Bible Question:
I live in the center of Missouri, known as the "Bible belt". The question I have is, the majority of Christian Book stores are stocking mainly NIV and the NKJV. In the book store I use most has said that the NASB does not sell, and that most churches are going to the NKJV. I find that the NKJV is not near the indepth Bible as the NASB. Does the NASB not selling as well as the NKJV, seem to be in this part of the country or is this a nation wide experience. Why do you think this is taking place. Thank you for taking the time to answer this question. Blessings. justme |
Bible Answer: Hi, justme - Comparative sales rankings of the Bible versions tend to shift from time to time and also tend to vary depending on who's doing the ratings. I wandered around the web and found that the NIV still leads the pack. Coming in second, however, was the NKJV, which has apparently edged out the KJV fairly recently, moving the venerable old KJV to third. Coming in fourth was the New Living Translation, then the Holman Christian Standard Bible, and, in sixth place, the NASB Update. Rounding out the top ten, in seventh place was The Message (thumbs down!), followed by New Century Version, English Standard Version and New International Reader's Version. ...... What a change since I was a youth. Back then, the "Top Ten" positions were all held by the King James Bible.:-) It was essentially the only game in town then. ...... Among the current Top Ten, five of them are essentially literal translations and five are paraphrased versions. ...... One possible answer to your question about the surge in sales of the NKJV involves money -- money poured into advertising. Thomas Nelson, publishers of the NKJV, has spent a lot of money on sales promotion, just as Zondervan has on the NIV. ...... I would like to say a few words again on a subject about which I've written several times on this Forum. The NASB has been the object of what I consider unfair and inaccurate criticism concerning its style. It has been called "wooden," a term which a few critics of the NASB have used but don't bother to define what they mean by it. I doubt some of them know what they mean. They're just aping what some other critic said, and he probably didn't know what he was talking about either. But basically, as far as I'm able to put together what a few critics have said about the NASB, they seem to agree that while it's a trustworthy translation that's faithful to the ancient texts, it suffers because in its attempt to be literal it lacks natural English flow and syle. The pre-1995 update rendition was a bit "woody" in spots, I'll admit: some of its locutions were a trifle clumsy, awkward and stilted. But in the Update the team of translators and stylists did a creditable job of making the rough places smooth. It's a fine line to tread between stylistic excellence and translation excellence. The NASB philosophy always has been accuracy first, style second. By contrast, the parihrastic philosophy puts style first. I can't agree with the "wooden" critics, especially since most of them, I'm convinced, don't know good style from bad anyway. I recommend NASB Update without the slightest hesitation. It's possibly the best and most faithful Bible translation we have in modern English today. --Hank |