Very satisfying video.....I watch some pastors that promote KJV only but accusing modern versions as a corrupt translation that why I search if theirs a video that explains the difference between KJV and NIV that I've used regularly......and Daniel 3: 25 gives me a clear understanding ....now I can conclude and depend will that NIV is not a corrupt translation but have it's origin and explain....thank you so much sir for sharing this....God bless and more power to you...
I'm sorry that you've had so much negative feedback. I loved your video on the Isaiah text and this video is great as well. You are doing good and valuable work.
"they have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind"
The concept of the Messiah being the Son of God wasn't even a known or understood concept by the Hebrews in the Old Testament. Much less a pagan Babylonian king.
I've struggled with the whole KJV debate. I do have Gail's book and one other one. I was raised using and memorizing NIV. Sometimes I wonder if the KJV Only movement is a type of cult. 😢
I took Gail's book and my Wescott commentaries down from the shelf and read what he said and found Gail was cutting and pasting to make Wescott say what he was not saying..... Of course there is is some differences in doctrine as Wescott was Anglican.....BUT they were not the boogymen they have been made out to be!
I stumbled across your video on being fired over this. Your analysis is accurate. You lay it out well. It is ridiculous that studying what scripture actually says versus what a translation says would get you fired. I pray God opens a door for you where your teaching skills are valued.
It makes perfect sense that a pagan king would say “a son of the gods”. I’ve been studying a lot of these differences between modern translations and the KJV. It seems clear to me that the KJV translators and the vulgate translators thought they needed to help out the word of God in some places. The modern translators were just straight up about it. This leads KJV lovers to accuse them of taking things out or perverting the scriptures. God doesn’t need our help. We can just be honest about the scriptures.
Praying for you brother. I think your work/message is critically needed in this time. I love the KJV and I love most of the other major translations. Keep running the race!
I reached out to you on Facebook, love that you’re covering topics like Isaiah 14:12 and Daniel 3:25. I am only half way through this video! Keep up attacking these controversial topics.
Thanks you for this video. I haven't really understood this before now. People usually act like the king James translators made some mistake here and misunderstood the word they were translating (which seems unlikely in this case) or others say that the new versions are corrupt without proving it with the original language. You have explained the original language and explained why people have translated it differently and shown that there is a logical reason why they translated it as God and not gods. Both can be correct in their own way and you have helped me settle this in my mind finally 👏. I just started listening to you tonight and I dont know if you have yet but I think it would be great if you reasoned through and explained some of the verses used to argue king James only which few people ever seem to do (particularly Psalms 12). Without doing this most people will probably just say "well I believe what the bible says about itself is true, and the bible shows that the king James has the be the perfect word of God" even though there is no real foundation for king James onlyism in the bible.
Thank you so much for watching and for the encouragement. Here is a video that addresses Psalm 12. Does Psalm 12 Teach Preservation of the Word or a Particular Bible? th-cam.com/video/tn5JudFyx5k/w-d-xo.html
I’ve been a Christian for over 60 years, raised in church, cut my teeth on “old Pentecostal beliefs” I’ve been a member of and served in the different churches, because I was looking for the “Truth of Gods Word” I found the truth in an Independent Baptist Church, where, the Word was taught dissected and made clear, without anyones personal opinion or belief, we were taught to do exactly what you said, research it for yourself don’t take my word for it, it never ceases to amaze me how people make their assumptions and or decisions on another persons beliefs/opinions/words, “without doing their due diligence” before they make their decisions it’s so saddening that you were fired, unfortunately it’s not my first time hearing this and very unfortunately it won’t be the last, I pray your path becomes smoother but we know we are in the last days God Bless you for your Steadfast commitment to Proclaim the Word, and not hold fault against the church for firing you
Makes perfectly good sense of primary sources, through logical reasoning. I prefer a literal translation; and the KJV NT is good that way. But my 1982 NKJV has a note right beside Daniel 3:25. The note says, "Or [a son of the gods]". (Brackets are mine, to show what they have in italics.) Thank you! Kurios Iesous Xristos! :--}> (Don't know why, or to whom, the video would be controversial.)
I don't consider this a major problem. Now, if a translation says that Jesus didn't shed his blood and die for my sins, and was buried, and arose from the dead, I'd have a problem with that translation. And I'm an American, I read and speak a form of English. Not Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. I believe God. I like the KJV. I like the way it reads. I trust it. It showed me the Gospel. I don't question the Gospel. I believe the Gospel. I Love Jesus.
Verse 25 of the Concordant Literal Old Testament says "He was responding and saying, Aha! I am perceiving four masters, untied, walking about in the midst of the flame, and there they are, unharmed! And the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the elohim."
Correct. And even though Nebuchadnezzar didn't say "son of God", it does not take away from the deity of Christ or His faithfulness in any way. Thanks for the note. I had not looked up that the verse in the Concordant Literal Old Testament. Now I have to go find it.
Your conclusion lines up well with the text note in the NET Bible. I think you’d find it interesting. I was surprised to learn that you still preach from the KJV. I’m not saying that that’s good or bad. Just a little surprising. Excellent video.
Regarding "filio Dei" in the Vulgate, Latin doesn't have a definite article ("the"), and it has to be implied from context. I think it was pretty common for the LXX to use "angel of God" rather than "son of God", e.g., Deuteronomy 32.8.
Son of the God's is exactly . Correct Nebuchadnezzar had NO understanding of the one true God and just saw the God of the Hebrew children has stronger than the Babylonian gods.
I agree with you. But what is funny is that I looked up in this verse in my Logos and brought up the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible and in that verse, there is a square bracket that begins at the "s"of gods and ends at the word "fire" in verse 26. And the square brackets surround areas lost in the scroll due to various types of damage.
The Statenvertaling (Dutch bible) of 1637 and the Haak Bible of 1657 which was cross-translated from the Statenvertaling to English are problematic to KJVOs, regarding both Is 14.12 and Dn 3.25.
Two questions - 1. Do you think that as most people today can barely read a comic book, they would be able to understand the language of the KJV? 2. Do you believe that God is unable to watch over His word to preserve it? The church argues and fights and meanwhile millions of people go to Hell without hearing one word of any version.
@@pastorburris Amen to that! I was saved 41 years ago after someone told me Jesus was going to come back. In "Christian England" I'd never heard that before. I dug out an old RSV Bible and started reading, all over the place, Isaiah, Revelation... no one told me where to start, and it led me to give my life to God, track down the one who told me and ask to go to his church. We need to trust Him more.
Hey pastor, interesting discussion. I learned a few things about the Latin and Greek for this verse. On Bible Gateway, there is a 1599 Geneva Bible in modern American spelling, and here is its commentary for "the son of God" in this passage: "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 in these great torments, the son of God." In Isaiah 14:12, here is its commentary for "Lucifer": "Thou that thoughtest thyself most glorious, and as it were placed in the heaven: for the morning star that goeth before the sun, is called Lucifer, to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared."
I thank you for your courage sir to search out the matter in pursuit of truth. I would however say, that the NIV is more of a hybrid translation. Its about 50% word for word and 50% dynamic equivalence. Blessings!!
I appreciate your video. As someone who grew up with and still uses a King James, it is still important to go to the original languages and see what they actually say. It's also why sometimes English to English comparisons between various versions can be misleading somewhat. We have to ask why did the translators of modern translations choose the English words they did. Sometimes, there is a textual variant between manuscripts (i.e. Alexandrian vs. Byzantine). Other times they are actually being more literal than the King James translators. Case in point, in the New Testament, Paul's use of the emphatic negation rendered in King James English "God forbid." The word God is not in any Greek manuscript including the ones the King James translators used. The phrase is literally may it never be/come to be/come to pass. But how would you express that in 17th century English? With the figure of speech "God forbid." Paul did not say that in the Greek, but it conveys the same thought of "absolutely not!"
