Top Ten Bible Translations, 2014

The Christian Booksellers Association recently released its list of the top ten selling Bible translations for December 2014. The CBA actually provides two lists: one by dollar sales; and the other by unit sales.

Top Ten Translations Based on Dollar Sales

  1. New International Version
  2. King James Version
  3. New King James Version
  4. New Living Translation
  5. English Standard Version
  6. Holman Christian Standard Bible
  7. The Voice
  8. New American Standard
  9. Reina Valera 1960
  10. New International Reader’s Version

Top Ten Translations Based on Unit Sales

  1. New International Version
  2. The Voice
  3. King James Version
  4. English Standard Version
  5. New King James Version
  6. New Living Translation
  7. Holman Christian Standard Bible
  8. Reina Valera 1960
  9. Nueva Version Internacional (Spanish)
  10. New International Reader’s Version

What is your preferred Bible translation? What do you think about these two lists? Let me hear from you.

Posted on December 10, 2014


With nearly 40 years of ministry experience, Thom Rainer has spent a lifetime committed to the growth and health of local churches across North America.
More from Thom

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

175 Comments

  • I use the NASB for sermons and memorization but I am also reading through the Bible using the ESV. I find the HCSB to be rather convoluted in places and more or less a reinvention of the wheel. It’s almost as if the HCSB was produced just so Lifeway would have its “own” translation. I have to say, though, that I am bemused by the continued popularity of the KJV. One preacher that I enjoy listening to highly endorses the KJV but at the same time continually points out places where it’s a poor translation. Furthermore, listening to a preacher read all the archaic language just gets silly after a while.

    • As I mentioned down below as well, there is a certain music to the KJV that is very appealing. My first Bible was a KJV that I got as a high school graduation present from my parents, and even though it only got one solid read (among other studying) before I moved on, it still left a mark.

      As far as mentioning where a translation may be weak, that was one of the selling points for me on the ESV. There are always choices that are going to be made when you are making a translation, but I really appreciated how transparent they seemed in the notes when a decision like that was being made. It could be that practice is more common than I am aware of, but it made an impression on me particularly in my first reading.

    • Adam,

      I can see why you might conclude the production of the HCSB so that Lifeway can have its “own” translation, but I don’t think that’s the case. Their website indicates that 17 denominations were involved in the production of it, regardless of Lifeway’s stewardship of it for production and development.

      It would be the same thing as saying Crossway produced the ESV so it could have its “own” translation, Thomas Nelson and the NKJV, Zondervan and the NIV, and the list goes on and on. That statement really doesn’t help anything, and seems pejorative, IMO. But it doesn’t seem like Crossway or the other publishers are perceived negatively for their stewardship of their various translations, right?

      And i’m surprised that you find the HCSB convoluted and prefer the NASB and ESV, which are wooden, archaic, and don’t sound like our speech today!

    • Adam, I appreciate your forthrightness about your view of the HCSB. As Bible Publisher at LifeWay/B&H, I’m asked fairly often about why the HCSB was created. The motivations were commendable, of course. Given that we have the privilege of serving the church with trusted Bible-based materials, it made great sense to also offer a Bible translation that we knew could be trusted to deliver God’s message with accuracy and in a way that’s accessible to modern readers. Really nothing more needs to be said. We’ve had a good ten years since release with growth each year, and currently we have a Translation Oversight Committee that is reviewing the entire text in search of things that might be improved. This is something all new translations undertake, and we have had many helpful suggestions submitted to us over the years from folks who share our passion for accurate, readable translation. The end result of all of this will be the HCSB — already known for upholding both accuracy and readability — is going to be a readable, accurate text for many years to come.

