Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[brandplucked]

When you can't come up with an example of error, call 'em a nut.

When you can't come up with an example of error, call 'em a nut.

You twist and slither like a corrupt politician. The Clintons could take lessons from you. I've followed YOUR bad works for years and have noticed some changes - first being the VERSION of the KJV that you claim is without errors. You already have tons of KJV errors that you haven't and can't deal with and still claim that ANY VERSION of the KJV is without errors.

One of the first things you can't deal with is the notes and preface made by the translators of the KJV. They REFUTE your claims. I think that you attack and insult because you know that you don't have a stance that can be defended. The laundry list you speak of is a growing list, and you can't deal with it. NOW - you choose an 1850 Cambridge VERSION of the KJV as the one without errors. I know what happened with your claims about the 1611 KJV - they fell apart. Everything you claim about translations other than the KJV are just as accurate or more so when used against the KJV.

I know a LOT about the KJV, but I still like and use it most of the time. I know that it's JUST an English translation of the Holy Bible. I also know quite a bit about the difficulty and variations involved with the translation of ancient languages. I'm not going to lower myself to your level and bash the KJV. I'll just say that there are better English translations than the KJV.

I've heard and read all of your bashing garbage and am no longer interested in your opinions. Folks like you drive people away from the KJV because they don't want to be associated with NUTS. You're now on my permanent ignore list because I've had all the KJV only garbage I can stomach for a lifetime.

Hi Journey. You obviously could not come up with a concrete example of an alleged error you think you have found in the King James Bible, and you obviously are too proud to admit that you are just another unbeliever in the inerrancy of ANY Bible, so you end up labeling us who DO believe God has given us an inerrant Book in the King James Bible as NUTS.

Well done. You would make the likes of James White proud.



Happy Trails.

 

[Yorzhik]

You bible agnostics and "every man is his own authority" guys just keep getting loopier and loopier.

Interesting that you use Bob Enyart's goofy word "robust" to describe this "bible" you guys never can identify for us.

Go write your own bible version Yorzhik. That is the only way you guys will be happy.

So you're saying the translation of ROM 8:28 is incorrect? Are you claiming it is not inspired?

 

[tetelestai]

You twist and slither like a corrupt politician.

It's impossible to have any kind of rational conversation with these people.

Bob and Will Duffy did an excellent job, and Will Kinney couldn't even answer half their questions.

Of all the "isms" there are, KJVO is by far the wackiest of them all.

Will Kinney's only argument is to call all non-KJVO's "bible agnostics". That's all he has.

 

[GuySmiley]

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.

Romans 2:1

Which version should I use to share this verse with someone? My last choice would be the KJV. This is why when you show the KJV is the best version for particular issues, it doesn't matter for everyday use. The KJV is not always the best option. But it is certainly useful as another tool in the toolshed.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Using your ridiculous answer, they all have errors.

Since that is settled, tell us which versions are without error, and which ones have errors.

We need to know which ones are safe to "use".

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Will Kinney's only argument is to call all non-KJVO's "bible agnostics". That's all he has.

He demonstrated from the dictionary that the term makes sense, and applies to you.

 

[Shasta]

Sir, you don't really believe that ANY Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. You may "use" the King James Bible, but (like so many others) you don't really believe it is God's inerrant words.

If you did, then you would clearly understand why we "bash" all those fake and inferior imitations that all fall way short.

Now, if you think you have found a legitimate, provable error in the King James Bible, then give us your Number One All Time Biggest Hits example and we can take a look at it to see if the error is in the Book or in your own limited understanding. Don't give us the usual laundry lists I have seen a dozen times. Just your number one best example.

At this point you are a partial bible believer. You believe parts of some, but all of none of them.

Let's see what you've got. OK? Thanks.

You do not have an infallible translation so the point is moot.
In our last exchange you threw a load of material out trying to prove that Daniel 3:25 should be rendered "the appearance of the fourth is like The Son of God." However, after some reading I found that this does not have adequate grounding in linguistics, logic, culture and history. Since you seem to like commentaries here is what only a few of them say:

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

form] aspect, appearance, as Daniel 2:31 is like the Son of God] is like a son of (the) gods, i.e. a heavenly being or angel: cf. the ‘sons of God’ (or, of the gods) in Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6 (where see Davidson’s note), Job 38:7. 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 (Daniel 2:11; Daniel 2:47, Daniel 3:12; Daniel 3:18, Daniel 4:8; Daniel 4:19; Daniel 4:18, Daniel 5:4; Daniel 5:11; Daniel 5:14; Daniel 5:23),

‘God’ being in the Aram. of Ezra and Dan. denoted regularly by the sing. ’ĕlâh.