Dr. Heiser's Unseen realm explains the background knowledge for son/sons of God, gods, elohim...etc. We just need to approach it in the least offensive way like keep assuring that those elohims are so-called god the creature NOT the Creator. Dr. Heiser did pretty good job with that. We went through hot trials at seminaries but congregant arent. Their size of bowl is not like ours. Sorry about your situation. May the Lord be with you and guide you for the best.
The thing in Isaiah clearly refers to Satan, from all versions, people don't want to hear that Satan was an angel before he fell and he desired to be higher than God and was cast out of heaven. And the things in Daniel is that Nebudkadnezar didn't recognize God, therefore imo he wouldn't say "the son of God" it makes more sense in my mind for him to say "the son of the gods". It took for him many years before God humbled him. "Sons of God" is referencing the fallen angels or angels, depending upon their affiliation. I say that because many christians to this day debate about the origin to nephlim. Nephlim in my opinion, are hybrids of fallen angels/demons and human women. People just want to cherry pick scripture and that's how inquisitions start. And what did Jesus say about this? Read the gospels for the answer. And He said that to show, regardless, we are to be reconciled with each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. We need to look past opposition of our opinions and love each other the way God intended.
Here is what the Reformers behind the Geneva Bible said in 1599 about this passage: "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 in these great torments, the son of God." Clearly, they didn't believe that this was talking about Jesus, but about a regular messenger or angel of God. Interestingly enough, in the Coverdale Bible 1535 and the Matthew's Bible 1537, they both say "and the fourth is like an angel to look upon", which would be more in line with the Septuagint. But, there's more; in Daniel 3:28, in the KJV, it says, "Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent his ANGEL, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." So, even if we assume that the original wording of what Nebuchadnezzar said was "the Son of God", he still equated this person with an angel or messenger.
@@pastorburris it would be a great video, the one that really gets me is the "Trinity". My belief is if it came out of the Catholic Church then how did it go to be in the christian church? When I first heard of it back in 2004 or so I didn't believe it let alone did it sit well with me.
Pastor Burris, Something I have come to believe through years of KJV onlyism, is that for many within this group, they may not realize the extent to which they feel as though their entire faith is questioned each time someone suggests that the KJV may contain an error, or imperfection. When people are taught that God failed if there isnt a perfect Bible for them to read, and they are shown the issues with all Bibles except for one.....they are set up to believe God failed, if that one last shot at a perfect Bible is shown to have an error. They are not taught how to handle the situation if that turns out to be the case, and it can completely pull the rug out from under them. And I believe that causes a lot of strong responses and even a lot of hate and anger, because its attacking all of their entire faith. Because their faith was based on Jesus, but only if the KJV was perfect. Their is a clause there, if the KJV is perfect, then you can trust Jesus. And I actually got very angry and filled with hate myself, until I read the KJV translators own words, and William Tyndales book. Then I found peace. Now my foundation is Jesus and the scripture. Not Jesus, and only if the 1769 revision of the KJV is perfect.
We must always remember that we are dealing with men here. The translators had no idea what God was doing when they prayerfully translated the words of God into the King James Bible. They were humble men, so we would accept nothing less than their very own words in the preface. As far as KJVO goes; I am most definitely in that group, but I had far more bitterness towards the KJVO group before it was revealed to me that they are absolutely correct than I now have towards those who simply have been decieved by these modern perversions. So, lumping people into one category and stereotyping them like they do to us is wrong on many levels. You have to be willing to submit to authority, and man has a serious problem with that. All of us do, including myself. What was said about someone trusting Jesus based on the KJB and then when an error is shown to them, they start to doubt or whatever. What do you think our adversaries plan was all along? Seriously. He wants people to never quite be sure that they can open their bibles and read God's perfect word. There are multitudes of passages ommited and changed in these new versions, so do you think that they are all correct? Where does it end?
@@flman9684 My issue is not with the KJV Bible. That is the one I have read for decades. The problem, and it is a real problem, is that there are a lot of KJV only people, that have come to believe that a person can only have full confidence of God, and salvation, if they have the perfect text of scripture. Meaning they must know the original reading, where every single variant exists in the manuscripts. And if they don't know everything about all of this, then they can't really trust God. This line of thinking does not work for a person living in England in 1539..... They only speak English, and their Bible options are the Tyndale/Coverale Bible, the Matthews Bible, and the Great Bible. None of which read as the KJV in Psalm 12:7 for example. These Bibles are not the KJV Bible, and do not read the same in all places. And yet, all they have to read in their language that they can understand, are Bibles that do not match what the KJV says in all places. But it's still important for them to read the scripture, and they still need to place faith in God. But they cannot use the same argument for their Coverdale Bible, that the KJV onlyist will use for the KJV BIble today, and have them, and the KJV onlyist both be correct. In 1539 the Erasmus New testament would be available and yet Erasmus plainly isn't convinced that 1st John 5:7 is original. Tyndale has the long reading in brackets. And Stephanus, and Beza have not completed their Greek New testaments, so they are not available for reference. Meaning the texts the KJV leaned on the most, are manuscripts sitting in libraries somewhere, at this point. But those Greek texts do nothing for an English only reader. The bottom line is that according to KJV onlyism, these English people in 1539 cannot read these Bibles they have available, and truthfully claim that they are perfect. And yet, somehow, they still have to have faith, in God, and learn from the scripture. And they did. Because regardless of whatever weaknesses their translation had, the testimony of the gospel was plainly set forth in them, and it was trustworthy. And once placing faith in Jesus, those Christians recieved the Holy Spirit, who will teach them, and they don't have to lean on their own understanding of the perfect reading everywhere, in order to have confidence in God.
@@hayfieldhermit9657Good evening brother. I appreciate your response. I hear the "pre-King James Bible" argument all of the time but the funny thing is; I never hear the same from the long list of KJVO teachers that I listen to. Isn't it strange that everyone that I lean on NEVER claims that someone did not have the Scriptures prior to 1611? The Scriptures have always existed. Romans 9:17 "for the scripture saith unto Pharaoh" You see; they have always existed even before being penned. Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue. Did Jesus Himself have the originals? We both know that he didn't. Did the Ethiopian eunuch have the original scroll of Isaiah? Absolutely not. That doesn't mean that Jesus didn't read the Scriptures or that the Ethiopian eunuch wasn't saved by reading of the suffering servant and being shown that it was speaking of Jesus. I also never hear that salvation is not possible if you don't read from a KJV. There may be some on the extreme fringe that feel that way, but as a whole, that simply is a false allegation. Even the despised Peter S. Ruckman, in whom I dearly love, continually stated that man can profit and hear the Gospel in even the corrupt versions. Of course, those are not the quotes that are ever posted from the graceless bunch that hates his guts. Shameful. Let's be honest. From the very beginning, God has had His remnant and he has preserved His Word. Satan has also has had one desire, and that is to corrupt the words of God. Corruption of the Scriptures has always existed. Where the separation of those who think like me and those who don't is a simple contrast. I firmly believe that God gave us His perfect word in the KJB for the English speaking people. It came on the heels of so many great men of God who diligently sought to write the word of God in their hearts. Many committing Scripture to memory so that it didn't matter when their copies were snatched from their hands. The Waldenses come to mind. So, the answer to your concerns are this: we do not believe that people prior to 1611 were not able to read the Scriptures with confidence. We do not believe that a modern version does not contain truth. We do not believe that salvation can be obtained by any other means apart from believing in the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ whose blood is the only satisfactory atonement for our iniquities. And that includes the book that we cherish. It really all boils down to whether or not one believes that God supernaturally signed that King James Bible or not. I believe with all of my heart that he did. I feel it when I read it. I read and studied from an NASB most of my saved life and it did not have the same effect on me. Not even close. Add the fact that all of these new translations have come out basically in my lifetime, and one has to at least pause and consider why? Have they produced the fruit that the KJB has? Not hardly. Do they have the mathematical perfection of the KJB? Absolutely not. That alone is enough to make any critic a believer if they didn't try to explain it away like they do. It is absolutely perfect because it is His book to us. I don't just respect it as good literature, I fully and wholly submit to the words contained within. The words that tell me everything about my Lord and my Saviour from beginning to end. God bless you and yours.
