Who did the king see?

[preachinjesus]

Hello preachinjesus

Hello

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”.

Forgive the forgetfulness, I often struggle remembering what books are in Hebrew or Aramaic. Greek is more a specialized language. That said just because something is Aramaic doesn't not make it application in Hebrew. If you were to look at an Aramaic text next to a Hebrew text you'd never know the difference. Anyhoo....

Here it is in the original... דָּמֵה לְבַר־אֱלָהִֽין׃

The Hebrew and Aramaic type font here is difficult. For a better reference see http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B27C003.htm#V25

The actual transliteration is damah lebaur-'aelahiyn (well something like that the transliteration characters don't work BB code.) The second part is more important.

The term here אלהין isn't the precise word for God used in Daniel. Notice the nun at the end of the word. If it was the actual word for God elsewhere. This uses the nun and in this usage there is a cultic, or pagan notion. The more contemporary translations are a bit better I think. They recognize the nuance being used.

Also, the adjectival modifier is more signficant than you're giving it credit for here. That first word damah is the modifier and changes the whole concept of what the author is describing.

There are no “theological and exegetical challenges” in this passage;The only problem some people have, is “believing it”!

The history of interpretation since the earliest days of the church show us there is a theological and exegetical challenge here. It is a diversely understood passage in the history of the church and by many outstanding theologians who you would credit as reasonable and wise.

Notice how the Vulgate, translated by Jerome, puts this key part of the verse: et species quarti similis filio Dei. Ah! Now that's interesting. He says something similar to the King James. Ironically, others, contemporary to Jerome, would say it says something different.

Simply stated, there's a lot to be intrigued with in the passage. Personally I don't accept Christophanies in the Old Testament. There is an incarnational issue there but nevertheless. This decision was made after much prayer and study. I've translated all the passages and read a stack of books on the issue. It isn't clear cut.

Now if there was an instance of a Christophany that I am more apt to accept it is this instance. Given the textual diversity of the options this one seems more likely to be an actual Christophany.

That said, there is zero reason for you to take swipes at other translations over this. IMHO, the King James mistranslates the terminology. It isn't grievous nor does it create error in the text. It simply could be said more clearly. That doesn't make me want to use the KJV less in my study.

Thanks! :thumbs:

 

[stilllearning]

Hi preachinjesus

And thank you for your civil and very informative response.
(Although we look at things quite differently.)

You said.........

“The term here ????? isn't the precise word for God used in Daniel. Notice the nun at the end of the word..............The more contemporary translations are a bit better I think. They recognize the nuance being used.”

This is the first area where we aren’t on the same page;
I am a big fan of the “nuances” of understanding the Bible; but I will not accept someone else defining them for me..........
1 Timothy 2:5
“For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”

Others may like the MV’s telling us what “they think” God meant to say, but I don’t.
--------------------------------------------------
Also you said.......

“Notice how the Vulgate, translated by Jerome, puts this key part of the verse: et species quarti similis filio Dei. Ah! Now that's interesting. He says something similar to the King James. Ironically, others, contemporary to Jerome, would say it says something different.”

This is an interesting observation, because God’s Word “says what it means and means what it says”; This passage can’t say two things.
(So “we” have to decided who’s opinion to believe.)

I just refuse to do that!
I am going to trust the Holy Spirit(God within me), to reveal the truth to me.
(Nobody else has to accept it, but I do.)
--------------------------------------------------
You continued.........

“Personally I don't accept Christophanies in the Old Testament. There is an incarnational issue there but nevertheless. This decision was made after much prayer and study. I've translated all the passages and read a stack of books on the issue. It isn't clear cut.”

This is very hard to believe: But the longer I am on the internet, the more I keep finding people(Christians), with truly unusual ideas.

The idea of “Christophanies in the Old Testament”(as you put it), seems almost a requirement in light of John 1:18............
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].”

