Who was it, do you think, that Saved Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the Fiery Furnace?

[Alan Gross]

Who was it that Saved Shadrach, Meshach,
and Abednego from the Fiery Furnace?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Turn to Daniel 3:25.

In that verse, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego
have been thrown into the fiery furnace.

However, they are NOT alone!, right?

Another one (a fourth) is in there!

Who, or What, do you think Daniel 3:25 says it is, anyway?

 

[Logos1560]

The fact that some English Bibles may translate it as "a son of the gods" or "a son of god" does not suggest, mean, or prove that they differ necessarily in their understanding of whom the fourth man is. The difference may be that they try to avoid putting into the mind and mouth of a pagan king Nebuchadnezzar whom the translators themselves understand it to be. Perhaps they also take Daniel 3:28 into consideration when considering what Nebuchadnezzar meant. They are trying to present accurately what they think a pagan king Nebuchadnezzar himself stated.

Perhaps some seem to try to invent a strawman misrepresentation of what the translators intend in order to accuse them of error.

Daniel 3:25 in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, which is one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision.

He answered and said: lo, for all that, yet do I see four men going loose in the midst of the fire, and nothing corrupt: and the fourth is like an angel to look upon.

The 1535 Coverdale's Bible's rendering agrees with Daniel 3:28 where Nebuchadnezzar says that God hath sent "his angel".

The original 1611 edition of the KJV has "like the sonne of God" as it does not have Son capitalized.

Do critics of Daniel 3:25 in present English Bibles skip over how the KJV itself notes that in verse 28 that Nebuchadnezzar said that God "hath sent his angel" suggesting that the pagan king did not understand and know who it actually was?

 

[Alan Gross]

They are trying to present accurately

Did you think God wrote the Bible
according to the belief systems of the people mentioned therein
or did He write the Bible according to His Own Wisdom?

And, maybe even in a way
that would ADMONISH US IN OUR WORSHIPPING OF HIM??

I ask that for educational purposes only and assuming, of course,
that "you would allow the God you know"
to write the Bible according to His Own Wisdom, in the first place,

Once we get into the text, we will see that the King James Bible
has rendered the words "Son" and “God”, properly.

"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" (as Grammatical possibilities)
and the usage is determined by the context (a Contextual possibility.)

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."

Daniel 3:25; "He answered and said,
Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire,
and they have no hurt;
and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

Since we see here that the words "like the Son of God"
are used as a Christophany, The King James Translators
naturally capitalized "Son", in respect to the Lord Jesus Christ.

The fourth man appearing in the furnace in Daniel 3
is thought to be the Son of God by many Christians,
even by those reading the chapter for the first time.

So, although "the form of the fourth" “man”
is never directly called God, Yahweh, or the Angel of Yahweh,
this account is best understood as describing a Christophany.

I HAPPEN TO APPRECIATE SEEING EVIDENCE OF THERE BEING
A Direct Association, between The Bible and The Worship of Jesus.

Does that make sense to you, that I would feel like that to own
an intelligibly and perspicuously written Bible that makes
a consistent effort in helping God's children understand almost all
of the opportunities that they have to do The Will of God
by Enabling them more easily, to be Acceptably Worshipping God.

Jesus certainly did God's Will.

"Then said I, Lo, I Come
(in the volume of the Book it is written of Me,)
to do Thy will, O God." Hebrews 10:7.

So, I actually do believe that:
The Book Authored by God intended for us to learn to Worship Him,
is entirely appropriate in having The Lord God Jesus Christ
properly identified, as well as Jesus' Name, "Son", to be capitalized,
in respect for His Deity, as we see that the Translators
of The King James Version have done,
along with so many other dozens of Bible Publications,

because The Bible teaches us that
GOD THE SON, JESUS CHRIST, IS THE OBJECT OF OUR WORSHIP.
...

I couldn't find an answer to the O.P., or a positive statement of any kind,
by anyone, or anything meeting what we learn from comparable passages:
and using an Equal Standard of God's Command in Worshipping Him,
i.e., Hebrews 12:28; "let us give thanks, by which we offer to God
an Acceptable Worship with Reverence and Awe;"
29 "for indeed our God is a Consuming Fire."
...