      • Jeremy, if I may offer my two-cents worth on the HCSB, I hope they are going to “tighten” it up a bit – in aiming for readability, the language pendulum swings a little too far over and gets a little loose and is quirky in places. I also believe it loses some distinction of literature (poetry vs. historical narrative, etc. – the Psalms should not sound like a merely animated testimony across a dinner table). Additionally, I disagree with the translation of 2 Timothy 3:16 and 4:2. In a time when the idea of inspiration is understood as only the prompting of a good idea, everybody needs to understand that the Bible is “God-breathed” (the literal and most powerful translation of “theopneustos”). And in a time when so many preachers are trading the preaching of God’s Word for preferred and personalized messages, they need the exhortation to “preach the word” (I do understand that “proclaim the message” is textually acceptable, but it is not contextually accurate, when Paul’s subject is the life-changing power of Scripture in Timothy’s life and ministry – “preach the word” is crisp and strong while “proclaim the message” is flat and weak – I just do not understand the reasoning behind the translators’ choice here).

        Just FYI, I am a 39-year-old pastor in Oklahoma, not raised in church or on the KJV. I do like what the HCSB is aiming for in its translation philosophy. Overall, I do believe the HCSB is a good translation, but not nearly as good as it could be. It has a lot of room for improvement (just like me), and I commend the Committee for taking a fresh look at it with fresh feedback. I pray for our Lord’s blessing on their efforts.

      • Bela,

        Thanks for the comment (which you mentioned in the thread below to me). I work with Jeremy, and we will discuss what you’ve mentioned — including taking your comments to our Translation Oversight Committee.

        Blessings to you, and Merry Christmas!
        Micah

      • Thanks, Micah! Blessings and Merry Christmas to you!

        Bela

      • Unbelievable, 3 years later and you guys actually implemented these changes in CSB! Wow, just wow!

      • This is for Jeremy: Since you are looking at another update, are you going to get the HCSB to a point where it will sit for a while? It’s a little problematic to have different versions of the same translation in the hands of those in pews. That’s one of my gripes with the ESV — there are 2001, 2007 and 2011 versions out there, and although each update was fairly minor, there are significant differences. With the HCSB, the 2004 and the 2009 were drastically different (I noticed it most with the increased use of Yahweh instead of LORD).

        Just curious — I think it’s great that you are constantly trying to improve the translation, however I think it’s good to just let it “sit” for a while so that there aren’t so many versions out there.

  • I use the NASB. Though not the easiest translation to read, as an expository teacher, I’ve found it to be the most accurate transliteration of the original text.

    • Ditto….so why is the NASB so far down on the list considering most mainstream theologians consider it the best ‘verse-by-verse’ best translation??? I don’t get it?

  • Jeff Glenn says on

    I prefer the NKJV

  • Cliff Woodman says on

    I use the NASB. I check the NIV, HCSB, ESV, NKJV/KJV and The Message (occasionally) when sermon prepping. Just recently we ordained a new deacon. During the ordination we present the deacon with a new Bible of his choice. While at the bookstore (sorry not LifeWay) I called and asked him his preferred translation. I asked him for a second choice after he asked for the NASB. All I could see before me were ESV, HCSB, and NIV. Searching through 30 feet of Bibles floor to ceiling I actually stumbled across three John MacArthur NASB’s.

  • I use the NASB as my standard version. I love checking other versions, especialy KJV but for memorization I stick to NASB, it can be hard juggling too many versions when trying to memorize. Also, just recently found a Kindle version that doesn’t have any verse or chapter breaks which is great for just reading through.

    • I am an NASB fan to. I enjoy the word for word translation. Growing up using the King “Jimmy” I found the NASB to be an easy transition.

  • David Smithey says on

    Hmm, I feel like Patrick as well. I have three translations that I use for Study: ESV, HCSB and NASB. I personally have never really cared for the NIV. At the moment, I prefer the ESV. Having said that, I should mention that the HCSB may take it’s place in the near future. The more that I use the HCSB the more I like it. It seems to have the best of Literal and Dynamic equivalence. I preach from the ESV (for now).

    • Thanks for your kind words about the HCSB, David. We believe it strikes a great note by upholding readability and accuracy as equal values. If a translation is so “accurate” that it comes off as wooden or too close to the original idioms which do not transfer into our own era, it actually fails to communicate accurately. An ironic outcome!

