Featured "Son of God" or "A son of the gods"? Daniel 3:25

Daniel 3:25 (BHS): לְבַר־אֱלָהִֽין׃

Both work, Elohim is a plural noun often translated in the singular
Verse 28 makes it clear the being was a singular being.
A good translation would maintain the ambiguity of the original form
I like “divine being”.

Rob

 

Would this be like when the text in the Gospel can say the Centurion declared" Surely this was the Son of God, a son of a god, was righteous person etc?"

 

Daniel quoted a pagan king, as robycop3 already stated. I think the MV’s have it correct.

 

And yet, peter Him stated that the OT prophets did not realize all what they wrote down, and that not all was fully disclosed to them, as that was under progressive revelation, correct?

 

You'd think roby would get tired of embarrassing himself all the time.

 

Nebuchadnezzar knew God finally, as all men will when we see Him.
We must realized God has worked as He pleases apart from the Hebrews.
Melchizedek, The magi, Darius "anointed" who used of God for some purpose" ,Nebuchadnezzar Nineveh .etc He works the sinner to come to God as the preacher to prepare a sermon to present the Gospel.

Nebuchadnezzar became insane in an instant and acted as an animal for years. That is why Belshazzar , could only offer Daniel a third of the kingdom to interrupt his dream because Nebuchadnezzar was officially on the throne.


His testimony,
Dan 4:33
The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.
Dan 4:34
And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:
Dan 4:35
And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
Dan 4:36
At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.
Dan 4:37
Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

You will probably see him in Heaven.

Daniel used Aramaic bar elahh "Son God," the thought must be preserved

Any translation that promotes otherwise is wrong

 

He doesn't seem to understand according to scripture in the OP the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ!... Brother Glen

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

He only saw the Divine as Divine and DID later recognize 'the God of Heaven". He had no reason to know scriptures from later time. He knew of Daniels and the others testimony and God working in his like.

 

Since I'm NOT KJVO....you embarrass yourself yet again. As YOU say......"you're as phony as a Ford Corvette".

 

Friend Roby, I often wonder whether you have a number of KJVO tenants living rent free in your head! So much of what you post is pot-shots at the KJV.

Apparently the understanding of "Son of God" in Daniel 3:25 long precedes the publication of the King James Bible in 1611. According to Albert Barnes in his Notes on the Bible, "That this was the Son of God - the second person of the Trinity, who afterward became incarnate, has been quite a common opinion of expositors. So it was held by Tertullian, by Augustine, and by Hilary, among the fathers [who lived some 1300 years or so before the KJV and didn't read or speak English]; and so it has been held by Gill, Clarius, and others, among the moderns [who were not KJVO]."

In his notes Barnes clarifies our question as having two parts:

The king's statement recorded in Daniel 3:28 helps with his understanding. There he calls the personage an angel sent by the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

 

How did the old Rabbis consider this?

 

On that Barnes wrote:

 

I believe that is in accord with Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar could not consider this Divine beings as anything else having no understanding of the Messiah