Who did the king see?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by stilllearning, Jul 27, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    The Bible says........
    Daniel 3:25
    “He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”


    Therefore the answer to this question is clear.
    He saw the Preincarnate Christ.

    So what is the problem.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Well, every other English Bible, changes this last line to something like this.....
    “.....and he looks like, a son of the gods!”

    Now, is this an attack upon our faith, or what!
     
  2. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Well it's actually not. In reading the Hebrew here you'll notice it uses a phrase similar to other encounters with angelic beings in the Old Testament. (Cf. Judges 6; Exodus 3; Genesis 32; etc) The Hebrew term literally means "Angel/Messenger of Yahweh." This isn't necessarily Jesus Christ.

    Outside of the incarnational issues of a pre-incarnate manifestation of Christ, there are also textual issues that seem to lead one to consider that it is likely an angelic messenger than a Christophany.

    Now the King James is making some assumptions in its translation. The other, more modern, versions recognize the theological and exegetical challenges present. They, rightly, translate the Hebrew as it appears in the text and don't read into the translation.

    Just fyi, it's always a good idea to know Hebrew before trashing other translations. This is a difficult issue to resolve and not one that can be dismissed by pivoting back to the KJV.
     
  3. humblethinker

    humblethinker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with PJ and besides, what would it matter to us what a pagan king might say? Just because he said whatever he said doesn't mean our faith is any more or less true. It may or may not have been the preincarnate Christ but one thing's for sure, the translators did not think he was "a son of the gods".

    This OP reminds me of how people (preachers even!) quote the friends of Job and authoritatively attribute it to "scripture says...!". God rebuked Jobs friends. It may be said in scripture but that doesn't equate to scripture saying it.
     
  4. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello preachinjesus

    You said.....
    Hebrew has nothing to do with it; This passage was written in Aramaic.
    And I did look up the Aramaic word for “God” here, and it is “hla ‘elahh”.
    --------------------------------------------------
    As for the other places that you sited this word is used........
    Judges 6; Exodus 3; Genesis 32;”
    I don’t see how that can be; Because this word for God, is only used in Ezra and Daniel.
    --------------------------------------------------
    There are no “theological and exegetical challenges” in this passage;
    The only problem some people have, is “believing it”!
     
  5. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi humblethinker

    You said.........
    If something(anything), is said in Scripture, than Scripture said it.

    Now I agree that not everything said and done in Scripture should be praised or followed, but EVERYTHING in Scripture is a PERFECT record of what was said and done.

    I really doubt Daniel was standing there, to record the King saying these words;
    Therefore later, God revealed to Daniel what the King had said;
    And God had Daniel record it, because He wanted us to read it!

    And it also makes a nice song.........

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJLkFW3VR4U&feature=related
     
  6. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    I am with you on this one Brother. No Idol/god would have kept the flames from devouring their fleshly bodies. It was Jesus in the flames to protect them. Shoot, they didn't have one hair burned, or even the smell of smoke on them, when they came out from the fiery furnace. God did this to show King Nebchadnezzar who was in charge. So the king saw THE King in the fiery furnace with those three Hebrew men.
     
  7. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    NIV
    He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."

    ASV
    He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

    BBE(Bible in Basic English)
    He made answer and said, Look! I see four men loose, walking in the middle of the fire, and they are not damaged; and the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

    ESV
    He answered and said, "But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods."

    GW(God's Word)
    The king replied, "But look, I see four men. They're untied, walking in the middle of the fire, and unharmed. The fourth one looks like a son of the gods."

    NLT(New Living Translation)
    "Look!" Nebuchadnezzar shouted. "I see four men, unbound, walking around in the fire. They aren't even hurt by the flames! And the fourth looks like a divine being !"

    Now, the YLT, WEB, TNIV, and RSV also have it translated as "a son of the gods".

    To me, these that translate this any other way than like the Son of God takes away from this verse's meaning. A son of the gods could not have protected them. It took the Son of God(Jesus), to protect them from the flames in the furnace, not a son of the gods.
     
  8. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,114
    Likes Received:
    220
    The king said "LIKE" the son of God - not The Son of God.
    That would be like me saying, "Emily, the little girl next door looks like the daugher of the President. I never said Emily was the daughter of the President, only that she looks as though she might be

    Actually, did even the OT prophets, let alone non-believers have an actual concept of the Son of God?

    Besides, even if the fouth man was was an angle - he was sent mirlacously by God himself.

    I see no problem either way
     
  9. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    Brother, I am not picking on you, but I do see a problem with this verse being translated, "as a son of the gods". We don't serve gods, but God. The world has gods plenty, but we the believers, serve the One, True, and Living God.

    It comes across "weak" in that kind of translation. But, this is MHHO.
     
  10. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,185
    Likes Received:
    370
    What does the original language actually say? That is the question.
     
  11. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,185
    Likes Received:
    370
    As I just said, we can't go by a translation but we need to see what God wrote. If He wrote that it was the Son of God then yes, these others have gotten it wrong. However, I do not believe that is what the king said - and what God ordained to be in the Scriptures so that means that the KJV would have ADDED to the meaning of what was actually said. Don't compare two much later copies of something and say "this one is right". We need to see what was said originally.
     
  12. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    This question was already answered in response #4.....
    Danial was written in Aramaic:
    And in Aramaic....the passages says "son of God(“hla ‘elahh”).
    The same word translated God throughout Ezra and Daniel.