"When you pass through the waters, I will be with you;
and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you;
when you walk through fire you shall not be burned,
and the flame shall not consume you," from Isaiah 43:2,

"Now was fulfilled in the letter
that Great Promise, of Isaiah 43:2, above.

That kind of Promise that is made by God is called, "Prophecy".

"When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned
and the flame shall not consume you."

"Leaving it to that God Who Preserved them in the fire,
to bring them out, they walked up and down in the midst,
Supported and Encouraged by The Presence of the Son of God."

"Those who suffer for Christ, have His Presence in their sufferings,
even in "The Fiery Furnace", and in The Valley of the Shadow of Death. Nebuchadnezzar owns them for servants of The Most High God;

"a God able to Deliver them out of his (Nebuchadnezzar) hand.

"It is our God Only is the Consuming Fire", Hebrews 12:29;

28; "Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken,
let us give thanks, by which we offer to God an Acceptable Worship
with Reverence and Awe;

29 "for indeed our God is a Consuming Fire."
...

There is a figure applied here in Works of Jonathon Edwards, Vol II.

Dan. iii. 25. “And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”

"Christ Redeems from the furnace, by coming into it Himself;
so He Redeems from Wrath by Enduring it Himself."
...

 

[Alan Gross]

understand it to be

John Gill on Daniel 3:25; "...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 Jesus,...

"and it is Jesus,
since it was not unusual for Jesus 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; see ( Isaiah 43:2, at top)

"Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver;
I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction." (Isaiah 48:10 )
...

"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, I REPEAT, they knew that this was a Christophany
which was a pre-Bethlehem Appearance of Christ.

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

WHICH IS CALLED??? = WORSHIPPING GOD,
WHEN THEY WERE TRANSLATING
GOD'S VERY OWN WORDS IN HIS BIBLE.
...

"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,
in Psalm 2, in verses 7 and 12.

"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."

"Again, 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.

Then, "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 the word "God", 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."

from: Daniel 3:25

 

[tyndale1946]

John Gill on Daniel 3:25; "...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 Jesus,...

"and it is Jesus,
since it was not unusual for Jesus 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; see ( Isaiah 43:2, at top)

"Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver;
I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction." (Isaiah 48:10 )
...

"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, I REPEAT, they knew that this was a Christophany
which was a pre-Bethlehem Appearance of Christ.

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

WHICH IS CALLED??? = WORSHIPPING GOD,
WHEN THEY WERE TRANSLATING
GOD'S VERY OWN WORDS IN HIS BIBLE.
...

"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,
in Psalm 2, in verses 7 and 12.

"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."

"Again, 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.

Then, "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 the word "God", 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."

from: Daniel 3:25

The same one that saves us from our fiery furnace, what is that called in the Old Testament a Christophany... I would say there is one in every book of the OT... Open up your eyes child of God and look... I heard one preacher back in day call the Bible!... Gods Family Album... Brother Glen

 

[Alan Gross]

The same one that saves us from our fiery furnace, what is that called in the Old Testament a Christophany... I would say there is one in every book of the OT... Open up your eyes child of God and look... I heard one preacher back in day call the Bible!... Gods Family Album... Brother Glen

Wow, I'll have to start saying that, too!!!! Thanks!!!

 

[tyndale1946]

Wow, I'll have to start saying that, too!!!! Thanks!!!

I'm just passing it forward... Praise God!... Brother Glen

 

[Alan Gross]

Do critics of Daniel 3:25 in present English Bibles skip over how the KJV itself notes that in verse 28 that Nebuchadnezzar said that God "hath sent his angel" suggesting that the pagan king did not understand and know who it actually was?

I could care less about any "present English Bibles",
so I don't know what you are talking about there.

I want something in a Bible that people with a Salvation Testimony handled,
who then, even gave acknowledgement to their awareness that God Exists,
when they undertook the effort to articulate God's Love Letter,
as an expression of their Worship to God and for Worshipping God.

