I wrote,
Daniel 2:4 – 7:28 is written in Aramaic rather than in Hebrew, and the although the Hebrew word for God, ’ĕlôhim, is used with a singular force in the Hebrew parts of the Old Testament, the Aramaic word for God, ’ělâhîn (found in Daniel 3:25), is always plural.
My assertion is supported by S. R. Driver who, in his 1900 commentary on Daniel, writes, “The rendering ‘the son of God cannot stand’ : ’ĕlôhim is, indeed, used with a singular force in Hebrew, but the Aram. ’ělâhîn is always a true plural.”
My assertion is also supported by John E Goldingay who, in his 1989 commentary on Daniel, writes that the Aramaic word ’ělâhîn is never used in a singular sense in any other biblical literature.
My assertion is also supported by John Stephen R. Miller who, in his 1994 commentary on Daniel writes, “What impressed Nebuchadnezzar most of all was that now the three Jews had been joined by a fourth man, and this one looked like “a son of the gods.” He cites the commentaries by Driver and Goldingay to support his comment and his translation of Dan.3:25.
Furthermore, my assertion is also supported by
all of the very best translations of the Old Testament by Christian scholars (ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, ESV, NAB); and also by the Jewish Publication Society’s 1917 translation of the
Tenakh,
Dan. 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 appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.’
Additionally, Martin Luther, in his 1534 translation of the Bible, translates Daniel 3:25b as, “und der vierte ist gleich, als ware er ein Sohn der Gotter (“and the fourth is like a son of the gods). And the 1951 German Schlachter Bible translates Daniel 3:25b as, “und die Gestalt des vierten gleicht einem Sohne der Götter! “(“and the figure of the fourth is like a son of the gods!”)
Moreover, Nebuchadnezzar was not a Christian; he was a Babylonian—and hence he was polytheistic rather than monotheistic in his beliefs. Therefore, whatever or whoever he may have seen in the furnace, he most certainly would not have described him as, “like the Son of God.” What is more, the use of the incorrect phrase, “like the Son of God”, in the KJV makes it appear as though the Book of Daniel is a fictional work by a Christian author rather than the inspired word of God.