    So those who want to translated it "gods", will need to change every reference God in Ezra and Daniel, to "the gods".
     
  13. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I appreciate the NET Bible. In the NET notes it says in part : in Aramaic "like that of a son of the gods"...But it should be remembered that those are words spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his own polytheistic frame of reference";for him the phrase "like a son of the gods" is equivalent to "like a divine being."
     
  14. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,835
    Likes Received:
    115
    Brother, there is no attack on the faith. There just isn't.

    Yes, the verse is in Aramaic, but not all of Daniel is. The passage 2:4b - 7 is in eastern Aramaic. And that Aramaic original is inerrant would you not agree?

    Just to muddy the waters a little, stilllearning, read Daniel 3:28. Either King Nebuchadnuzzar was talking about Jesus or talking about an angel. He couldn't have been talking about both.

    Here is an excerpt from a really good discussion of the language by Doug Kutilek. Here is a link to the entire discussion.

    http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_son_of_god.htm

    It's rather lengthy, but it so very well worth the read.


    "When we examine the Aramaic portion of the OT (besides Daniel 2:4b-7:28, Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26 and Jeremiah 10:11 are also in Aramaic), we discover that there is a clear distinction between the use of the plural form elahin and the singular elaha. When the true God is spoken of, the singular elaha is invariably used (the singular is also used of false gods when referred to individually, as in Daniel 3:14; 4:5; etc.). The plural form elahin is used only of false gods, especially in the phrase, “the spirit of the holy gods” (4:5; 4:6; 5:11; etc.), words spoken by pagan polytheists from their perspective. The use of the plural form with reference to the one true God does not occur in the Aramaic portion of the OT. It must also be noted that the phrase bar-elahin in Daniel 3:25 does not have the definite article in the original Aramaic; that would be bar-elahayya.'

    Taken together, these facts--namely, that elahin is plural, and has no definite article here--combine to show that to translate bar-elahin as “the Son of God” is to overtranslate the words, indeed to mistranslate them. The precise, literal English equivalent of bar-elahin is “a son of the gods,” as the ASV, NASB and NIV have it. It should not surprise us to find a pagan king who acknowledged and worshipped many gods speaking of the appearance of a supernatural person as “a son of the gods.” Nebuchadnezzar was yet a pagan (he had just erected an idol of gold and compelled his subjects to worship it). In Daniel 3:28, the king refers once again to the fourth man in the furnace, this time by the designation “angel,” which suggests that the two terms, “angel” and “a son of the gods,” were synonymous designations.......

    ........Let us hear the end of the matter: the ASV, NASB, NIV and NKJB margin give a literal English translation of the inerrant Aramaic original. Their interpretation of the text exactly corresponds with that of Luther some 400-plus years earlier. It is certainly not some new “higher critical” attack on the Scriptures. Rather, it is a precisely accurate English rendering of the original, and thereby acknowledges and honors the infallible nature and absolute authority of the inspired original text. The KJV merely reproduced the reading of its great predecessor, the Geneva Bible, which in turn precisely followed the Latin Vulgate, which in its turn literally followed the Greek translation of Theodotion. While precedent for the KJV’s translation can therefore be cited, nevertheless, the ASV et al., are squarely based on the ultimate and sole infallible authority, the Scriptures as originally written. That settles the matter for the individual who genuinely accepts that authority. "
     
    #14 Scarlett O., Jul 28, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2011
  15. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thinks it is quite clear from the OT text that when it mentions/refer to the "Angel of the Lord" that person speaks as God, as His divine abilities/powers, that I do see as being a preincarnate Christ!

    Rest of the time, usually "just" angelic messangers from God!
     
  16. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I fully agree that a son of the (false) gods could not save anyone, but the speaker here was Nebuchadnezzar, a pagan king. I don't know Aramic, but I notice that the Aramaic word translated "like" in that verse is exactly the same as the word in Daniel 7.5:
    And suddenly another beast, a second, like a bear. It was raised up on one side, and had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. And they said thus to it: ‘Arise, devour much flesh!’
    The beast was not a bear; it was like a bear. There is only one Saviour, the Son of God, not one who merely resembles the Son of God.

    I'm not able to be definite on these things, because as I have said, I don't know Aramaic. I should also add that the NKJV, my preferred translation, does have "like the Son of God".
     
    #16 David Lamb, Jul 28, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2011
  17. humblethinker

    humblethinker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
     
  18. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,185
    Likes Received:
    370
    Apparently, you are mistaken and not taking in the full reading of the verse.

     
  19. beameup

    beameup
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    2
    "Knowing Hebrew" is not necessary. A website like Blue Letter Bible can be set-up to include Strong's Concordance word for word.
    Also, "other translations" can really throw you off. The King James uses the most literal word-for-word translation with fewest words.
    As well, the King James has many helps available which are free and not copyright. Along with the insight provided
    by the Holy Spirit, the KJV is MORE THAN ADEQUATE for any Christian [offensive language edited]


    Textus Receptus :thumbsup:
     
    #19 beameup, Jul 28, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2011
  20. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    You post is not very nice. For one thing other translation don't throw people off. The only one's who seem to be thrown off are those pushing a KJVO agenda. Secondly, the reference to Nicolatians is not Christlike and you know it. Hopefully a moderator will deal with you.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...