Top 10 Bible Translations (Bestsellers) 

Wonderful!

aww,​@@timwildsmith

i do not think that the kjv of the holy bible is in decline. ive talked to too many church people who still like it. i feel it will be around until jesus returns.

Oh, it’s in decline. Being Roman Catholic, I normally read the Douay-Rheims, Which predated the king James, and the king James copy so much of. Once again, the important thing is that people read and understand. If they cannot understand the king James, then they need another translation. I speak Latin and sometimes I revert to the Latin Bible. Best wishes from Texas!

I am just shy of 69 and bought my first NLT two months ago. I am reading it covered to cover, I am in Nehemiah right now. I am loving it! It’s the familiar old stories, but like being told by a new friend.

As a former KJV only-ist, I'm right there with you on those translations. Still new to the NASB and ESV but I'm looking forward to getting more consistent time in both.

⁠@@1John3.8I'm curious, why former KJV only-ist?

Interesting quote but you chose to use other versions than the KJV. All other versions change the Words, omits words, verses, strips away some of the divine nature of Jesus, waters down the gospel and slowly but surely has helped to lead this country and society into the darkness we are in currently. They took God out of the schools, Churches are teaching from false bibles and the devil is sitting back and watching the body of Christ confused and fighting each other. We need God to come back soon it's only going to get worse.

@@razrplays76 the kjv is a translation itself and it is not THE translation if you do some independent study with a open mind you’ll find the kjv has many flaws and many things added they may or may not should be there. Also as someone who grew up with KJV and now read the nasb1995 and the esv. I can tell the translations are not only faithful but accurate. I can also assure you the problem in the church today is watering down of the gospel and the lack of preaching of scriptures themselves NOT the translation that is false.

@@wyattreeves5608 This is absolutely false! As someone who grew up with the KJV being dominate, but was introduced to the NIV(78&84), and the NASB(77&95), used them for more than 30 yrs. The missing verses, phrases, passages, brackets, and notes always bothered me, and never set well in my spirit. After learning of the differences in the manuscripts used for translation the Berean in me kicked in, and I began search out the matter. So we have the TR/Majority Text/Byzantine type text, and Masoretic Text(5000 + about 99.04%) which is the basis of the KJV, pre-KJV Reformation era Bibles. Additional Bibles include: MEV(Modern English Version), MLV(Modern Literal Version), and KJV variants- NKJV, KJV2000, KJV21, KJVER, coming soon Simplified KJV. I'm not KJV only, more like KJV preffered/best, TR/Majority Text/Byzantine/Masoretic Text olnly. For the critical text/ecclectic/Alexandrian type text(3 about .06%), which on this basis alone should raise serious "red flags"! This is what most modern bibles come from: ie NASB, NIV, ESV, CSB, RSV, NLT etc). First is the Alexandrius, this was condemed by Jerome in the 4th century. All known copies were destroyed(burned), as per Jewish scibble tradition. Next is the Vaticanus, supposedly discovered in 1475 with no prior history. When Erasmus was putting together the Greek NT, the Catholic Church gave it to him to use. After examining it, he determined it to be a fraudulent/fake produced in his time. Erasmus was being monitored, and his life was endanger(knowing what happened to John Wycliffe, and what would eventually happen to William Tyndale). The Reformers knew this, and it's why the Vaticanus was rejected, and not used. Erasmus didn't have the few manuscripts that some have reported, he had multiple dozens based on the his lesser known writtings. Erasmus also knew where to get manuscripts as told by the early Church leaders. For the first 4 centuries they were still Apostolic(except those from Alexandria, Egypt ie-Origen a gnostic cultist, and heretic), and only authorized manuscripts from Antioch. Next is the Sinaiticus, supposedly discovered by Constantine Tischindorf, who was a known money hungry liar(mid-1800's). But was actually created by Constatine Simonides in the early 1800's. David Daniels with Chick Publications has a video series on this(and related topics), systematically showing Simonides created it. He also has evidence from an independent chemical testing showing that the ink, both written, and art are 19th century. When we look at scipture it says over, aver again not to return to Egypt(which represents sin, idolatry, and bondage), Revelation even compares it with Sodom. So the modern church has been deceived, and believed a lie. With so called bibles being made from fake manuscripts? When you compare the TR/Majority Text/Byzantine/Masoretic Text, with the early Church leaders quotes, as well as the ancient Bibles(Greek Orthodox mid-2nd century AD- for English only use KJV, and the Old Latin 90-130 AD). The Old Latin started by the Apostle John, with his disciples Poly Carp, and Papias. Completed by Poly Carp, Papias, and their disciples Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr. All of these match, along with the KJV. No missing verses, phrases, passages etc., which includes Acts 8:37, Mark 16:9-20, 1 John 5:7 just to name a few. There are no errors in the KJV, only misunderstandings! If you think there are errors list them, and I will show you how, and why it's not an error! I tried to keep this as brief as possible, any questions I'll be glad to answer. I'm just trying to encourage Chritians to be "Bereans", to search out a matter for truth!

