What is written vs. What was said

[jakethebaptist]

I am working through some thoughts on this, and wanted to get some discussion from the scholars here. My concern is primarily in the translation/exegesis of narrative passages recording dialogue and passages in the NT quoting the OT.

The New Testament books are originally written in Greek, and dialogue is recorded in Greek, even though that may not have been the language used in the actual dialogue. Quotes from the Old Testament are mostly pulled from the Septuagint, which often results in a divergence when translating into English from the Old Testament Hebrew. The KJV (NKJV as well?) mostly translates the Septuagint quote, while others may prefer for consistency (NASB?) using the Hebrew from the quoted passage for translation.

I believe that preference should be given to what was actually written.
First, the doctrine of Inspiration applies to the written text. If the scripture itself is inspired, then the actual wording used is what should be considered.
Second, biblical books were not written as documentary histories, but for a spiritual purpose. Selective edits and paraphrasing were used to fit the spiritual purpose of the writing, rather than be a specific record of the dialogue.

A good example I find in the Old Testament is Daniel 3:25. While the KJV, NKJV, and a few others use "the Son of God" most modern translations render "a son of the gods." Unfortunately for me personally I have not studied Hebrew enough to parse the text, but the Septuagint Greek would support the KJV/NKJV translation. I most often hear in favor of the "son of the gods" translation the argument that the pagan king Nebucadnezzar would not have any concept of "the Son of God" and therefore would not have uttered that statement. From an inspiration standpoint, I believe that it is irrelevant what Nebucadnezzar would have actually said or have conceived, but it is more relevant what was actually written. If the Hebrew text more strongly supports from a textual/grammatical standpoint one translation over the other, that is how it should be translated.

Where to you fall on this issue (not specifically the Daniel passage)? Those who have put more time into studying translations, what are some of your thoughts?

 

[Logos1560]

KJV defenders David Reid and Bryan Ross wrote: “”It could not be clearer that what the Lord was doing in Luke 4:18-19 was reading from the manuscript that He held in His hands. And yet what the Lord read does not have verbatim identicality with the passage in Isaiah [Isaiah 61:1-2]. It is not even close” (Myth of Verbatim Identicality: How God Actually Preserved His Word, p. 59). KJV-only author Lawrence Bednar wrote: “Luke/LXX recovering of sight to the blind, isn’t in the Masoretic Text, and the Luke/LXX to preach/proclaim deliverance/liberty to the captives restates the Masoretic, opening of the prison to them that are bound” (Hebrew Masoretic Text: Inerrancy Preserved through Divine Providence, p. 31).

Gregory Lanier and William Ross wrote: “Perhaps the Nazareth scroll deviates from what becomes the Masoretic tradition” (The Septuagint, p. 151). Gregory Lanier and William Ross noted: “’Recovering the sight to the blind’ does not have a direct match in the Hebrew but matches the Old Greek verbatim” (Ibid.). Timothy Law affirmed: “In 4:18, Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah to declare that his ministry is, among other things, to proclaim ‘recovery of sight to the blind.’ This is nowhere in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1 and instead comes as a direct citation from the Septuagint” (When God Spoke Greek, pp. 101-102). Richard Longenecker noted: “In Luke 4:18, quoting Isaiah 61:1, the LXX’s (‘recovering the sight to the blind’) appears, rather than the MT’s reading (‘opening of the prison to those who are bound’” (Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, p. 46). Richard Longenecker commented: “Despite the quotation’s general Septuagintal character, Luke omits the line about healing the brokenhearted and adds from Isaiah 58:6 the statement ‘to set at liberty those who are bruised’” (Ibid.).

Douglas Woodward suggested that Jesus was reading from a scroll with an earlier Hebrew Vorlage text that differs from the later [post-A. D. 100] Hebrew Masoretic text as he asserted: “This was not the same Hebrew reading as what became the Masoretic Text” (Septuagint, p. 61). Michael Heiser suggested: “Jesus apparently either read from a Hebrew text that reflected the Septuagint, or Luke fills in the quoted passage with the Septuagint” (I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible, p. 124). Douglas Woodward listed Isaiah 61:1 as one of the “key salvific and Messianic passages altered in the Masoretic Text” (Rebooting the Bible, Part 1, p. 107).

