In Part 1 of Why Are there So Many Translations of the Bible?, we stated that there are three big reasons for all of the different translations: 

• Changes in Language 

• Advances in Knowledge

• Translation Methods

We looked in some detail as to why Changes in Language and Advances in Knowledge will inevitably call for the updating of translations.  Now, in Part 2, we will consider why there are different translations due to Translation Methods.   We will also see how understanding these differences can be used to deepen our understanding and application of God’s Word.   

Lost in Translation?

Before we go too deep into translation methods, let’s begin by answering a big question people raise: Because translations render the Bible so differently from each other, how can we really be sure of the original meaning? Good question, but in reality, even when different translations use different words for the same Greek or Hebrew phrase, the ultimate meaning of the text still comes through clearly. 

For example, let’s look at the four different readings of Matthew 9:20:  

 The New International Version conveys the verse as follows: 

Just then a woman who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak.

Matthew 9:20 (NIV)

New Living Translation voices it this way: 

Just then a woman who had suffered for twelve years with constant bleeding came up behind him. She touched the fringe of his robe,

Matthew 9:20 (NLT)

English Standard Version says: 

And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment,

Matthew 9:20 (ESV)

King James Bible declares: 

And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:

Matthew 9:20 (KJV)

How are we going to get our heads around what Matthew 9:20 is saying? All translations agree that this woman came up behind Jesus, but did she touch the “fringe,” (NLT, ESV) “edge” (NIV) or “hem” (KJV) of his clothing? Furthermore, was the piece of clothing a “robe” (NLT), a “cloak” (NIV) or just a “garment” (ESV, KJV)?  And did this lady have an “issue” (KJV), “discharge” (ESV) or “constant bleeding” (NLT)?

For all the differences between these four translations, isn’t it really clear what’s going on? The woman comes from behind Jesus, and she touches the lower part of an outer piece of his clothing. As a result, she is healed of an affliction which has caused her to bleed for twelve years. Whether she touched the “fringe,” “edge,” or “hem” of his clothing makes no change to what the original text ultimately means. What we do see is that reading several translations side-by-side can help to actually fill out the picture of what occurred. To do this, it helps to understand that different translations approach the text with different methods of translating. When we understand this we can gain a more complete understanding of the passage. What are these methods, then?

Translation Methods

Generally speaking, there are two basic methods by which the Scriptures are translated. They are known as formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.

Formal equivalent translations are more word-for-word translations. They attempt to bring out, as much as possible, the same words and grammar as is found in the original languages. This includes the word order of the original which makes these translations more literal. Examples of formal equivalence or literal translations are the English Standard Version (ESV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), New King James Version (NKJV), King James Version (KJV), and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

Dynamic equivalence translations are more thought-for-thought. They attempt to bring out what the passage would mean to those who originally read or heard it. In other words, when we read it in English, the goal of these translations is that we hear it in the same way the original Greek or Hebrew speaking audience heard it.  Keeping the same word order or grammar is not a focus. Some translations which employ this method are Good News Translation (GNT), New Living Translation (NLT), and Contemporary English Version (CEV).

Here is a way to think about the two approaches. In the Eastern United States, soft drinks are called “soda,” but in the Midwestern United States, they’re called “pop.” So if a customer from the East were to visit the Midwest and request a “soda,” that would be similar to formal equivalence. He is using a word common to where he lives, but the person serving him may not know what he is asking for. If that same person were to change his request and ask for a “pop,” that would be similar to dynamic equivalence, because he is using a term familiar to the area where he is visiting. The words mean the same thing, but formal equivalence gives preference to the speaker’s phrasing; dynamic equivalence gives preference to the hearer’s vocabulary.

Examples of the Different Philosophies

Let’s examine how these approaches translate two different verses: 1 Peter 1:13 & Philippians 2:6:  

New King James Version (Formal Equivalence)

Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

1 Peter 1:13 (NKJV)

New Living Translation (Dynamic Equivalence)

So prepare your minds for action and exercise self-control. Put all your hope in the gracious salvation that will come to you when Jesus Christ is revealed to the world.

1 Peter 1:13 (NLT)

A more formal or literal translation of 1 Peter 1:13 as represented by the NKJV uses the expression to “gird up the loins.” The modern reader is left scratching his head in confusion because it involves a cultural expression known to the biblical audience but completely foreign to him.  So, the equivalent meaning, “…prepare your mind for action…,” (NLT) more simply and effectively communicates Peter’s intention.   