That way, I am going to feel pretty comfortable that I can be sure
that they are still going to contain God Honoring teachings included in there
like the Statements of Historical Fact as to Who The Angel of The Covenant,
is, being, "The Divine Messenger of the Eternal Covenant of Grace",
Who herein Daniel 3 had given us that prelude to His Incarnation,

so I don't wind up wasting my entire life on some book
that was treated like any other book, and by a translation committee
who just did not have the intellectual rigor of the KJB translators, to be fair.

Let's face it.

If I was you, I would be more concerned about how they are written to be
practically always exactly identical to The New World Translation,
for some reason, if that's what you are saying that you are so scared of.

Or, if you're not, then you never will be.

"He said: “Look! I see four men walking about free
in the midst of the fire, and they are unharmed,
and the fourth one looks like a son of the gods.”

 

[Logos1560]

I want something in a Bible that people with a Salvation Testimony handled,”

Are you suggesting that you can provide a clear salvation testimony for each and every Church of England maker of the KJV?

Does the fact that all the makers of the KJV accepted the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration suggest that they would all have a clear, scriptural salvation testimony?

In one sermon in 1615, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes referred to Christ’s baptism as “Christ’s christening” (Chapman, Before the King’s, p. 53). Marianne Dorman commented: “For Andrewes, the only way to become a Christian is through the sacrament of Baptism” (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 127). In a sermon, Lancelot Andrewes asserted: “By Him we are regenerate at the first in our baptism” (Ninety-Six Sermons, Vol. III, p. 191). Lancelot Andrewes wrote: “For the sign of the cross we are no enemies to it, we use it in Baptism” (Two Answers, p. 32). Robert Ottley noted that Andrewes considered the Eucharist "both as a sacrament and as a sacrifice" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 204). In his Brief Answer to the XVIII Chapter of the first book of Cardinal Perron’s Reply, Lancelot Andrewes wrote: “The Eucharist ever was, and by us is considered, both as a Sacrament, and as a Sacrifice” (Two Answers, p. 19). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation observed that Andrewes taught that "the means of grace are the sacraments" (I, p. 42). Raymond Chapman referred to the “sacramentalism” of Andrewes (Before the King’s, p. 11). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church pointed out that Andrewes "held a high doctrine of the Eucharist, emphasizing that in the sacrament we receive the true body and blood of Christ and constantly using sacrificial language of the rite" (p. 61). Dorman maintained that “for Andrewes, to receive Christ’s body at the Eucharist is the most wonderful and important thing that we do during our earthly pilgrimage” (Andrewes, p. 2). Trevor Owen also noted that Andrewes in his book Responsio declared that his church regarded the Eucharist as a sacrifice (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 35). Diarmaid MacCulloch described Andrewes as a ceremonialist and sacramentalist (Boy King, p. 213). Lancelot Andrewes wrote: “We hold good works necessary to Salvation; and that faith without them saveth not” (Two Answers, p. 29).

 

[Logos1560]

"If you notice in verse 25, it is capitalized as “Son.”

It was already clearly pointed out that son at Daniel 3:25 is not capitalized in the 1611 edition of the KJV. It is also not capitalized in the standard 1629 Cambridge edition and in the standard 1638 Cambridge edition plus in several more editions of the KJV.

Daniel 3:25

son of God (1675, 1681, 1720, 1737, 1758, 1774, 1784, 1788 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1761, 1768, 1783 Cambridge] {1611, 1640, 1657, 1698, 1703, 1706, 1730, 1741, 1795, 1827, 1828 London} (1638, 1715, 1735, 1751, 1760, 1766, 1769, 1791, 1793 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (1799 Helston) (1802 Carey) (1804 MH) (1809 Boston) (1843 AFBS) (1853, 1854, 1855, 1858 ABS) (CB)

 

[Alan Gross]

So, I actually do believe that:
The Book Authored by God intended for us to learn to Worship Him,
is entirely appropriate in having The Lord God Jesus Christ
properly identified, as well as Jesus' Name, "Son", to be capitalized,
in respect for His Deity, as we see that:

The Translators of The King James Version have done,
along with so many other dozens of Bible Publications,

because The Bible teaches us that
GOD THE SON, JESUS CHRIST, IS THE OBJECT OF OUR WORSHIP.

