all ages", has been a thorny matter in some respects. Here's my take:
> 
> ...


Thanks for your explanation Steve. I take zero issue with your line of reasoning. I love the 1611 KJV. However I would love to see the English updated with the same manuscript backing as the KJV. IF the KJV manuscript tradition is truly the only right one, then I believe those gifted in the original languages have a duty to update the English for future generations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 7, 2021)

Steve, you say this: 


Jerusalem Blade said:


> One must note, now in 2021, that it appears Rome's assault against the Protestant Reformation's Sola Scriptura was successful, seeing as the variants they introduced – and _continue_ to introduce – have taken the field.


I guess I would like further clarification as to this claim. As it stands, it would seem to be anachronistic, since "Rome's assault against the Protestant Reformation's Sola Scriptura" has to postdate the Reformation, whereas the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts predate the Reformation by a good margin, even the the majority of the Byzantine texts. At best this could mislead people into thinking that Rome is dreaming up new variants that are not present in any of the Greek manuscripts.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 7, 2021)

Grant said:


> Thanks for your explanation Steve. I take zero issue with your line of reasoning. I love the 1611 KJV. However I would love to see the English updated with the same manuscript backing as the KJV. IF the KJV manuscript tradition is truly the only right one, then I believe those gifted in the original languages have a duty to update the English for future generations.


Some have done what you are talking about, but they have lacked any popular support.

American King James Version
King James Version 2000
King James Bible 2016

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 7, 2021)

Hello Lane!

You said, 

"I guess I would like further clarification as to this claim. As it stands, it would seem to be anachronistic, since 'Rome's assault against the Protestant Reformation's Sola Scriptura' has to postdate the Reformation, whereas the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts predate the Reformation by a good margin, even the majority of the Byzantine texts. At best this could mislead people into thinking that Rome is dreaming up new variants that are not present in any of the Greek manuscripts."​
Why would this be anachronistic, as the counter-reformation assault used textual variants from both Rome's Latin Vulgate and Greek manuscripts (as Vaticanus) to try to weaken the Sola Scriptura doctrine based on the Masoretic and TR MSS? With Michael le Jay's _Parisian Polyglot_, and Brian Walton's _Polyglot,_ Rome's counter-assault had plenty of ammunition in variants – against which John Owen fought valiantly. They had no need to dream up variants – there were plenty available.

To modern times, and Rome's _continuing_ to introduce variants which undermine Sola Scriptura, the Introduction to the _Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece_, 27th revised edition (2006) explicitly confirms this close relationship between the UBS and the Vatican:

“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships.” (p. 45)​
See for yourself:

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 7, 2021)

Continued:

Further re Rome and the war against the Reformation's Sola Scriptura in our own day, see below, United Bible Societies welcomes Pope Francis:

As I said, Rome has taken the field as regards its Long War against the Reformation. We have, as a unified Reformed church, had our main armory shattered by the assault – and the pity is, we don't even realize it. Still, there are some outposts which hold fast. It's more like guerrilla warfare these days.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 8, 2021)

Steve, you claimed they were introducing new variants. That would imply variants not seen before in Greek manuscripts, would it not? A revision to the critical text based on manuscripts _already possessed_ or even newly found is not the same thing as introducing _new_ variants. I guess I am balking at the imprecision of language here. I have seen the introductions to the 27th and 28th editions of the NTG, and the revisions are based on old manuscripts, not newly manufactured manuscripts. In other words, the variants have been in existence for centuries. The revisions are then the committee changing its mind on how to weight the evidence. What you seem to be suggesting is a committee dreaming up new things out of their own brains to add to the Greek New Testament. 

On the Roman Catholic question, just because the committee is cooperating with Rome doesn't mean that it supports Rome's attack on sola scriptura. Erasmus cooperated with Rome as well, and not just in rejecting Vaticanus readings. He especially cooperated with Rome in the matter of the _comma Johanneum_. And since his edition is the underlying edition of the Stephanus revision, I would think that would constitute an effective _tu quoque. _

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 8, 2021)

Am I the only one who finds it odd that this thread has got to page four without it being moved to the Translations and Manuscripts forum?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 8, 2021)

Daniel, you are right. Moved.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 8, 2021)

Lane, I gather you are referring to this sentence from my Post #97, "One must note, now in 2021, that it appears Rome's assault against the Protestant Reformation's Sola Scriptura was successful, seeing as the variants they introduced – and _continue_ to introduce – have taken the field", when you say, "Steve, you claimed they were introducing new variants. That would imply variants not seen before in Greek manuscripts, would it not?"

Given the need for precision in such a discussion I may indeed be guilty of imprecision in not making clear that the variants were known to the scholars, both in the time of the Reformation, and also, in our day, much more widely due to the apparatuses in critical Greek editions – and were *not* "dreamed up" by Rome! I'm sorry I was not clearer.