    • David,
      I agree. It seems to me the more I read it that the HCSB is simply comfortable. I hear John MacArthur teach and explain the original languages and he could be quoting the HCSB many times and still it reads so smooth.

    • Good to know I’m not alone! I am right there with you, though. May change as well…

  • Christian Salzillo says on

    Very interesting results!

    I use the NIV for my personal study; I have really enjoyed the 2011 update. I grew up reading the NASB and when preaching expository I’ll still go to it rather than the ESV (which I do enjoy and appreciate).

  • I use NKJ…have always use NIV but because my husband is avid about KJ… I use NKJ…I am not a thee and thou person. I still like NIV better but finding NKJ getting better as I use it. I found some verses dropped from KJ in the NIV but know to have copyright some things have to be changed. Some pastors I really admire and enjoy their teaching/preaching use NKJ. Too, pastors I worked for gave me Ryrie NIV…so how can I go wrong. Enjoy and love reading the Word. Pat

    • Thom Rainer says on

      Your last sentence is a testimony to your character, Pat.

    • Pat, the missing verses that you are finding in the NIV are actually rooted in the original text that is being used for translation. The KJV and the NKJV start with a different manuscript than what is used in translation for the NIV, and most other translations. Hope that is helpful.

  • Even with all the griping about perceived readability, the KJV is still holding strong into the second decade of the new millennium. It’s still my preferred version, even though I typically also use the ESV for study and preaching from time to time.

  • The (New) Revised Standard Version is good too as is the Complete Jewish Bible.

  • Can someone explain to me how The Voice became the second bestselling translations behind the NIV? In October The Voice was not even in the top ten. Somehow in November though it jumped all the way to second. I cannot find any reason for a spike in sales like that. No big celebrity promotion or domination adoption or fire sale that I can find. Anyone know anything I don’t?

    • Thom Rainer says on

      Noah – I was surprised too. I hope I can find an explanation.

    • Noah, the reason The Voice has spiked the list the past few months is that a major Christian retailer has been running a $5 promotional. That’s a really great deal for customers, and so they purchase copies of The Voice (sometimes multiple copies) not because they’ve decided The Voice is their new translation but because they’re getting a super deal and they are curious about the next text. In many cases they give these Bibles away to folks who don’t have one.

      • Thanks Jeremy. I figured it must be something along those lines. I just haven’t been able to find anything. Does sound like a good price. Maybe I should pick one up.

      • Salem communications gifted a copy to all who attended their fall clergy events. Well over 1,000 in Atlanta alone.

    • I’ve never even heard of “The Voice” before!

      • The Voice is an ecumenical Bible translation for those who support the new age movement…

        I use the King James Bible translation, because I do not have a peace about any other; however, I have read portions of almost all others. I personally believe the King James uses the oldest Greek text, and according to my personal study, it’s the best English translation. I think I would be more willing to study and recommend a new version if the translators didn’t make so many unnecessary changes…

        God has consecrated the King James Bible too, for what other Bible reads like it and has stood the test of time? And probably every honest Christian that has stopped using the KJV will admit that he/she had to cross a bridge of reluctance and doubt, and sin along the way. (See Romans 14:22-23.)

        I’ve even heard that there have been studies done to see who learns and matures the fastest in the Lord, and the King James readers always win. If God has decreed it, why not use it? If there are some seemingly errors, why not fix them? If some words have changed meaning, why not fix them? We don’t need the confusion of many translations. We need unity! (I’m venting, I know.)

        When the King James translators gave us the Authorized Version, they basically gave God’s people a Bible they already had, for their goal was not to make a new version, but to make older versions better… Newer versions have so many superficial changes, and some really ugly changes, it makes you think the translators who gave us the Bible in English (with their own blood!) didn’t even know the original languages.

