KJV-only myths about the 1769

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Rev. Lowery:
I dont know about anyone else here but it seems odd that only in the last ohhhh 100 years have all the differant non based KJV translations happened now I wonder why that is ??????

Heres something better without the TR what do you base a translation on??????

What did the NIV, NASB, The Message, ETC. authors base there translation on??????

I wonder these things ohhhhh and all versions other than AV 1611 remove the deity of Christ and important doctornal scripture so why would I want to read another version thats wrong????

Just some of my thoughts !!!

OH and AMEN william s. correa I am late but AMEN

ohhhhhhhhh PSS The Daniel 3 debate who do you think knows better the ppl that saw and held the actual scriptures or the ppl that base a version on there own intellect based on there opinion of a translation.

Praise the Lord here comes the cavalry, Oh yeah All you MVists why is there no " calvary" in your versions? maybe because its a different gospel?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

the thing is, when the king saw the fourth man in the fire, if he said 'son of gods' it gives it a different light than that of 'Son of God.'

To say 'son of gods' paints a picture of the one who delivered the hebrews as being one sent by gods instead of God.

It still throws doubt on the Son whether one looks down to verse 28 or not. God is in 28, gods is in the previous verse mentioned.

Does not take a rocket scientist to figure that it casts doubt on who the true deliverer is.

I'll stick to the KJV! It was more correct in that translation.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

also, it implies that the son had more than one father when it says 'son of gods.' Jesus affirmed that He only had one Father, so 'Son of God' is the correct translation.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Rom 3:1-2 (KJV1611 Edition):
What aduantage then hath the Iew? or what profit is there
of Circumcision?
2 Much euery way: chiefly, because that
vnto them were committed the Oracles of God.

Please do not contribute the Oracles of God to a
Pagan king

 

[william s. correa]

They are without Excuse! " Please do not contribute the Oracles of God to a
Pagan king "Bro Ed Edwards

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
the thing is, when the king saw the fourth man in the fire, if he said 'son of gods' it gives it a different light than that of 'Son of God.'

To say 'son of gods' paints a picture of the one who delivered the hebrews as being one sent by gods instead of God.

It still throws doubt on the Son whether one looks down to verse 28 or not. God is in 28, gods is in the previous verse mentioned.

Does not take a rocket scientist to figure that it casts doubt on who the true deliverer is.

I'll stick to the KJV! It was more correct in that translation.

Actually, we should look at it from NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S view. After all, it was HIS statement. Remember, the whole series of events was started by Neb's erecting an image & commanding that it should be worshipped. He had heard of the REAL God from Daniel, and maybe the other Jews in his court, but he doubtlessly thought, "Their God can't be all that mighty...after all, I conquered their nation easily." He certainly didn't have his mind on God when he set up his idol. In fact, when he gave the 3 Jews the chance to redeem themselves & they mentioned God to him, he became very angry & ordered the furnace to be stoked 7 times above its usual fuel supply. ( It could NOT have been made 7 times HOTTER; that woulda made it about 15,000 degrees F., hotter than the surface of the sun, and it woulda melted or vaporized the furnace itself. No ordinary fuel can burn THAT hot under ordinary earthly conditions. A sevenfold increase in the VOLUME of the fire was possible, of course, but NOT a sevenfold increase in TEMP.)

When Neb saw FOUR men in the furnace insteada the THREE he'd seen thrown in, he was overwhelmed! He was seeing TWO mighty miracles at once! First, he saw the three Jews were unharmed, walking around, and he had no idea how the FOURTH person, who was obviously much more than just a man, had gotten into the furnace while he was sitting in fronta the door, watching the whole time. Neb simply didn't know WHO he was seeing! Since he'd been familiar with the Chaldean 'gods' his whole life, and JESUS certainly didn't look kike any of their images, he exclaimed what he did. HE HAD NO IDEA that the REAL God had a Son.

Somebody help me with the Hebrew here, but I was told it is "ben elahh", 'a son of a god'. Therefore, the AV translators added THEIR thoughts & hindsight to the translation here.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

nice explanation, robycop, but I still don't buy it. If Nebudchadnezzar recognized the one that kept the three Hebrews as being God in verse 28, surely he knew in verse 25 it was not a son of a god that he saw with them; as they had testified to their God and His power to keep them safe and deliver them.

I say He knew that was the Son of God Himself; else why would he not have said, 'My gods delivered thee?'

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Somebody help me with the Hebrew here, but I was told it is "ben elahh", 'a son of a god'. Therefore, the AV translators added THEIR thoughts & hindsight to the translation here. [/QB]

You raised a good question.

It is not Ben Elah, but Bar Elah, which means the writing was quite influenced by Aramaic.

