I realize Voices published a post on this several years ago, but I thought it would be interesting to discuss this topic again. This week on his blog Thom Rainer published the list of best-selling Bible translations as of 2020. This list came from the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association.
Rankings as January 2020 (numbers in parentheses are 2011 rankings)
- New International Version (NIV) (1)
- King James Version (KJV) (2)
- New Living Translation (NLT) (4)
- English Standard Version (ESV) (5)
- New King James Version (NKJV) (3)
- Christian Standard Bible (CSB) (6)
- Reina Valera (RV) (not ranked)
- New International Reader’s Version (NIrV) (9)
- The Message (Message) (8)
- New American Standard Bible (NASB) (7)
Mark’s Observations
Our senior pastor and I both preach from the New King James Version. We do that because we have lots of older folks who carry the King James. The NKJV is close enough to the KJV that they don’t get lost. The senior pastor often quotes from the NLT, and he told me he would prefer to use that, assuming personal preference was the only factor.
Drs. Steve Gaines (Bellevue Baptist) and Robert Jeffress (FBC Dallas) both preach from the NASB. Steve Gaines often quotes from the NLT, and Bellevue gives copies of the NLT to new members.
The Christian Standard Bible is a revision of the Holman Christian Standard Bible. The new Tony Evans Study Bible uses the CSB. When the Holman Christian Standard Bible was published, I read it some. It seemed very similar to the NIV to me. I wonder if our Voices readers have opinions about the CSB, compared to the HCSB.
If someone told me I could use what I please, I would use the English Standard Bible. I’ve used that a lot in my personal devotions, and I really like it. The professors and students at Southern Seminary seem to prefer the ESB. The ESB Study Bible is a great study Bible. The ESV is published by Crossway. That company purchased the rights to the Revised Standard Version from the National Council of Churches. Then, they employed a number of evangelical Bible scholars to update and modify the RSV. The result was the ESV.
As a missionary and professor of missions, I’ve experienced and taught about Bible translation. There are two primary approaches to translation: literal and dynamic. Literal translations try to stay as close to the original languages as possible. Sometimes, this is called a word for word translation. It is never possible to do word for word exactly because the word order is different in every language. Dynamic translation seeks to translate thought for thought; or, to put it another way, those translations seek to prompt the same response. You could place the Bibles above on a scale from very literal to very dynamic. The NASB is the most literal Bible on the list. Folks often ask me about which English Bible is closest to the Greek and Hebrew. The NASB is the one I mention. Of course, Eugene Peterson’s The Message is a paraphrase. So, it is absolutely dynamic. The NIV is a good example of a dynamic translation. The NLT is dynamic, while the NKJV and ESV are literal. The CSB occupies a middle position, in my opinion.
As a youth, someone gave me a copy of J. B. Phillips’ paraphrase of the New Testament—The New Testament in Modern English. I read that again and again with great enjoyment and profit. I suggest to my seminary students that they periodically change the translation they read for their personal devotions. I believe that keeps Bible study fresh. Finally, if you go walking or jogging or work out regularly, you might think about downloading the Bible onto a device. That way you can listen to the Bible while you exercise.
Well, what say you? Which translation do you prefer?
For preaching and teaching, I prefer the NLT as the most readable and accurate (weighing both of those together for teaching purposes). For personal study, I like to use NET, ESV, NLT, and CSB.
Glad to see someone else using the NET. I’ve found its extensive notes to be extremely useful. I note that Olive Tree has the 2nd edition of the NET. I expect that to be my next “Read through tnr Bible” translation.
That should be “read through the Bible”. That’s what I get for entering comments on my phone.
I carry the KJV with me for Sunday worship. The pastor preahes from it. For my read the Bible through, I am using the ESV this year. I only wish the modern translations would not have left Acts 8:37 out. This one verse tells us what one must do to be baptized.
NASB when I teach Sunday school and for worship. NASB, NIV, NKJ, and KJV for study.
ESV
I study and preach from the ESV. I have thought about using the NLT more because it is a very smooth, easy-to-reach translation. I can see where the NLT would be very useful when some in the congregation have English as their second language.