@@hayfieldhermit9657 I just read back through your original post and something struck me to the core. You are saying that those who "have been taught", whereas I say there are those "who believe", but nonetheless, those individuals are not taught how to handle it when someone shows them the errors in their King James Bible. That is an astonishing statement considering the very dilemma that we are faced with in this Laodicean age. Who is telling people that there are mistakes and errors in the Bible that has stood the test of time? The modern day scribes and those who trust them above and beyond the very Holy Bible. This is absolute proof that the sole purpose of Satan is to cast doubt in the hearts and minds of people. Now I am not disagreeing with your statement and analysis at all. Far from it actually. Please ask yourself one question: if not one single new version had ever been composed and the KJB had been left alone as the Holy Bible, would we have this exact situation that you correctly stated? Just food for thought, because you are on to something. It just doesn't shed much positive light on modern scholarship with their vanity and pride as they sift through perverted manuscripts to disprove the very word of God. I love ya and I thank you.
@@flman9684 I'll share some of my background with you. I'm Baptist, and always have been. My Baptist circles have tended to be friendly with the Hyles, Fairhaven type of Baptists, if you are familiar with those churches, or their colleges. So Jack Hyles taught that if one word was wrong in the Bible, then a person would have to wonder if they are even saved. He also said that people born of the corruptible seed, which he said was all the other Bibles outside the KJV, were not saved. So that is the kind of KJV position that I have seen, and I oppose strongly. Just so you know where I'm coming from. And there are still churches that are using these types of arguments for the KJV, that place a question in the mind of the congregation, that they may not be able to know anything for sure, if anything at all in their Bible is less than perfect. Which leads to a loss of confidence in God and salvation if there is a word in their Bible that is not perfect. I have close relatives that have spent many years as missionaries to a people that do not speak English, and in their language, those people do not have a Bible that a KJV only position could call perfect.... That realization made me think through some things I believed, and how I would have taught these foreign people. They had a decent Bible available, but not a perfect equivalent to the KJV. But these people read what they had and studied it. They grew as Christians, and some of them even became pastors and missionaries themselves, without being able to read, what I would have called a perfect Bible. So I really had to question the Hyles type of thinking, that I had grown up with. That if you don't have a perfect text, you can't have true faith. Or that you can't trust God. So essentially, I had this doctrine, that I would have held to be Christian, and true, and yet, I couldn't take my doctrine and take it with me to other countries, and apply it to their situation, and it still be true, or right. And I believe that if my doctrine were a correct doctrine, then it would travel to any place and any people and still work, because it would be a doctrine taught in scripture. So I have moved away from KJV only, as I was accustomed to as a child, and for many years after. Now I simply hold to the doctrine that God preserved the scripture and that it is still available to this day, and will be forever.
One of the best, most reasoned and level-headed Pastor\Teachers on TH-cam. This is how the subject should be handled. Thank you so much Pastor Burris for providing this wonderfully helpful content, especially for layman who need it so badly. Would to God I was local to your Assembly!
Then you don’t get out much This bro believes Jesus(in the flesh folks birthed through a earthen vessel called THE ONLY BEGOTTEN) and Lucifer are brothers It doesn’t get more blasphemous then that BTW Who’s lucifers momma UGH
@@beppiek, I’m not trying to be rude, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Your accusations are unfounded and absurd. I am not a Mormon. I can defend my faith against Mormons. Can you? It would be different if you actually represented my position or had a single fact right in your comment. You either did not watch the video and are are silly enough to comment on something you know nothing about or you watched the video and are willing to misrepresent me. That’s bearing false witness.
@@pastorburris Sorry wasn’t that why you were fired because of that belief and exegesis If I’m mistaken And you don’t believe that please forgive me for totally misunderstanding your video on your firing I will revisit the video Shalom
They are the same name but its how it’s translated from the Hebrew and from the greek. This is also why other Old Testament names appear different in the New Testament as well
@@Thrasher796 Oh, I unserstand they are the same name. But we don't translate Joshua in the old testament as Jesus even if they are the same name because that would cause confusion. My point is for christians Joshua, in that spelling is the israelite who left Egypt etc, Jesus in the new testament is the Son of God, God incarnate, our Lord, our Saviour and on and on. So why do some bibles translate Joshua and others Jesus in the same passage in Hebrew 4:8? Who is it talking about? Joshua from the old testament or our Lord Jesus Christ?
@@aitornavarro6597 its referring to Joshua and leading the people into the promised land, thereby giving them rest but its only a picture of the rest God gives. Translations that use Joshua are making it clear the text is speeking of him and not Jesus
Excellent video. Your honesty is rare. I would only ask for clarification/further study on this one point: your claim at 13:50 about plurality emphasizing majesty. Does literally even one example exist if this in ancient Hebrew? I have heard it does not, that it was a Middle Age European custom?
You are very kind and you asked a great question. My statement on the plurality of El -> Elohim speaking to majesty is a common interpretation of the text due to the vast and differing usage of Elohim. GotQuestions.com, for example, agrees with my assessment and says, “It is best to understand the word construction as a plural of majesty; that is, writing “Elohim” is a stylistic way of emphasizing greatness, power, and prestige.” (source: www.gotquestions.org/meaning-of-Elohim.html) Elohim is used in various ways: in hundreds of cases it refers to God and is used in conjunction with YHWH many times in the Psalms; in other cases it refers to false gods; and at other times it is even used to refer to judges twice in the Book of Exodus. What is clear is that each time Elohim is used to refer to God or judges, there is an exaltation or significance of either God or the judges who are referred to as elohim. It is for this reason, I made the association of the plurality of elohim to majesty. I was not basing it on linguistic practices of any time period. I hope that sheds some light on why I made that statement. Thank you again for such a great question and for not simply taking my word for anything.
Please forgive me. My previous comment explained my reasoning, but I did not provide a scriptural example supporting the use of Elohim (plural of El) so as to speak to majesty. Psalm 18:21 (KJV 1900): For I have kept the ways of the Lord,And have not wickedly departed from my God. Psalm 18:22 (BHS): 22 כִּֽי־שָׁ֭מַרְתִּי דַּרְכֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה וְלֹֽא־רָ֝שַׁ֗עְתִּי מֵאֱלֹהָֽי׃ In Psalm 18:21 (verse 22 in Hebrew), the word, LORD, is the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (יְהוָ֑ה or YHWH). The word, God, in the same verse is Elohim (אֱלֹהָֽי). There are other examples: Psalm 18:6, 21; 24:5; 29:3; 55:16; 69:13; 94:22.
That particular footnote is not original to the KJV. It was added by whichever publisher released the edition you're using. However, many of the original KJV marginal notes do agree with the choices made by modern translators. If you look at the 1900 Cambridge edition of the KJV hosted on Biblia, you can click on the asterisks to check the translator notes as you read. (They're also available in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible on Biblia.)