        I read the Voice online before it was for sale in Christian bookstores, and all I can say is be careful with that one…

      • Ronald Beal says on

        It is sad, in this late date “Christians” debate over the best translation to read or preach from. For the past 2000 years mankind has accepted the BIble as the inerrant word of God, without understanding what they were reading. Now, in this enlightened age, these last days of higher intelligence, the Truth hidden in the Bible is of little concern. The wise and intelligent have not revealed the Truth to a civilization on the verge of going down the drain. God will reveal his plan for humanity, if he is asked. It is not based on any translation, only an open mind and a pure heart. The pure heart is not of man’s opinion of purity, but of man’s intent as he approaches God.

      • Terry Thomas says on

        Yes, it is true that Christians “debate over the best translation to read or preach from. ” However , your assessment of that as being “sad” is totally without warrant. Although we can certainly peruse most translations in our personal studies and benefit from those studies to infer that we, as Christians, should sit idly by and not say anything ( don’t debate, discuss, etc. ) relative to the veracity of a certain translation is simply ludicrous! Should we, for example, allow a new convert to use the New World Translation (a very corrupt translation, published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses ) without warning that individual about the dangers of said translation??? Should a Christian congregation allow their minister to preach /teach from that translation? The answer is a resounding NO!!!

        Also, men did NOT blindly accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God! There is much evidence that supports that fact.

        Finally, it is NOT that “…God WILL reveal his plan… if He is asked “. He HAS REVEALED his will in his word, the Bible! Your statement that God’s revealed will “…is based only on… an open mind and a pure heart… and not of man’s opinion of purity but of man’s intent as he approaches God.” is simply erroneous!!

        What about the man who’s only intention is to please God, and this man has discovered in his religions “holy book ” that it is pleasing to God for His people to “kill the infidels (i. e., those who don’t follow the teachings of that “holy book “) and this man attaches a bomb to himself and goes into a Christian church and detonates the bomb, killing himself and hundreds of others! His intent was to please God!!! I wonder if he did? No! A biblical example is the Apostle Paul… who persecuted and killed many believers (prior to his conversion ) and did so with a pure intent on pleasing God! (Acts 22:1-5)

        I hope you will reconsider some of your conclusions. There are a number of good translations (e.g., KJV, NkJV, Nasb, etc. all from which we can discover the truth of God.

  • I currently use the ESV. I have a great internal struggle that my wife doesn’t understand about which translation to use. I primarily preach expository sermons, so a thought for thought translation doesn’t work well. My concern, and I wonder if it’s shared, is whether the ESV has almost become a club unto itself…any thoughts on this, Thom?

    I do have a HCSB, but I’ve not preached from it.

    • Thom Rainer says on

      Patrick – I use the HCSB. I like its optimal equivalence where it translates accurately from the oldest available manuscripts, but also offers a fluid ease of reading. As a point of full disclosure, B&H publishes the HCSB, but I was using it several years before coming to LifeWay

      • Prentiss Yeates says on

        I have used the nkjv, kjv and nasb for study and devotion for years. But, to be provided a balance between readability and study , I’ve been using the hcsb since 2010. I do appreciate it’s faithfulness to the text and it just plain reads well. Thank you lifeway.

      • Thom Rainer says on

        Thank you, Prentiss!

      • I have been reading the HCStudyBible for some time now, and I like it. It has very good notes and it also is very good on showing textual differences in the text.
        Other Bible versions I use are NET, NIV, ISV and more literal translations like NASB and even KJV and NKJV.
        When I memorize Scripture passages I compare different Bible translations to get the best flow of the passage I plan to memorize. What I am looking for then is poetical style, smoothness, but also correctness to the original languages.
        My wife and I work with the kids in our church and as we teach the Word we are trying to make the Word exciting and we illustrate its truths as clearly as possible with practical application questions on their level.

    • Yusef Mohamet says on

      The ESV is considered by most theologians as a “theological” translation. I would recommend the original RSV, which is clearly not a theological translation. It was once thought to be liberal, but is now quite mainstream. The only problem with the RSV is that it retained the “Thees and thous.”

