Who did the king see?

e-sword. e-sword.net

 

Daniel 3:25 "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."


"And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" is the reading of Wycliffe Bible 1395, the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the King James Bible 1611, the Brenton Translation 1851, the Calvin Bible of 1855, Webster's translation 1833, Douay of 1950, Green's interlinear, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and the NKJV of 1982.


Foreign language translations that say the fourth is like the Son of God are the French Sainte Bible of 1759 by Louis Lemaistre de Sacy - " le quatrième est semblable au Fils de Dieu.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez - "y el parecer del cuarto es semejante al hijo de Dios.", and the Modern Greek translation.


However the NKJV also has a footnote that reads: "Or a son of the gods". A son of the Gods, would not be the Son of the only true and living God. "A son of the gods" would not be the Lord Jesus Christ who was with them in the fiery furnace. "A son of the gods" is the reading of the ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard and many other modern versions. You cannot believe nor teach the same truth using these conflicting versions.


Coverdale of 1535 and Matthew's Bible of 1549 were really off. They say: "and the fourth is like an angel to loke vpon."


John Gill - "And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God; many of the ancient Christian writers interpret it of Christ the Son of God, whom Nebuchadnezzar, though a Heathen prince, might have some knowledge of from Daniel and other Jews in his court, of whom he had heard them speak as a glorious Person; and this being such an one, he might conclude it was he, or one like to him; and it is highly probable it was he, since it was not unusual for him to appear in a human form, and to be present with his people, as he often is with them, and even in the furnace of affliction;to sympathize with them; to revive and comfort them; to bear them up and support them; to teach and instruct them, and at last to deliver them out of their afflictions."


Jamieson, Fausset and Brown - "like the Son of God--Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas, and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths. Really it was the "messenger of the covenant," who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.


Matthew Henry - "Some think it was the eternal Son of God, the angel of the covenant, and not a created angel. He appeared often in our nature before he assumed it in his incarnation, and never more seasonable, nor to give a more proper indication and presage of his great errand into the world in the fulness of time, than now, when, to deliver his chosen out of the fire, he came and walked with them in the fire."


John Wesley - " The Son of God - Jesus Christ, the Angel of the covenant, did sometimes appear before his incarnation."


Matthew Poole - " Like the Son of God; a Divine, most beautiful, and glorious countenance; either of a mere angel, or rather of Jesus Christ, the Angel of the covenant, who did sometimes appear in the Old Testament before his incarnation, Gen. xii. 7; xviii. 10, 13, 17, 20, &c.; Exod. xxiii. 23; xxxiii. 2; Josh. v. 13—15 ; Prov. viii. 31; in all which places it is Jehovah; Gen. xix. 24; Exod. iii. 2 ; Acts vii. 30, 32, 33, 38."

http://brandplucked.webs.com/danielcompstudy.htm

 

My NKJV (MV) has this:

Act 8:37 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Is there a problem with that? - Beside, as long as I really, really believe my Bible is right it makes no difference which Bible I use, as long as it is the only one. Isn't that right?

 

Good post. If we go by the KJV translation we being asked to believe a pagan person that believes in multiple deities will suddenly profess to see THE Son of THE God. Don't think so.

And the wording in the modern versions is not an attack on our faith, it is a better translation.

 

Just as an aside, "son(s) of God" in the OT Hebrew always referred to an angel(s). So the person Neb saw was not like other humans but apparently divine.

My new Allan KJV bible has a footnote, "a son of the gods". It could have been Jesus, or it could have been an angel sent by God.
Either way, it was God that saved those men from burning up in the flames and He made that truth known to Neb.

 

I laugh when I hear a KJV-onlyer claim the KJV to be the only inerrant Word of God. They claim the current version to be exactly the same as the 1611; yet have likely never seen a 1611, much less read it.

Could any KJV-onlyer answer this question? Did God give the gifts of "helps" & "governments" to the Church, or did He give "helps in governments" to the Church? They cannot both be correct. One is from the KJV1611 & other is from the KJV1769. And please don't give me a weak "transcription error" excuse for the difference. They are fundamentally different statements.