New King James Version (Formal Equivalence)

…who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God…

Philippians 2:6 (NKJV)

New Living Translation (Dynamic Equivalence)

Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.

Philippians 2:6 (NLT)

The more formal translation of Philippians 2:6 from the NKJV is theologically misleading because it reads: Jesus was “in the form of God.” The more dynamic translation of the NLT clarifies this phrase showing that Jesus is God in his very nature, not just in his form. The dynamic translation does a better job of getting to the meaning of the text.

A common misconception is that a more literal translation is superior. But this fails to take into account the need to translate adequately the subtle but important differences in language.  For example, often when the New Testament speaks of people who were sick, the literal reading of the Greek text is “having it badly.” Therefore, a literal reading of Matthew 4:24 would be, “And they brought to him all the ones having it badly with various diseases and torments.” To the original audience the expression “having it badly,” meant to be sick. Matthew 1:18 speaks of Mary being pregnant. A literal reading of the text says she was “having it in the stomach.” A very literal translation of this would not read well, at all.

What Translation Should You Use?

When studying the Bible, the goal should be to learn from both methods of translation: formal and dynamic equivalence. Using a literal translation and a dynamic translation can bring out the needed angles of the original language balanced with the relevant meaning for the modern reader. As Mark Strauss, professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary, writes:

The mixing of both of these methods has also been called “optimal equivalence.” Proponents of this approach believe it produces the best balance of accuracy and readability. They are as literal as possible and as free as necessary. Certain translations are built on blending the best of both of these methods. The New International Version (NIV) is considered a combined translation, placing an emphasis on dynamic equivalence while at the same time consistently tethering itself to the formal or literal understanding. The New English Translation (NET), Christian Standard Bible (CSB), and New Century Bible (NCV) are all combinations of formal and dynamic equivalence. It is for this reason that I most commonly read the NIV because it strives to bring together the best of both methods.

A wise approach to Bible study is to use a mix of several different translations including optimal, literal, and dynamic translations. By comparing the texts against each other, serious Bible readers will gain a fuller meaning of God’s Word. As stated above, I normally use the NIV, then I find it helpful to compare what I am reading using a translation with the dynamic equivalence (e.g., NLT, GNT, CEV) to further understand the basic message of the text. I follow that up by consulting a translation with a more formal equivalence (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV) to better discover what the passage meant for its original audience and how that may further deepen our understanding of the text. With these translations at our disposal, we have unprecedented opportunity for understanding, clarity, and obedience to the truth of the Bible.

Why are there so many translations of the Bible? I know people who read the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), and the New American Standard Bible (NASB). My niece, at her graduation party, just received an English Standard Version (ESV). The associate pastor at my church reads the New Living Translation (NLT), and the majority of the time I read the New International Version (NIV). Are there different translation because the translators of the NLT thought those of the NIV got it wrong?  Did one group of translators of the ESV believe they could do a better job than the NASB translators?  In short, the answer is NO.   

There are three key reasons for all of the different translations:

• Changes in Language
• Advances in Knowledge  
• Differences in Translation Methods

In Part 1 of Why Are there So Many Translations of the Bible?, we will discuss why there are different translations due to changes in language and advances in knowledge. In Part 2, we will look at differences in translation philosophy and how the differences can be used to deepen your understanding of God’s Word.

Changes in Language

Words Take On Different Meaning Over Time

With the passage of time, words can change meaning. Here are some examples:

• Silly. Original meaning: Blessed with worthiness.
• Flux. Original meaning: Diarrhea or dysentery.
• Fudge. Original meaning: Lies and nonsense.
• Leech. Original meaning: A doctor or healer.
• Stripe. Original meaning: A mark on the skin from a lash.

Take the statement: “Words are often in flux.” Originally, flux came from the French word flus, meaning “a heavy flow” and grew to be associated with diarrhea.  Centuries ago, associating words with flux would have made no sense. Obviously, the meaning of the word flux has changed. So, one major reason we have different translations is that the meaning of words change over time. Here are a few examples of words found in translations of the past that do not have the same meaning today.

In Matthew 19:14, The King James Version (1611), translates Jesus saying:

Suffer the little children to come unto me.

Matthew 19:14 (KJV)

At the time, the word, “suffer” meant to “allow,” or “permit.” Yet, most modern-day readers would not be aware of this because the word “suffer” has an altogether different meaning today.

Another example from the King James Version is from the Book of James:

And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool.