NKJV has that same footnote and I'm perfectly fine with that, in the Peshitta Bible it says the same as the footnote: "and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods". We know the Peshitta is based on the Aramaic texts.
Well done for seeking out the truth. Jesus spoke the truth even if the religious leaders of His day didn't like it. I can't help but think that God must be really happy with you. And I guess that's what we Christian's are here for to please God and tell the truth and not bend things to fit our narrative or tradition. Well done Christian brother. Love to hear more from you on those kind of things. Thanks for speaking up on the truth. If it's God's will I hope He gives you a bigger platform for those kind of things. Keep up your truthful work for God.
In all my bibles (in spanish) in Daniel chapter 3 verse 25 (verse 92 in catholic bibles) says 'hijo de los dioses' (son of the gods/child of the gods) or 'ángel de Dios' (angel of God) or 'appearance of a god'.
Indeeed the RV60 says "semejante a hijo de los dioses" (similar to [a] son of the gods) and NBLA says "semejante al de un hijo de los dioses" (similar to that of a son of the gods). I have a Portuguese bible - it was produced by borderline KJVO types (Trinitarian Bible Society), so it does have that bent - and it reads "semelhante ao Filho de Deus" (similar to the Son of God); go figure.
This is so cool. I don’t know if you know about polemics that were used in the old testament. But this reminds me of them. That God allowed both to be translated these versions their own certain way. Especially in Daniel 2:11. When a believer reads it and interprets it rightly they will see that Nebuchadnezzar and his magicians believe in their false gods but we know that the one true triune God prevails. But when an unbeliever interprets it wrongly as to sew discord, the truth passes over them so they will not see it. Amazing. This reminds me of the story of Balaam when instead of cursing God’s people he blesses them instead. Or when the high priest they accused Jesus of blasphemy and tore his clothes actually ended up quoting a prophecy unknowingly. lol it’s hilarious how God does things.
Pastor very good video sorry for all the trouble that has followed for speaking what you believe. I would like to suggest a book you may have already read the title is which version is the Bible by Floyd Nolen Jones. I believe you will appreciate what he shares.
This my friend is a perfect example why you have to be very careful what and who's book you are reading. This unbiblical stuff is what creates cults and crazy denomination. Its why I never go by popular teachings and all those books out there that twist God’s Word. Rightly divide the word and understand the thought behind it. No wonder you lost your job. People be careful who you're listening to!!
My understanding of the use of God vs. gods here is that Elohin, being the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew Elohim is that noun is considered by Hebrews as an "intensive noun", and functions as a title for GOD. Otherwise, why would Genesis 1:1 not read, "In the beginning gods created the world."? Because the same exact word Elohim (Hebrew) literally means "gods" and is correctly translated as "gods" in several places. Can you help me understand how you reconcile that? My information is coming from a Messianic Jewish rabbi and my Hebrew professor. Have you heard that explanation before? Thank you :)
The phrase is correctly translated "“the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods" with a lowercase "g". ALL English translations must justify using uppercase God and they cannot justify it by the context. You are going about this all wrong. You don't need to compare all those other translations that have God vs. god because the context demands god with a lowercase "g." This is Nebuchadnezzar speaking. It's his understanding of what a son of one of his false gods might look like because he didn't acknowledge the one true God YHWH until after he said this. The Hebrew, the phrase ben elohim (לְבַר־אֱלָהִֽין), can refer to “a god,” “gods,” or “the LORD God Almighty who is YAHWEH, the only true God and creator.” In this instance, elohim is not referring to YAHWEH. There is only one stated who appears as "like the son of the gods." It's "like the son of the gods" to King Nebby because at the time Nebuchadnezzar didn't acknowledge any other gods then the ones he worshiped. It was like a son of one of the gods he worshipped. In this context, we know that Nebuchadnezzar worshipped a number of Babylonian gods, and at this time he did not recognize Yahweh as the only true God. In fact, when the three young men defied him, he denied the power of Yahweh and said, “who is that god that can deliver you out of my hands?” (Dan. 3:15). When he saw they were alive and unharmed in the fire, THEN, and only then does Nebuchadnezzar acknowledge their God as the “Most High God” (Dan. 3:26). But that doesn't mean ole Nebby knew YAHWEH. The Bottom line is that Nebuchadnezzar was describing a fourth "being" of some sort in the fire that he believed to be the son of a god that he worshiped. He could not be referring to a preexistent appearance of Jesus as the Son of God because he was completely ignorant of YAHWEH's existence in verse 25. Jesus wasn't even begotten or born at the time. That's why he says "like the son of a god" or "like the son of the gods" is also acceptable. He never knew about God (Yahweh) at the time he said what he did in verse 25. Sheesh, come on people. There is no justification for the use of uppercase "Son" or uppercase "God" in this text. Doing so is misleading the believer into thinking King Nebby saw Jesus in the fire, and that is an abuse of the word of YHWH.
John the Baptist said, Look the lamb of God. Therefore the lamb is the body of God. Almighty God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell/live in Christ's physical body 🙏 🙌
@@beppiek John the Baptist said, look,the lamb of God. Question what is the lamb in bodily from, what if John said, look the body of God. And the father does live in the lamb.
I'm catholic and I watch your KJV videos fight Hebrew Israelism. But I NEED to point this out to you: the exact same argument you make at the beginning of this video is the argument catholics make to protestants. Still love your videos. You make great KJV points. Just hope for logical consistency across the board.
The translation of Jerome's commentary has "God" instead of "god" and I want to know how anyone can justify uppercase God in that verse when in Nebuchadnezzar's mind he doesn't even know or acknowledge God (YHWH)?? It should be god or gods with a lowercase "g" because all the gods old Nebby knew were FALSE gods. In addition, there is NO justification for using uppercase "Son" in verse 25 for the same reason. Nebby didn't know, and could not have been referring to the Son of YHWH who is Jesus, because he knew nothing about either of them. This is a classic case of translators writing into the text from their own imaginations. Nothing in these verses are a foreshadowing of Jesus.
I recommend reading Bart Ehrman and checking out his TH-cam channel to get a real in-depth historical view/histology of the region and civilizations that predated and influenced the Hebrew people, as well as their contemporaries.
This is one of the reasons why I love my Companion Bible. Bullinger's note for Daniel 3:25 reads: "the son of God=a son of God (no Art.): i.e. a superhuman being, or an angel. Cp. v 28, and see App. 23. Nebuchadnezzar could know nothing of N.T. revelation." The KJV goes on to say in Daniel 3:28 that Nebuchadnezzar said "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, WHO HATH SENT HIS ANGEL, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." It should be noted here that Nebuchadnezzar saw a singular being that he attributed to be an angel from God. None of this is a problem. I agree that Nebuchadnezzar likely said "a son of the gods." Your error was that you preached at a KJV-only church where the level of intelligence was likely equivalent to a broken lightbulb.
Crickets...... So far no one is throwing stones at you.... You just couldn't resist reading the context, could you.... You had to go pointing out that he clarifies what he said a few verses later.... Well, you have challenged all of KJV onlyism here. And they can be a people of profanity and filthy mouths, as well as threatening if they are the of the Ruckman, Stephen Anderson variety. Hopefully they won't be violent towards you.
I seem to be the only person I know that uses a KJV and believes it to be the only inerrant and authoritative English version of God's word. Seems to be a dying breed of us. I stand by my conviction despite the naysayers. There's just so many things changed or omitted in other versions that leads me to believe the KJV is the way to go.
Why is the KJV your standard in which to judge all other translations? I would urge you to actually study into the topic without the blinders of KJV Onlyism. I would challenge you on the biblical support for making a translation an idol instead of what it was intended to be, a tool to aid in the studying of God's Word.