G. K. Beale wrote: “Jesus goes to Nazareth, attends a synagogue service, and is handed the scroll of Isaiah the prophet” (Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 57). John Meade and Peter Gurry asserted that “This ‘book’ [Luke 4:17] must be a scroll, not a codex like a modern book, since Luke is careful to say that Jesus unrolls it and rolls it back up” (Scribes & Scripture, p. 31). The 1855 Union Bible Dictionary also noted: “Thus in Luke 4:17, the phrase ‘opened the book,’ would properly read ‘unrolled the scroll,’ and in verse 20, for ‘closed the book,’ read ‘rolled up the volume,’ or ‘scroll’” (p. 114). At Luke 4:17, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists has the following rendering “unrolling the volume” instead of “opened the book.” Luke 4:17 is translated in 1986 Green’s Literal Translation as follows: “And the roll of Isaiah the prophet was handed to Him. And unrolling the book, He found the place where it is written.” The beginning of Luke 4:20 is literally translated: “And rolling up the roll.” Concerning Luke 4:20, A. T. Robertson observed that Jesus “rolled up the roll and gave it back to the attendant” (Word Pictures, Vol. II, p. 57). Richard Longenecker affirmed that Jesus “reads Isaiah 61:1-2, rolls up the scroll, hands it to the attendant” (Biblical Exegesis, p. 54).

Peter Cotterell and Max Turner acknowledged that “Jesus received the scroll of Isaiah from the synagogue attendant” (Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation, p. 51). Gregory Lanier maintained that “the account of Jesus’ preaching in the Nazareth references a scroll of Isaiah maintained by the synagogue attendant (Lk 4:17-20)” (Authority of the Septuagint, p. 26). Matthew Barrett affirmed that “Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue” (God’s Word Alone, p. 244). Even KJV-only author Ken Matto noted that “He [Jesus] was handed the scroll of Isaiah” (Modern Version Incursion, p. 186). Floyd Jones asserted: “We can be certain that the scroll which was delivered to Him was written in Hebrew” (Chronology of the Old Testament, p. 14). David Croteau maintained that when Jesus “read from the Isaiah scroll in Luke 4:17-20, that most naturally appears to have him reading from a Hebrew scroll” (Urban Legends of the New Testament, p. 123). According to Jewish teaching/tradition, the passage from a scroll for a synagogue service was to be read, not quoted from memory.

The brief passage from the book of Isaiah in this scroll is called “scripture” (Luke 4:21). According to the Bible’s usage of the word “scripture,” it can be used for brief portions or for individual books such as Isaiah that are in the form of a scroll and that are not found in a one-volume complete codex or Bible. Would the KJV’s “opened the book” (Luke 4:17) and “closed the book” (Luke 4:20) be non-literal, dynamic equivalent renderings? Would the rendering “book” possibly be an anachronism that places a thing outside its proper historical time frame?

 

[Jerome]

Uh, FYI, it's not Hebrew.

 

[JesusFan]

I am working through some thoughts on this, and wanted to get some discussion from the scholars here. My concern is primarily in the translation/exegesis of narrative passages recording dialogue and passages in the NT quoting the OT.

The New Testament books are originally written in Greek, and dialogue is recorded in Greek, even though that may not have been the language used in the actual dialogue. Quotes from the Old Testament are mostly pulled from the Septuagint, which often results in a divergence when translating into English from the Old Testament Hebrew. The KJV (NKJV as well?) mostly translates the Septuagint quote, while others may prefer for consistency (NASB?) using the Hebrew from the quoted passage for translation.

