Who did the king see?

[stilllearning]

Geneva: "And he answered, and said, Loe, I see foure men loose, walking in the middes of the fire, and they haue no hurt, and the forme of the fourth is like the sonne of God."

KJV 1611: He answered and said, Loe, I see foure men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they haue no hurt, and the forme of the fourth is like the sonne of God.

Hi jbh28

Thank you very much for this side-by-side comparison of these two Bibles.

Could you please share with me, where you got this quotation from the Geneva, and the date of it's edition?

Thank you

 

[jbh28]

Hi jbh28

Thank you very much for this side-by-side comparison of these two Bibles.

Could you please share with me, where you got this quotation from the Geneva, and the date of it's edition?

Thank you

e-sword. e-sword.net

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Rippon

You said........

“It wasn't removed from most KJV editions until the mid 19th century. So from 1611 until 1850 or so were the people of God not filled with the Spirit of God? Were the KJV revisers not filled with the Spirit of God when they included it and cross-referenced it to the rest of the canon?”

These are interesting questions: But they boil down to only two real questions....
➀ Should the Apocrypha have been in the Bible? (The answer is NO.)
➁ Wouldn’t Spirit filled Christians, have wanted it removed? (The answer is YES!)
--------------------------------------------------
With your questions in mind, I searched for answers, and here is the first site that came up.

Note: Although this is an anti-KJB site, what they had to say was interesting.....
“Although attempts to remove the 14 books known as the Apocrypha from the Bible began immediately after the King James translation was completed they remained in the Bible until the end of the 19th Century.”

http://www.thelostbooks.com/missing.htm

So, although the Apocrypha stayed in the KJB longer than it should have;
Spirit filled believers, were wanting it out....from the very beginning!
--------------------------------------------------
Therefore you asked.......

“Would you say that the real essence of the KJV --the stripped-down model,with the Apocrypha deleted has only been around for 161 years?”

No, I wouldn’t say that.
--------------------------------------------------
You concluded with........

“Why was it removed? Things that are different are not the same. The KJV of today is very different from the KJV's from 1611-1850 or so.
Time to make new charts to demonstrate how many verses have been removed from the modern (since 1850)KJV's.”

You know, I don’t use those charts. Because all the editors of the MV’s have to do, is change some words around in their next edition and it makes a chart look like a lie.

But why do the MV’s remove Acts 8:37?
Was this part of the Apocrypha, or could they have had some other motive?

 

[Fred's Wife]

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

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

But why do the MV’s remove Acts 8:37?
Was this part of the Apocrypha, or could they have had some other motive?

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?

 

[InTheLight]

I appreciate the NET Bible. In the NET notes it says in part : in Aramaic "like that of a son of the gods"...But it should be remembered that those are words spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his own polytheistic frame of reference";for him the phrase "like a son of the gods" is equivalent to "like a divine being."

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.

 

[Amy.G]

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.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

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.

 

[preachinjesus]

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..........

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)

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.

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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.

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.)

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

 

[Rippon]

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?

 

[Rippon]

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."

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.

 

[annsni]

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.

How do you like your new Allan? Hubby has it in the ESV and it's gorgeous!!

Oh and you mean the KJV has a footnote saying exactly what the other versions say? You mean the KJV where the translators said that when there were equal possibilities of a translation of a word, they put both in so as to not cause a conflict saying that one is better than another? Hmm......

 

[Amy.G]

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.

Do you have proof of this?

 

[Amy.G]

How do you like your new Allan? Hubby has it in the ESV and it's gorgeous!!

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

 

[Logos1560]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rippon
Was any English translation before the KJV's as good as the KJVs?



As I have said many times....THEY ALL WERE!

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."

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Logos1560

I will be glad to answer your question.

I didn’t hesitate responding to Rippon in that way, because in comparison to the MV’s, every faithful English Bible from before the KJB(most likely including the 1535 Coverdale), are preferable.

Even the 1611 KJB, with it’s handful of typos, is much better than the MV’s;
Because these mistakes(typos), were simply oversights made in printing and were corrected in future editions.
--------------------------------------------------
While on the other hand, all the deletions and changes made by the MV’s were deliberate;
And are only changed back, if these changes start effecting sales.

As for Coverdale’s wording of Daniel 3:25; That is regrettable.
But it makes me glad, that the KJB came along.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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.

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

 

[stilllearning]

Hello again preachinjesus

Don’t have much time tonight; So I will only respond to a few of your questions.....

I said........

“God’s Word “says what it means and means what it says”; This passage can’t say two things.”

Then you responded with.......

“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.”

I know that you will find this amusing, but here goes.
As for the original language......
“....the fourth is like the Son of God”

“Son” (bar [Aramaic])

Ezra 5:2 "Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel.....”
and
Daniel 7:13
"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him."
------------------------
“God” (hla ‘elahh [Aramaic])

Ezra 5:1
"........prophesied unto the Jews that [were] in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, [even] unto them."
and
Daniel 2:23
"I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might........"

This is good enough for me.
--------------------------------------------------
You also responded to my statement.........

“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.)”

Then you responded.........

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

This was truly an unfortunate misunderstanding; My second line was simply added, but did not pertain to the first line.

That is, I felt justified taking a swipe at the MV’s because if there audacity, in changing “Scripture” willy-nilly.

And although the second line, should not have been placed it here, in my response.
It is very true and needed to be stated.

Oh, by the way; All through this thread and all over this site, the KJB, is dragged through the streets and badmouthed in a disrespectful way; and nothing is ever said about it by me or anyone else here. (It can fin for itself)

But the slight swipe that I just made against the MV’s(not even naming any particular version); Will get me a slap on the wrist an will most likely get this thread shut down.

This kind of reminds me of what Joash said........
Judges 6:30-31
V.30 Then the men of the city said unto Joash, Bring out thy son, that he may die: because he hath cast down the altar of Baal, and because he hath cut down the grove that [was] by it.
V.31 And Joash said unto all that stood against him, Will ye plead for Baal? will ye save him? he that will plead for him, let him be put to death whilst [it is yet] morning: if he [be] a god, let him plead for himself, because [one] hath cast down his altar.

Do the mighty MV’s really need all this protection?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Oh, by the way; All through this thread and all over this site, the KJB, is dragged through the streets and badmouthed in a disrespectful way; and nothing is ever said about it by me or anyone else here. (It can fin for itself)

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.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

-
While on the other hand, all the deletions and changes made by the MV’s were deliberate;
And are only changed back, if these changes start effecting sales.

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