I must admit that I am surprised that the ESV only finished fourth as it seems to be the rising translation more younger preachers and laypeople are using as well as more people in the Gospel Coalition camp. In contrast I don’t know of a single preacher in any camp who preaches primarily from the higher selling NLT.
About five years ago, I was given a copy of The Voice. The translator and publisher is the Ecclesia Bible Society of Houston, Texas. I’m not familiar with that particular group but their translation is very readable, using the simplest form of English wording and is aimed at a younger audience that is not familiar with Bible study or the discipline of regular personal scripture reading. I lead a home group of mostly younger adults, few of whom have been raised in church, and it is perfect for them. My personal preference for reading and study is the NRSV. In… Read more »
Hard for me to take to a translation that doesn’t use the words, Christ, angel, or apostle…”The Voice”
The Voice is a very similar translation to the 2011 NIV as I understand it.
Teach from NKJV but turn to NLT if I want a clearer take on a particular passage.
I preach from the NKJV for the same reasons you mention above. But my preferred translation is the NASB. I also use the ESV and I like the HCSB.
I never use the NLT or any other gender neutral version. I don’t care for the CSB. And I won’t touch The Message with a 10 foot pole.
I can tolerate the NIV as long as it’s the 1984 edition or earlier. The Today’s NIV and the 2011 edition are awful.
William, KJV, It is amazing that the KJV is still number 2 and I suspect that it will be a hundred years from now. I am not an “ Onlyist” but I do think the KJV is in many ways a fantastic translation. When I preach outside my normal settings and I use the KJV I have questions from young people about it ( because they rarely or have never heard it) and it’s a joy to see their enthusiasm. I tell them to read what is more understandable to them, not what is most challenging. The idea is to… Read more »
This was Mark Terry’s article. I came to use the KJV more and more as a pastor. Like many, I love the flow and terminology while understanding it’s limitations.
William, I got it!
woody
I usually use the NKJV for the reasons you describe. Close enough the KJV to follow along in one, but modern enough to be understanable; However, when I quote a verse, its always from the KJV because thats what I memorized Scripture from in school.
Me, too. When I quote from memory, it is King James. All of us older folks love the rhythm and flow of the KJV. I believe the NKJV has kept that, while updating the thees, thous, and ths.
I always like the HCSB. I love the use of the Tetragrammaton and appreciated the capitalization of all pronouns in reference to the Trinity. I do recognize that in their attempt to be true to the language meanings that one or two verses ended up with a bad translation. However, other places the word choices were better. We used the HCSB at my church until they quit publishing it in favor of the CSB. I do not like the CSB’s going back on some of the changes that HCSB did in favor of tradition. However, we do use it and… Read more »
All of these “recent” [i.e. since WW2] English language translations are too much. When we moved here to Oklahoma from California we bought the HCSB from the bookstore in the lobby of our church. A few people said in jest “the HCSB means it is the ‘hard core Southern Baptist’ bible”. I am not a bible scholar and I don’t know either Greek or Hebrew. If I do some type of heavy duty word study I use crib-books such as the multivolume Analytical Key to the Old Testament by Owens along with the BDB OT Lexicon. I have similar books… Read more »
I think America has been “dumbing down” the English for too long. I use the KJV. When I don’t understand an archaic word, guess what I do. I do what my third grade teacher told me to do, get the dictionary. I realize I am “old school,” but I think doing old fashion grammar studies is much needed in our education system.
I’m really comfortable with the ESV. I jumped around to several translations, then settled on the NASB until about 2007. When I think, “I wish they had used a different word”, further study usually reveals the translators got it right l
For my daily reading, I often use the NLT and I give many of them away to people I minister to. For serious study and for preaching/teaching, I use the NASB.
But when I quote from memory, it’s always KJV. YEP, I’m old. On October 7, 2020, I will have been 50 years in the ministry.
I like the NASB and ESV. I still cannot help but quote from the KJV as that is what I memorized from as a child. I have to admit that sometimes all the versions come out as a “Amy-paraphrased” version occasionally when I am trying to go from memory and they get muddled.