I believe that preference should be given to what was actually written.
First, the doctrine of Inspiration applies to the written text. If the scripture itself is inspired, then the actual wording used is what should be considered.
Second, biblical books were not written as documentary histories, but for a spiritual purpose. Selective edits and paraphrasing were used to fit the spiritual purpose of the writing, rather than be a specific record of the dialogue.

A good example I find in the Old Testament is Daniel 3:25. While the KJV, NKJV, and a few others use "the Son of God" most modern translations render "a son of the gods." Unfortunately for me personally I have not studied Hebrew enough to parse the text, but the Septuagint Greek would support the KJV/NKJV translation. I most often hear in favor of the "son of the gods" translation the argument that the pagan king Nebucadnezzar would not have any concept of "the Son of God" and therefore would not have uttered that statement. From an inspiration standpoint, I believe that it is irrelevant what Nebucadnezzar would have actually said or have conceived, but it is more relevant what was actually written. If the Hebrew text more strongly supports from a textual/grammatical standpoint one translation over the other, that is how it should be translated.

Where to you fall on this issue (not specifically the Daniel passage)? Those who have put more time into studying translations, what are some of your thoughts?

What is interesting is that good reliable translations can disagree there, yet still all be English word of the Lord to us for today

 

[John of Japan]

I am working through some thoughts on this, and wanted to get some discussion from the scholars here. My concern is primarily in the translation/exegesis of narrative passages recording dialogue and passages in the NT quoting the OT.

The New Testament books are originally written in Greek, and dialogue is recorded in Greek, even though that may not have been the language used in the actual dialogue. Quotes from the Old Testament are mostly pulled from the Septuagint, which often results in a divergence when translating into English from the Old Testament Hebrew. The KJV (NKJV as well?) mostly translates the Septuagint quote, while others may prefer for consistency (NASB?) using the Hebrew from the quoted passage for translation.

I believe that preference should be given to what was actually written.
First, the doctrine of Inspiration applies to the written text. If the scripture itself is inspired, then the actual wording used is what should be considered.
Second, biblical books were not written as documentary histories, but for a spiritual purpose. Selective edits and paraphrasing were used to fit the spiritual purpose of the writing, rather than be a specific record of the dialogue.

Correct. Inspiration is in the original text. All evangelical scholars of bibliology held to this until Peter Ruckman came along in the 1970s and claimed that the KJV can correct the original languages.

A good example I find in the Old Testament is Daniel 3:25. While the KJV, NKJV, and a few others use "the Son of God" most modern translations render "a son of the gods." Unfortunately for me personally I have not studied Hebrew enough to parse the text, but the Septuagint Greek would support the KJV/NKJV translation. I most often hear in favor of the "son of the gods" translation the argument that the pagan king Nebucadnezzar would not have any concept of "the Son of God" and therefore would not have uttered that statement. From an inspiration standpoint, I believe that it is irrelevant what Nebucadnezzar would have actually said or have conceived, but it is more relevant what was actually written. If the Hebrew text more strongly supports from a textual/grammatical standpoint one translation over the other, that is how it should be translated.

The Aramaic word for God in that verse is 'ĕlâhh (אלהּ). It is in the plural, but can be translated either as singular or plural, much like the word Elohim in Hebrew, to the best of my knowledge. (I took Hebrew but not Aramaic). So either "Son of God" or "son of the gods" is a possible rendering. Neither rendering changes the fact that a preincarnate appearance of Jesus our Savior was in that furnace with the three men. Nebuchadnezzar simply said what he saw, then said it with his own presuppositions. The interpretation of the passage remains the same.

The commentary of Keil and Delitzsech says here, "Acting on this assumption, which did not call in question the deliverance of the accused by the miraculous interposition of the Deity, Nebuchadnezzar approached the door of the furnace and cried to the three men to come out, addressing them as the servants (worshippers) of the most high God."

Where to you fall on this issue (not specifically the Daniel passage)? Those who have put more time into studying translations, what are some of your thoughts?

I am currently translating the second half of Daniel into Japanese for the Lifeline Bible project. When I get back to the first half, I will probably follow the KJV and render it as "the Son of God" (神の御子息).

