Bible Translation Sales Rankings (June, 2021)

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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!" :p

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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!" :p

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

RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.)

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.
 
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).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top