Billy – Seeing you post made me smile especially given what is going on with mama passing. I know daddy is pleased you did not give up on ministry when times got tough! Daddy and mama are together again…
I usually use a combination of NIV, CSB, and ESV, though ESV is my least favorite of the 3. I’m still annoyed at it’s 1Tim4:7 translation in CSB and ESV so I try to make sure to cross reference.
I’m a KJV only man. I use nothing else but the KJV. I study nor quote from anything else.
It’s been an interesting journey for me. I started with KJV and still have much of my scripture memory stuck there. But, over the years I have switched to NIV- which I now can’t read at all because it’s too wordy- and then to RSV, NRSV (which I still love and would still use if it wasn’t for the silly gender neutral stuff), but now I read and the ESV almost exclusively. It isn’t perfect but I spend the least amount of time having to explain the text when I use it. Ironically, the Bible translated here where I live… Read more »
When I served in the southern Philippines, the Philippine Bible Society published the Good News for Modern Man (Today’s English Version) in Cebuano. The title was “Maayong Balita,” which in English is “Good News.” A lot of the Filipino pastors refused to use it because it did not have Santa Biblia (Holy Bible) on the cover.
Thanks Mark /Voices,
It is interesting to hear what the various folks have to say on this subject.
The Gideons always like to offer the KJV and one modern translation (currently the ESV, which Crossway probably gives us a good deal on).
At the 2018 T4G they were pitching the CSB, which we bought and gave to several friends, *before* we saw the unfortunate translation of Ps 51:5, which would have David confessing his guilt… at birth! (What law could he have possibly broken by the time he was born)?
Born with a sinful nature… no doubt.
Born guilty…absurd.
I’m not really surprised that the liberally translated, gender-neutral NLT is high on the best seller list.
I am a bit surprised that SB pastors on this site use it and support it. I get the fact that’s it’s written on about a sixth grade reading level and easy to understand. But what’s the point of having a better understanding error?
Sorry guys but I don’t like the NLT. It seems many of you do. Other than readability can you tell me why? Maybe I’m missing something.
Those are some of the same unfair criticisms of the NIV, I don’t know as much about the NLT but I expect they are similarly unfair. Its definitely a less formal translation philosophy and it’s fine to criticize it for that if you like, but I’ve never seen anyone charge it was translated by liberals and it’s quite sure “gender-neutral” is just as absurd as when it’s leveled at the NIV.
I don’t use the NIV either, especially the 2011 edition, which is gender-neutral. That’s why the SBC has a resolution denouncing it as false and recommending it not be used.
And I would label any gender-neutral translation as a liberal translation, including the NLT. The NLT proclaims it’s gender-neutral position in the preface.
Btw, I never said it was translated by liberals. I said it was liberally translated, meaning the translators took some liberties with their word choices.
After much thought, I must confess that I prefer the Elect Standard Version (ESV). I used to be a fan of the Nearly Inspired Version (NIV), but then I saw the light. The Not A Simple Bible (NASB) is still a great one for study, though it reads a little rough from the pulpit. I can’t bring myself to use the Hard Core Southern Baptist (HCSB) as some of the translators’ choices just rub me the wrong way. The Corrected Southern Baptist (CSB) version has similar issues for me. I would say something about the Not Literal Translation (NLT), but… Read more »
I enjoyed that.
I’ve heard it said that the best translation of the Bible is the one you’ll read. If it’s just sitting on a table or a shelf it doesn’t matter which one you have.
cute
For context, I grew up in Los Angeles, worked in Taiwan for 25 years, and have lived in San Diego the last 15 years. I haven’t heard the KJV read or preached from in a church service or Bible study in 45 years. Our church in San Diego, which is 11 years old, has always used the NIV. I study from the NIV. (Off point, I also will look at the Taiwanese Bible as I find it helpful to see how a Bible in another language translates a passage.) I do my devotions in the NIV and The Message.
Taipei? Taichung? Tainan? I attended Morrison in Taichung.