Bible Version Sales

See here for the lastest sales figures for Bible versions in North America. Here is the list as of February 2007:

1. NIV
2. NKJV
3. KJV
4. ESV
5. NLT
6. TNIV
7. The Message
8. NCV
9. NASB (updated)

It must be noted that these statistics are compiled by the largest trade organisation and presumably those who aren't connected to it aren't included. Although it is possible that the data comes from the publishers themselves.

It should also be noted that current sales are not indicative of overall usage. The newer versions may be higher up in the chart in regards to sales than is the case in actual usage.

Early Readers NKJV

We bought Peter his first real Bible on Monday. We had a good look through the different real Bibles for children and were really impressed with the Early Readers NKJV. The content is all really-solid, orthodox and edifying. We couldn't find anything we disagreed with apart from a few small pictures of Christ in a Bible chronology that we hadn't noticed in the shop.

Of course, the main reason for going for this Bible was the larger text and more durable cover that makes it more suitable for younger readers. The other pages are a bonus. I was tempted to get an ESV, given Trinity's move on this score, but apart from my misgivings about the underlying text and the more awkward readability, my mind was made up when I saw their version of a children's Bible. I thought Crossway would do a better job.

The cover shown is what is on the hardback and is on cardboard slip of the "leatherette" versions. We got a blue leatherette cover, which doesn't have the gaudy graphics. The leatherette cover seems more durable than my own bonded-leather cover, which is dilapidating quite badly.

Peter is 6½ years old and can read most of the Bible himself. Home-schooling and the freedom to use the best teaching methods has made him really fly! We expect our younger children to progress even faster and intend to start some basic Greek and Hebrew soon, i.e. teaching the alphabets.

Contrast this with quite a few parents we know who are concerned about the lack of teachingtheir kids are getting in the early years of school ,(esp. reading and writing) due to the domination of structured play. Teachers are even chastising children for progressing too fast (even though they would have been behind in my day)! Some are home-schooling their kids because of this, others are considering it and still others have seen their bright children demoralised and ruined by this liberal philosophy! (We've even had unbelievers we've only just met asking us to give their children extra tuition!)

I'm sure this will/ would shock my primary school teachers. It seems that many kids today are way behind where we would have been in my day. Any wonder that children are doing so badly in the basics today?

More...

Why I Prefer the NKJV

I've been asked about my preference for the NKJV, so I thought I'd put the answer in an actual post. Here are my reasons for preferring the NKJV:

1. I believe that the Traditional Text (a.k.a. the Byzantine textual stream, close, but not quite the same as the Textus Receptus) is the family of texts that God has providentially preserved to be handed-down from generation to generation. I find the arguments for the superiority of the Alexandrian text-type unconvincing, and therefore why should I reject what has been handed-down? Only the AV and NKJV use this as their underlying NT text, however the advantage of the NKJV is that it also gives the alternative textual readings, such as the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text, which tries to basically capture the statistical majority reading for any variant.

2. I believe in accurate translation that tries as much as possible to communicate the text in the words that the Spirit has given, rather than dumping important words like 'propitiation' because we aren't used to it in modern language. Therefore I don't use the NIV as my primary translation. (The NIV is nonetheless one of the better translations and beats my favorites at times.)

3. I believe in using good, modern vocabulary and good, modern sentence structure that isn't awkward. Therefore I don't use the AV as my primary translation.

4. I don't believe in proliferating versions ad infinitum, esp. if it isn't adding any value in my opinion. Was the ESV necessary, when the NASV already existed? I long for the days when one version was used everywhere. The words of Scripture would be more deeply embedded in our minds.

5. I believe that it is wrong to unite with unbelievers in translating the Bible (or any other unequal yoking). Therefore I don't trust the RSV, esp. when a Rabbi translates Isaiah 7:14 as the following: "Therefore The Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman [as opposed to virgin] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

My order of preference is thus as follows:

1. NKJV
2. NASV
3. ESV
4= AV/ NIV/ RSV

All of the above are substantially good translations.

Let's not even mention the Good News Bible, the New Century Version, the Message or the Living Bible. Please don't fill me with thoughts of despair!

I wouldn't be without a Thompson Chain Reference either!

See these previous posts.

Daily Light

Daily Light is a Christian classic that has morning and evening readings for every day of the year, with a few on special topics at the end. Each reading consists purely of a collection of verses from the Bible which are all related to a certain theme.

My mum reads this every day, morning and evening, and she told me that her father and mother read it too. I started off with an NIV version and then got myself an NKJV version. I gave Mary a copy on our honeymoon night. We both find it exceedingly good for our souls. If only we were more consistent in reading it! I am determined to consistently integrate this into my devotions. May God give me grace!

Why read Daily Light? It keeps us in touch with the key verses of the Bible and the central truths of the faith on a daily basis. It is devotional in the highest sense and distills the pure Word of God. Read it! Few things could be more profitable for your soul!

Why not sample it? Here are today's readings from the ESV version.

Here is the book's history from the information about the ESV version:

"As a child Samuel Bagster learned the precepts and practices of a devoted Christian, which sustained him throughout his life and which, in turn, he passed on to his children. This highly principled and religiously minded bookshop owner gathered his large family together daily for reading God's Word, testing their knowledge by connecting the day's verses with other passages, and praying over how it could be applied. It was from this practice of worship that the Bagster family compiled the material for Daily Light on the Daily Path [which he first published in 1794 - TJD].