The meaning is simply that Nebuchadnezzar saw an angelic figure (LXX, ὁμοίωμα ἀγγέλου Θεοῦ) beside the three youths (cf. Daniel 3:28, ‘his angel’).

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/daniel/3.htm

Note here that the Hebrew word Elohim is plural but is used for the One true God of Israel. The Aramaic plural word for God (elohin) is only used for multiple pagan deities. The singular word for God in Aramaic (Elah) refers either to a particular god out of a pantheon or to the One God of the Jews. It would appear that the translators of the KJV interpreted the Aramaic language of this passage as if it were Hebrew.

The Pulpit Commentary

The phrase," the Son of God," is clearly wrong; the correct translation is, "The appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods." Along with the three victims of his superstition was seen a fourth figure, like one of the figures portrayed on his palace walls as belonging to the demi-gods...but most awe-inspiring of all is the vision of the fourth figure, like a son of the gods.

While we ought to guard against ascribing to the Babylonian monarch the idea that this appearance was that of the Second Person of the Christian Trinity, we are ourselves at liberty to maintain this, or to hold that it was an angel who strengthened these servants of God in the furnace. The Septuagint renders bar-cloheen by ἄγγελος. Theodotion has υἱῷ Θεοῦ.

When you first cited the LXX I went back and looked and found your statement to be in error huio Theou means "a son of God." The omission of the definite article "the" automatically demands the insertion of the indefinite article "a". This also applies in the modern Greek text which you cited but apparently did not understand.

This just goes to show how the KJVO dogma discourages any investigation of the original texts of scripture to check for the accuracy and clarity of the KJ translation. In your paradigm, the English words are always the Word of God and as such they are the final judge in matters of doctrine, even when they are not supported by grammar, vocabulary, language use, and the context of history and culture. The translators of the KJV are like the Supreme Court in their supposed ability to impose an irrevocable and, at times, idiosyncratic meaning on a passage or verse.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Using your ridiculous answer, they all have errors.

How did you define error when you said "The KJV is without error"?

 

[Shasta]

It is too bad that your belief system is based on a myth which has no other grounds than it was made known to you by personal revelation. The myth posits that a particular English translation first produced in 1611 was, after several revisions, miraculously transformed into the ONLY perfect expression of the original text of the Bible in the English language in every word and nuance. Inerrant throughout, it is equal in authority to the original scriptures so much that to read the English words is the same as reading the Greek and Hebrew. Because of this the translation cannot be questioned on matters of doctrine since. It is a comforting myth all right, but it simply has no basis in fact.

One of your tactics is to mock all who do not accept your extreme exclusivist postition as "Bible Agnostics" Regardless of what the dictionary says the word "agnostic" is used for ungodly deniers of God. Hence you get the emotional effect of an ad hominem attack. By the same token, since your view is based upon "rev-know" (revelation knowledge) perhaps the best term to describe you is a "Translation Gnostic". The Gnostics also believed they had special revelatory knowledge that gave them assurance of divine truth regardless of whether a particular claim was actually in the scriptures.

Now, let us go back and look at how the KJV translates Daniel 3:25. The KJV has it that the fourth figure in the fire is like "the Son of God."

Barnes' Notes on the Bible[

And the form of the fourth - Chaldee, (רוה rēvēh) - "his appearance" (from ראה râ'âh - "to see"); that is, he "seemed" to be a son of God; he "looked" like a son of God. The word does not refer to anything special or peculiar in his "form" or "figure," but it may be supposed to denote something that was noble or majestic in his mien; something in his countenance and demeanour that declared him to be of heavenly origin.

Like the son of God - There are two inquiries which arise in regard to this expression: one is, what was the idea denoted by the phrase as used by the king, or who did he take this personage to be? the other, who he actually was?

The King, his personal perception, language, culture and the historical context of his remarks have to be taken into consideration. This is responsible exegesis

In regard to the former inquiry, it may be observed, that there is no evidence that the king referred to him to whom this title is so frequently applied in the New Testament, the Lord Jesus Christ. This is clear

The temptation of all translators (including those that worked on the KJV) is to read into passages their own bias. The article continues:

(1) because there is no reason to believe that the king had "any" knowledge whatever that there would be on earth one to whom this title might be appropriately given;

(2) there is no evidence that the title was then commonly given to the Messiah by the Jews, or, if it was, that the king of Babylon was so versed in Jewish theology as to be acquainted with it; and

(3) the language which he uses does not necessarily imply that, even "if" he were acquainted with the fact that there was a prevailing expectation that such a being would appear on the earth, he designed so to use it.

