MennoNet.com

temporal1 wrote:yes. that addresses my question.
the “a” confuses my little brain. but, some translations use it.

You obviously read this carefully in several translations, and noticed an important difference between them. Which is a great thing to do in general.

I think "God is love" (not "God is a love") and "God is light" (not God is a light) are also relevant here.

silentreader wrote: As an aside, Nebuchadnezzar's statement is possibly better translated as "a son of the gods" for several different reasons.

May I ask why you think this?
I appreciate the Septuagint in this particular passage (well I normally trust the Septuagint) but why would this be the son of the gods? That's kind of strange isn't it in light of the fact there really are not REAL other gods?

Valerie wrote:

silentreader wrote: As an aside, Nebuchadnezzar's statement is possibly better translated as "a son of the gods" for several different reasons.

May I ask why you think this?
I appreciate the Septuagint in this particular passage (well I normally trust the Septuagint) but why would this be the son of the gods? That's kind of strange isn't it in light of the fact there really are not REAL other gods?

I'm sure Nebuchadnezzar thought other gods were real.

ken_sylvania wrote:

Valerie wrote:

silentreader wrote: As an aside, Nebuchadnezzar's statement is possibly better translated as "a son of the gods" for several different reasons.

May I ask why you think this?
I appreciate the Septuagint in this particular passage (well I normally trust the Septuagint) but why would this be the son of the gods? That's kind of strange isn't it in light of the fact there really are not REAL other gods?

I'm sure Nebuchadnezzar thought other gods were real.

Yes. It is a quotation of one who did not know God, not a statement of truth from the Biblical viewpoint. (also see Pharaoh's rhetorical question: "Who is Yahweh, that I should fear him?" His own answer was "No one who has power here, and I don't." But the events that follow clearly show how wrong he was.)

Valerie wrote:

silentreader wrote: As an aside, Nebuchadnezzar's statement is possibly better translated as "a son of the gods" for several different reasons.

May I ask why you think this?
I appreciate the Septuagint in this particular passage (well I normally trust the Septuagint) but why would this be the son of the gods? That's kind of strange isn't it in light of the fact there really are not REAL other gods?

Both Ken and Neto's responses speak well to the reason why. In the remainder of chapter 3 king N speaks of the God of the three young men, this seemingly differentiating from the gods of King N. It is not till chapter 4 that King N gets dealt with directly by the Most High God. Whether he believed after that in one real God or not? But I think in chapter 3 he still believed in multiple gods.
One of the problems with being sure about the phrase, "Son of God" is that this part of Daniel was originally written in Aramaic/Syriac rather than Hebrew, so it can't be directly compared with other Scriptures, such as in Job or Genesis, where a similar phrase is used from Hebrew.
Yes, the Septuagint reads "Son of God", as does the Peshitta, interestingly enough. On the other hand the Tanakh says "the appearance of the fourth [one] is like an angel's."

So in other words, my opinion is just that, an opinion, but the one that I think agrees best with the text in context.

Bootstrap wrote:

temporal1 wrote:on biblehub, most translations do not use “a” .. some use a capital “S” in Spirit, but not all.
http://biblehub.com/john/4-24.htm
is there significance?

Ah, I see that you posted this before I posted on the same subject.

I think this is significant, and I think "God is spirit" is probably the better translation, but this isn't something you can "prove" from the Greek. I think it's similar to phrases like "Jesus is Lord" (not "Jesus is a lord"), "the Word was God" (not "the Word was a god") or "Herod is King" (not "Herod is a king").

Greek does not have the word "a", and it thinks a little different about the kinds of things we use "a" and "the" than we do in English. Each of the phrases above actually could be translated either way if they stood alone, you really need context and the intent of the author or speaker to know which one is intended.

My 1901 ASV uses "God is a Spirit...", so both the capital "S" and the use of "a".
In John 1, it does not use "a", and reads "the Word was God". Now, John 1:3 is where the ASV gets some riled up

silentreader wrote:

Valerie wrote:

silentreader wrote: As an aside, Nebuchadnezzar's statement is possibly better translated as "a son of the gods" for several different reasons.