P.S. I just checked Stephen Miller's commentary, Daniel, and he says "Either the NIV or KJV translation is possible grammatically. In biblical Aramaic the plural noun 'elahin may be assumed to have the same force as 'elohim in biblical Hebrew, which can be rendered as a plural, 'gods,' or as a singular, 'God'" (p. 123).

 

[Deacon]

No scholar, just a student of the bible - my opinion:

In Luke 4 16-21 it is recorded that Jesus read a portion of Isaiah (Is. 61:1,2) from a scroll in a small synagogue in Nazareth.
Trying to determine from what "version" or even what language Jesus was using cannot be discerned,
the account is recorded by Luke perhaps decades after the event.
Luke wasn't there, and the witnesses to the account were not mentioned.

The word-for-word accuracy of the reading (or exactness as one might relate it to inerrancy), doesn't depend upon using the exact words that Jesus spoke.

The point that Luke (and Jesus) emphasizes is the prophetic nature of the reading.

Rob

 

[gb93433]

The three most important things are context, context, and context. Scripture is communication from God. It must be interpreted in light of its historical context, its literary context, and its cultural context.

In Genesis 15:1 what was the language that the word of God came to Abram in? What is the word of God From Genesis 15:1? When did Hebrew come into being? When you read 1 Kings 6:1 you get the date of the exodus as 1446 BC. From Exodus 1:11 you get at least 200 years later. The texts are correct but they do not agree on the date. Why? where I live one of the cities had another name. Everyone refers to it by the current name. If I wrote a history of the city would I refer to it by the current name or the name it had 100 years ago?

When you consider what heaven was in the Bible is it a location as many think today? Communication utilizes language that communicates the message. Language is fluid over time. If hell is down then where is hell on the other side of the earth? Up?

The word elohim has many meanings and context will help to provide how it should be translated.

Do we translate words or the message? I would contend that scripture is much more than words, but it is the message. A few years ago a family from Colombia lived with my family. I noticed one morning that the wife called her boys and husband the same word. She used the Spanish word for mister. I was watching and listening to see their attitude. So I asked the husband about how she used that word. He told me that was a familiar greeting like we might say "Good morning." If I were to translate that word into English it would translate as mister but that would give a completely different message than a typical greeting. If my wife called me "mister" in the morning I would wonder what she is angry about.

 

[kyredneck]

Where to you fall on this issue (not specifically the Daniel passage)?

"The new is in the old concealed, the old is in the new revealed".

What is written:
Amos Chapter 9

11​	In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old;
12​	that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the nations that are called by my name, saith Jehovah that doeth this.

What was said:
Acts Chapter 15

14​	Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15​	And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16​	After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up:
17​	That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called,

 

[kyredneck]

"The new is in the old concealed, the old is in the new revealed".

What is written:
Ezekiel Chapter 37

4​	Again he said unto me, Prophesy over these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of Jehovah.
5​	Thus saith the Lord Jehovah unto these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live.

What is said:
Ephesians Chapter 2

4​	but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5​	even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved),

1st Peter Chapter 1

3​	Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

My concern is primarily in the translation/exegesis of narrative passages recording dialogue and passages in the NT quoting the OT.

You have stubbled upon the Process by which God Defines and Illustrates His General Parameters and Boundaries that He has Superintended over the Preservation of His Word.

In his brief statement, "Inspiration doesn't always follow in the same set of tracks", in Thy Word Is Truth, Some Thoughts on the Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration, by Young, E.J., he is expressing how that the Old Testament scripture quoted in the New Testament can seem to be very divergent, and yet, they Remain to be His Word as God Intends them to be Revealed to Mankind.