I know you have a lot on your plate at the moment, and you are doing some good work, but I have a question. Respectfully, why do you think this passage has anything to do with Jesus? Obviously that is Jerome's opinion, as you say, but does it have any merit? It isn't a cut and dry thing. To my knowledge, the connection is never made in the Bible, it's just pure speculation on the part of readers. I can only assume the Septuagint translators used "angel" because they felt that is an equivalent idea. I believe if you use your own reasoning you will see there is no way of claiming this passage is about Jesus. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It doesn't seem to be the point to me. Keep up the good work, sir. I'm enjoying your videos. They are a good reminder for all Christians to think carefully about what you believe.
Thank you for the question. At its core and in its truest interpretation, I do not think it is about Jesus. But, looking at it from the perspective of hindsight, I think it is possible/likely that it may have been a Theophany/Christophany. I think I was a little more firm in how I said it in the video, but that is purely based on interpretation -- not clear observation of the text.
I understand what the KJV editors did here, however old testament rumor of pagans is that they believed that all gods had sons. And going back to the beginning of Daniel, Nebekanezzer knew what god and kind of God The Hebrews served, so the KJV text is based on what was obviously the fourth man, the modern is based on the pagan culture. But In the "KJVER" Son of God is underlined as Elah????? Help me out with that please
Thank pastor I just happened to see your video best wishes for you Here some information maybe it will help Daniel 3:25 (SDAC 4): 25. Like the Son of God. Commentators have variously interpreted the exclamation of the astonished Nebuchadnezzar concerning the fourth individual in the fiery furnace. Jewish scholars have always identified him simply as an angel. This view is reflected in the LXX, which translates the phrase “like an angel of God.” Early Christian interpreters (Hippolytus, Chrysostom, and others), on the other hand, saw in this fourth personage the second person of the Godhead. The rendering of the KJV reflects this interpretation. The majority of conservative Christians hold to this view, although modern critical commentators have now generally discarded it, as is seen by the translations of the RV, ASV, RSV, and other modern versions, “like a son of the gods.” The problem is one of Aramaic grammar and interpretation. The Aramaic ’elahin, “gods,” is the plural of ’elah, “god.” In some cases where ’elahin is used, reference is made to pagan gods (chs. 2:11, 47; 5:4, 23). However, there are two passages besides the one under discussion where ’elahin can be interpreted to refer to the true God of Daniel (ch. 5:11, 14; see RSV footnote). Hence the translation “God” for ’elahin is justifiable if it can be established that Nebuchadnezzar was employing the term as a proper name. Grammatically, both translations, “like the son of God,” and, “like a son of the gods,” are correct. The context reveals that Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged the superiority of the most high God of Israel (see chs. 3:26, 28, 29; 4:2). In these statements the king was not referring to gods in general but to the God in particular. For this reason conservative interpreters prefer the translation of the KJV and can linguistically defend their preference (see PK 509; Problems in Bible Translation, pp. 170-173). But the Lord did not forget His own. As His witnesses were cast into the furnace, the Saviour revealed Himself to them in person, and together they walked in the midst of the fire. In the presence of the Lord of heat and cold, the flames lost their power to consume. - {PK 508.3} From his royal seat the king looked on, expecting to see the men who had defied him utterly destroyed. But his feelings of triumph suddenly changed. The nobles standing near saw his face grow pale as he started from the throne and looked intently into the glowing flames. In alarm the king, turning to his lords, asked, “Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? ... 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 Son of God.” - {PK 509.1} How did that heathen king know what the Son of God was like? The Hebrew captives filling positions of trust in Babylon had in life and character represented before him the truth. When asked for a reason of their faith, they had given it without hesitation. Plainly and simply they had presented the principles of righteousness, thus teaching those around them of the God whom they worshiped. They had told of Christ, the Redeemer to come; and in the form of the fourth in the midst of the fire the king recognized the Son of God. - {PK 509.2} And now, his own greatness and dignity forgotten, Nebuchadnezzar descended from his throne and, going to the mouth of the furnace, cried out, “Ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither.” - {PK 509.3}
It begs the question then.. what else is in the KJV that was not translated correctly? I mean, that's a big mistake to make. He should have translated the bible properly without injecting his own philosophy.
Way to many comments are made here whereby the individual is assuming that their particular understanding is the only resonable conclusion. It is sad to read these statements and see the extreme biasness of those who pen them. It always draws my interest when reading responses that express an opinion that is not represented by scripture. We all seem to believe that we have the right to say what we think simply bc we think it!! There was one mentioned in the Word who said "I will be like the most high." What will be his final state? I would guess that it would be dependent upon which version you use!?
An easier way to explain this is that the Babylon King had no earthly idea who the Son of God was much less the God of Israel. The Babylonians worshipped many gods, thus the King said and the fourth looks like a son of the gods. Your welcome.
But if you are teaching people who believe that all other English Bibles besides the KJV are “perversions”, you have to do like I did and provide tons of textual evidence.
@@pastorburris and @Imsaved777, The Babylonians, certainly knew about the Hebrew God. The proof is that when they went into Jerusalem, they recognized the significance of Solomon's temple, destroyed it, and took its treasures. This indicates a level of religious knowledge. Soloman was about 325 years prior to Daniel so even if it seems far fetched, I think even Nebuchadnezzar would have heard of Soloman. Daniel and his peers were incorporated into the Babylonian court. The book of Daniel is written in Hebrew up until Dan 2:4 and from thence, written in Aramaic. So what I'm saying is, that Daniel would have certainly shared his faith, especially at meal time. So without even looking at the "textual evidence" (which I think means looking at the Aramaic text) we have enough evidence to see how Nebudchadnezzar would have understood what he was seeing. I also read Jerome's commentary and I actually think his question about why Nebuchadnezzar could recognize Christ was rhetorical and not his own personal thought. I think that passage was showing how someone could understand the typology here for Christ in the furnace. Recognize that there is sooooo much in the Bible that is meant to make you think, question and seek out answers. I don't think Occum's razor is a common approach to Biblical interpretation. We should be encouraged to look throughout the bible for clues and often the best clues to start with are referred to as the "scarlet thread."
I have read much of Dr. Ross. He is wrong on this and many other points. As a Landmarkist, he also believes that those not part of the true Baptist church are not true Christians.
Ultimately, he makes the same argument that Steven Anderson does. But, he does so without scholarly evidence. He wants to equate Elohim (Hebrew) and Elahin (Aramaic). They are not equatable. He implies the definite article and singularity of Elahin based on conjecture - not linguistic usage. Dr. Ross is very intelligent. But he, in this case and others, uses his intelligence to support his presupposition rather than dealing with the clear facts.
@@pastorburrisNo offense, but I will trust the forty-seven KJV translators who wrote, read, spoke, and ate multiple languages for breakfast every morning, along with God's promises of divine preservation for a perfect Bible in the year 2023. Blessings.
@@writethevisionministry3050, let’s see how much you trust them. Do you trust those 47 translators when they said in the preface that even the meanest (poorest) translation contains, nay IS the Word of God? Do you trust the translators when they said their work was not perfect? Do you trust the translators when they said their work should be improved upon? Do you trust them when they said they guessed at some Hebrew words and their meanings? Do you trust their decisions to go with the Latin Vulgate over 60 times instead of the reading of the Textus Receptus? Do you trust their translation of Ruth 3:15 or do you trust those that revised it after them and changed it? I do hope you will clarify what you mean when you say you trust the KJV translators.