Adapted from: Daniel 3:25; "the Son of God" or "a son of the gods"?

Like: "The Translators of The King James Version have done,
along with so many other dozens of Bible Publications,"

We can find: "THE FORTH IS LIKE THE SON OF GOD," if we look.

Without even going into the original languages,
or Bible Commentaries,
this common sense Bible believer
posted this simple and logical explanation -

"Look at a verse previous to Daniel 3:25, which is Daniel 2:47;
“The king answered unto Daniel, and said,
Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings,
and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.”

They said,

"It seems king Nebuchadnezzar learned a lesson at this point
and when another Miracle took place,
in the deliverance from the fiery furnace,

that he recognized the power of Almighty God,
and said in Daniel 3:25 ...
"Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire,
and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth
is like the Son of God."

That is believable enough.

That is a lot more believable than reading on the Internet,
"the King James is the only Version that has,
"the fourth is like the Son of God" (???)

Well, let's see about that, shall we?

"And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God"
is the reading of Wycliffe Bible 1395 -

"the fourthe is lijk the sone of God.", the Great Bible 1540,
the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 -

"the forme of the fourth is like the sonne of God.", the Douay-Rheims of 1610 -

"and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.", The King James Bible 1611,
The Bill Bible 1671, Webster's translation 1833, the Brenton Translation 1851,
the Calvin Bible of 1855, the Julia Smith Translation 1855,
The Smith Bible 1876, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 -

"the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD", the Douay of 1950,
The Word of Yah 1993, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta -

"the fourth is like that of the Son of God.", The Word of Yah Bible 1993,
the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the NKJV of 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998 -

"the fourth is like THE SON OF ELAH", the 2009 Bond Slave Version,
the Asser Septuagint 2009 -

"the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD", is also the reading
of The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Complete Apostle's Bible 2005,
The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible -

"and the form of the fourth is like the Bar Elohin" (Ben Elohim, Hebrew),
the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 -

"the form of the fourth is like the Son of God", Conservative Bible 2011,
The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011,
The New Brenton Translation 2012, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2012 -

“the form of the fourth is like the Bar-Elahin”, the Jubilee Bible 2010,
The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible -

"the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD",
and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 -

This online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament -
"the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."
http://studybible.info/IHOT/Daniel 3:25

Jewish Virtual Library The Tanakh [Full Text] 1998
“and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/daniel-chapter-3

It is even the reading found in the so called Greek Septuagint copy
which is translated as "the fourth is like the Son of God."

Even the so called Greek Septuagint stands with the KJB in its translation.
You can see it online here -
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Daniel/index.htm

Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "
and the form of the fourth is like the Bar-Elahin."

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.",

the Check BKR Bible - "jest synu Božímu.",

the Lithuanian Bible - "kaip Dievo sūnus!”,

the Russian Synodal Version -"подобен сыну Божию.",

the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bbile - "ca a Fiului lui Dumnezeu. "

and the Modern Greek Bible -"ου τεταρτου ειναι ομοια με Υιον Θεου."

Then, we had the older Catholic translations like the 1610 Douay-Rheims
as well as the 1950 Douay read like the King James Bible -
"and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

Then, finally after the Catholic translations, the NKJV 1982 also reads:
"the fourth is like the Son of God"
but then it 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, (TO "DELIVER" THEM??)

So, what is a reader supposed to do, when they read
something like that in the NKJV footnotes,
or even when they find those kinds of lies in the text, or in other versions?

Are they just supposed to look at that footnote, or verse,
and realize that it can not be telling them something that is true

and then they know that is also certainly
Not The Kind of Thing That Can be of Any Use to them
in their Serving and Worshipping of God?

You tell me.

That is an awfully hard negative to end on, but that just seems to be
all that happens any time you try to bring them up
and look at what they are doing a little bit.

It all goes real negative real quick in my experience.

They're not worth fooling with for one second longer, to me.