Of course I have not read a stack of books on the subject(I would never do that), because those books would only be giving me man’s opinions;
And the Bible tells us, that Christians do not need man’s opinions........
1 John 2:27
“But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”

My experience with professing Christians, who reject Old Testament appearances of Christ, has ended up being simply a refusal to believe(for example), that Jacob actually wrestled with the Lord.

I have no problem believing this, but others do.
--------------------------------------------------
Finally you said........

“That said, there is zero reason for you to take swipes at other translations over this. IMHO, the King James mistranslates the terminology. It isn't grievous nor does it create error in the text. It simply could be said more clearly. That doesn't make me want to use the KJV less in my study.”

You are right; I did take a swipe at the MV’s in my OP, but I feel justified in doing so.
(I see swipes at the KJB all the time here and nothing is said about it.)

It’s nice that you use the KJB in your study; But I wish you would just pick a version and use it; (Recognizing “it”, as God’s preserved Word.)
The whole idea of using more than one English translation, can’t help but take a toll on your faith.
Daniel 3:25 is a good example; You study in the KJB and you also study from MV’s, that clearly say something else in this verse.
The more anybody does that, the less “faith” they will have that God has perfectly preserved His Word for them.

Which brings me to my concluding point.
The KJB is over 400 years old. And it was actually an update of the versions that preceded it. Therefore we have an English Bible, that for almost 500 years, records this king saying that he saw “The Son of God”.
This is significant to me.

I believe this to be, the greatest reason to exclusively use the KJB for study and ministry to English speaking people. 500 years is a long time for God’s Spirit filled people, to put this translation to the test.

And the things that were happening in & to the Church during those years, is also significant. Most of the Christians I know, call that period of time, the “Philadelphian age”; (From about 1500 to 1800.) And those same Christians call the time we are now living in, the “Laodicean age”(The last 100 to 150 years).

 

[Rippon]

God’s Word “says what it means and means what it says”

You are putting your faith in a particular translation when you say God's Word "says what it means and means what it says." But isn't the line :"Says what it says and means what it says."?

The KJV,manmade,as all translations are, is by very definition fallible. Therefore what it says on occasion isn't necessarily what the ancient autographs said or meant.

Of course I have not read a stack of books on the subject(I would never do that), because those books would only be giving me man’s opinions;
And the Bible tells us, that Christians do not need man’s opinions........

You would never do that. Why would you want to be informed when you know what you know and no one can change your mind.

What do you think of godly preachers who proclaim the truths of God. Are they just giving the opinions of men?

Don't you read any Christian books?

But I wish you would just pick a version and use it

The whole idea of using more than one English translation, can’t help but take a toll on your faith.

The more anybody does that, the less “faith” they will have that God has perfectly preserved His Word for them.

Your ideas run counter to the KJV revisers. Miles Smith spoke for them in his Preface. He said,in so many words,that it was good to have a diversity of translations at hand. It was beneficial.

Which brings me to my concluding point.
The KJB is over 400 years old.

Wow. That really nails your case.

 

[humblethinker]

I'm not sure how or when it is profitable to talk with dogmatic KJVO/TRO people but I think it is important to provide a reasonable rebuttle for those who are not beyond their ability of changing their thinking. I can't help but think that If someone had really tried to show me how I was wrong about my exclusivity about the KJVO/TRO issue and my unwarranted divisiveness then I think I could have been convinced.

May I offer up some of what helped me reject the incorrect beliefs of KJVO/TRO:



From what I've read I would agree with the statement: "This book is by far the best resource on the subject of KJV-onlyism I've ever seen! With a bibliography of over 1,000 sources, including over 100 books and pamphlets by KJV-only authors, Norris has put together an exhaustive reference that will be an extremely valuable addition to the library of anyone studying or struggling with the issue of KJV-onlyism."

These sites as well:
http://www.kjv-only.com/
http://www.kjvonly.org

Kutilek's work is from the perspective "of an independent Baptist of fundamentalist theological persuasion" of which I was/am one as well.

If someone is interested I would buy the book and have it drop-shipped to them if money is an issue. Just send me a private message via BB.