      Personally, I prefer British translations. The American translations are like American media, too bent on having their own ax to grind. You can see the problems across the board, either too liberal or too conservative, but never focused on God’s purpose, too focused on their own.

      I personally think the best translation is most overlooked: the Revised English Bible (REB) which is modern, gender neutral (but not excessively so like the NRSV or NIV), and is quite poetic and beautiful English for public reading (unlike the very bland HCSB and NASB translations and the awkward and somewhat archaic ESV). Another British translation that is often overlooked is the New Jerusalem Bible, a translation which is faithful to the original, but is more poetic than most and uses many words in the original Hebrew, such as Yahweh, Elyon and El Shaddai.

      You can read the USA Today and the NIV, or go to the next level and purchase the Economist and the REB or New Jerusalem Bible. It depends on whether you want to fall into “pop” culture or shoot for the very best! Blessings…

    • Kjv only. Modern bible versions have a satanic agenda behind them. A good film that explains the is “new world order bible versions” by sanderson1611.

    • There is a myth of “best and oldest”referring to a post WWW sales campaign for the RSV claiming the Sinaiticus Alexandrian and Vaticanus had that status. All post WW2 bibles are based upon Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica not the Pure Masoretic and Nestles Novum Graecum which was a revised Copy of Tischendorf’s Greek. The grave changes of the texts during the Reich years are now the focus of research. G. Kittel the son was convicted of war crimes and imprisoned by the Frnch government for sedition of the church. Less than 6 years later the first waves of the new texts hit the US . For doctrine,only the received text is authoritative. Blessings to all.

      • The NIV and the NASB are translated from the oldest Greek texts. Not the KJV.

      • The texts used for the NIV and NASB are not the only old texts, and they were only recently discovered (1800s). The text underlying the KJV has been preserved through history in use by the Greek speaking church. This to say the rediscovered texts had been discarded for centuries, not preserved in use.

      • Supposedly oldest. None the less, they are the Vaticanus and Sinaticus or B and Aleph respectively. These are thought to be in complete condition because they were not used; reason being they were corrupt. Plenty is written about them. Most all modern translations are based on these whereas the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus. Quite different. For the last 130 years, the koolaid is that the Vaticanus and Sinaticus are the oldest and “best”. I was a modern version guy, but I stopped filtering my KJV through modern versions and Hebrew and Greek Lexicons. I now read the KJV, pray and use Webster’s 1828 dictionary. That’s it. The KJV makes perfect sense to me. The difficult words are real English words with real English meanings that are exacting and most fitting when read in their context. The thees and thous, ye’s and you’s are there for great reason and should be there. Thees or the “T” words for you are always singular and the “Y” words for you are always plural. God, therefore is only addressed as thee, thou, thy, thine, thouest, but never Ye, You or Your. The KJV is not that hard. Its easier than trying to learn Greek or Hebrew. Also, can you trust the definitions in Hebrew and Greek Lexicons (Strong’s, Vine’s, Rickerberry, Greens, etc)? All Bible Lexicons are full of secular and pagan definition choices for bible words. Why? Because they all come from the Lexicons used to translate the classics, Greek plays, Philosopers like Plato, Philo, Socrates, etc.

        By this novel method of Bible study, the KJV makes total sense and I have come to believe that the KJV has been correctly translated. I no longer believe the standard objections to it, like its full of copiest errors, lost in translation, and on and on. I encourage all laymen (not lay people) and ministers of the gospel to return to this method. God has devinely preserved his word and its not in 15 popular translations, Lexicons or any commentaries. Its right under our noses in the KJV. I am no longer intimidated by anyone. Say whatever you want. I can now understand the Bible and I don’t have to go to the scholars, which God never intended.

      • W WillylliW says on

        Nobody has mentioned the William tyndale Bible which was the first English Bible printed, a must read is the book the daring mission of William tyndale,

      • I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. If you turn to Acts 27:40, you will see that where the KJV says that they left the anchors on the ship, every other translation shows the anchors were cast over- board. In 2003, the anchors were found off the coast of Malta. Google it. KJV, the supposed inerrant bible, isn’t.