In our day, just looking at the significant variants for multiple readings among the plethora of Bible versions is what I am referring to, although this did begin much earlier, that is, according to my present scope, in the counter-reformation.

I suppose it is a matter of one's perspective, the committee cooperating with Rome not meaning it supports Rome's attack on sola scriptura. From my perspective, when it promotes Bibles that attempt to demonstrate a better / more reliable text than the Reformers built their doctrine upon – they are in league. The Westminster Assembly would be in an uproar over such a development, could they see it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 8, 2021)

Just thinking out loud and again I am not advocating CT. Is it possible that kept pure in all ages could also include the Lord preserving and keeping manuscripts away from Rome so that they could be found at a later date with a higher level of accountability?

Whose perspective is “kept pure in all ages”… the Lord’s or man’s?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 8, 2021)

Hi Grant,

Could you elucidate this for me a little, "Is it possible that kept pure in all ages could also include the Lord preserving and keeping manuscripts away from Rome so that they could be found at a later date with a higher level of accountability?"


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 8, 2021)

Grant said:


> Just thinking out loud


Does your thinking process differ when you think quietly? 



Grant said:


> Whose perspective is “kept pure in all ages”… the Lord’s or man’s?


Some months ago I made these comments comparing the Genevan and KJV Bibles



Stephen L Smith said:


> I have found it interesting comparing two esteemed Reformation Bibles - the Geneva Bible (1599 ed) and the Authorised Version (1769 ed).
> 
> The Geneva Bible says Rev 16:5 "And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art just, which art, and which wast: and *Holy*, because thou hast judged these things." This follows the Greek text.
> The Authorised version says "And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, *and shalt be*, because thou hast judged thus." This follows Beza's conjectural emendation.
> ...

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jake (Aug 8, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Does your thinking process differ when you think quietly?
> 
> 
> Some months ago I made these comments comparing the Genevan and KJV Bibles


Not to mention I John 5:7, the famous Johannine Comma, is not present in the first Luther Bible, reflecting the earlier edition of the TR that did not contain it, though the later English Bibles based on the TR did contain it.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 8, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hi Grant,
> 
> Could you elucidate this for me a little, "Is it possible that kept pure in all ages could also include the Lord preserving and keeping manuscripts away from Rome so that they could be found at a later date with a higher level of accountability?"


Steve,

You are much more knowledgeable on this subject than I, so feel free to fill in my gaps. When I last looked into these arguments, my understanding was that one of the things that the Exclusive Textus Receptus position holds is that the manuscripts discovered after the 1611, which held a claim of predating the manuscripts used by the 1611, is that the older manuscripts from other areas could not be trusted. Is this correct?

If so, then my question is with regard to the perspective (man’s or God’s or both) of the phrase of “Pure in all ages”. Is it not possible that in the Lord’s providence that he allowed other trustworthy manuscripts to be discovered AFTER manuscripts included in the Textus Receptus. This keeping them from harm that we could never know because we do not know the full counsel of God?

I hope I have not further muddied the water!


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 8, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Does your thinking process differ when you think quietly?



Yes, in fact it looks like this:

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2 | Wow 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 8, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Although I would wish it weren’t the case, I do wonder how much of the KJV sales and thus ranking are due to its cheapness and availability as a gift Bible and other such uses, maybe purchased by people who really don’t know the difference.


Don’t discount English majors! It’s been 12 years, but I remember hearing some students in an English literature class at UW Seattle saying it was a required text.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 9, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> I think you may be confusing the RSV (1952) with the Revised Version (1885). Prior to that liberals used the KJV, just like conservatives, though it didn't make them any more conservative....



The RV is also a liberal translation based on the work of the heretics Westcott and Hort. All translations from the RV onwards were the result of declension in the church.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Huh?
> 
> 
> Amen. I’m not at all against the KJV. I love it. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing that our Bible translation is the primary mark of a healthy church.



I don't believe I said the dominance of the KJV was the "primary mark of a healthy church". I was responding to numerous comments in which people looked for a reason to explain the continuing popularity of the KJV _other than _it just being significantly more popular with a very large number of Christians than any of the myriad modern translations which are the pet projects of one publisher or another, or one denomination or another. Of course the rash of comments warning against what each commenter imagined I said is very telling in itself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> To say, “The KJV was the dominant translation during Protestantisms greatest era, and therefore caused it,”



But of course I never said that. But by the way you have written this, writing "to say" and the use of quotation marks, you are saying I did say that, which is a lie, and a gross misrepresentation of what I actually said and is thus a 9th commandment violation.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 9, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> But of course I never said that. But by the way you have written this, writing "to say" and the use of quotation marks, you are saying I did say that, which is a lie, and a gross misrepresentation of what I actually said and is thus a 9th commandment violation.