James 2:3 (KJV)

Today, “gay clothing” means something entirely different than it did in 1611. One more from the KJV:

God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

NUMBERS 23:22 (KJV)

Were there unicorns in the Bible? Not exactly. To the translators of 1611, a unicorn was not a white, mythical one-horned horse. The word translated in this verse represents something like a powerful, single-horned animal. At that time, “unicorn,” as a single-horned animal did not carry the mythological meaning it does today and was a reasonable translation.

The Revised Standard Version (1952) translates a phrase in the Psalms as follows:

I will accept no bull from your house.

Psalm 50:9 (RSV)

Although the RSV is a recent translation, the way the verse is phrased can cause the reader to misunderstand what is being meant in light of how the word “bull” is sometimes used by contemporary readers.

Another example is the New International Version, when it was originally published in 1984, translated Genesis 23:4:

I am an alien and a stranger among you. 

Genesis 23:4 (NIV)

Starting in the 70’s, ‟alien” would take on the popular meaning of ‟extraterrestrial being,” thanks to the influence of ET, and other movies and TV shows. In the updated NIV (2011), ‟alien” was replaced with ‟foreigner” in order to communicate the intention of God’s Word more accurately to present-day readers.

Advances in Knowledge

Cultural Understanding

One example of this is taken from Young’s Literal Translation (1862). 1 Samuel 5:4 reads as follows:

And they rise early in the morning on the morrow, and lo, Dagon is fallen on its face to the earth, before the ark of Jehovah, and the head of Dagon, and the two palms of its hands are cut off at the threshold, only the fishy part hath been left to him.

1 Samuel 5:4 (YLT)

It was once believed that Dagon was a fish-god. Later, it became understood that Dagon was a grain-god. Therefore, the “fishy part” is entirely inappropriate. Now it is translated with words like “torso” or “stump.”

Manuscript Discoveries

Over time, new manuscript discoveries called for a fresh translation of the Scriptures. When the King James Version was translated in 1611, only a few Greek manuscripts were available to use in translating the New Testament. In 1881, there were about 1,500 known Greek manuscripts discovered, the The Revised Version (published in 1881) took advantage of the newest evidence. Today we have over 5,800 manuscripts. These new documents have called for the updating of the text of Scripture mainly in the areas of spelling, grammar and word order. These updates have no bearing on doctrine or the ultimate meaning of the text, but they do fine-tune the accuracy of our understanding of the original text.

Understanding of Customs

In the past, there have been a number of terms found in the Hebrew and Greek texts that had uncertain meaning. Fortunately, the meanings of many of these terms are now known. Before the meaning was known, translators sometimes had to guess at the meaning and would not get it right. One example of this can be found in First Samuel of The King James Version:

Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.

1 Samuel 13:21 (KJV)

The Hebrew word translated “file” is pim. It was thought that this referred to a file used by a blacksmith to sharpen tools. Later it was discovered that pim was actually an ancient set of weights that were used in business transactions. Now the translators realize that pim refers to the amount the blacksmith charged when he sharpened the tools. Therefore, modern translations will read like the following:

The price was two-thirds of a shekel for sharpening plow points and mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening forks and axes and for repointing goads.

1 Samuel 13:21 (NIV)

One last example comes from an ancient Greek archaeology find which uncovered the custom of committing a boy to the care of a trusted slave by his parents for his education. This slave brought the boy to school and watched over his conduct until he became an adult. The slave did not teach but made sure the boy was taught. This was the person that Paul refers to in Galatians 3:24. Before this was understood, the KJV translates the word as “schoolmaster,” thinking the person referred to is a teacher:

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Galatains 3:24 (KJV)

However, rather than being the teacher, we now know, as just stated, that this person was actually the person who took the boy to the teacher. Thus, he was more like a guardian than a teacher or schoolmaster. In view of new knowledge, the NIV translates the same verse, accordingly:

So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.

Galatians 3:24 (NIV)

In summary, because of changes within language and advances in knowledge, translations will always need to be updated every so often. None of these changes impacts doctrine or the ultimate meaning of the texts. With every example cited above, none impact our ultimate understanding of the passage. Rather, what the updates confirm for us is how the Bible is translated with bedrock accuracy to the original text and ongoing clarity to contemporary readers. There is absolutely no other book which is so painstakingly translated with this two-fold commitment.

In Part 2 of Why Are there So Many Translations of the Bible?, we will examine the different philosophies which go into translation and how this can be used to deepen our understanding of Scripture.

