The Christian Booksellers Association has published its list of bestselling Bible translations in 2012 for the United States.
2012 – Based on Dollar Sales
- New International Version
- King James Version
- New Living Translation
- New King James Version
- English Standard Version
- Holman Christian Standard Bible
- New American Standard Bible
- Common English Bible
- Reina Valera 1960
- The Message
2012 – Based on Unit Sales
- New Living Translation
- New International Version
- King James Version
- New King James Version
- English Standard Version
- Common English Bible
- Holman Christian Standard Bible
- New American Standard Bible
- Reina Valera 1960
- New International Readers Version
Are there any surprises to you? How many of these translations have you read?
Posted on March 19, 2013
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
188 Comments
I Went from a NIV (1984) to an HCSB and NASB for daily reading. I like the NASB as well. I still teach out of my old NIV, but that’s about it. And even then, I use comparative translations in my sermons.
I think with the changes, you’re going to see a SPIKE in NIV usage, but for all the wrong reasons.
I honestly am not surprised one bit by the top 4, those are the Bibles that most people are familiar with. Because I work at LifeWay in the Dallas area, I know a little as to what people like. Most people will gravitate to those 4 because everybody uses them and they have always been popular. Most people, especially in areas where LifeWay does not have a store don’t know about the HCSB or how the translation reads. In the Dallas area, (my store especially) we sell more ESV’s than either the KJV or NKJV combined simply due to the fact that many churches in our area are using that translation. I think the fact that most churches stick to their originality and roots when it comes to translation greatly influences what kind of Bibles people purchase. My church for example reads from the NKJV but I prefer the ESV.
Quite pleased I think mainly the better translations are doing very well. I preach mainly from NKJV as I find it a good middle ground between KJV and the modern translations. Apart from those two I also like NLT and NASB. Possibly surprised NASB so low on the list. Its a good translation though not as widely used as some Glad the Message is down in the territory I feel it should be.
I was very surprised to see the NLT beat the NIV in unit sales and was sonewhat surprised that the MSG did not mke that list. I am unfamiliar with Reina Valera 1960. I;ve read (all the way through at least once) the NIV, TNIV, The MSG, KJV, NKJV, NLT, HCSB, CEV, ESV, NET, and a few others not on these lists. I’m a proponent of using multiple versions.
Impressive Greg. I’ve only read four translations in their entirety.
For any who may me interested,
As far as I’m aware, Eugene Peterson has never really pushed The Message as a “translation,” but as a paraphrase. When we think “The Message,” we should think “The Living Bible.” That’s not to knock either one, but they fall into the same basic category. The difference is that the paraphraser of The Living Bible started with an English translation (the KJV) and went from there, whereas Peterson started with the original languages and paraphrased it using contemporary language and idioms.
The New Living Translation, however, is not a paraphrase. It is a translation, as the name suggests, into modern English. While some liberties were taken to render certain thoughts understandable to current English readers, it falls well within the functional equivalence range.
Just some thoughts that may help clarify some of the issues surrounding the various versions out there.
Are we really counting The Message as a real translation?
I would be interested to see see how many people switched translations after the new NIV came out in 2011. And if they did switch what did they switch to? I was not a huge fan of the changes in the NIV (and have talked to others who feel the same way) aand needed a new Bible so I went to the HCSB.
I really enjoy the HCSB…
I would really like to see a version where the chapter and verse numbers are removed, and are organized in individual books. I really believe that would more closely resemble the originals. Last Thursday I copied part of the book of Exodus and removed all the numbering and reference lettering. I was completely stunned at how much easier it was to read. I know it really shouldn’t matter…but I think subconsciencely it interrupts the flow, or perhaps it becomes an information overload for me.
I would absolutely love to see a HCSB version done this way. Can you make that happen Mr. Rainer?
Thanks Stephen. Yes, I could make that happen. In order for me to make a wise stewardship decision, I would need to know that many others would interested in a such a Bible. Let’s see if any other readers have an opinion. Our HCSB team members are reading these comments closely and carefully.
A bible without the chapter and verse numbers would be great.
Thom,
I would also be interested in seeing translations printed in paragraph format without verse numbers in the text, perhaps on the side would be cool.
I appreciated reading all the comments and although I use the KJV almost exclusively I have read and used many other versions. Things about the ESV tick me off and I feel it stale, although I received revelation using the ESV I much prefer the NKJV but mostly for it’s footnotes, which I believe other Bible publishers could learn from, otherwise I double check back with KJV so much I may as well use it to begin with, lol.
I purchased a HCSB a few years ago and enjoyed reading it a lot. I gave that text away to someone and have yet to purchase another, yet. If it was available in a “no numbers in the text setting” I would love to enjoy it cover to cover , more than once.
The NASB is an enjoyable translation for me because, for me, is easy to read without the italic words for an extremely literal read, which, same with the NKJV, I compare back to the KJV and can read it while ignoring the italics also, so I just settle with the KJV , studying best I can the original meanings of each word when necessary.
Sorry to ramble, but again, I would throughly enjoy a paragraph setting with no verse numbers in the text.
Also I think if yaw implement Smyth sewing into all your HCSBs it would be worth the extra money on both ends. Holman is already known for having better than average durability for the money but crossway and lockman both seem to excel in this area.
Thank you and I plan on purchasing another HCSB next time I’m near the lifeway.
>I would really like to see a version where the chapter and verse numbers are removed, and are organized in individual books.
This is where Bible Study Software is useful.
The good programs let you read the text without chapter and verse numbers. However, doing so is usually deep in the advanced configuration settings.
Seems like a lot of “conservative” folks out here! I tend to agree with Gordon Fee on holding functional and formal equivalent in tension, with ultimate preference going toward functional. There is no “literal” translation, though marketing and branding will always say otherwise, and I appreciate the readability and gender neutrality of the NIV2011. My formal equivalence counterpart is usually the NRSV because I find it clearer than the KJV and NKJV. Truthfully, I haven’t read much of the HCSB but I do have one on my shelf that I’m now thinking I should grab more often.
Thanks for the list!
Thanks Jonny.
What? Really? A translation is considered to be the “best” if it either 1) makes the most money, or 2) sells more copies than it’s neighbors? Am I reading that right?
Chris –
I haven’t seen anything in the post or the comments that indicate a translation is better because it sells more in dollars or units. These two top ten lists simply rank them by dollar sales or unit sales, not by any qualitative assessment. With due respect, I believe your comments are unfounded.
With all the free KJVs published and given away by Gideons and many others, not to mention small publishers who print it because of no copyright, the number two spot is still lowball. Amazing!
The first Bible I ever had was the Good News and read through that for a number of years. Then it was the NIV for most of my youth and young adult. In Bible College I was introduced to the NASB. Then for most of my pastoring I used the NASB for study and the NIV in the pulpit. Occasionally I would reference the NLT and the Message. I have never really felt drawn to the ESV even though I have looked at it.
Now that I’m back in seminary I have been enjoying NRSV (Renovare Life With God Bible), but our local church in Toronto, Canada uses the HSCB as it’s “official translation.” I have since fallen in love with it. I wasn’t aware of the HCSB until about just over a year ago, nor the revisions it has gone through, but I continue to be impressed and share it with others.
Thom, can you elaborate on the major differences between the 2009 and the 2003 editions of the HCSB? Are they anywhere as significant as the changes of the 2011 NIV or the 2004 NLT?
Greg –
Though there were a number of changes, they were not so substantive that we felt like it should be called an update. Most of the changes were for better flow of reading.
Thanks for the encouraging words about the HCSB.