"It is said that this daily devotional book is the most popular of all time. It has touched hundreds of thousands of Christians to the remotest corners of the world with the biblical message of comfort and help... [T]his work is timeless because each reading is a connlection of Scripture verses centered around a theme."

There is also the original KJV version and the a NASB version is on-line.

P.S. The NKJV version is presented as coming from Anne Graham Lotz, Billy Graham's daughter, but all she did was write the foreword and add a couple of pages to the topics section at the end. It really annoys me! Typical commercialisation!

John 1:3 in my Top 3 Translations

NKJV: "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

ESV: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

NASB: "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

Literal: "All things through Him came into being, and without Him came into being not even one [thing] that came into being."

Note that the NKJV sounds the best, but loses the "ex nihilo" naunce of the original Greek; the ESV loses it as well, but is more awkward than the NKJV; and the NASB is closest to the original, but sounds very awkward.

P.S. I have found that the OT in the ESV flows better than the NT, and that the Gospels seem to have the most awkward readings.

Isn't the ESV a Bit Wooden?

Is it just me, or is the ESV unnecessarily wooden? Take my reading this morning from Matthew 14 as a random example: verse 20 says, “And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over.” Who would ever speak that way in normal life? “And they took up twelve baskets full of the left-over pieces” (or “left-overs” or even “left-over fragments”) would be better English and closer to the original word ordering. (They’re not even being over-accurate!) I have come across this woodenness time and time again in the ESV.

The ESV has become very fashionable of late, particularly in Reformed and Evangelical Anglican circles. It seems everywhere I go, every young person carries one with them, and increasingly it is the version of choice when quoting from a more accurate translation than the NIV. Having tasted this translation over a period, I can’t quite see why this should be, when translations like the NASV and NKJV have been around for a while. Probably it is because the ESV has been very well marketed, it has been well-circulated, and it has a very cool-but-sophisticated cover! Regretably, there may be a certain element of fashion! I think part of it is also the attitudes of some towards the best available modern translations.

The NASV is seen by non-Americans as an American translation, so there is a certain prejudice against it. It also doesn’t have the marketing power of Harper Collins behind it (and given that it is based on the RSV, Collins are probably happy about getting their hands on the profits of the ESV, now that the RSV is seen as a relic of the mid-20^th Century and little-bought, and people are more aware that it was an ecumenical and inter-faith production). A third factor with the NASV is the opinion that it is a wooden translation. I find this claim quite ridiculous, having read it for some time after being an NIV-reader. I think what has happened is that the wooden reputation of the ASV has been transferred to the NASV through Chinese whispers (and maybe in a few places it has been too wooden, but not as much as the ESV in my opinion).

The NKJV has been popular for a while among Reformed Christians, but there was always the niggling concern among theological students that the NT translation is based on the Textus Receptus – shock, horror! I disagree with this disparagement of the Byzantine texts underlying the Textus Receptus, and the exaltation of the Alexandrian texts, but that’s for another day! I use the NKJV because I think that some of the arguments for the greater reliability of the Byzantine texts are convincing, and the arguments for the superiority of the Alexandrian texts are unconvincing. (I was brought up with the RSV for half my childhood, the NIV for the other half, the KJV for a year to try it out, and the NASB for my university days, so I’ve seen them all and have no prejudiced inclinations to any of them.) Also, what is the problem, when the Nestle-Aland/UBS text is given in the margin of the NKJV?

Non-AV'ers in the Reformed community were also beginning to admit that maybe the NIV wasn’t as good a translation as we would like: it dumped technical terms like “LORD of hosts” and “propitiation”, and added words not found in any original text, etc. In general, there wasn't sufficient respect for the actual words that the Holy Spirit chose to use, and these took second-place at times to modern sensibilities.

Some thought they needed an accurate translation that was largely based on Alexandrian NT texts, but didn't have “American” in the title, and had more marketing muscle behind it. Lovers of the RSV in the Evangelical Anglican community, and the likes of Wheaton College and Trinity Divinity School, decided now was the time for the ESV!

"Why the outburst about the ESV?" you may ask. Well, once upon a time, there was one translation that was read in the pulpits, was read at home and was quoted in all the books: the AV. This was very helpful in engraving the Words of Scripture in the minds of believers. ("Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You." Psa. 119:11)

When the British churches covenanted together for reformation in 1643 using the Solemn League and Covenant, they swore "to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church government, directory for worship and catechising". They didn't need to mention uniformity in Bible version, because they already were united in using the AV! [Please note Crawford's comments on this.]

If only we had this concensus again, how useful it would be! Just when the English-speaking, Reformed churches could have united around the NKJV, which was accurate, well-written and allayed the concerns that some Textus Receptus advocates had with the NASB and NIV (although some AV'ers will never change to a modern version), along comes the ESV!

Was it really necessary? Was it profitable? Do we really need another translation to add to the available plethora? To top it all off, it is wooden and awkward in too many places! Is this really the version to unite the Church? (Or am I one of the few remaining British Reformed Christians who still aspires to the principles of our National Covenants?)

I ask ESV'ers: examine the ESV objectively; isn't too wooden, and if so, then is this really what we want to be the majority translation in the English-speaking, Reformed churches? (Doesn't it really duplicate what the NASV has already done since the 1960's?)

If only the Church took control of Bible translation like it used to, instead of leaving it up to publishing houses!

P.S. Please don't take this article out of proportion. The ESV is still my number 3 choice, with the NKJV first and the NASB second. I just question the wisdom of another translation when the NASB seems to already be doing the job for Alexandrian types, esp. as it appears to me to be more wooden than the NASB.