I don't mind anyone preferring the KJV but to promote this unwarranted divisive issue that would separate or keep others from fully participating in the full fellowship and ministry of their local church is, at best, ignorance.

 

[JesusFan]

I'm not sure how or when it is profitable to talk with dogmatic KJVO/TRO people but I think it is important to provide a reasonable rebuttle for those who are not beyond their ability of changing their thinking. I can't help but think that If someone had really tried to show me how I was wrong about my exclusivity about the KJVO/TRO issue and my unwarranted divisiveness then I think I could have been convinced.

May I offer up some of what helped me reject the incorrect beliefs of KJVO/TRO:



From what I've read I would agree with the statement: "This book is by far the best resource on the subject of KJV-onlyism I've ever seen! With a bibliography of over 1,000 sources, including over 100 books and pamphlets by KJV-only authors, Norris has put together an exhaustive reference that will be an extremely valuable addition to the library of anyone studying or struggling with the issue of KJV-onlyism."

These sites as well:
http://www.kjv-only.com/
http://www.kjvonly.org

Kutilek's work is from the perspective "of an independent Baptist of fundamentalist theological persuasion" of which I was/am one as well.

If someone is interested I would buy the book and have it drop-shipped to them if money is an issue. Just send me a private message via BB.

I don't mind anyone preferring the KJV but to promote this unwarranted divisive issue that would separate or keep others from fully participating in the full fellowship and ministry of their local church is, at best, ignorance.

no problem with KJV preferred by someone

KJV ONLY though, just not a viable option based on ALL evidence!

 

[rbell]

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

Stop being silly.

Perhaps taking your own advice in this case would be a good idea.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Rippon

You said..........

“You are putting your faith in a particular translation......”

You are absolutely right!
The Bible, is the ONLY THING any of us have, to put our faith in.

I have heard some say.... “My faith is in Jesus”:
But which “Jesus” are they talking about?
The Jesus of the Bible, or some other Jesus?

If you have any faith, it will be in the Bible!
If it’s not in the Bible, than it’s not really “saving faith” at all!
--------------------------------------------------
You also said........

“You would never do that. Why would you want to be informed when you know what you know and no one can change your mind.
What do you think of godly preachers who proclaim the truths of God. Are they just giving the opinions of men? Don't you read any Christian books?”

You totally ignored the Scripture reference I supplied with my statement:
[Personal attack edited]

As for “Preachers proclaiming the truths of God”, this is totally different from “books”, that “teach” someone’s opinion.

And the Bible prophesied of this “trend”, to get away from God’s Word(and the preaching of God’s Word), and turning instead to “man teachings”......
2 Timothy 4:2-4
V.2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
V.3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
V.4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

And no....I do not read hardly any “Christian Books”: (I have read Pilgrim’s progress
But from what I have been reading on the internet over the last 3 or 4 years, I am even less likely to pick up a(so-called), Christian Book now.

Over and over again, I have read how professing Christians have been deceived into swallowing some lie(like Preterism etc.), simply because they have read some book about it.
And I can’t tell you how many times, I have heard “testimonies”, of people who have been “delivered” from the evils of “a Bible believing Church” etc. Because of some book that they had read.
--------------------------------------------------
Finally; You cut my last point off, in an attempt rob it of any significance, but you didn’t!

It is significant, that God’s Spirit filled people “BELIEVED”, that the English Bible was God’s Word for almost 500 years!

It is obvious from the quote in 2Timothy 4:2-4, that one of the Churches biggest problems as the Lord’s return draws neigh, will be turning away from the authority of God’s preserved Word.

And God’s prophecy has come to pass.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello humblethinker

Even though you have accused me of being divisive & ignorant, I still wanted to respond to your post.
Because you are a “case in point”!

At one time, you exclusively used the KJB. Now if indeed you were divisive about it, than that was a problem that some Spiritual growth would have taken care of.

