I believe it says "in a certain place" because the Holy Spirit is inviting you to get into your bible and go find it.
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Well, this is inserting our thoughts into Bible instead of asking ourselves, if the verse can be translated this or that way
But for the sake of the argument I can admit that the whole sentence is not theologically very clear in NIV.
HCSB - His origin is from antiquity, from eternity. (Used also the word "origins", but in the context with eternity it seems better)
ISV - His existence has been from antiquity, even from eternity. (This is problably meaning NIV wanted to present, but not very successfully).
Last edited:
I believe it says "in a certain place" because the Holy Spirit is inviting you to get into your bible and go find it.
LOL....that was funny. Don't forget the big picture...
Well, this is inserting our thoughts into Bible instead of asking ourselves, if the verse can be translated this or that way
But for the sake of the argument I can admit that the whole sentence is not theologically very clear in NIV.
HCSB - His origin is from antiquity, from eternity. (Used also the word "origins", but in the context with eternity it seems better)
ISV - His existence has been from antiquity, even from eternity.
What do you think of this one? I don't mean how accurate is this to the "originals", I mean how does it line up theologically. Was the Son of God in the furnace or was a son of the gods?
Daniel 3:25New American Standard Bible (NASB)
25 He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire [a]without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!”
Trofimus I hope you're starting to see a pattern here. The Jesus in the KJV is not the same as the Jesus in the newer translations.
Jesus in the the newer translations:
- Is the one and only son of God.
- Has an origin.
- Is a son of the gods.
If you're not familiar with the New Age ascended masters then these differences may seem insignificant. But if you are familiar, it's obvious that the newer translations are preaching the Cosmic Christ.
Jesus in the the newer translations:
- Is the one and only son of God.
- Has an origin.
- Is a son of the gods.
If you're not familiar with the New Age ascended masters then these differences may seem insignificant. But if you are familiar, it's obvious that the newer translations are preaching the Cosmic Christ.
The writer was simply recording this statement as the person who said this was a heathen - not knowing about the God of the Hebrews so he said "it has the appearance of the son of the gods".
And with the understanding of - it was simply recorded what this heathen had said. When we look at it from our vantage point now - we know that it was the Son of God in there with him. Hindsight has 20/20 vision.
In the Hebrew text it is definitely "plural" which is properly translated as "gods". If I was being truthful I would have to say that it seems the KJV human translators "added" their own bias to the text.
Which is fine as they all do that in every translation which is why we can always go to the Hebrew and Greek texts to look things up as we are led by the Holy spirit in our studying.
One of the things that has helped me in interpreting scripture is this statement. - "Everything in the bible is truly stated but not everything is a statement of truth.".
Is this the Greek definition we are supposed to use?
אֱלָהּʼĕlâhh, el-aw'; (Aramaic) corresponding to H433; God:—God, god.
Pardon me, Aramaic word.
Last edited:
B
BeyondET
Guest
Thats some good insight, it's like the notice placed on the cross written in different languages, everyone standing around or passing by could read what it said in their language.
This is the Hebrew one used in the text below and in the original text it is in the plural.
But the reality is that it was a heathen saying that it had the appearance of the son of the gods.
He doesn't know the real God or truth from a hole in his head - Daniel just recorded what he said not on the veracity of the truth of what he said when he said "like the son of gods". The man saying that was a heathen.
A434אֱלָהּ ʾfllāhh
noun
God, gods,
God, gods,
Complete Biblical Library Hebrew-English Dictionary - The Complete Biblical Library Hebrew-English Dictionary – Aleph-Beth.
Anyway I am off to do some studying. Have a great rest of the night. All is well. The KJ version is a good version as are most of the others.....I read it all the time as well as other ones....
Last edited:
First, I wonder why almost all translations say son of the gods, I did not find it in Septuagint nor in hebrew, both have son of god/God.
But we must realize that it is some babylonian king talking, they believed in various gods, so there would be no wonder he used this description.
Have a good night. I'm off to eat dinner myself.
This is the Hebrew one used in the text below. But the reality is that it was a heathen saying that it had the appearance of the son of the gods.
He doesn't know the real God or truth from a hole in his head - Daniel just recorded what he said not on the veracity of the truth of what he said when he said "like the son of gods". The man saying that was a heathen.
A434. [FONT="]אֱלָהּ[/FONT] [FONT="]ʾfllāhh[/FONT]noun
God, gods,
Complete Biblical Library Hebrew-English Dictionary - The Complete Biblical Library Hebrew-English Dictionary – Aleph-Beth.
Anyway I am off to do some studying. Have a great rest of the night. All is well. The KJ version is a good version as are most of the others.....I read it all the time as well as other ones....
Not yet
The first example is just about our opinions what translation is better.
The second example I admit is not very good translation (they interpreted the first part but literally translated the last part so they mixed it up).
The third is your interpretation it was Christ, I dont see it in the text. Angels are also called "sons of God".
Here is a link to every place the very same Hebrew words as was used in Daniel 3:25 and you can see it means "gods".
In every place the KJV translated it accurately as "gods" except for the one place where it said in Dan. 3:25 about the One being in the furnace with them. The KJV translators put in their own "interpretation" and "bias" into the scripture - plain as day.
Does this make it bad?..No, of course not. It makes in a translation and a "version" just like the other works of translation. Every translation has this "bias"in some places.