For example the Writing God did on tablets of stone, in whatever language, when God Wrote Exodus 20:23 and in the various languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek it has appeared, as well as a faithful translation of reliable manuscripts that gives us, "Thou shall Not Kill", in English, and for me to shout out my front door, "Don't Murder" are all equally Inspired renditions of what God has Revealed to Mankind and He Honors them Equally according to His Prophecy,

"So shall My Word be that Goeth Forth out of My Mouth: it shall not Return unto Me Void,
but it shall Accomplish that which I Please, and it shall Prosper in the thing whereto I Sent it," in Isaiah 55:11.

In John 12:48; Gives us the Promise and Warning that since He is God, He Knows that we not only have God's Words, but that He Knows the same Words He Spoke would be Preserved for us to read today and Kept Intake until the the very Last Day at the Judgment.

"He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My Words, hath one that Judgeth him:
the Word that I have Spoken, the same shall Judge him in the Last Day."

Then in John 6:63, Jesus Revealed that the Inspiration of God's Preserved Words have a Living Existence in the Realm of the Spirit in which they are Alive, actually being Spirit;.

"It is the Spirit that Quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
the Words that I Speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life."

In the form we have the Bible today, despite the incidental idiosyncrasies in variants and the minutia of infinitesimally slight and irrelevant alleged translational 'discrepancies', God has Illustrated for us His Use of the Old Testament scriptures quoted in the New Testament, to show us where the Inspiration of His Word has been Preserved as it is Contained in our Bible we hold in our hand.

The only way God's Word can be Assured by God to be "Profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness" is because, as God Says, in II Timothy 3:16;

"All Scripture is Given by Inspiration of God, and is Profitable for Doctrine,
for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness:"

This is the plain statement of scripture, even by the letter of the Law, much less the Spirit of what is stated.

"All Scripture is Given by Inspiration of God, and is Profitable for Doctrine,
for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness:"

Any idea of man that each word in our translations would have to be absolutely perfectly written, with no room for any recognizable human element in the overall Process, for our copies to be considered Inspired is not considering God's Standard for the Preservation of the Inspiration demonstrated in the Old Testament passages quoted in the New Testament.

Are the identical?

"It is clear that the writers of the New Testament were concerned with demonstrating the continuity between the Old Testament Scriptures and the faith they proclaimed. They were convinced that in Jesus the Old Testament Promises had been Fulfilled."

However,

"IV. Brief phrases are sometimes lifted from the Old Testament to establish a point,
without even quoting the entire passage. Matt. 21:13 cites a portion of Jer. 7:11, etc.

"V. Sometimes a point is established by referring to “the scriptures” without citing a specific passage
"A. Christ’s resurrection is said to be “according to the Scriptures” 1 Cor. 15:4, Luke 24:46
"B. New Testament writers sometimes cited a passage without stating where it was found (remember, there were no chapter and verse designations at that time)...Heb. 2:6, 4:4

"VI. Inspired writers sometimes quoted or referred to other new testament passages as “scripture”
"A. I Tim. 5:18 cites Luke 10:7 (Matt. 10:10), instead of an Old Testament passage.
"B. Peter refers to Paul’s writings as “Scripture” (II Peter 3:16)

VII. Sometimes a passage was quoted from a translation (greek) instead of the original hebrew old testament “The Septuagint (LXX) was the Bible of Jesus and the apostles. Most "New Testament quotations are taken from it directly...” (A General Introduction to the Bible by Geisler and Nix, page 254). "An example is Heb. 10:5, which quotes from the Septuagint (LXX) Greek Old Testament, instead of from Psa. 40:6 in the Hebrew Old Testament."

"The New Testament writers included approximately 250 express Old Testament quotations, and if one includes indirect or partial quotations, the number jumps to more than 1,000 (referring to all OT books except Obadiah)."

Statements in quotations are from Old Testament Passages Referred to or Quoted in the New Testament.

What is interesting is that good reliable translations can disagree there, yet still all be English word of the Lord to us for today

Yes, and that is the Standard God Set Forth when showing us the Old Testament quoted in New Testament quotations which can seem to be very different, Apart from the Hand of God, where He Shows us they certainly are not.