@@pastorburris Thanks for asking me this. I shall respond. Not to toss you off to Dr. Ross again, but he just finished a series reviewing his debate with Dr. James White and went over the KJV preface to the reader argument. The KJV translators also said “But it is high time…… that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one…. but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one.” The entire 54-page context of the original preface to the KJV in book form by Edgar J. Goodspeed says something different than what the modern scholars attempt to make it say, in my view. < Do you trust their decisions to go with the Latin Vulgate over 60 times instead of the reading of the Textus Receptus?> Yes, I do. God also used the Latin Vulgate (not to be confused with the better Old Latin/Italic) that at times preserved some readings that the early Gnostics corrupted in the Greek. Case in point the Comma in I John 5:7, of which 49 out of 50 Old Latin manuscripts have the Comma in the text. “The Latin churches did not have as difficult a problem with Arianism or with the other Trinitarian controversies because they kept the Comma! This is a generalization based on historical observation: It is too much of a coincidence that where the Comma was kept - the Trinitarian controversies were minimized. Where the Comma was deleted - the Trinitarian controversies raged” (Robert P. Wieland). Yes, I still trust the KJV translators, especially in light of Ruth and Boaz both going into the city. If you read the context, we find several verses later in Ruth 4:1-11 that Boaz, “he” also went into the city, for Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi saw the matter as urgent, saying Boaz “will not be in rest, until he have finished the thing this day” Ruth 3:18 (KJV). Thus within ‘the same day’ both Ruth and Boaz went into the city. I recommend my online paper on this called ‘The Oxford vs. Cambridge fallacy.’ Were there printing errors in the original 1611 KJV? Yes, there was. But these typographical errors were corrected within several years (Scrivener 1884) and have remained the same ever since, and the standardization of 1769 is what the KJV comes from today. I hope that helps clarify a bit when I say, ‘I trust the KJV translators.’ But my faith is primarily in God’s promises of preservation working through them (Job 32:8) KJV. I wrote a 444-page book answering many such questions as these called, "The King James Only Debate: Can you trust the Modern Scholars"? Blessings.
If you are implying it was Jesus then you're interpreting and applying something to the Bible that isn't there in the translation. Whether Neb saw Jesus or not, we can't confirm or build theology off of it. We have to take it at face value. Whether it was Jesus or not, it holds no significance to the point of the story or our salvation. Not one person will be in heaven or hell because they believe or don't believe that was Jesus. God won't be at the gates telling people that they did everything right with salvation except that one story in Daniel, you didn't believe it was Jesus so off to hell you go. It should hardly be a fireable offense of a Pastor.
Did you watch this video? In this video, I clearly show that there are inconsistencies in the KJV as well. It is a translation. It should be expected to a certain extent with any translation. What is important is that we know why translation decisions were made. We can be confident in the Word of God.
The important thing to understand is why those inconsistencies exist and to know that, whether in the KJV or MEVs, the inconsistencies are a result of translation or scribal errors. They do not impact the inerrant, infallible, verbal plenary inspiration of the scriptures in the original languages.
@@pastorburrisI pray those we love and care about understand this truth. I wanted to message you or comment but wasn’t sure of exactly what to say. But after reading your comment here, that is my prayer, that others understand this truth. I’ve watched many of your videos over the past few months. I truly enjoy your preaching and your teaching. I was shocked and sad when I was finally able to make it tonight and walked into heartbreak. We are praying for you and your family. Our Father in heaven always provides for His children. When He closes one door, it’s for our own good. And He will take us to where He wants us. You’re in our prayers. With love, Duran & Chadell
That made me ugly cry. I am so sorry that you witnessed the events of tonight. Your family means the world to me and my family. Thank you for your prayers.
"a son of the gods" doesn't make much sense in light of King Neb.'s confession in VS 26 and 28. He wasn't talking about "gods" he was talking about THE most high God (VS 26), the God of Israel (VS 28).
True, but he had no concept of the Trinity or that that most High God had a Son. And for the record even “Most High God” being capitalized is an interpretation of the translators. Do not read into the text what the text does not say. Nebuchadnezzar is a polytheist. While he is acknowledging the greatness of their God, he is still believing of many gods at this time. And there is no way to translate what Nebuchadnezzar said in Daniel 3:25 without interpreting; which is exactly what Jerome did. I show this irrefutably in my video near the end
All of this ignores a key issue and something that is never offered to listeners. This reliable and that preferred is not enough. Is there a perfect bible on Earth today (any language / any version)? Faith indeed is based upon evidence and if there is a perfect copy of God's Word on Earth, the best evidence should allow you to trust a version as flawless (not reliable / preferred) until eveidence proves another version to be that, one must abandon the first as imperfect. What the Autograph Onlyist offers is endless criticism (finding all the errors in this version and that manuscript) but they NEVER offer their audience a perfect Bible. They only seek to ensure anyone who is foolish to believe God's Word exist in perfect form no longer do. So why would a Bible believer abandon their copy of the Word of God (that they can hold and read) without you offering them something to replace it. Even you don't fully trust any Bible, why is it so important to ensure everyone else has no faith in God's ability to preserve His Word? That's like a religious person coming to Christians and telling them that the orthodox version of Jesus is not God and we shouldn't believe in Him. And when we ask what we should believe, they say "anything so long as we don't believe in that version of Him." Just keep studying but be sure to never settle on anything. Every person should believe the Bible they read as perfect BY FAITH (which is evidence based). If they believe every version at once (knowning they're all different), that person is their own final authority they only have faith in their intellect.
I have addressed this argument many times in the comments of my videos. I reject your premise. We do have the perfect Word of God. What we do not have is a perfect translation. And the burden is on you to prove that your particular translation is perfect. How do you know that the KJV is perfect? Which version of the KJV is perfect? If there is any part that is different between versions calling themselves KJV, then they cannot both be perfect and say different things - no matter how insignificant. Which KJV is perfect Sir? As you said, “faith is indeed based upon evidence”. Be sure to give some evidence to support your claim of perfection for a specific edition of the KJV. I eagerly await your reply.
@@pastorburris You just used the word know. I do not know that any Bible is the perfect Word of God. I believe the King James Bible I read is God's perfectly preserved Word. You are welcome as usual to tell what isn't the Word of God. Can you please tell me what version is the Word of God. Maybe I'll abandon my position and chalk the KJV up at fallible as you have once I can get a copy of your Perfectly Preserved version.
@@mmhm007, I believe exactly what the KJV translators said in their preface to the reader: “That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of their's of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God:” While no translation is perfect, we absolutely do have the preserved Word of God. I answered your question. Now, please return the courtesy and answer the question I asked you in the comment you responded to.
@@pastorburrisNo, you did not answer my question. I understand your no translation axiom. There is not reason therefore to again discuss ANY translation(s) or version(s) of translations with you. That would be quiet futile. We can continue then as though ALL of them are therefore fallible and incapable of conveying the full meaning from the original languages. You made assertions about me knowing something I can't possibly know and to prove something you have already axiomatically excluded as a topic of discussion. Yet I am here extremely interested in your position because you are one of the only people who is not KJV who also believes that we have God's perfectly Preserved Words on Earth. That's Fantastic! I want a copy! I currently believe the KJV BUT would completely abandon it if you indeed have a copy that evidentially proves superior. When I was first saved, I had an NIV. Then the man who preached the gospel to me told me that the KJV was God's Perfect Word so I started using it as there were copies available at Walmart. Since that time, many have told me the KJV isn't God's Word but the strange thing is that they NEVER have offered me a copy of what actually is. Again, I am extremely interested in getting a copy of the one you have determined is indeed the preserved Word of God. WHAT IS IT? I honestly don't care what language it is, I'll start to learn the language or at the very least know I can't discuss actual scripture if I'm still referencing a translation until I do.