Next Barnes gives appropriate consideration to the language of the verse:

The insertion of the article "the," which is not in the Chaldee, gives a different impression from what the original would if literally interpreted.

There is nothing in the Chaldee to limit it to "any" "son of God," or to designate anyone to whom that term could be applied as peculiarly intended. It would seem probable that our translators meant to convey the idea that ""the" Son of God" peculiarly was intended, and doubtless they regarded this as one of his appearances to men before his incarnation; but it is clear that no such conception entered into the mind of the king of Babylon.

The Chaldee is simply, לבר־אלחין דמה dâmēh lebar 'ĕlâhı̂yn - "like to A son of God," or to a son of the gods - since the word אלחין 'ĕlâhı̂yn (Chaldee), or אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym (Hebrew), though often, and indeed usually applied to the true God, is in the plural number, and in the mouth of a pagan would properly be used to denote the gods that he worshipped

The article is not prefixed to the word "son," and the language would apply to anyone who might properly be called a son of God.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/3.htm

Barnes lays bare some clear instances where the translators of the KJB undertook to insert their pre-conceptions about what a verse meant into the text without grounding their opinion in the language, culture, and perceptions of the one who was speaking (King Nebuchadnezzar)

There is more in this article which I will post later.

 

[brandplucked]

Every man for himself bible versions

Every man for himself bible versions

So you're saying the translation of ROM 8:28 is incorrect? Are you claiming it is not inspired?

Yorzhik. I am saying that YOUR private and personalized "translation" that you just made up out of thin air is wrong. You yourself said that no bible reads the way you think it should in Romans 8:28.

There are a lot of professing Christians around today who think like you do = Every man is his own authority.

"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25

 

[Shasta]

My last post was meant for brandplucked AKA Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

Shasta is a version rummager

Shasta is a version rummager

You do not have an infallible translation so the point is moot.
In our last exchange you threw a load of material out trying to prove that Daniel 3:25 should be rendered "the appearance of the fourth is like The Son of God." However, after some reading I found that this does not have adequate grounding in linguistics, logic, culture and history. Since you seem to like commentaries here is what only a few of them say:

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges


http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/daniel/3.htm

Note here that the Hebrew word Elohim is plural but is used for the One true God of Israel. The Aramaic plural word for God (elohin) is only used for multiple pagan deities. The singular word for God in Aramaic (Elah) refers either to a particular god out of a pantheon or to the One God of the Jews. It would appear that the translators of the KJV interpreted the Aramaic language of this passage as if it were Hebrew.

The Pulpit Commentary


When you first cited the LXX I went back and looked and found your statement to be in error huio Theou means "a son of God." The omission of the definite article "the" automatically demands the insertion of the indefinite article "a". This also applies in the modern Greek text which you cited but apparently did not understand.

This just goes to show how the KJVO dogma discourages any investigation of the original texts of scripture to check for the accuracy and clarity of the KJ translation. In your paradigm, the English words are always the Word of God and as such they are the final judge in matters of doctrine, even when they are not supported by grammar, vocabulary, language use, and the context of history and culture. The translators of the KJV are like the Supreme Court in their supposed ability to impose an irrevocable and, at times, idiosyncratic meaning on a passage or verse.

Shasta. You don't know half of what you think you do. The Greek does NOT need to have the definite article before it in order to read "THE Son of God." In fact, if you have a copy of Brenton's Septuagint, go to Daniel 3:25 and look it up for yourself. The translation is "the fourth is like THE Son of God." It is right there in black and white.

Then if you like, check out The New Brenton Translation 2012 and see how it reads. It says "and the appearance of the fourth is like the Son of God."

Here is the link to see it.

http://www.katapi.org.uk/katapiNSBu...ersions/versionsBookChrs.php?Cv=1&version=NBr


And if you would ever commit to actually naming a specific English bible that you think is at least ballpark close enough to those original autographs you have never seen, then let me know which one it is and I will show you examples of where you do not need the definite article to make it "the Son" etc.

The Greek definite article is not used like the English definite article.

And I showed you my study on Daniel 3:25 and all these Bible translations disagree with you -


"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 King James Bible 1611, The Bill Bible 1671, the Brenton Translation 1851, the Calvin Bible of 1855, Webster's translation 1833, the Douay-Rheims of 1610 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.", 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 Third Millenium 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."

It is also the reading of 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 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD." and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - "And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God!”



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

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 Bible commentators like John Gill, Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, Matthew Henry, John Wesley and Matthew Poole all disagree with you.

Scholars as well as bible versions differ from each other. And since you do NOT have nor do you believe in any Bible as being the inerrant words of God, you end up being just another dime a dozen Version Rummager who pieces together his "bible" according to his own personal preferences and opinions.

Here is my article on Daniel 3:25 for those who want to see why the KJB is right, as always.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/dan325thesonofgod.htm

Now, if you would actually identify this English "bible" of yours that you want to prove that the Greek definite article is needed in order to translate something as "the.....",then tell us which one it is and I will show you where it does the very thing you ignorantly criticize.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yorzhik. I am saying that YOUR private and personalized "translation" that you just made up out of thin air is wrong.

Oh really? If it was inspired, then you are wrong that it was made out of thin air. How do you know it wasn't inspired?

You yourself said that no bible reads the way you think it should in Romans 8:28.

No. I said that no bible reads the correct way. I didn't create that translation, it doesn't read "the way I think it should", but it is correct and there isn't another bible translation I've found that translates it correctly.

 

[Yorzhik]

Words in the text that will not match what God inspired men to write down is an error.

I've been thinking about this more. First, this isn't a straightforward answer because the rub is how we know who and how a man was inspired to write down God's perfect word. That is under great debate, and does not describe what an error is.

So let's see if you can answer a simpler question in a straightforward way. Honestly, I doubt you can. Does a printing error count as an error?

If you can answer that one in a straightforward way, then we can get to more complicated errors (not in the KJV) and see if they count.

Also, feel free to ask me any questions and I'll answer in a straightforward way. For instance, if you ask a yes or no question, I'll answer with a yes or a no and then I'll go on to explain my yes or no.

For instance, you could ask me "don't we need a perfect translation so that we don't fall into confusion?" I'll answer: no, we don't need a perfect translation because God's word is powerful even in part, or part understanding... more being better. Don't forget, it doesn't even matter if God's word was provided by a perfect translation because men understand imperfectly. The power of God's word is transmitted in other ways than what would be (to God) perfectly placed words and punctuation. It's transmitted in the simplicity of the stories, in the redundancy of the themes, in the melding of our understanding relationships through God's conscience with the relationships as they are told in God's Word. While it's true that deviations from the originals are bad and knowing this we try and mitigate the problem as much as possible, any transmission of God's word will not return void even if less than perfect (although closer to the originals the better).

 

[Shasta]

[brandplucked;4526088]Shasta. You don't know half of what you think you do. The Greek does NOT need to have the definite article before it in order to read "THE Son of God." In fact, if you have a copy of Brenton's Septuagint, go to Daniel 3:25 and look it up for yourself. The translation is "the fourth is like THE Son of God." It is right there in black and white.

You claim that I am making up these things but I am not. I have cited a number of sources which read the verse exactly as I do. Rather than address what they say you insult me and issue a denial. That is the lazy way to circumvent a debate.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible


http://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/daniel/3.htm

The article is not prefixed to the word "son," and the language would apply to anyone who might properly be called a son of God.

The Vulgate has literally rendered it, "like to A son of God" - similis filio Dei;

the Greek in the same way - ὁμοία ὑιῷ θεοῦ homoia huiō theou;

the Syriac is like the Chaldee;

Castellio renders it, quartus formam habet Deo nati similem - "the fourth has a form resembling one born of God;"

Coverdale "the fourth is like an angel to look upon;"

Luther, more definitely, und der vierte ist gleich, als ware er ein Sohn der Gotter - "and the fourth as if he might be "a" son of the gods."

All these translators took the absence of the article in the Aramaic language to mean that the noun was indefinite. Do you still think I am making up these grammatical rules all on my own? If I am ithen so was Martin Luther, Sebastian Casteillio, Miles Coverdale, and so was American Theologian Albert Barnes (1798-1870).

Geneva Study Bible
Daniel 3
Verse 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 k Son of God.

(Despite the translation here is the commentary on the verse)​

(k) For the angels were called the sons of God because of their excellency. Therefore the king called this angel whom God sent to comfort his own in these great torments, the son of God.

Here is what your favorite commentary says

like the Son of God — Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas (John 11:49-52), and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths. “Son of God” in his mouth means only an “angel” from heaven, as Daniel 3:28 proves. Compare Job 1:6; Job 38:7; Psalm 34:7, Psalm 34:8; and the probably heathen centurion‘s exclamation (Matthew 27:54). The Chaldeans believed in families of gods: Bel, the supreme god, accompanied by the goddess Mylitta, being the father of the gods; thus the expression he meant: one sprung from and sent by the gods.

Jamieson, Robert, D.D.; Fausset, A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on Daniel 3:25". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible".

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown keep the traditional KJV translation but admit that what the King MEANT was an emissary sent by the godS.

Turning once again to the
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges we read:

25. loose] the fire had burnt away the fetters, but left the bodies of the three youths untouched.

form] aspect, appearance, as Daniel 2:31. is like the Son of God] is like a son of (the) gods, i.e. a heavenly being or angel: cf. the ‘sons of God’ (or, of the gods) in Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6 (where see Davidson’s note), Job 38:7.

This time study carefully the linguistic exposition of this verse given by those who understand more of the nuances of Aramaic than either you or I.

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 (Daniel 2:11; Daniel 2:47, Daniel 3:12; Daniel 3:18, Daniel 4:8; Daniel 4:19; Daniel 4:18, Daniel 5:4; Daniel 5:11; Daniel 5:14; Daniel 5:23),

‘God’ being in the Aram. of Ezra and Dan. denoted regularly by the sing. ’ĕlâh. The meaning is simply that Nebuchadnezzar saw an angelic figure (LXX, ὁμοίωμα ἀγγέλου Θεοῦ) beside the three youths (cf. Daniel 3:28, ‘his angel’).

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/daniel/3.htm

Then if you like, check out The New Brenton Translation 2012 and see how it reads. It says "and the appearance of the fourth is like the Son of God."

Here is the link to see it.

http://www.katapi.org.uk/katapiNSBu...ersions/versionsBookChrs.php?Cv=1&version=NBr

I will look at it. I have already read my copy of the LXX which is coded with Strongs and it just translates huio as "son" (without the article) The copy that is located here http://biblehub.com/text/daniel/3-25.htm persists in the tradition of inserting the article but when I scroll over the exact word huio it reads "a son."

Reason and hermeneutics is against this interpretation and inserting an article is the result of an interpretation not a translation. If Nebuchadnezzar had meant to say The Son, SOMEbody (like, say. the king himself) would have had some inkling about what SPECIFIC personage he was referring to. That is why definite articles are used - to refer to somebody definite. There is no reason to believe that Nebuchadnezzar or any Babylonian knew that the God of the Jews had one and only one Son; especially when the demi-gods that were the emissaries of the Babylonian gods were many. You have to interpret the scriptures according to the perspective of those who were part of the action and dialogue. You cannot import concepts from their future.

Look at what Barnes says again:

(1) because there is no reason to believe that the king had "any" knowledge whatever that there would be on earth one to whom this title might be appropriately given;

(2) there is no evidence that the title was then commonly given to the Messiah by the Jews, or, if it was, that the king of Babylon was so versed in Jewish theology as to be acquainted with it; and

(3) the language which he uses does not necessarily imply that, even "if" he were acquainted with the fact that there was a prevailing expectation that such a being would appear on the earth, he designed so to use it.

The insertion of the article "the," which is not in the Chaldee, gives a different impression from what the original would if literally interpreted.

There is nothing in the Chaldee to limit it to "any" "son of God," or to designate anyone to whom that term could be applied as peculiarly intended.

It would seem probable that our translators meant to convey the idea that ""the" Son of God" peculiarly was intended, and doubtless they regarded this as one of his appearances to men before his incarnation; but it is clear that no such conception entered into the mind of the king of Babylon.

The Chaldee is simply, לבר־אלחין דמה dâmēh lebar 'ĕlâhı̂yn - "like to A son of God," or to a son of the gods -

since the word אלחין 'ĕlâhı̂yn (Chaldee), or אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym (Hebrew), though often, and indeed usually applied to the true God, is in the plural number, and in the mouth of a pagan would properly be used to denote the gods that he worshipped.

Perhaps you should go with Jamison, Faucett and Brown and say that he meant one thing but it came out prophetically to mean something else.

And if you would ever commit to actually naming a specific English bible that you think is at least ballpark close enough to those original autographs you have never seen, then let me know which one it is and I will show you examples of where you do not need the definite article to make it "the Son" etc.

You do not always need to put an article in front of God either. However, in the context of this verse including the definite article introduces a concept that is not there. It represents an interpretation not a translation. How might such an idea of a singular specific Being called THE Son of God be deduced from the context? What is the grammatical or hermeneutical rationale - or is this given by revelation too?

Leaving the article off shows the text as it is written. Putting it in shows a determination to perpetuate a particular tradition held by some but denied by others.

The king knew of no specific personage that this appearance could be and, in fact, as the next verse says he believed it to be not a god but an messenger or angel. Your stack of translations should all verify that the King thought the visitor in the fire was an angel. If so then his term "son of the gods" does not refer to the Second Person of the Godhead or to a Messiah he knew nothing about but to a emissary.

This verse shows how extreme and divisive your position is. Traditionally Christians have allowed people to have different opinions on who the fourth man in the fire was. Since the KJV is considered to be on par with the Word of God as it was spoken and written by the Prophets and Apostles however it interprets the scriptures must become the Orthodox View. Luther and Calvin's views on this subject would have been vetoed as much as if the Pope had decreed it, only now the English KJV is the Final Source which even the original texts cannot question.

Your view is fantastic as it is false. Even among those that favor the KJV, few people, believe in your mythological saga about how it came about or agree that it is infallible.

 

[brandplucked]

Shasta's version rummaging ways

Shasta's version rummaging ways

You claim that I am making up these things but I am not. I have cited a number of sources which read the verse exactly as I do. Rather than address what they say you insult me and issue a denial. That is the lazy way to circumvent a debate.

Shasta, show me your English bible you prefer, and I will show you things about the Greek definite article or lack thereof.

I challenged you on this, and you dodged it. Why? Because I can prove you wrong.

By the way, I did more research on Daniel 3:25 this afternoon and found a whole lot more, in both Bible translations and Bible commentaries that agree with the KJB - LOTS more.

Not only do John Gill, Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, Matthew Henry and Matthew Poole agree with the KJB that this was the Son of God, but so also do these Bible commentators.



John Trapp Complete Commentary (English Puritan) - “This fourth person here in the fiery furnace is by many held to be Christ the Son of God, who appeared at this time in human shape.”



Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers - “(25) The Son of God.—These words, let us remember, are uttered by a heathen king, who calls this same Person, in Daniel 3:28, “an angel” of the God whom the three children worshipped. Probably Nebuchadnezzar thought that He stood to Jehovah in the same relation that he himself did to Merodach. His conceptions of the power of Jehovah were evidently raised by what he had witnessed, though as yet he does not recognise Him as being more than a chief among gods. He has not risen to that conception of the unity of God which is essential to His absolute supremacy. But still the question has to be answered, What did the king see? THE EARLY PATRISTIC INTERPRETATION WAS THAT. IT WAS NONE OTHER THAN CHRIST HIMSELF. We have no means of ascertaining anything further, and must be content with knowing that the same “Angel of God’s presence” who was with Israel in the wilderness watched over the people in Babylon.”


Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary - “Probably the impious wretch was struck with astonishment at the distinguishing providence of God, that while God's servants received no hurt, the very heat of the furnace struck dead those who had laid their hands upon them. But what, did the fire loosen the cords, With which Shadrach and his companions were bound, and yet not touch their persons? Yes! so distinguishing was the mercy, that not a hair of their heads was singed. Oh! what tokens are these of JESUS looking on, guiding all, and controlling all! But all is explained to us in what follows. JESUS was with them."



Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged - “The form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas (John 11:49-52), and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths, the full import of which he did not himself understand. "Son of God" in his mouth means only an "angel" from heaven, as Daniel 3:28 proves, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, etc., who hath sent his angel." (Compare Job 1:6; Job 38:7, where "the sons of God" mean the angels; Psalms 34:7-8, "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them;" and the probably pagan centurion's exclamation, Matthew 27:54, "Truly this was the Son of God"). The Chaldeans believed in families of gods: Bel, the supreme god, accompanied by the goddess Mylitta, being the father of the gods: thus by the expression he meant one sprung from and sent by the gods. Really it was the "messenger of the covenant," who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.”

 

[brandplucked]

Yorzhik's personalized "bible version"

Yorzhik's personalized "bible version"

I've been thinking about this more. First, this isn't a straightforward answer because the rub is how we know who and how a man was inspired to write down God's perfect word. That is under great debate, and does not describe what an error is.

So let's see if you can answer a simpler question in a straightforward way. Honestly, I doubt you can. Does a printing error count as an error?

If you can answer that one in a straightforward way, then we can get to more complicated errors (not in the KJV) and see if they count.

Yorzhik, YES there have been minor printing errors in the KJB. I have admitted this over and over again. But we King James Bible know where God's complete and inerrant words are found - the present day printings of the King James Bible Cambridge editions. Or I can show you an online site where you can see it. Or give you the names of some American publishing companies where you can get one.

Most of these minor printing errors were corrected in the first 30 years by two men who were the original translators.

You guys who are bible agnostics and unbelievers in an inerrant Bible in any language, will insist that these minor printing errors prove that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible.

For those of us who believe God has given us an inerrant Bible,we can tell you where it is. It is the King James Bible you can buy in any bookstore today.

You guys, on the other hand, will NEVER show us a copy of the inerrant Bible simply because none of you really believes such a thing exists. It is just that simple and easily shown. NONE of you will ever come out and take a serious and consistent stand on ANY Bible in any language as being the Standard of inerrancy.

And so you mock and ridicule those of us who believe God really has given us an inerrant Bible.

Now, just out of curiosity, how would you translate that verse you were talking about in Romans 8?

 

[Shasta]

Shasta, show me your English bible you prefer, and I will show you things about the Greek definite article or lack thereof.

I challenged you on this, and you dodged it. Why? Because I can prove you wrong.

By the way, I did more research on Daniel 3:25 this afternoon and found a whole lot more, in both Bible translations and Bible commentaries that agree with the KJB - LOTS more.

Not only do John Gill, Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, Matthew Henry and Matthew Poole agree with the KJB that this was the Son of God, but so also do these Bible commentators.



John Trapp Complete Commentary (English Puritan) - “This fourth person here in the fiery furnace is by many held to be Christ the Son of God, who appeared at this time in human shape.”



Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers - “(25) The Son of God.—These words, let us remember, are uttered by a heathen king, who calls this same Person, in Daniel 3:28, “an angel” of the God whom the three children worshipped. Probably Nebuchadnezzar thought that He stood to Jehovah in the same relation that he himself did to Merodach. His conceptions of the power of Jehovah were evidently raised by what he had witnessed, though as yet he does not recognise Him as being more than a chief among gods. He has not risen to that conception of the unity of God which is essential to His absolute supremacy. But still the question has to be answered, What did the king see? THE EARLY PATRISTIC INTERPRETATION WAS THAT. IT WAS NONE OTHER THAN CHRIST HIMSELF. We have no means of ascertaining anything further, and must be content with knowing that the same “Angel of God’s presence” who was with Israel in the wilderness watched over the people in Babylon.”


Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary - “Probably the impious wretch was struck with astonishment at the distinguishing providence of God, that while God's servants received no hurt, the very heat of the furnace struck dead those who had laid their hands upon them. But what, did the fire loosen the cords, With which Shadrach and his companions were bound, and yet not touch their persons? Yes! so distinguishing was the mercy, that not a hair of their heads was singed. Oh! what tokens are these of JESUS looking on, guiding all, and controlling all! But all is explained to us in what follows. JESUS was with them."



Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged - “The form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas (John 11:49-52), and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths, the full import of which he did not himself understand. "Son of God" in his mouth means only an "angel" from heaven, as Daniel 3:28 proves, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, etc., who hath sent his angel." (Compare Job 1:6; Job 38:7, where "the sons of God" mean the angels; Psalms 34:7-8, "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them;" and the probably pagan centurion's exclamation, Matthew 27:54, "Truly this was the Son of God"). The Chaldeans believed in families of gods: Bel, the supreme god, accompanied by the goddess Mylitta, being the father of the gods: thus by the expression he meant one sprung from and sent by the gods. Really it was the "messenger of the covenant," who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.”

An article would not be required if the noun was so definite that it did not require one. John says "kai Theos hn ho Logos" He does not have to say "Ho Theos hn ho Logos" because there is one and only God. The Psalm says "Kiss the son lest he be angry." There is no article in front of the Aramaic word "son" but then it does not need to be. It clearely refers to the King.

I have shown you why there is absolutely no contextual reason to insert the definite article in front of "son" It is not clear at all that this "son" is a particular personage rather than being one of many demi-gods which the king believed in. There is no evidence that the king had a specific knowledge that the Jewish God had one and only one son, that this would one day be a messianic name or that one Day Christ would be known by that title. All these ideas were revealed much later in history. In their zeal to find Messianic references the translators insinuated the idea of THE SON OF GOD into the text. If you had read the sources I have already quoted you would see these arguments were made.

You need to study Jamison Fausett and Brown more carefully. Here is what they said:

The form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas (John 11:49-52), and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths, the full import of which he did not himself understand.

"Son of God" in his mouth means only an "angel" from heaven, as Daniel 3:28 proves, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, etc., who hath sent his angel." (Compare Job 1:6; Job 38:7, where "the sons of God" mean the angels; Psalms 34:7-8, "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them;" and the probably pagan centurion's exclamation, Matthew 27:54, "Truly this was the Son of God"). The Chaldeans believed in families of gods: Bel, the supreme god, accompanied by the goddess Mylitta, being the father of the gods: thus by the expression he meant one sprung from and sent by the gods. Really it was the "messenger of the covenant," who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.
________________________________________

Jamieson, Robert, D.D.; Fausset, A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on Daniel 3:25". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged". "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfu/view.cgi?bk=da&ch=3". 1871-8.