May I ask why you think this?
I appreciate the Septuagint in this particular passage (well I normally trust the Septuagint) but why would this be the son of the gods? That's kind of strange isn't it in light of the fact there really are not REAL other gods?

Both Ken and Neto's responses speak well to the reason why. In the remainder of chapter 3 king N speaks of the God of the three young men, this seemingly differentiating from the gods of King N. It is not till chapter 4 that King N gets dealt with directly by the Most High God. Whether he believed after that in one real God or not? But I think in chapter 3 he still believed in multiple gods.
One of the problems with being sure about the phrase, "Son of God" is that this part of Daniel was originally written in Aramaic/Syriac rather than Hebrew, so it can't be directly compared with other Scriptures, such as in Job or Genesis, where a similar phrase is used from Hebrew.
Yes, the Septuagint reads "Son of God", as does the Peshitta, interestingly enough. On the other hand the Tanakh says "the appearance of the fourth [one] is like an angel's."

So in other words, my opinion is just that, an opinion, but the one that I think agrees best with the text in context.

Thank you Silentreader- a couple of things to consider here (which is really isn't relevant to Lesterb's original question but it does speak into the understanding of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit as 3 in one-
I realize what Ken said is true- Nebuchadnezzar believed in false gods-as real (perhaps, he thought himself to be worthy of worship)- however- note what the king said next: "Shardrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the Most High God"...... so apparently he recognized that their God was the Most High God- so it isn't out of place to consider that he meant just what it says he said in the Septuagint: the fourth is like the Son of God. In addition, I am not sure why he would think that their gods had sons? Maybe they did-I just don't remember them claiming their false gods had sons. Or could.
Regarding the Tanakh sayiing "the appearance of the fourth one is like an angel's" (I'm not familiar with the Tanakh) is not entirely wrong to say either- because when the pre-incarnate Son appeared in the OT, He was often called Angel of the Lord (as opposed to "a"ngel used when referring to other angels. These kinds of references are referred as Theophanies of the pre-incarnate God- and the OT is full of typologies that the interpreters of the New Testament were able to understand then (and the Lord Jesus may have helped them with this as He would have explained the Scriptures more fully to the Apostles.

The footnote in my Bible- says something interesting- St. Hippolytus (Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 AD)writes that the king's recognition of the fourth man in the furnace was a sign that the Gentiles would recognize the incarnate Word when He came-
I guess for me, I'd rather stick with the earliest translation and interpretation- remember- even Balaam's donkey could see an angel warning- when Balaam could not- I think when God get's involved some of these things are astounding-

Valerie wrote:

silentreader wrote:

Valerie wrote:
May I ask why you think this?
I appreciate the Septuagint in this particular passage (well I normally trust the Septuagint) but why would this be the son of the gods? That's kind of strange isn't it in light of the fact there really are not REAL other gods?

Both Ken and Neto's responses speak well to the reason why. In the remainder of chapter 3 king N speaks of the God of the three young men, this seemingly differentiating from the gods of King N. It is not till chapter 4 that King N gets dealt with directly by the Most High God. Whether he believed after that in one real God or not? But I think in chapter 3 he still believed in multiple gods.
One of the problems with being sure about the phrase, "Son of God" is that this part of Daniel was originally written in Aramaic/Syriac rather than Hebrew, so it can't be directly compared with other Scriptures, such as in Job or Genesis, where a similar phrase is used from Hebrew.
Yes, the Septuagint reads "Son of God", as does the Peshitta, interestingly enough. On the other hand the Tanakh says "the appearance of the fourth [one] is like an angel's."

So in other words, my opinion is just that, an opinion, but the one that I think agrees best with the text in context.