The word-for-word accuracy of the reading (or exactness as one might relate it to inerrancy), doesn't depend upon using the exact words that Jesus spoke.

Right. It is the Fulfilling of all that is meant to be, including Jesus' Accomplishment on the cross is what is Spoken of by "one jot or one tittle", as to the content of the Law, not Speaking of the letters themselves, in the letter of the Law, when Jesus Says, "For Verily I Say unto you, Till Heaven and Earth Pass,
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be Fulfilled, in Matthew 5:18.

"The Design of Christ, in conformity to the language of the Jews, is to declare, that no part of the Law, not one of the least Commandments in it, as He explains Himself in the next verse, should be unaccomplished;"

in Matthew 5:19a; "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments,
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven:.."

Then, from the verse before, Matthew 15:17, "in this verse, to the end of His Discourse, He applies Himself to the whole multitude in general; many of whom might be ready to imagine, that by the Light of the Gospel, He was Giving His Disciples Instructions to Spread in the world, He was going to Set Aside, as useless, the Law of Moses, or the Prophets, the Interpreters of it, and Commentators upon it," and as we see it is the Power and Punishment He would Suffer in Fulfilling the Law that is referred to as not Passing away, and that Force of the Law that is contained in the smallest portions of it.

"Think not that I Am Come to Destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I Am not Come to Destroy, but to Fulfil."

References: Matthew 5 Gill's Exposition

In Genesis 15:1 what was the language that the word of God came to Abram in? What is the word of God From Genesis 15:1? When did Hebrew come into being?

Right. Inspiration doesn't always follow in the same set of tracks.

Communication utilizes language that communicates the message.

Yes, in as close to the words of the original source language as humanly possible, by the Prayerful Enablement of the Holy Spirit, to faithfully render the most reliable manuscripts Preserved by God, in as close to a word-for-word translation as can be expected, when transitioning from one language to another.

Do we translate words or the message?

See above. Paraphrasing or editing and/or omitting may be God's Prerogative, but not man's.

15​	And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

That is God's Stamp of Approval on the Words of the Prophets and their quotations in the New Testament.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Where to you fall on this issue (not specifically the Daniel passage)?

These brethren at "King James Bible Comparison Page" articulate the position I take on this passage in Daniel 3.


Their site says, "Below are 770 verses which have been corrupted in the modern versions. They also reveal that the modern versions are one and the same with the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Roman Catholic Bibles. All you have to do is click on any verse and you will instantly see the corruption."​

I believe that is as fair and balanced as you can expect, without the inherent obliviousness of the flesh empowered.

If they are not corrupted and spurious, not being what they profess to be, then why do the fast majority, if not all their 'changes to God's Word' (that is agreed, right?) seemingly all lean in favor of the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Roman Catholic Bibles and bolster supernatural evil, rather than Honoring God, the Bible's Author?

And when 'versions' owe their existence for their history, conceptualization, chosen manuscripts, translators, translation philosophies, and translation, review, publishing, and revision committees to the heavy influences of the Underground, Dark Occult, I am able to consider that it is within the realm of possibilities that this scripture they quote is apt Spiritual Advise.

2 Cor. 2:11 (KJV) "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices."
​

Just as in any other endeavor in language, where there is a "Possible Grammatical" Translation or Interpretation, that does not mean that any "Possible Grammatical" choice will express the best "Contextual" Translation or Interpretation, while in this case considering the context of the verse, the Chapter, the Book, the Testament and the context of the whole Bible.

From the "King James Bible Comparison Page":

"Daniel 3:25's Affected Teaching;"
"Another criticism that the modern version only proponents (MVOP) level against the King James Bible is found in Daniel 3:25. The question concerning this verse is should it be singular as “God” or should it be plural as “gods?” The MVOP claim that Nebuchadnezzar was a polytheist and there is no way that he would have understood that the Lord Jesus Christ was the one in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

"Now a question must be asked. Did God Write the Bible according to the belief systems of the people mentioned therein or did He Write the Bible according to His Own Wisdom?