True, but there are also some very pretty looking NKJV Bibles available too! :)

@@SEL65545 very true I own a few lol

Amen!

I’m perfectly happy reading Shakespeare etc but the KJV drives me nuts. I prefer the ESV for study and the NIV for reading generally

@RichMizenkowhich?

My pleasure! I’m glad people are responding to fun content like this!

My pleasure, Mike! I had fun with this one!

Thanks for sharing!

Agree , reina valera 1960 it's harder to read but I can't switch to another translation bc I feel like I'm not reading the Bible 😅 . I'm looking for the best translation for me since English it's my second language I have nkjv but find it a little difficult. Which one do you recommend?

​@@-wk9ygReina Valera SBT :) Soon

⁠​⁠@@-wk9ygICB, NIrV, NIV

You are very welcome, Brenda!

You’re welcome!

I agree, although I use my NKJV more often. I grew up with the KJV. I love the NASB and it has the reputation of being the most literal word for word translation. The NKJV is high on that, too, as is the ESV.

I like this translation also!

not sure, but maybe because they have it mostly in an online edition, more than selling it in paper form in the bookstores.

Glad you enjoyed it, Vicki!

Thanks!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks, will do!

Thanks!

Me too!

Thanks so much! I'm loving the new space, too!

Schuyler makes beautiful Bibles in heirloom-quality bindings. They should last several generations even if used regularly.

I thought so too! Thanks for watching!

Great profile name.

I've always considered the NLT more of a paraphrase, or at least on that end of the spectrum, but a very good one. It's based on the Living Bible, which was paraphrased for the editor's children. (What a huge job, well done.) I need to buy a nice copy of the NLT and probably will. I also love the NKJV, KJV, NASB, ESV, and NIV1984. CBS is okay but I can't seem to warm up to it, although I'm a Baptist and it's published by the publisher of Baptist teaching materials.

​@@abc-wv4inThe Living Bible was a paraphrase, but the New Living Translation is an actual translation, not a paraphrase. I have similarly ambiguous feelings about the CSB -- I really like how certain portions are rendered, but then in others I just can't get into it.

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks! I tried something new!

Excellent information. Thanks for sharing this.

Thanks!

KJV would rather equal the Reina Valera 1602 or the 1602 purificada concerning the method of translation.

Me. Too.

I'm glad I bought about ten 1984 NIV large print editions before they went out of print.

The NLT is based on the paraphrased Living Bible, but both are recognized as being excellent. I plan to buy an NLT soon.

Is that an ageist comment...lol. I'm over 60 & just recently discovered the NLT in a One Year Chronological Study Bible. I'm actually an NKJV fan. Have a 1983 version of the Open Bible which is falling apart. 😢

@@barbs1298 uh no. I've had several of my husband's aunts and ladies from church all recommend the NLT to me recently in the last few months [commenting they've switched] or they will comment they like it best or say I should read it to my children because it's easier to understand.

@@Trekkifulshay I was kidding...hence the lol.

I do not see any differences between the Legacy Bible and the NASB-95.

Happy spiritual birthday. 😊

Absolutely, and God bless you! My Southern Baptist pastor says the "best" translation is the one you will actually READ. 😊 (Of course, meaning of the many mainline true translations and good paraphrases, not the few deliberately altered ones.)

@@abc-wv4in 😊 May I ask which are the ones that were deliberately altered?

Glad you enjoyed it, Gina!

I agree. NKJV is my favorite but I also love the NASB, ESV, and KJV.

Thanks, David!

Same... I would LOVE to be able to see all the data breakdowns!

Places like Walmart sell NKJV, NIV and KJV. People nab easier reading. I guarantee you these mega churches are keeping NIV on top

​@LutheranBibleReview I do not think it is the "mega churches." I think it is 1000s upon 1000s of regular size churches.

@@pkmcnett5649 that too. But a lot of the smaller more conservative would be, in my opinion, the ESV users.

@@pkmcnett5649 I'm a classic example of one of those loyal NIV readers from the early 80's who fell out of love with it in the early 2000's when gender accuracy/neutrality was becoming more controversial with its TNIV etc. I was one of the many faithful NIVers who switched to ESV and other translations, and I think the NIV's current popularity warrants further demographic/geographic breakdown. I have a hunch that it is more popular with younger generations who never lived through the "controversy" stages of its translation changes, and who aren't phased at all by its heavy use of "they" etc. to be more inclusive of men/women when the author intends everyone, not just males. I've grown to accept that in many cases these changes are appropriates adaptations for our culture, but I still think the NIV takes it too far at times and makes the wording awkward.

Thanks for sharing!

Thanks for sharing!

Interesting to learn that it's particularly helpful for Deaf Christians: why is that? I know that ASL has different grammar etc so people whose first language is ASL may find simpler written English easier in general, but isn't written English still very commonly used by Deaf people? I'm just wondering why NIrV would be more popular when I'm guessing that English is still so often used.

Thanks for sharing!

Easier reading level, but the new editions have awkward "gender-inclusive" language that is frustrating to read, imo. The NIV1984 was better.