Thank you Silentreader- a couple of things to consider here (which is really isn't relevant to Lesterb's original question but it does speak into the understanding of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit as 3 in one-
I realize what Ken said is true- Nebuchadnezzar believed in false gods-as real (perhaps, he thought himself to be worthy of worship)- however- note what the king said next: "Shardrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the Most High God"...... so apparently he recognized that their God was the Most High God- so it isn't out of place to consider that he meant just what it says he said in the Septuagint: the fourth is like the Son of God. In addition, I am not sure why he would think that their gods had sons? Maybe they did-I just don't remember them claiming their false gods had sons. Or could.
Regarding the Tanakh sayiing "the appearance of the fourth one is like an angel's" (I'm not familiar with the Tanakh) is not entirely wrong to say either- because when the pre-incarnate Son appeared in the OT, He was often called Angel of the Lord (as opposed to "a"ngel used when referring to other angels. These kinds of references are referred as Theophanies of the pre-incarnate God- and the OT is full of typologies that the interpreters of the New Testament were able to understand then (and the Lord Jesus may have helped them with this as He would have explained the Scriptures more fully to the Apostles.

The footnote in my Bible- says something interesting- St. Hippolytus (Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 AD)writes that the king's recognition of the fourth man in the furnace was a sign that the Gentiles would recognize the incarnate Word when He came-
I guess for me, I'd rather stick with the earliest translation and interpretation- remember- even Balaam's donkey could see an angel warning- when Balaam could not- I think when God get's involved some of these things are astounding-

That's fine, I had considered all that and still came out where I did. What you expressed is your opinion, I don't see any actual fact there either, so it is the same as mine, an opinion, and as you said none of it is relevant to the OP.

Sorry for the diversion, Lester.

Daniel 3:25 is interesting, and I'm not confident that I know the right answer here. The Septuagint Greek differs from the Aramaic here. Since I cannot read Aramaic well enough to have an opinion, here are two opinions from sources I generally trust.

Net Notes

The phrase like that of a god is in Aramaic “like that of a son of the gods.” Many patristic writers understood this phrase in a christological sense (i.e., “the Son of God”). But it should be remembered that these are words spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his own polytheistic frame of reference; for him the phrase “like a son of the gods” is equivalent to “like a divine being.” Despite the king’s description though, the fourth person is likely an angel or theophany who had come to deliver the three men.

This agrees with the older but still respected Keil and Delitzsch:

The fourth whom Nebuchadnezzar saw in the furnace was like in his appearance, i.e., as commanding veneration, to a son of the gods, i.e., to one of the race of the gods. In Daniel 3:28 the same personage is called an angel of God, Nebuchadnezzar there following the religious conceptions of the Jews, in consequence of the conversation which no doubt he had with the three who were saved. Here, on the other hand, he speaks in the spirit and meaning of the Babylonian doctrine of the gods, according to the theogonic representation of the συζυγία of the gods peculiar to all Oriental religions, whose existence among the Babylonians the female divinity Mylitta associated with Bel places beyond a doubt; cf. Hgst. Beitr. i. p. 159, and Häv., Kran., and Klief. in loc.

The Septuagint is complicated here because there are actually two complete Greek texts for Daniel, and they are significantly different. You can see a good English translation of both texts side by side here. The translation on the right says "and the appearance of the fourth is like a divine son" (καὶ ἡ ὅρασις τοῦ τετάρτου ὁμοία υἱῷ Θεοῦ), which could also be translated "like a son of a god" or "like a son of God".

The translation on the left says "and the appearance of the fourth is the likeness of a divine angel". I don't have the Greek text that it corresponds to handy, but there may be other legitimate translations for that.

So ... this is one of those texts where I wouldn't wager my faith on any one of these interpretations. I'd look for applications that are not dependent on which one is right. And the range of possible readings is one more reason that I'm convinced my understanding of God is incomplete.

Bootstrap wrote:The translation on the left says "and the appearance of the fourth is the likeness of a divine angel". I don't have the Greek text that it corresponds to handy, but there may be other legitimate translations for that.

Just couldn't let this go. The Greek text the left-hand column translates is καὶ ἡ ὅρασις τοῦ τετάρτου ὁμοίωμα ἀγγέλου Θεοῦ. I think "a divine angel" is probably best. It could also legitimately be translated "an angel of God" or even "an angel of a god".

So for Daniel, "the Septuagint" refers to two significantly Greek texts, this verse differs between them, and each of these Greek versions of the verse could legitimately be translated more than one way. Sometimes looking things up in original languages gives you a simple answer, but often it just helps you understand why it's complicated. I don't know what the right reading is for this verse.