How can we trust that the original text of the Bible was accurately transmitted to us through the centuries? Many critics of the Bible do not believe we can.  In a Newsweek article on the Bible, Kurt Eichenwald makes this startling claim:  

No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.

Is this really the case?  Eichenwald holds what could be called the Telephone Game view of Bible transmission.  You’ve probably played the telephone game.  Someone whispers something in someone’s ear, who in turn whispers it in another person’s ear, until the last person says it out loud.  Participants inevitably mishear one another, leading to sometimes hilariously absurd changes by the end.  “Snowflakes will slide softly soon,” ends up seven people later to, “Snowballs will turn sour.”  Eichenwald alleges something similar to this happened with the transmission of the Bible through the centuries.  

Was the Bible inaccurately transmitted?

There are three main reasons why some claim we cannot trust that the Bible was transmitted accurately through the centuries. For sake of space we will focus on the New Testament:

The Time Gap: The books of the Old Testament (OT) were written from approximately 1400 to 400 BC. The books of the New Testament (NT) were written from approximately AD 40 to 90. So, anywhere between 3,400 and 1,900 years have passed since the books of the Bible were written. In this time, the original writings have been lost.  The earliest copies of the NT were written from about AD 125 to 200. This means there’s a gap of some 45 to 75 years between the originals and our earliest copies.  The charge is made that the documents we have are so far removed in time from the originals that we have no chance to figure out what the originals said.  

Translations of Translations: Since we do not have the originals, we have “translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies.” Like the Telephone Game of transmission, understanding the originals becomes an impossible task, as some skeptics claim.  

Copy Variants: Of the copies we do have, the challenge of their reliability is made more problematic with the assertion by some that they are riddled with up to 400,000 variations.  The impression given is that there are a mountain of inconsistencies making deciphering the texts impossible. (We will look at the nature of these variants later.)

With all of these objections, can we be confident that the original text of Scripture has been transmitted accurately through the centuries?  In short, the answer is YES. An overwhelming and informed degree of evidence would say that we can.  To demonstrate this, let’s tackle each criticism one by one.  

• What about the time gap?  

• What about translations of translations? 

• What about all of the copy variants? 

 What about the time gap?  

Forty-five to seventy-five years is a remarkably short time by classical or ancient standards between the original writings and the first copy of the NT.  Here are three reasons:  

1. Books in general were far more valuable to ancient people than they are today. Because of this they took extraordinary care of them. For example, the “Codex Vaticanus,” a copy of the New Testament originally made in the 300’s, was re-inked in the 900’s, so it could continue to be used. That means that the original Codex Vaticanus was still in use 600 years later. So, though we do not have the originals of the NT today, it is not unlikely that they were still being read and copied at the time the earliest copies were made.
2. When you consider the time gap between the originals and copies of other ancient works (see chart below), 45-75 years is a small “time gap” for the NT in comparison.

3. There was a rapid copying of texts which gives us many to compare. As disciples and churches rapidly grew, there was an increasing need to make copies of the letters to be read to meet the demand. Because of this, there are an abundance of NT manuscripts from this time. This amount of documents gives us assurance that we can discern the content of the original writings.  Here is a break down of the numbers for the Bible:

• Greek Manuscript total: 5,856

• Non-Greek Manuscripts (Armenian, Latin, etc.): 18,130

• Total Manuscripts: 23,986

How, then, does the number of NT documents compare with other ancient books? If you stack existing manuscripts from the average classical writer, it would measure about four feet high. The NT manuscripts would stack to more than one-mile high.

What About Translations of Translations?  

This claim that our English Bible is a “translation of translations” is careless at best and intentionally misleading at worst, reducing Newsweek to more of a tabloid than a news magazine.  Of all the modern English Bibles we have which are translated, all are translated directly from the Hebrew (OT) or the Greek (NT).  

Greg Gilbert responds:  

…it’s not true we’re dealing with “a translation of translations of translations,” as if the original Greek first went into Chinese, which went into German, which went into Polish, and finally we got around to putting it into English. No, we’re able to translate directly from the original Greek and Hebrew, so at worst we’re dealing with a translation, full stop. 

Greg Gilbert, Why Trust the Bible?

Enough said on that point.

What about the variants? 

What about the claim the NT copies are riddled with as many as 400,000 variants? 