@@mmhm007, let’s do this. Since you are failing to recognize or acknowledge the categorical difference between preservation and translation, this banter is going nowhere. You are avoiding my questions while hiding behind a false premise that I have already dispelled. Therefore, let’s settle this in this way: I challenge you to a formal, in-person, public, moderated debate at a time and place to be determined on the subject of “The KJV as the Perfectly Preserved Word of God”. You argue the affirmative position and I will argue in opposition. I propose the following debate format: 20-minute opening statements by each of us, followed by a 10-minute rebuttal by each. Next, we will do two 10-minute each cross-examinations where we ask direct questions of another with the opponent agreeing to answer without filibustering. The debate will conclude with 10-minute closing statements by each party. Following closing arguments, there will be a 20-30 minute QA from the audience members. If you accept my challenge, please reach out to me on Facebook Messenger, Twitter DM, or via email. All are listed in the description of my videos. I will prepare a contract and send it to you for your review. I do hope you will accept my invitation. I look forward to having this conversation face-to-face before a live audience.
ive had alot of debate regarding sons of Gods, many thinking its angels when it isnt always the case, i use the berean literal, the nkjv, and the strongs concordance, and my faith is im a full pretersit, therefore believe everything has been fulfilled as christ stated in matthew 24:34, but also see that God has other sons. which makes sense as God Gave us Christ and christ was eternal with The lord at the beginning of time ---John 1:1-2 ---- but all riddled through out the bible it shows theres more then one son
Your full preterism is concerning, but for another conversation. My greatest concern is that you are not Trinitarian. On what evidence do you support your claim that God had “other sons”? Are you a polytheist believing in a pantheon of gods? I am most curious to your theology (doctrine of God).
@@pastorburris what are you talking about-------everything is fulfilled since 70 ad. the tribulation, the abomination of desolation, was all complete in 70 ad.... iom concerned that you dont know what that is.... what kind of bible are you reading l,ololol..... have you read the bible. you sound like a fool. however --- christ came to establish the new covenant---Heb --8:13-- In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. ----- cossss, the end of the age was near----1Co --10:11-- Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. ------ and when christ discussed the end of the age, the second coming of man it was for ----Mat --23:36-- Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. ----- where the fk you Got polytheism is weird bro... there is one true God, there is the christ. i believe their are sons of God, andelohim. there not to be worshipped... have a great day. dont bother responding, your too low iq
Does anybody believe that God has any bearing on anything ? You seem so determined to destroy the KJV.....I'm actually not a KJV only, but you make me love it more
You obviously know nothing about me and haven't watched many of my videos. I preach from the KJV. I love it. I simply said that, in this verse, the NIV was not wrong. Grow up.
I know you're saying the NIV got it right, but are you saying the KJV got it wrong? It's one thing to say something can be translated multiple ways, but it's another to say one of right while the other is wrong. I'll repeat, if you don't mind answering, are you saying the KJV is wrong?
I specifically said in the video that the KJV is not wrong. It merely copied over the Latin word. The NIV is more accurate here because it actually tells us the meaning of the word. It translates from the original language. The KJV does not here. Think of it this way: if the KJV had told us what that Latin word actually meant, we wouldn’t be debating this verse 1600 years after Jerome wrote “lucifer”. But no. The KJV is not wrong. It is just different. That’s the beauty and complexity of translation that I spoke of in the video.
But the same Latin word “lucifer” is used in 2 Peter 1:19 in the vulgate. I fully understand they are talking about two different people. But two questions: 1) why are KJVO who stress the English so tied to a Latin word rather than the actual English translation? 2) if KJVO are tied to the Latin word in Isaiah 14, why are they not tied to the very same Latin word in 2 Peter 1?
Neblet was Jewish so he was familiar with the Son of God and the coming Savior. So indeed, GOD can remove the scales for Neblet to actually see and discern the 4th man. Give the glory to GOD, not to man’s interpretation.
Dr. Phil Stringer addressed this verse, here: th-cam.com/video/2FAEB9CieW0/w-d-xo.html And it's a great sermon. It got me thinking, Pastor Burris, how are you going to preach a message on Dan 3:25 if the only message you have to say is that the NIV is correct and you can't trust your KJV Bible? How will that sermon go? Anyway, still praying for you, even if you hate me and send a heart to everyone but me. I know, and God knows I tried really hard to show you love in Christ.
God only tnspired certain writers certain writers did theirown thing same with translators wescort and hort changed the greek language to suit their thinking
The Septuagint is actually older than any Hebrew Bible we have. Fact. So I always check it first. But I also checked the Hebrew I did not check the Latin. It says son of God in all these the Kjv is correct. The kjv is translated from the majority text. The niv, and all the other modern texts are translated from the minority or as you liberals like to say the Alexandrian. So you choose to accept the minority 40 fragments versus the 5500 majority. What this demonstrates is you are siding with modern scholarship. All the early church that I'm aware also saw it as Son of God. But I did translate it myself before making this post. You probably have other theological issues. You probably think the world is a billion years old. You probably don't accept the book of revelation and a pretrib rapture so I'm sure you have other issues .
Would you mind showing me where you looked it up in the Hebrew so I can see it as well? When I looked at the Aramaic as it is presented in the Masoretic Text, it says “a son of the gods”. When I read it in the Septuagint, I saw angels. As I showed in the video, “son of God” doesn’t show up until the Latin Vulgate around 384. I look forward to hearing back from you.
1. While the LXX is older than the Masoretic text, the DSS, which is older than any LXX manuscript we have attests to the majority of the Masoretic text. Further, the Syriac translation of the Hebrew Bible we have, which is just as old as the LXX manuscripts we have, also tends to align with the Masoretic text. 2. On top of that, it is commonly noted by KJVO advocates that "older doesn't mean correct" when you are arguing against those who use the modern Critical Texts and translations form them of the NT. 3. The Aramaic text (or as you ignorantly called it, "The Hebrew") doesn't have "son of God", but "to a son of the gods". 4. the KJV didn't translate form the Majority Text. It translated from the Masoretic Text (particular form the 2nd Rabbanical Bible by Yaakov ben Chayyim) in the Old Testament (be diverged and followed the Latin Vulgate in a number of places), and a series of printed editions of the NT that became later to be called "the Textus Receptus", which were themselves based on about 6 to 12 late Byzantine manuscripts (and in Revelation, the last chapter from a backtranslation form Latin into greek). If "older" is your standard, then you need to reject the KJV, if "Majority" is your standard, you need to reject the KJV., in both cases, you should reject the nearly idolatrious position of KJV Onlyism. What is your evidence that he is a theological liberal?/ I don't know the guy, but I venture to say, that you don't either. Merely noting that the NIV happens to get one thing right in translating the Hebrew text, doesn't make him a theological liberal. Heck, it doesn't even make him a non-KJV preffered guy.
@@pastorburris The Leningrad Codex is where I looked it up. It's written in Hebrew and I'll try to paste it below if TH-cam allows me. It's about 1000 AD so not as old as the LXX but I believe more reliable. The LXX is an Alexandrian text and written in Greek not Hebrew. It's probably not the best translation too but I understand why it would be translated as angels.