But you found a book and read it.......
And this man in his book, convinced you that the KJB was not God’s preserved Word!
--------------------------------------------------
Now, you no longer exclusively use the KJB, but you are still divisive, toward anyone who might point out your mistake in this area.

 

[DHK]

But you found a book and read it.......
And this man in his book, convinced you that the KJB was not God’s preserved Word!
--------------------------------------------------
Now, you no longer exclusively use the KJB, but you are still divisive, toward anyone who might point out your mistake in this area.

1.Where is God's preserved word today, and how do you know? Do you have any objective evidence?
2. I am a missionary. In the nation I go to there is only one translation of the Bible. It was done from the Critical Text and is similar to the ASV. Do you consider it the Word of God, or shall I tell these dear people that they don't have the word of God; they need to learn Elizabethan English before they can have the Word of God.
BTW the nation has an illiteracy rate of over 80%. They cannot even read or write in their own language much less an out-dated English language.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello DHK and thank you for “this response”

You asked........

“Where is God's preserved word today,”

The same place that it has always been, since Moses came down from the mountain.
God’s plan has always been, for His people to have His Word.
But I am sure that you are talking about right now.

The root of God Word that is preserved today, is in the faithful and accurate copes we have of the original autographs.
We can talk about which Greek manuscripts are faithful and accurate later, but that is the first answer to your question.

Now the second answer has to do we me(an English speaking Christian) and for me, God’s preserved Word is in the Bible that I hold in my hand.
(You will notice, that I didn’t mention which English version I am talking about
I did that on purpose, because that is not important.

Those(like me), who believe in once set of faithful and accurate copes, look to one particular version as God’s preserved Word.
While others, who believe in another set of faithful and accurate copes, “SHOULD”, look to another English version as God’s preserved Word. “THIS IS THE PROBLEM BEING ADDRESSED!”
--------------------------------------------------
You also asked.........

“and how do you know? Do you have any objective evidence?”

I assume you are talking about my choice of a particular English version.(The KJB)
In reality this issue isn’t over the KJB at all!
The real issue now, is over something called “ONLYISM”:
And the people who are against onlyism, don’t care if you “only use” the KJB or the ESV or the NASB; All they are against, is ANYBODY believing that the Bible that they hold in their hands, is God’s preserved Word.
They just don’t want anybody believing in an actual book, that is God’s preserved Word, in any language or version!
This is how far, this argument has degenerated.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you asked.........

“I am a missionary. In the nation I go to there is only one translation of the Bible. It was done from the Critical Text and is similar to the ASV. Do you consider it the Word of God, or shall I tell these dear people that they don't have the word of God; they need to learn Elizabethan English before they can have the Word of God.”

First praise the Lord that you are being obedient to the Lord, in your service for Him.

Of course you shouldn’t tear down God’s Word to the people you minister to.
The KJB controversy, does not exist in places, where English isn’t spoken!

They just need to be “grounded” in the word that they have.
As strange as it may seem, the people in that nation, have a greater potential to live for the Lord and put Him first, than anyone in the USA, because they only have “one” Bible in their language!

In that Nation, “the Bible” is “the Bible”!
--------------------------------------------------
You concluded with.........

“BTW the nation has an illiteracy rate of over 80%. They cannot even read or write in their own language much less an out-dated English language.”

As I said before, the KJB is a non-issue in that nation.
As God leads and gives you the ability, you need to teach every new Christian how to read that precious Bible that God has provided them in that nation.

 

[Rippon]

In reality this issue isn’t over the KJB at all!

Hmmm...

They just need to be “grounded” in the word that they have.

Even though their translation is not based on the TR?

As strange as it may seem, the people in that nation, have a greater potential to live for the Lord and put Him first, than anyone in the USA, because they only have “one” Bible in their language!

Huh? Having a single translation in a given language causes them to grow in the Lord better than those who have access to several translations?

Again,as I have said before...Do you disagree with Miles Smith (speaking for the revision team)in his Preface to the 1611 when he said having a diversity of translations was a good thing?