I can't Worship God by just constantly allowing myself to be lied to.

And it's not like they bothered to proofread anything for errors, obviously.

 

[Logos1560]

I can't Worship God by just constantly allowing myself to be lied to.

You fail to prove your accusations to be true. Perhaps you try to misrepresent other English Bible translations. There is nothing wrong with the NKJV giving footnotes or marginal notes.

In the 1611 preface, this is stated: “doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.”

The 1611 preface also noted that “diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

According to the large number of marginal notes in the 1611 edition, its makers must have found many places where they considered the text not to be so clear in its meaning. The makers of the KJV gave many more word-for-word, literal renderings in their marginal notes, and they also offered many acceptable, alternative renderings. In some marginal notes, they provided examples of where they gave no English word/rendering for an original-language word of Scripture in their underlying texts. These marginal notes clearly contradict any suggestion that all their translation decisions should be considered certain and unquestionable. The marginal notes could also raise doubt concerning some of their textual criticism decisions. The 1611 preface noted: “They that are wise, had rather have their judgment at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.”

KJV defender Laurence Vance cited the report to the Synod of Dort about the translating of the KJV as stating: “where a Hebrew or Greek word admits two meanings of a suitable kind, the one was to be expressed in the text, the other in the margin. The same to be done where a different reading was found in good copies” (King James, His Bible, p. 47).

 

[Logos1560]

I could care less about any "present English Bibles",

Are you claiming that the word of God cannot be presented accurately in present-day standard English just as well as in 1500's or 1610 English?

 

[Alan Gross]

presented accurately

The Word of God can be presented accurately in any language, at any time.

Of course, it is going to be more a beneficial effort
if one were to go about it with a knowlegde of translation
and languages, etc., in order to present it accurately,
where someone is just not going off on their own
and writing their own version of the 'bible',
pretending that the present Bible is full of errors
and that they had found a new source of the truth that had been lost,
since that has all been proven, by history, to be just a bunch of lies...

Since people desided to write their own version of the 'bible',
without God (by design and intention), every word of the Bible
then becomes their critic, and all their ideas about being critics of it
are dismissable out of hand, simple as being tomfoolery
and not an accurate depiction of anything,
other than their identification of sons of a god.

Concerning the advantage presented by the possession
of a World-Class knowlegde in Translation and Languages;

"Is the Authorized Version, KJV translation definitely the correct one,
and those presented, since people desided
to write their own version of the 'bible', without God,
*inaccurate, for the following reasons?

* (the depiction of the caliper of Delieverance that takes place
can not be attributed to supernatural forces of evil,
without it being the worship of such.

By that alone, I assume it to be inaccurate, of course, immediately.)

I. "The phrase Ny`IhDlTa_rAb in Daniel 3:25
is properly translated “the Son of God,” not “a son of the gods.”

"First, the definiteness of the absolute noun Ny`IhDlTa,
although nonarticular, makes the construct noun rAb definite likewise
—it is “the Son,” not “a son,” as in Daniel 4:9, 15; 5:11, 14
the nonarticular Ny§IhDlTa Aj…wêr
“the spirit,” not “a spirit,” of the gods/God,
and in Daniel 5:11 Ny™IhDlTa_tAmVkDj
is “the wisdom of the gods,” not “a wisdom of gods.”

"Second, in Daniel 3:25 the translation “God” for Ny`IhDlTa,
rather than “gods,” is superior. It is true that Ny`IhDlTa is a plural form,
and it is likewise true that, unless one renders NyIhDlTa Aj…wr
(Daniel 4:9, 15; 5:11, 14) as “the Spirit of God”
rather than “the spirit of the gods,” in the other instances where the plural Ny`IhDlTa is found in the Old Testament
(Jeremiah 10:11; Daniel 2:11, 47; 3:12, 14, 18; 4:5–6, 15; 5:4, 11, 14, 23),

the translation “gods” is proper, while the singular; hDlTa
is employed of the true God of Israel or of a particular but singular false god (Daniel 2:18–20, 23, 28, 37, 44–45, 47; 3:12, 15, 17, 26, 28–29, 32; 4:5; 5:3, 18, 21, 23, 26; 6:6, 8, 11–13, 17, 21, 23–24, 27; Ezra 4:24–5:2; 5:5, 8, 11–17; 6:3, 5, 7–10, 12, 14, 16–18; 7:12, 14–21, 23–26).