First, the assertion that the NT manuscripts are riddled with variants is just not true. The 400,000 number is extremely misleading, and those who put this allegation forward should understand that much. Those who toss this number out to an uninformed public are not just looking at the 5,800 original-Greek manuscripts but also at 18,000 other manuscripts in other languages. On top of that they are adding another 10,000 or so instances where people quoted the NT during the first 600 years of church history. Put it all together, you’re looking at 400,000-ish variants across some 34,000 manuscripts and quotations covering 600 years. This comes out to about 12 variants per manuscript. It is really much less because 400,000 “variants” does not mean 400,000 unique readings. For example, if one document says, “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” and ten others say, “I am innocent of this righteous blood,” then they count all eleven as “variants,” even though only one is off from the other ten.  This makes the 400,000 number nearly meaningless.  

Second, of the 5,800 Greek manuscripts, where there are variations in the text, most of these are no more significant than spelling differences, small changes of word order or misplaced letters. The chart below shows what the nature of most of these variants are like:

Many of these variants are clustered in just a few places over and over again. As they are spotted, it is easy to identify them and make the corrections or clarify the original words. Imagine you come across an ancient copy of a document which read, “Roses are read, violets are blue. . . .” It’s not hard to see what happened as the original was copied? The correction is fairly simple: “Roses are red, violets are blue…” Wherever there are other differences on a more significant level, these do not amount to a real change of meaning. The more challenging cases account for about 1% of the variants; none of these affect any essential Christian doctrine.

So, can we trust that the Bible has been accurately translated? YES! The evidence shows a nearly miraculous process which allowed for such a stable transmission. As a result, we can be confident that the translations we have are based on an overwhelmingly strong amount and quality of document sources.

Often we have heard it said, “Do not believe everything you read.”  This adage, which helps us to avoid naïve and gullible thinking, is a good rule of thumb.  Yet, when it comes to the Bible, can a strong and well reasoned exception be made? The Bible is hands down the most influential work of writing ever produced.  A survey by the Bible Society concluded that around 2.5 billion copies were printed between 1815 and 1975. More recent estimates since 1975 put the number at 5 billion. The Bible is the most translated book having been translated into over 3,400 languages. 

So, why has the Bible been so widely read? The Apostle Paul, makes this claim regarding it:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…

2 Timothy 3:16  

He describes “all” (each and every) Scripture as coming from the very breath…out of the mouth…of God.  God-breathed is most likely a term Paul coins to describe the direct connection of the Bible with God’s very breathed-out words.  Peter writes in a similar way:

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:20-21

The claim of the Bible is that its authors were inspired (God-breathed) to write the very words of God.  Jesus, himself, affirmed the inspiration and authority of the Bible at the smallest details:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Matthew 5:18 

Jesus asserted the accuracy and authority of the Bible right down to the…”the smallest letter…the least stroke of the pen.” Paul, Peter and most importantly Jesus affirm the supreme authority of the Bible.  The Bible claims for itself a divine and ultimate authority in all matters of what we believe and what we practice as Christians.    

Should we believe this claim?  Let me give you four reasons why I say, YES.

The Bible’s Claim to Divine Authority.    

More than 1,900 times in Scripture the authors claimed their message was from God. These are found in expressions such as. “Thus says the Lord” or “God said.”  The unity of the Bible is an assurance of its inspired authorship. 

• It was written over a period of fifteen centuries, by more than forty different human authors, in three different languages on three different continents. 
• The unity of the Bible is quite surprising given the very diverse backgrounds of the writers. These authors run the gamut: kings, royal officials, fishermen, tax collectors, shepherds, prophets, priests, and even a physician.
• Though they wrote from different periods of world history and from different personal backgrounds, there is a unified message displaying divine authorship which was able to weave their messages together. 

With this claim to divine authorship, either the Bible is miraculously true or the product of men deeply deluded.  If someone wrote a biography on Ronald Reagan and repeatedly said, “Ronald Reagan said to me…,” and we discover the writer never met Reagan, much less had a conversation with him, what value would we place in the book? None. Rather, it would simply reveal the twisted mind of the author.  Similarly, with the Bible’s claim to divine authorship, it is either God-breathed or born of human deception.  

Historical Reliability  

Biblical archaeology is a study of the past based on the excavation and evaluation of sites, artifacts and documents surrounding the events and history of the Bible. From this field of study, there has been mounting evidence confirming the historical reliability of the Bible.  Here are some examples of where people who were critical of the Bible had to change their minds about the Bible’s accuracy.