"Once we get into the text, we will see that the King James Bible has rendered the word properly as “God” and not “gods” as the modern versions do.

"The Aramaic words found in the statement are as follows, "da^mēh lebar 'ĕla^hı^yn" (Son of God). The last word corresponds to the word "elohim" in the Hebrew which shows the plurality of God. In other words, it does not signify 3 gods but is used to show "Three Distinct Persons" as one Godhead. Now the Aramaic word "elahiyn" may be translated "gods or God" and the usage is determined by the context.

"Jeremiah 10:11 (KJV) Thus shall ye say unto them,
The gods that have not made the Heavens and the Earth,
even they shall perish from the Earth, and from under these Heavens."

"Daniel 3:18 (KJV) But if not, be it known unto thee, O king,
that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."

"Ezra 6:7 (KJV) Let the work of this House of God alone;
let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this House of God in his place."

"Jeremiah 10:11 is the only place outside of Daniel where the word “elahiyn” is translated “gods.” In the book of Ezra, it is translated “God” 43 times. So we see that the word is definitely used according to context as many words in Scripture are.

"When we look at the modern versions that say "son of the gods" it is basically claiming son (singular) but gods (plural) so which son of which god in the pantheon of gods of Babylon was he? The plural word "gods" does not fit the context of the immediate statement that it is in. It is like 5 men standing next to each other and a little boy is brought out and introduced as a son of the men. It does not make grammatical sense because the boy can only be the son of one of the men. Now let us go further in the context.

"Daniel 3:26 (KJV) Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the Most High God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire."

"Notice verse 26 that Nebuchadnezzar came by the furnace and spoke into the furnace calling the three men servants of the most high God, not gods. So the context of verse 25 would demand that the word "God" be used to make proper sense out of the narrative. Let us look at a verse which precedes the actual furnace scene.

"Daniel 3:17 (KJV) If it be so, our God Whom we serve is Able to Deliver us from the burning fiery furnace,
and He Will Deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

"Notice the three Hebrew boys state that the God they serve can deliver them. So they told Nebuchadnezzar about the God they serve, which is in keeping with the context of the following verses of the furnace scene. There would have been no need on Nebuchadnezzar's part to change it to a plural "gods" since he was seeing a Miracle and would have remembered they spoke of them serving only One God and not many. Now finally we look at two more verses in this chapter.

"Daniel 3:28-29 (KJV) Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said,
Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,
Who hath Sent His Angel, and Delivered His servants that trusted in Him,
and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies,
that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.

{29} "Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language,
which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,
shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill:
because there is no other God that can Deliver after this sort."

"Four times in the closing verses of this chapter Nebuchadnezzar mentions God (same word as in verse 25) and in all four mentions, not one is made in the plural. Therefore, in verse 25, the word "God" stands as the correct rendering which fits the context of the entire narrative in this chapter.

"Then the MVOP level another charge concerning the word “son.” If you notice in verse 25, it is capitalized as “Son.” When the King James translators saw this verse and knew that the word “elahiyn” would be singular in this case because of context and not plural, then they knew that this was a Christophany which was a pre-Bethlehem appearance of Christ.

"Therefore, armed with that knowledge, they capitalized Son in respect to the Lord Jesus Christ.

"Psalm 2:7 (KJV) I Will Declare the Decree: the LORD hath said unto Me,
Thou Art My Son; this Day have I Begotten thee.

"Psalm 2:12 (KJV) Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and ye perish from the way,
when His Wrath is Kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him."

"If you notice in Psalm 2, in verses 7 and 12, the word “Son” is capitalized because it is directly referencing the Lord Jesus Christ. I have yet to this day come across anyone who rejects the capitalization of those two words, yet the MVOP attempt to make a claim that it should not be capitalized in Daniel 3:25, when it is also referencing the Lord Jesus Christ.

"So there you have it, more confusion untangled by the King James Bible."

Daniel 3:25

Or, in other Words, "God is not the author of confusion," I Corinthians 14:33.