II. "While these facts certainly merit consideration,
they do not prove that Daniel 3:25 refers to “gods” for the following reasons.

First, the equivalent Hebrew plural to the Aramaic Ny`IhDlTa of Daniel 3:25
is MyIhølTa, the plural noun regularly and overwhelmingly used
for the singular true God, Jehovah.

"If the Hebrew plural MyIhølTa, the overwhelming majority of the time,
“God” rather than “gods,” one must at least allow
for the possibility that the Aramaic plural Ny`IhDlTa refers to “God,”
rather than “gods,” in Daniel 3:25, when spoken of with reference
to the true Deity revealed in Scripture.

"This possibility is strengthened by the use of plural titles
interchangeably with singular ones for the one true God
in the book of Daniel itself.

"Thus, the title NyInwøyVlRo, “The Most High,”
within the book always is always plural,
but refers in every instance to the one true God,
not to exalted pagan gods (Daniel 7:18, 22, 25, 27).

"The plural NyInwøyVlRo is employed interchangeably with the singular
aDyD;lIo (Daniel 3:26, 32; 4:14, 21–22, 29, 31; 5:18, 21; 7:25)
in Daniel 7:25—the singular and plural words
are designations of the true God in successive clauses.

con't

 

[Alan Gross]

"Second, while the other instances of the Aramaic plural NyIhDlTa
in the Old Testament refer to “gods,” rather than to “God”
(again, on the assumption that NyIhDlTa Aj…wr
is “the spirit of the gods” rather than “the Spirit of God,”

—yet see Genesis 41:38—the My™IhølTa Aj…wõr
is the pneuvma qeouv of the LXX, “the Spirit of God”
mentioned on the lips of a pagan)
in every other case the plural NyIhDlTa
refers, at least in the mind of the speaker,
to false gods, rather than the true God.

"When the Hebrew plural MyIhølTa refers to false gods,
it is also properly rendered in the plural as “gods,”
but such a fact does not alter the use of the plural MyIhølTa
for the single true God also.

"As the use of the Hebrew plural MyIhølTa for a plurality of false gods
does not eliminate its use for the singular true God also,
the use of the plural NyIhDlTa for a plurality of false gods
does not mean that the Aramaic plural
cannot also refer to the singular true God.



"Third, Aramaic usage of the plural of forms of words for “God”
in reference to solely the one true God of the Bible is abundant.

"The plural of hDlSa is employed 17 times in the Targums of Onkelos,
Jonathan, and the Writings of the one true God,
and only twice employed of “gods”
(Genesis 31:53; Jeremiah 5:14; 15:16; 35:17; 38:17; 44:7;
Hosea 12:6; Amos 3:13; 4:13; 5:14–16, 27; 6:8, 14; Psalm 51:16; 147:12,
the true God; Psalm 135:5; 136:2, to “gods.”)

"The Targum Neofiti twice employs the same plural
for the one true God (Exodus 18:11; Deuteronomy 1:11).

"The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan does the same in Exodus 18:11.

"Thus, the phenomenon of employing a plural form
for the one true God of Israel is not restricted to Hebrew,
but appears in Aramaic also.



"Fourth, the standard Koehler/Baumgartner Hebrew lexicon
states that the word; hDlTa, “God/gods” in Daniel 3:25,
can be used in the plural of the one God of Israel (hDlTa, 2bd).

"Fifth, ancient translational evidence
supports the rendering “the Son of God.”

"The LXX translated Daniel 3:25 with the singular aÓgge÷lou qeouv, understanding the reference to be to “God” with the genitive singular,
rather than the genitive plural, form of qeo/ß—
the LXX supports a reference to “God,” not to the “gods.”

"Theodotian and Aquila likewise read ui˚w◊ˆ qeouv, “the Son of God,”
not a reference to “gods.”