      • Mike,

        Read the next verse. They ran aground and the ship was wrecked where two seas met. Do a little more research on the anchors. They were not found where the memorial in Malta is, they were found where the ship was wrecked happened, which matches up with scripture.

      • isn’t it possible that as the ship broke apart that the anchors as well as parts of the ship were lost into the sea ? of course only the anchors would of survived, & eventually found in the sea… food for thought gentlemen

      • Have to agree with Mike and Caronlyn. Further, the man that found the anchors believes they were the anchors from paul’s ship. There is no proof that these are those anchors. There’s probably been many ships run aground in those waters from that era. I am sticking with the KJV, not a modern version deep sea diver. Many from archaeology have come to prove the KJV wrong and not one find has proven it. The Moabite stone, for instance contradicts the bible account of the same event, but no one questions that those who wrote on the stone may have been lying, but believe the words and opinions of men over the word of God. I follow a rule and that is I scrutinize any claim contradicting the Bible (and now the KJV). Get you some “Bible Problem” books that expose the “claims” against the bible. Some are so laughable even a child could see through them.

    • Russ Davis says on

      My question for those who are truly serious about preaching Almighty God’s Gloriously Perfect, not merely Inerrant and Infallible, Word, let the chips fall where they may, is why even think about pandering down to a low and ever-more decadent non-culture, even in the church, something old God-fearer preachers trembling at his Word didn’t do.
      When those pretending to seek Jesus (e.g. Matt 19/Mar 10) rejected His Word for them, he let them go; he didn’t run after them, unlike today when foolish folk imagine they’re kinder than God, pandering after people being more important than fearing Almighty God and believing His divine almighty Word and Call is as irresistible now as it was for Matthew (Matt 9) and Paul (Acts 9) and Lazarus (John 11) and everyone else, His Word incarnate and written being coextensive if we’re serious about believing in God’s Word.
      While my usual “reflex” text is the KJV remembered from my youth, I generally employ the 1901 ASV now, regrettably no longer in print, but available in e-Sword, http://www.e-Sword.net (though it has a scant few typos still) ,
      though checking it first with
      1. the original (Koine, my 3rd language, sadly not Aramaic or Hebrew),
      2. 1545/1912 Luther (German’s my 2nd language) and
      3. 1525-1537 Tyndale, Rogers, Coverdale, Cranmer and
      4. Jerome’s 405 and Clement’s 1598 Latin Vulgate (Latin being my fourth language; amazing how little changed after 1200 years between the two!)
      Perhaps my biggest problem with English translations is this:
      post 19th century English
      (because of the slow publishing methods of its day the 1901 ASV was mostly done in the 19th century)
      is so defective in its loss of the 2nd person singular (thee/thou + relevant verb forms) that it’s not possible accurately to convey the original’s use of it versus the plural, so I say be Christ’s glorious Church once more and demand high standards, including language instead of continuing to degrade and compromise with corrupt modernity, as Christ demanded through his Apostle Paul (1Cor 16:13). Regardless of what we’ve been brainwashed to imagine, people will rise to challenges. Ask the Harris twins who were graced to see this when they were still teens:
      http://therebelution.com/books/do-hard-things/
      Almost all the post 19th century English translations get Romans 6:7 wrong, He who has died is “freed” from sin mistranslating dikaiaw=jusified; the ASV is one of the scant few that gets it right like Tyndale & Luther & even 14th century Wycliffe & the 405 Vulgate: justified vs freed, though to be fair the ASV does blow it on 2Tim 3:16: “Every scripture inspired of God [is]” supplying the verb in the wrong place instead of after Scripture, proving man can never be trusted, only God alone worthy of anything. Soli Deo gloria!

    • DAVID HENDERSON says on

      What do you mean by this…that it has become a club to itself? 🙂

1 2 3 9