 

[DHK]

As I said before, the KJB is a non-issue in that nation.
As God leads and gives you the ability, you need to teach every new Christian how to read that precious Bible that God has provided them in that nation.

If the KJB is a non-issue in those nations where the textus receptus is non-existent, then the KJB is a non-issue here. It really is. It is only an issue because a small minority of people are making it an issue. Instead of majoring on major things they are majoring on minors and minoring on majors.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

As strange as it may seem, the people in that nation, have a greater potential to live for the Lord and put Him first, than anyone in the USA, because they only have “one” Bible in their language!

In that Nation, “the Bible” is “the Bible”!

So it is better to have one translation in the Westcott/Hort Critical Text than two translations in the same language from the TR?

For example if all we had were the KJV and Geneva Bible we would have less a chance to live for the Lord than people who only had one translation from the CT?

 

[JesusFan]

So it is better to have one translation in the Westcott/Hort Critical Text than two translations in the same language from the TR?

For example if all we had were the KJV and Geneva Bible we would have less a chance to live for the Lord than people who only had one translation from the CT?

Just curious, if one holds to JUST a single version, what if all KJV were burned away today? Any word of God left still on earth?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Whether it is translated 'like the Son of God' or 'like a son of the gods' it is obvious that the king was impressed with the divine appearance of the 4th man. That is the issue at hand.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello C4K

You asked...........

“So it is better to have one translation in the Westcott/Hort Critical Text than two translations in the same language from the TR?
For example if all we had were the KJV and Geneva Bible we would have less a chance to live for the Lord than people who only had one translation from the CT?”

This is a trick question, but I will play along....

The KJB & the Geneva Bible, are basically the same Bible;
Therefore your question is meaningless.
--------------------------------------------------
But.......what if all of a sudden, the only English Bible left on Earth, were an NIV??
I would gladly use the NIV!
(And this could happen.)

What if I were arrested for preaching the truth; and in prison the only Bible I was allowed to use was an NIV.

I would praise the Lord for it and use it as much as I do my KJB!

 

[stilllearning]

Hi DHK

You said........

“If the KJB is a non-issue in those nations where the textus receptus is non-existent, then the KJB is a non-issue here. It really is. It is only an issue because a small minority of people are making it an issue. Instead of majoring on major things they are majoring on minors and minoring on majors.”

Your catching on.

The dirty little secret about the KJB issue, is that it’s not about the KJB at all.
It is about God’s Word.

I don’t care if people use the KJB or the NIV or the NASB, etc.
All I “care about”, is that people use “only one English Bible”.

Now, the reason that “I care”, is because I love my brothers and sisters in Christ and want them to fully trust God’s Word.
And I know that comparing two or more Bible’s in your Bible study, eats away at your faith in God’s preserved word.

Therefore the Christians in the nation God has sent you to, are much better off than Christians here in the USA.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I don’t care if people use the KJB or the NIV or the NASB, etc.
All I “care about”, is that people use “only one English Bible”.

Why? I use the KJV, the NIV, the Living Bible, the Amplified Bible, and a couple of others.

 

[Rippon]

I don’t care if people use the KJB or the NIV or the NASB, etc.
All I “care about”, is that people use “only one English Bible”.

But the KJV revisers disagreed with your premise.

And I know that comparing two or more Bible’s in your Bible study, eats away at your faith in God’s preserved word.

You and B4L keep saying that completely foolish thing. Where do you get such a silly notion (aside from other posters on the BB)?

How can it be wrong to compare? One version may accentuate a nuance that that another translation is lacking in a particular passage. The comparison process may lead you into a deeper understanding of the Word of God.

Go ahead and try it sometime --your faith will not be hurt but enhanced.

Can't you see that stilllearning?

 

[annsni]

So if I say that the ESV is the only Bible I will use and stand on it as the Word of God, it is? Then you have the KJV as the Word of God and I have the ESV as the Word of God and all is good. The issue for you is if I say that both the ESV and the KJV are the Word of God?