Elah appears about 95 times in OT but mostly in Ezra-Daniel. Once in Jeremiah 10:11.
KJV translated 79 times for God.
In Daniel the most of "God" was translated from this Elah. I am not sure what is the background for this, but one guess might be a strong hatred against Polytheism, even though Elohim embraces Trinity even in Shema ( Deut 6:4-. I believe King Nebu was talking about God of Israel.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

yes, Eliyahu,

I believe the king knew it was the God of the Hebrew children that was there with them. Else I believe he would have told them to come out for his gods had found favor with them and allowed them to live. But that is not what he said.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
I say He knew that was the Son of God Himself; else why would he not have said, 'My gods delivered thee?'

So you believe the bible lies in verse 28 when it says, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel . . . "?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

unreal!!!

Guys, COME ON!!!

These KJVO are constantly REJECTING clear scripture JUST TO DEFEND KJVO! Benny Hinn did that once, claiming that God did not inspire "The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord"

Its self-contradictory. Its dishonest. You dont need a doctorate to see it, either.

This is wny no one using their own brain takes KJVOsim seriously. Its just amazing!

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
nice explanation, robycop, but I still don't buy it. If Nebudchadnezzar recognized the one that kept the three Hebrews as being God in verse 28, surely he knew in verse 25 it was not a son of a god that he saw with them; as they had testified to their God and His power to keep them safe and deliver them.

I say He knew that was the Son of God Himself; else why would he not have said, 'My gods delivered thee?'

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT...

The whole set of events arose from the king's commanding all present to worship his idol. That hardly shows a belief in the real God, nor of much knowledge of Him. The simple fact was that he was astounded by the miracles he saw, and really didn't know what to say.

And it's quite likely that not even Daniel knew God had a Son at that time, let alone a pagan king knowing. The Jews were awaiting their Messiah then, and, while Isaiah called him Immanuel, they didn't know He had always existed as had His Father. And certainly, Neb's knowledge of God was miniscule, and it's VERY unlikely he thought that the Being in the furnace was the real God's son. This is based strictly upon what Scripture says.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
Daniel 3 in the KJV said, "the Son of God" because the King saw a real person chatting with 3 men in furance.

Daniel 3 in the MVs said, the son of gods because the King saw him as a "stone" that he called, "son of gods.

Askjo, if you would actually read the bible you claim to believe you would know that Nebuchadnezzar explains who he saw in the furnace in verse 28. "Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants . . . "

To Nebuchadnezzar the angel appeared to him to be "a son of the gods." </font>[/QUOTE]You prefer MVs and reject the KJV.

Nebuchadnezzar had Daniel because he knew Daniel's God. Nebuchadnezzar turned Him into idoatry as Romans 1:23. That is how he ordered Daniel's three men in furance. I agreed with Eliyahu concerning his saying, "I think Nebuchadnezzar heard about God, Elohim thru Daniel. Moreover Daniel's 3 friends are explaining about the God in verse 3:17" I also agree with standingfirminChrist reflecting to his good comments concerning the difference between "a son of gods and the Son of God.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

TCassidy prefers MVs over the KJV?

Wow, some people just love saying asinine things. Askjo is racking them up!

 

[Diggin in da Word]

The fact that Nebuchadnezzar said 'the son of gods' does not sound like the correct interpretation to me either.

King Nebuchadnezzar knew indeed of Daniel's God. The decree that all should bow to the image was to make him a god, Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego let the king know that they would not bow. That they were loyal to the one true God, Elohim.

As said earlier, why would Nebuchadnezzar recognize the being in the fire as being a son of gods as if it were some earthen god protecting them and then call them out of the fire by saying 'servants of the Most High God?'

Makes no sense to say it is a son of gods and then recognize that their God was Most High.

Get real.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

actually, it would.

You can still have a "Most High God" if a pagan believes in many gods. It would make sense that there be a "supreme" god, even if there are other "smaller" gods.

I see no evidence that this cannot be the case.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Askjo:
You prefer MVs and reject the KJV.

You are a liar. I teach and preach only from the KJV.

It is you who rejects the KJV. The KJV says that Nebuchadnezzar explains who he saw in the furnace in verse 28. "Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants . . . "

You say the KJV is lying when it says Nebuchadnezzar says he saw an angel. I disagree. The KJV is not lying.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by robycop3:
And it's quite likely that not even Daniel knew God had a Son at that time, let alone a pagan king knowing. The Jews were awaiting their Messiah then, and, while Isaiah called him Immanuel, they didn't know He had always existed as had His Father. And certainly, Neb's knowledge of God was miniscule, and it's VERY unlikely he thought that the Being in the furnace was the real God's son. This is based strictly upon what Scripture says.

To some extent, some expressions may not have been known to Daniel, but let's try to evaluate the situation fairly on this.

1. Daniel mentions "The Anointed( Masiach=Masiah)" in Dan 9:25-6 followed by Kodesh Kodeshim. As you can se in Lev 2:3, 6:17, often Kodesh Kodeshim indicated the shadow of Jesus Christ since He is the only Holy of Holies.