• It used to be said that the Old Testament writers invented the Hittite tribe (Judges 1:26), since their existence could not be independently confirmed outside of the Bible. However,  some ten thousand clay tablets were discovered at the site of what was later to be known as the Hittite capital. The existence of the Hittites is now extensively proven..
• The existence of Solomon’s reign and his thousands of horses (1 Kings 10:26-29) was at one time questioned. But in Meggido, which was one of five chariot cities, excavations have revealed the ruins of thousands of stalls for horses and chariots. 
• William Ramsey, a highly respected archaeologist, set out to prove that Luke’s history was filled with errors but emerged from his study surprised, saying, “Luke’s history is unsurpassed in trustworthiness.” Among many other facts, he discovered that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, first when Christ was born and again at a later period. (Luke 2:1-2)  

This is a very small sample among literally hundreds of times that archaeology has supported or proven the biblical accounts.  

Prophecy 

Here are a few astonishing examples. 

Example # 1: The prophet Isaiah, who prophesied from 700-680 BC, actually names the king who will rule the Persian Empire and let the Jews return to rebuild Jerusalem from Babylon 150 years before the decision was made… 

…who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, “Let it be rebuilt,” and of the temple, “Let its foundations be laid.”’

Isaiah 44:28 

Cyrus is mentioned as the man who will let the Jews return to their land and rebuild Jerusalem more than one hundred years before he was born.  Cyrus ruled over the Persians from 559–530 BC and during his reign he conquered Babylon in 539 BC. Historians tell us that his decree that allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem was issued in March 538 BC.  Isaiah prophesied from 700–680 BC. That means Isaiah named Cyrus and foretold the decision he would make some 150 years before he arose to be king.  

Example # 2: Ezekiel (590–570 BC) prophesied that God would raise up Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, to come against Tyre with his army of horsemen and that the people would be destroyed. Here is a description of what Tyre would eventually look like when God’s judgment was over:

...this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. She will become plunder for the nations, and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the Lord.  

Ezekiel 26:3-6

These predictions began to be fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar. To understand how this happened, we must keep in mind that Tyre was both a coastal city and an island city. The coastal area was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar for thirteen years and destroyed. (586-573 BC) But many people were able to escape to the island using ships.  A half-mile from the shore, they built strong fortifications to keep Nebuchadnezzar, already exhausted from conquering the coastal city, from taking the island. For 240 years the island area of Tyre survived while its mainland was in ruins. It appeared that Ezekiel’s prophecy would not be completely fulfilled.  In 333 BC, Alexander the Great built a causeway by pushing the ruins of the coastal city into the sea; yes, even the dust was cast into the sea, just as Ezekiel predicted.  Alexander, then, organized a flotilla of ships from several conquered nations, including 80 from Sidon, Aradus, and Byblos; 10 from Rhodes; 10 from Lycia; and 120 from Cyprus. As predicted, many nations came against Tyre, affirming the Bible’s prophetic accuracy.

There are hundreds of these kinds of prophecies which could be cited not to mention the dozens which were fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  

Cultural Influence  

For the sake of space, let’s consider just one aspect of the Bible’s influence: the promotion of freedom for people personally and culturally.  Several years ago, my family and I went to Philadelphia to visit several historic sites.  Among the places visited was the famed Liberty Bell. As we gazed at the cracked monument, we read these words: “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.” This inscription comes from the Bible in Leviticus 25:10. It reflects the fact that where belief in the Bible is widely held the message of freedom rings loudly.  

From Moses to the Messiah, the Bible is a story of the recovery of freedom. Jesus declared that he had come to “proclaim liberty to the captives.” (Luke 4:18)  Horace Greeley (1811–72), founder and editor of the New York Tribune, observed: “It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible-reading people.” The case can be made that only cultures founded with a strong influence from the Bible have viewed freedom as a virtue worth dying for. Theodore Roosevelt observed of the Bible that “no other book of any kind ever written in English has ever so affected the whole life of a people.”

That is in part why presidents of the United States raise their right hand to take the oath of office and place their left hand on a copy of the Bible at their inauguration. When Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D. C. to deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, he thundered, “We will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” He cited words which come directly from the Bible in Amos 5:24.

It is for good reason that over the last 50 years that the Bible has been the most read book world-wide with 3.9 billions copies sold.  No other book comes in a close second. Psalm 18:30 declares, “As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD’s word is flawless…”

For additional equipping:

Memorize: 2 Timothy 3:16

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton