Shasta. What I said, and still say is the Jamieson, Faussett and Brown themselves believed that this was the Son of God who was with the Hebrew children. I know that they go into what they think Nebuchadnezzar thought, but what was the conclusion Jamieson, Faussett and Brown gave us at the very end there? You DID read it, right?
This is their own conclusion when commenting on Daniel 3:25 - "Really it was the "messenger of the covenant," who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation."
They sided with the way the King James Bible has it.
By the way, here is a more complete list of Bible translations that read like the King James Bible in Daniel 3:25 And when you look at the actual translation of the most common "Septuagint" in print that is out there, it says "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD" So does Brenton's New Translation of 2012.
"The fourth is like THE SON OF GOD"
"And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" is the reading of Wycliffe Bible 1395 - "the 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."
It 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 - "And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God!”
This online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."
http://studybible.info/IHOT/Daniel 3:25
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 the Modern Greek Bible -"ου τεταρτου ειναι ομοια με Υιον Θεου."
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.
A son of the gods would not be the the Lord Jesus Christ, I agree but we do not interpret the word with the intent of inserting our doctrines. The laws of hermeneutics dictate that, in order to understand the scriptures we must first read the words of a passage or verse in the ordinary sense they would have been understood at the time they were written or spoken. If you go in with an agenda as you have, you are certain to miss what it is saying.
If you had bothered to read my posts you would know that I read the whole of what Jamieson, Faussett and Brown said about this verse though you apparently only read their statement of faith appended on the end.
Let me attempt to communicate my thoughts more clearly. First here is what they said:
…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.
Really it was the “messenger of the covenant,” who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.
1. I find it fascinating that they would say
Nebuchadnezzar was made to UNCONSCIOUSLY utter divine truths.
This is an outright admission that he did not
consciously mean what his words
seemed to say in the English text. Leaving aside the issue of the UNconscious content of his words let us consider his CONSCIOUS understanding (of his own words)? After all, isn't the first responsibility of Bible student to try and understand what people in the scriptures meant rather than to impose our ideas into their heads and mouth?
2. What the king meant is not hard to figure out. The commentators say that by “Son of God” he only meant
AN Angel from Heaven. “AN” is an indefinite article implying he was not speaking of a specific angel, just an angel.
3. Next, Jamieson, Faussett and Brown do what responsible interpreters of the Bible do. They explore the king’s cultural-religious background in order to understand in more detail the context of his king’s remarks. They explain:
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.
4. Based upon this, the commentators admit that “
Son of God”
in his mouth means only
an “angel” from heaven (or, I might add, his equivalent of an “angel”)
This being the case, would the best translation of his remark be “the fourth one is like
THE Son of
God?” The definite article “
the”could imply that he was speaking of
one particular “angel”that was in some way separate from and superior to all others. For a definite article to be implied the meaning would have to be unequivocally understood. Here it is not. The king knew of no such angel in what he would have imagined to be the pantheon of the Hebrew's God. When the commentators were speaking of the king's words they already said that he meant only “
AN”angel
I believe the commentators are correct in their assessment of the king’s words. As powerful as the messenger apparently was, no messenger was equal to the deity who had sent him. He would not have imagined that any god as powerful as that of Shadrack, Meshek and Abed-nego would carry his own messages. No, as far a Nebuchadnezzar was concerned, the fourth figure in the fire was not a major god but rather a “son,” a lesser deity or demi-god one appointed to go on missions: such as delivering messages or delivering favored mortals from firey furnaces. The fact that he believed it to be a messenger is revealed in.
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 (
Daniel 3:28)
5. I also agree with the commentators that the word “son” was a word that meant an angel. It was not meant to convey the same sense of sonship as Jesus meant when He said He was the “Son of God” The Jews rightfully took this be a claim of equality with God. In Daniel 2:25 “son” is equivalent to an angel, a divine being. By rendering the text “The Son of God”translators are importing theological terms that were unknown at that time in history.
6. The interesting thing is that despite what their scholarly research has revealed, when it comes to drawing a conclusion they say:
Really it was the “messenger of the covenant,” who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.
In reality this is not a conclusion, that is, it does not naturally follow the flow of their reasoning. It is just a reiteration of their preexisting belief in a tradition that the figure in the fire was actually God, in the person of the pre-incarnate Christ. Though they assert this as a statement of faith they have done nothing to establish it in their exposition. The only “proof” is that the words of some translations
seem to read that way which is the main part of what you call proof.
In the end, all the research Jamison Fausett and Brown employed in to interpret this scripture could not override their pre-existing traditions. In the same way, no fact of history, culture, linguistics, employed in a reasoned argument can ever supersede the lettering of the KJB to someone who is a committed Translational Gnostic. for the basis of their belief is not grounded in reason, at least not primarily so but in faith, faith in personal revelation about the infallibility of the KJB. They are devoted to the letter first and to interpreting it properly second. The question of the KJVO position is not first “what do the scriptures say”but whose
side are you on in this verse the KJB or one of the other ones. Hence they are committed to ongoing conflict with the majority of Christendom who are increasingly reluctant to learn to read archaic English.
BTW here are Bibles who interpret the fourth being in the fire in a way that is more like what the king would have actually said
consciously (Daniel 3:25)
A SON OF THE GODS: New International Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, GOD'S WORD® Translation, JPS Tanakh 1917,New American Standard 1977, King James 2000 Bible, American Standard Version, English Revised Version, World English Bible, Young's Literal Translation, The Bible in Basic English, American Standard Version, New Century Version, Hebrew Names Version, Revised Standard Version, Today's New International Version,
A SON OF GOD: Darby Bible Translation New Living Translation, NET Bible, Common English Bible, New Revised Standard;
THE SON OF A GOD: Lexham English Bible;
LIKE ONE OF THE GODs: Common English Bible;
THE APPEARANCE OF A GOD: New Revised Standard;
LIKE AN ANGEL: Good News Translation;
LIKE A DIVINE BEING International Standard Version