Again it is a pagan guy making this statement - it is not a statement of doctrine being expressed here.
Click this link below and you can see everyplace the same Hebrew word was used.
Hebrew Concordance: ’ĕ·lā·hîn -- 9 Occurrences
Just wanted to leave this before I go. Have a good night everyone!
In every place the KJV translated it accurately as "gods" except for the one place where it said in Dan. 3:25 about the One being in the furnace with them. The KJV translators put in their own "interpretation" and "bias" into the scripture - plain as day.
Does this make it bad?..No, of course not. It makes in a translation and a "version" just like the other works of translation. Every translation has this "bias"in some places.
Again it is a pagan guy making this statement - it is not a statement of doctrine being expressed here.
Click this link below and you can see everyplace the same Hebrew word was used.
Hebrew Concordance: ’ĕ·lā·hîn -- 9 Occurrences
Just wanted to leave this before I go. Have a good night everyone!
You won't convince them, prove this not a Bible issue and it will discredit everything else they claim. Most people read it how it is meant to be read, that is the author quoting a pagan ruler. Also at that time Jesus was not exactly known. Nebuchadnezar simply saw another figure and they all survived, so rightly assumes it is a spiritual being. Was it Jesus? Was it an Angel? who knows, but of course this now becomes a serious Bible issue that will take us all to hell if we beleive it was a "son of the gods!".
B
BeyondET
Guest
I'd say translations from the languages that were being used in the biblical days, Hebrew,Greek,Latin,Aramaic,.
To translations in Anglo Saxons,Germanic,English, somethings could have been mistranslated because of shear differences in meanings in different languages of a word.
To translations in Anglo Saxons,Germanic,English, somethings could have been mistranslated because of shear differences in meanings in different languages of a word.
Not necessarily. To me it doesn't make sense that he would refer to a son of the gods in one sentence then in the very next sentence call their God the most high God. At that time he was a pagan but he had knowledge of the one true God. As a matter of fact if you keep reading, especially in chapter 4, it seems his encounter with the son of God changed his life.
Daniel 3:26King James Version (KJV)
26 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.
To my knowledge it always was the son of God until the newer versions came along. Can you prove from the original language that it should be son of the gods?
Not yet
The first example is just about our opinions what translation is better.
The second example I admit is not very good translation (they interpreted the first part but literally translated the last part so they mixed it up).
The third is your interpretation it was Christ, I dont see it in the text. Angels are also called "sons of God".
Angels are not called the son of God.
Right,king Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged the God of Israel as the God of gods,and a Lord of kings,after Daniel interpreted his dream,that the king's own men could not,even though they were in to occult type things,and human religion.The king still believed in other gods,but claimed the God of Israel as the greatest of the gods.
After the fiery furnace incident it reaffirms even more to the king the greatness of the God of Israel,calling Him the most high God,and blessed be the God of the three men that were cast in to the fire,and that they changed the king's words,something that would be hard to do seeing his royalty position,for they forsook to bow down to the image that the king made,in favor of their God.
That is when the king made 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.
Then the king had another dream about the king being arrogant and saying look at Babylon that I have built,when it is God who gives the kingdom to he wants,which the king said it,God humbled him,and then the king realized that it is the God of Israel,the God of gods,that gives the kingdom to who he wants,and the king stayed with that position all the way unto dearh.
His son knew what his father believed,but took the vessels out of the temple of the LORD,and drank out of them praising false gods,and the kingdom was stripped from them and given to the Medes and Persians.
Dan 7:4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.
This is Babylon that rode on eagle's wings for king Nebuchadnezzar proclaimed all through his kingdom acknowledge the God of Israel,they had a high revelation of the God of Israel,but his son blew it,and the eagle's wings were plucked,and they were then known as the kingdom of man,which they will never have physical dominion again,but is in the beast kingdom in spirit,for it represents the kingdom of man.
But the fourth person in the fiery furnace was not Jesus,for He was not made known until His birth from Mary,but would still be a manifestation of the invisible God to them,like when God appeared to Abraham in human form twice,it was not Jesus,but a temporary manifestation of God that went back to dust,but whether the king called him son of the gods,or Son of God,he still knew it had to be of the sort for he knew it could of not been a common man,for only three were cast in to the fire,and he knew it had to be the Son of God of the Hebrews God that delivered them.
But it was not Jesus but a temporary manifestation of God,but the king thought Son,for he knows God is greater than that image of a man he saw,but he also knew that image had to be supernatural,that can only come from God,so the king would naturally call him a son of God.
But it is not Jesus for there was no visible image of Jesus until the birth from Mary,and God the Father is the one who always showed a physical manifestation of Himself in the Old Testament.
1Ti 6:14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
This is Jesus without the visible image of Him,no person can see Him,for He is invisible,and the only visible image of Jesus that would appear on earth,is when He was a human on earth,and not before it.
The king would naturally say Son for he knew it was supernatural,and it is not a reference to Jesus,but another manifestation that same as when God appeared to Abraham twice in human form,to converse with him about having a child,and Sodom and Gomorrah,and as Melchizedek,king of Salem,and priest of the most High God,but they were temporary,and went back to dust,the same as the fiery furnace,it was temporary and went back to dust,or whatever image it was,but it was not a showing up of Jesus.
H
HisHolly
Guest
Angels are not called the son of God.
Not the son. But sons, yes.. First time is in Genesis when they came to earth to be with humans.