2. I believe Daniel learned about Psalm 110:4 or Psalm 16:10 regarding Holy One who will not suffer the corruption.
Daniel knew about Isaiah 9:6 and 61:1-2 as well.
We know that even the plain people of Essene had quite a good understanding about the Messiah and Melchizedek as the discoveries in Qumran show. They were anticipating the Messiah.

3. Now only the expression "Son of God" might be mentioned only in Proverb 30:4, before Daniel.
This doesn't rule out the possibility that Son of God is known among the prophets.

Jacob confessed that he has seen God face to face after he wrestled with a certain man (Gen 32:30)
Manoah, father of Samson confessed " we shall surely die because we have seen God" ( Judges 13:22)
In other words, there was plenty of knowledge about the Malack (Special Envoy of God) who has the deity, among the true believers even in OT times.

4. Daniel's friends had the faith that God would deliver them out of the furnace, which can hardly be found among the believers of today.(Dan 3:17)

5. It is not a small thing if anyone is cast into the melting furnace but still is alive therein. If anyone is cast into the furnace of US Steel or Bethlehem Steel but still alive there, it will be a big, big news today. Moreover, if it happened as a result of disobeying to the Idol Worship by the true believers in Jesus, it would be a big news and would raise a big issue about the Deity of what they believe.

6. Apparently King Nebu didn't believe about God of Israel, God of Shadrak(Shadrach), Meshak, Abed-Nego,in the beginning but later on he changed his mind
and confessed " The Most High God" ( Dan 3:26)

7. King Nebu mentioned Angel of God, not an angel of gods! in 3:28. It is interesting that he use the term Malach instead of El or Elohim. Again we find that the ancient people were not very much ignorant as we imagine.

8. At the end King Nebu praised God of Sadrach and his friends ( v 28) and said there is no other God who can deliver from such situation.

As we notice "Illay" is used for "the Most High" for God in v 26, which is used in 4:2, 4:17, 24, 5:18, 21, 7:25. Interestingly this word " The Most High " is shared by both Daniel and King Nebu as a Chaldaean Aramaic, meaning the Only, the Most High God.

Therefore it is obvious without any doubt that King Nebuchadnezzar was talking about the Most High God, God of Israel, God of Daniel's friends, neither the gods, nor a god.


Therefore Son of God is the correct translation in Dan 3:25

[ May 08, 2006, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Therefore Son of God is the correct translation in Dan 3:25

I disagree. Remember, that portion of Daniel was originally given in Aramaic, not Hebrew.

The word in question is "bar-elahin." Bar is singular and means "son." Elahin is a masculine plural noun meaning "gods." The singular form is elah or when used with the definite article, elaha. This is where the Arabic word "Allah" comes from. The Hebrew word that means the same as "elahin" is "elohim." Remember, there is one huge difference between Aramaic and Hebrew. In Hebrew the word elohim is the usual word for God, even though elohim is plural. But, when we look at the Aramaic parts of Daniel we see there is a big difference between the use of the plural "elahin" and the singular "elaha." When the true God is referred to the singular "elaha" is always used. The plural "elahin" is used only of false gods. (See "the spirit of the holy gods" in 4:5; 4:6; 5:11; and other passages in Daniel.) The use of the plural "elahin" never occurs in the OT when referring to the One True God.

Also I have to point out that the phrase bar-elahin in Daniel 3:25 does not have the definite article in the Aramaic (if it did it would read "bar-elahayya").

These facts, 1) that elahin is plural, and 2) it has no definite article, show that to understand bar-elahin to mean "the Son of God" (I.E., Jesus Christ) is to over translate the words. The literal English equivalent of "bar-elahin" is "a son of the gods."

Now, I have to say that I believe it was Jesus in that furnace, but you can't use Nebuchadnezzar's words to prove that. Remember Nebuchadnezzar was still a pagan (he had just built an idol of gold and forced everyone to worship it). And, as I pointed out earlier in verse 28 the Nebuchadnezzar calls the fourth person in the furnace an "angel" which tells us that the two terms, "angel" and "a son of the gods" were synonymous terms.

You can't have it both ways! If the KJV means "the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God" in verse 25 then it is wrong in verse 28!

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
You prefer MVs and reject the KJV.

You are a liar. I teach and preach only from the KJV.</font>[/QUOTE]Me, a liar? No! I defend the KJV against the MVS. Wait!! Let's review our posts concerning a son of gods and the Son of God on verse 25.

Look at Eliyahu.

He quoted,

Therefore Son of God is the correct translation in Dan 3:25

TC, I agree with him, but YOU quoted:

I disagree

Now let's look at your quotation here:

I have to say that I believe it was Jesus in that furnace

You contradicted yourself. You believe that this verse 25 refers to a son of gods because Jesus is a son of godS. This is very obvious to show that you prefer MVs over the KJV because most MVs said, "a son of godS" instead of the Son of God in the KJV on this verse 25.