"The Vulgate similarly supports a reference in Daniel 3:25
to the singular “Son of God,” rather than “the son of the gods,”
through its rendering with the singular filio Dei.

"Furthermore, “in Akkadian the equivalent plural
[to the Aramaic NyIhDlTa] is used for a single deity”
(Word Biblical Commentary on Daniel 5:5).

"The Authorized Version follows very strong evidence
in ancient translations in its reference to “the Son of God” in Daniel 3:25.



"Sixth, the context supports a reference to “the Son of God”
rather than “a/the son of the gods.”

"A.): the heathen gods had many sons, so Nebuchadnezzar
would not speak of “the son of the gods,”
but the translation “a son of the gods” has been shown to be inferior above.

"B.): Nebuchadnezzar immediately refers to “the most high God”
(aDyD;lIo a¶DhDlTa) after his statement of v. 25.

"After seeing “the Son of God,” Nebuchadnezzar
would naturally conclude that the three Hebrew children
were “servants of The Most High God,”
but seeing “a son of the gods”
would have no obvious connection to “the Most High God.”

"Nebuchadnezzar would have known of the Son of God from Daniel
and his three friends, as the Son of God
had been proclaimed the Object of Faith for the heathen nations
for hundreds of years at a minimum already
(cf. Psalm 2:12, where king David exhorts the heathen
to trust in God’s “Son,” the Aramaic word rAb
being employed by David, as it is in Daniel 3:25).

"Seventh, “the Son of God” is identified with The Angel of the LORD
in Daniel 3:28; 6:22, The Preincarnate Second Person of the Trinity,

Who promised,
“when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned”
(Isaiah 43:2).

"For all of these reasons, Daniel 3:25
is properly referred to “the Son of God,”
not “a/the son of the gods.”

"Daniel 3:25, 28; both proves
The Preexistence of the Son of God
(cf. Proverbs 30:4; Psalm 2)
and Makes a Connection between The Son of God
and the Angel or Messenger of Jehovah, the Preincarnate Messiah."

from:
Daniel 3:25—“the Son of God,” or “a son of the gods”?


THE LORD GOD OF THE UNIVERSE, JESUS CHRIST,
IN HIS PREINCARNATE, PREEXISTANT APPEARANCE,
AS THE ANGLE OF THE ETERNAL COVENANT OF GRACE,
THE SECOND PERSON OF THE TRIUNE GODHEAD,

WHO IS GOD, "The Son of God",
SUPERNATURALLY AND MIRACULOUSLY
Delivered His beloved saints
Out of the Midst of The Fiery Furnace.

THAT IS THE REVEALED RECORD AND FACT OF GOD
IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM OF REALITY,
WHICH IS WHAT A BIBLE IS INTENDED TO BE,
AS FAR AS OUR CREATOR IS CONCERNED.

"Furthermore, the Authorized Version
is again Vindicated in its Rendering..."

You might want to be glad that you have The Word of God, at all.

It is available in various edisions and lanugages,
but you have to know where to look.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

It was already clearly pointed out that son at Daniel 3:25 is not capitalized in the 1611 edition of the KJV. It is also not capitalized in the standard 1629 Cambridge edition and in the standard 1638 Cambridge edition plus in several more editions of the KJV.

Daniel 3:25

son of God (1675, 1681, 1720, 1737, 1758, 1774, 1784, 1788 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1761, 1768, 1783 Cambridge] {1611, 1640, 1657, 1698, 1703, 1706, 1730, 1741, 1795, 1827, 1828 London} (1638, 1715, 1735, 1751, 1760, 1766, 1769, 1791, 1793 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (1799 Helston) (1802 Carey) (1804 MH) (1809 Boston) (1843 AFBS) (1853, 1854, 1855, 1858 ABS) (CB)

That must have tooken a way to taken down all those dates and such for the capitalization issue.

There are also places in the New Testament where sonne of God is not capitalized, the grammar and standarization we have to day isn`t the same as back then.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

www.bibleprotector.com/forum • View topic - The KJB margins