The Commentators treat the scriptures on two levels. On one hand, they admit that the king was saying the "fourth man" in the fire was an angel or messenger sent by the gods. At the same time they maintain that this was a Christophany. This shows that even they believe that the letter of the text conveys the idea that this person is an angelic messenger not the Son of God. This being the case, the most appropriate way to render the verse is that the fourth man is "a son (a messenger or agent) of the gods." Do we think Nebuchadnezzar thought the Hebrew God had only ONE messenger in his entourage?

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(25) The Son of God.—These words, let us remember, are uttered by a heathen king, who calls this same Person, in Daniel 3:28, “an angel” of the God whom the three children worshipped. Probably Nebuchadnezzar thought that He stood to Jehovah in the same relation that he himself did to Merodach. His conceptions of the power of Jehovah were evidently raised by what he had witnessed, though as he does not recognise Him as being more than a chief among godsyet . He has not risen to that conception of the unity of God which is essential to His absolute supremacy. But still the question has to be answered, What did the king see? The early Patristic interpretation was that. it was none other than Christ Himself. We have no means of ascertaining anything further, and must be content with knowing that the same “Angel of God’s presence” who was with Israel in the wilderness watched over the people in Babylon.
________________________________________
Commentary on Daniel 3:25". "Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers". "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries
/ebc/view.cgi?bk=da&ch=3. 1905.

Aren't people's words supposed to be understood by how THEY meant them and not by what it happens to stimulate in the minds of the? Here they admit that the king did not believe the fourth man was a chief among the gods but a mere messenger. Also, if that was really his belief why translate HIS words as "THE SON of GOD" when he most certainly would have said "a son of gods." It was obvious to these commentators that Nebuchadnezzar meant (his equivalent of) an angel.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged -

“The form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas (John 11:49-52), and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths, the full import of which he did not himself understand. "Son of God" in his mouth means only an "angel" from heaven, as Daniel 3:28 proves, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, etc., who hath sent his angel." (Compare Job 1:6; Job 38:7, where "the sons of God" mean the angels; Psalms 34:7-8, "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them;" and the probably pagan centurion's exclamation, Matthew 27:54, "Truly this was the Son of God"). The Chaldeans believed in families of gods: Bel, the supreme god, accompanied by the goddess Mylitta, being the father of the gods: thus by the expression he meant one sprung from and sent by the gods. Really it was the "messenger of the covenant," who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.”

Had you bothered to read my posts you would have seen that I quoted from this commentary. Look at it again. They are not claiming that Nebuchadnezzar was saying the "fourth man" was THE (one and only preeminent) Son of the one true God. In fact, they say that when the King uttered the words he was unconscious of their meaning, and that, moreover, that he was MADE to utter them...but who is making him? I think it is the commentators that are putting words in his mouth about subjects he knew nothing about pertaining to issues that would not be understood for centuries, even among the Jews .

The commentators responsibly examine the mythological belief system of the Babylonian. They say that based on his religious cultural context the king would have intended the term "son of God" to mean that he had"sprung from and sent by the gods (plural)." This, by itsel,f provides a basis for translating his exclamation "the fourth one is like a son of the gods." After this insightful bit of history they return to the tradition, stating dogmatically "really it was the "messenger of the covenant," who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation. without giving any basis for it in the text. I maintain that this is a departure from sound hermeneutics.

Since I am not a Translation Gnostic I do not claim to have received a divine revelation that a single translation is infallible. I assume that the original texts were God-breathed since they were what Paul was referring to in his letter to Timothy. If those no longer exist at all then all translations are based on empty air (including the KJV) and God has failed to preserve His word.

While neither the KJV or any Bible is perfect we have truth in all and we can always check the Greek texts for accuracy when necessary. I would rather use this method of reading the Bible than to be able touch and grasp something that is essentially a myth. How did you receive your revelation anyway. Was it by dream, vision? Did God speak to you? Did you have an emotional experience? If so, how can you expect someone who has not received it to believe as you do?

 

[tetelestai]

He demonstrated from the dictionary that the term makes sense, and applies to you.

Apparently you don't know what an oxymoron is.

I could demonstrate from a dictionary how "jumbo shrimp" makes sense, but it doesn't mean "jumbo shrimp" isn't an oxymoron.

The term "bible agnostic" is an oxymoron.

 

[George Affleck]