 

This is an interesting statement from you. At some point we all are accepting what someone else is defining for us. Specifically when we talk about understanding a specific point from an ancient text that uses a language markedly different from English. At some point you're taking someone else's word for what is being said.

Just like with the KJV, it is someone else's definitions you are accepting. So your position is really no different than mine. Yet you seem dogmatic that your perception, or understanding is superior that it blinds you to the point that it is, inevitably, taking someone else's word for it. It isn't a Scriptural point, but a personal conviction.

You can prooftext all you want. Notice that the 1 Timothy 2:5 passage is about our spiritual state before God. It isn't about understanding or who imparts truth. It is not exegetically honest to attempt to apply that passage to our currrent situation. (Perhaps I'm reading this wrong...if so my apologies)

My contention is the passage doesn't say two different things. The original language seems to make a point that the king saw a figure who appeared to be like "one of the sons of a god." The specific use of an alternate spelling seems to imply the king is saying something different that what is recorded by other translations.

Also, with the growth in our understanding of the language contemporary the book of Daniel there is more than enough evidence to show that the rendering many of the modern versions use is, frankly, better. The scholarship behind this is robust.

Therefore, I challenge you show me (and us) where in the Old Testament or literature contemporary this text where else this phrase is used that proves your point. Of course this isn't going to use English but rather you're going to want to use both Hebrew and Aramaic languages. So prove your point, use the original languages and show me were the phrase used here is translated otherwise.

Ah yes, the appeal the Holy Spirit. What then happens when I say that I've prayed over my work in this passage and that I believe the Holy Spirit has told me something different?

Well there are two major issues here...1) the Bible never tells us to not trust "man's opinions." I want to say this as graciously as possible, but your exegesis and prooftexting are so very troubling.

2) The Christophany issue has been around for many centuries. Actually you can date these discussions about this topic to around AD 500, if not earlier. There are a lot of issues around Old Testament Christophanies. Just don't dismiss a dissenting opinion without considering that there other, reasonable views.

Just because others do this doesn't make it permissible for you to do it.

Why? My primary texts are the original languages. Why is it important to pick 1 English translation.

I'm sure you don't mean to sound this way, but you're acting like my spirituality is less dignified than yours. Saying that not having one translation makes me less spiritual mature is pretty ridiculous. I'd never say that to someone, so I'm sure you're not saying that.

I appreciate the KJV and your love for it. That said the manuscripts I'm using are best reflections of the extant documents we've ever had available. They're reflecting a text that is several thousand years old.

The KJV is a fine reflection of scholarship contemporary of that era. There are just better translations available. Saying that something is old makes it better is a Catch-22 for KJVO supporters, because you inevitably make a subjective decision since you don't want to get too old but not too young. It's not a decision I'd want to make.

Thanks for the reply. I'd love to hear how you handle the actual textual issues I've brought up previously. :thumbsup:

 

Stilllearning,I still want to know if the KJV revisers were Spirit-filled when they compiled the 1611. (They included the Apocrypha remember.) So according to your line of thinking they wouldn't have been Spirit-filled during that process --how can you be sure they were Spirit-filled or divinely directed in the production of the 1611?

 

My 2011 NIV has it as a footnote. It's an interpolation. It was added by some scribe becase he thought the context was too bare. So he filled in some info he thought would be helpful. But that's not something one should do when handling the Word of God. The Lord doesn't need that kind of "help." Besides,did you ever try reading verses 36,38 and 39? It makes sense without the filler.

 

Do you have proof of this?

 

Love it!!! It's how bibles ought to be made!

 

One of the pre-1611 English Bible of which the KJV was a revision was the 1535 Coverdale's Bible. According to your answer to the question asked, you in effect asserted that the 1535 Coverdale's Bible was as good as the KJV.


The end of Daniel 3:25 in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible stated: "the fourth is like an angel to look upon."

 

This, of course, is a guess. You don't really know that unless you have the original book of Acts in front of you.

 

Give me an example and I will deal with it. I present this challenge over and over and you have yet to respond, except with attacks on other Bibles.

 

Do you have an example of this 'changing back?'