I never said that was your quote. My initial response to you was a summary of the logic of your post. Everything after that was from using that as a jumping-off point, and from interacting with JM.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 9, 2021)

*Moderator Hat On* 

Cool the temp here folks.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Aug 9, 2021)

greenbaggins said:


> *Moderator Hat On*
> 
> Cool the temp here folks.


Thanks for the admonition. My "hair-trigger" comment was unnecessarily escalating. For that I apologize. I will edit my post to reflect a kinder tone.

@alexandermsmith, to be clear, it was not my intention to make it seem as if the words in quotation marks was something you had said. As I explained, at that point I was already going back and forth with JM. If that's how it came off, then I apologize.

However, I would like to retrace our steps in order to assess whether my initial reply to you reflected the substance of the logic behind your statement. @Pilgrim said, "Usage of the KJV does not necessarily equate with soundness," and, "No version will ever have the dominance that the KJV had until the 1950s," to which you replied, "The best days of Protestantism were also when the KJV was the exclusive English translation. Go figure." It is entirely reasonable for someone to read this comment in that context and gather from it that you believe that the reason for "the best days of Protestantism" was that "the KJV was the exclusive English translation." If you meant something other than that, then you would have done well to clarify, brother. Instead, all any of us had to go on was this short comment, and an appended "go figure," which certainly didn't help us interpret your post as having been made in charity.

Hopefully this will help us have more profitable conversation in the future.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Thanks for the admonition. My "hair-trigger" comment was unnecessarily escalating. For that I apologize. I will edit my post to reflect a kinder tone.
> 
> @alexandermsmith, to be clear, it was not my intention to make it seem as if the words in quotation marks was something you had said. As I explained, at that point I was already going back and forth with JM. If that's how it came off, then I apologize.
> 
> ...



I was responding directly to this comment by Pilgrim:

"Many of the worst purveyors of easy-believism use the KJV, for what its worth. Many heretics and cults do too. (There are some groups that are widespread in some parts of the USA that are probably unheard of if not nonexistent in the UK.) Usage of the KJV does not necessarily equate with soundness. In the USA, more often than not, it is the opposite."

in which a correlation (not absolute, of course) was being drawn between sects and cults and the use of the KJV. My comment was merely meant to say that during the best days of Protestantism the KJV was the English translation that was used almost exclusively, which I think is an historical fact. I think there is a clear element of tongue-in-cheek in my post, to the extent that I obviously was not claiming that use of the KJV = soundness. Rather it was to argue that if we're going to call attention to the use of the KJV today by heretics and cults, all the more we should draw attention to the fact that the very best of our tradition used the KJV.

I accept that it was not your intention to claim that is what I said. However, more than one comment certainly implied that was the argument I was making when I think it is quite clear, when read in the context of the post to which it was a direct response, I was not making that argument.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 9, 2021)

Hello Grant,

In your saying (post #111), “the manuscripts discovered after the 1611, which held a claim of predating the manuscripts used by the 1611” – I gather you are referring to major manuscript finds such as Vaticanus (B) or Sinaiticus (aleph) (although B was known – and catalogued in the Vatican library – around 1475 or 1481). Though there _were_ other very early mss found after 1611; but B and aleph are the major ones – the critical text exemplars! – brought to light after the Reformation.

It is not simply “that the older manuscripts from other areas could not be trusted”, though Egypt / Alexandria did not receive any of the NT autographs as Europe and Asia Minor did – but the quality of the mss themselves, and the profound disagreements between B and aleph (some 3036 in the Gospels alone) is one further reason.

Another reason is that in the Reformation’s understanding of God’s providential preservation of His word, it was at the time of the Reformation He brought the mss and versions to Erasmus and the other editors of the NT which were to comprise the various editions of the Textus Receptus. He brought them the mss He wanted the Reformers to have a) in their battle with harlot Rome, and b) to settle His word in the original tongues according to His ancient promises He would preserve His word for His people.

It is certainly true that there are other views of how He preserved His word, which scholars like Rev. Lane Keister ably defend. I think it well known that the CT or ET (eclectic text) as seen in the modern Bibles are certainly preserved adequately for the Lord’s saving of souls and sustaining the churches in His love and truth by means of them. The debate is really about which variants are or are not original to the autographic text – preservation in the minutiae as well as in the main.

This ought not be a thing which divides churches, or friendships! I myself value the modern versions for the light on shades of meaning they offer in their translations, while keeping the TR/AV as my gold standards. There are godlier men than I who use these modern versions. I have pastored churches, and may pastor again, and see no need to disturb a church’s congregational life over this issue – though I may certainly challenge, _irenically_, a variant reading in the text. So I can hold a strict Reformation view, and a non-divisive pastoral view at the same time; it’s a fine balance, but can be done.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## ZackF (Aug 9, 2021)

T


Grant said:


> Yes, in fact it looks like this:
> View attachment 8228


That's your version of quiet?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------