עָנֵ֣הV-506 - He answered וְאָמַ֗רV-506 - and said, הָֽא־In-100 - Lo, אֲנָ֨הPP-129 - I חָזֵ֜הV-506 - see גֻּבְרִ֣יןN-169 - men אַרְבְּעָ֗הN-144 - four שְׁרַ֙יִן֙V-509 - loose, מַהְלְכִ֣יןV-260 - walking בְּגֽוֹא־N-173 - in the midst נוּרָ֔אN-228 - of the fire, וַחֲבָ֖לN-172 - hurt; לָא־NPar-102 - no אִיתַ֣יN-226 - and they have בְּה֑וֹן וְרֵוֵהּ֙N-172 - and the form דִּ֣י[רְבִיעָיָאof כ] (רְֽבִיעָאָ֔הN-144 - the fourth ק) דָּמֵ֖הV-506 - is like לְבַר־N-173 - the Son אֱלָהִֽין׃of God. ס Dan 3:25
There is God the Father who is the creator of all things there is God the Son who is Jesus who died for us who was crucified on the cross for all our sins and the Holy Spirit which was given to us to help guide us if you believe in other Gods than you don't believe in the Bible and God's word shall shall not put no other God before me
If there was a problem with the bible I very sure God should have stepped in because it's his word I trust the king james version it's been around for a very long time these new bibles have things taken out and mans opinions put in
The Niv was wrong. He was speaking in reference to their God, not his gods... He had already come to some understanding of Daniel belief in his God and understood who he was looking at, for he knew that they did not worship gods... God Bless
A couple questions if you don’t mind. How did the pagan king have an understanding of the Trinity? How can you say the king saw Jesus when he calls the fourth person an angel in Daniel 3:28?
I said nothing. The Bible speaks for itself. The word Trinity is pagan. Nebuchadnezzar First referred to the fourth Person in the furnace as the Son of God, then referred to Him as an Angel sent by God. As many people in the Bible will refer in different ways, just as we all do today... I believe his first statement was laid on his heart by God Himself, while in his state of shock... Thank you for your talks, I do enjoy them, except the silly one. @@pastorburris
@@faithhope7777 the Trinity is pagan? Can you tell me, specifically, who Nebuchadnezzar saw? Was it a mere man? Was it the same Jesus who is in the gospels? Who is this person? Is He merely a man? Is He God the Father in a different form? Is He an exalted being? Is He God or not? Is He the “son of God” or the “Son of God”? Is He “a son of God” or is He “the Son of God”? Please explain what knowledge Daniel or the king had of “the Son of God”. Who was this person? I’m trying to be exhaustive in my questioning, because I am very curious what your view of God is and also who this person Nebuchadnezzar saw was. Thanks.
The person who Nebuchadnezzar saw is simple, as all God work is. It was the Glory of God standing with His Children, as He wanted to be represented... God Bless@@pastorburris
You believe King Nebby saw Jesus? How is that possible when Jesus hadn't been born yet. No one else in the OT ever said they saw Jesus...so what's with that? You are on conflict with the Bible when you believe stuff you make up in your own mind. *"Begotten today" and "born this day" means Jesus was fathered (procreated by God) in the womb of Mary. (Psalms 2:7; Acts 13:33; Isaiah 9:6; Matthew 1:18; Luke 2:11; John 3:16; John 1:14-18 ; Matthew 1:20). Jesus was given life by YHWH. “For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the Son to have life in himself.” John 5:26. YHWH didn't give life to himself. If he gave life to Jesus to have in himself, that means Jesus could not have pre-existed. The incarnation (God becoming a man) requires a pre-existent Jesus. So man invented it to support his heresies. We can't have it both ways. All the texts that clearly point to Jesus having a beginning cannot be tossed aside for a few loosely interpreted and misunderstood texts. We interpret the complicated verses to be compatible with the simpler more pain texts. We don't throw out the plain texts in order to hold to a doctrine that contradicts them. The context in such verses always point to Jesus having been in YHWH's plan, in His foreknowledge, and Jesus being predestined for glory. (John 17:5-24). The Bible cannot contradict itself. Doctrines or beliefs that do not harmonize with the Bible, are false doctrines. Jesus the Nazarene, was a MAN delivered over by the PREDETERMINED PLAN AND FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD. He was put to death by godless men. Acts 2:22-23. Jesus was PREDETERMINED and PLANNED to come into existence. "In the past YHWH spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, [In the past YHWH never spoke through Jesus because Jesus did not exist]!! "BUT IN THESE LAST DAYS YHWH has spoken to us by His Son, whom He APPOINTED heir of all things, and THROUGH whom He made the ages [this present age and the ages to come]." HEBREWS 1:1-2 "But NOW HE has been revealed ONCE, AT THE END OF THE AGES, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." *Hebrews 9:26* "But WHEN the FULLNESS OF TIME CAME, God SENT HIS SON, born from a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law so that we could receive adoption as sons." *Galatians 4:4* He was FOREKNOWN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, BUT WAS REVEALED IN THESE LAST TIMES for your sake, who THROUGH him are believers in God, the one who raised him out from among the dead and gave him glory so that your trust and hope are in God. *1 Peter 1:20* *Revelation 13:8* states Jesus is the: “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Was Jesus slain before the earth was made? We know Jesus was crucified long AFTER the foundation of the world. What John obviously means is that before Jesus was brought into existence he was predestined to be the Savior of the world before the world was even formed. God’s plan for mankind's redemption, (from the beginning, before the earth was formed), was to be carried out through the person of Jesus. Reading preexistence into scripture rather than accepting predestination, destroys the harmony of the Bible. Jesus and all believers were in God's foreknowledge as a forethought (divine plan) before the earth was created. "If only there was a MEDIATOR between us, who might lay his hands upon us both." *Job **9:33* "No mediator" means no Jesus with YHWH. "IF ONLY there was one who would PLEAD FOR A MAN WITH YAHWEH, as a man pleads for his brother." *Job **16:21* No one to plead for a man means no Jesus. "But HE IS ALONE, so who can make Him change? What He desires to do, that is what He does." *Job **23:13* "YHWH is alone" means no Jesus with YHWH. Deuteronomy 18:18 states God would raise up a prophet (Jesus) from among the people of Israel and place His own words in his mouth. Also, Matthew 1:1-16 traces Jesus ancestry. Jesus was a begotten and born human being who was the result of a special act of procreation by God. God anointed Jesus and gave him His spirit without Limit. Jesus declares himself to be a MAN who has told the truth he received from God. John 8:40 Men do not exist before they exist.
My dear friend, I am not sure what your Christian worldview is or what denomination you affiliate with, but I will be brief in my response to you lengthy comment. I believe Jesus appeared to Abraham and many others. It is known as a Christophany. www.gotquestions.org/theophany-Christophany.html
@@pastorburris Listen, I have studied the Bible since 1964. I have put in over 100,000 hours of Bible study during the last 59 years. I only have one degree, a Minster's Degree from the Canadian Pentecostal Bible College in Vancouver. That was 1994, before I was enlightened regarding the man-made trinity doctrines. I really don't care what anyone thinks the Bible means to them. What I care about is what the Bible says when it is rightly translated, rightly interpreted, and rightly divided. Your beliefs MUST harmonize with the scriptures, and the scriptures must harmonize with the Bible, otherwise a conflict between verses means someone got it wrong. A preexistant Jesus is a FALSE Jesus. Now you mentioned Jesus appeared to Abraham and others. Please prove it. Show me in the scriptures where Jesus appeared in the OT. I gave you my proof texts that refute that belief. I wait to hear from you.
@@pastorburris Got questions is a Trinitarian source and therefore is tainted. 1. Genesis 12:7-9 - The Lord appeared to Abraham on his arrival in the land God had promised to him and his descendants. No Jesus there. the LORD is YAHWEH not Jesus. Remember, the LORD GOD ADONAI YAHWEH is the God and Father of Jesus who anointed Jesus as Lord and savior. Acts 2:36 note that the title "Christ" means savior according to Luke 2:11. Reading Jesus into this verse is eisegesis, not exegesis. 2. Genesis 18:1-33 - One day, Abraham had some visitors: two angels and God Himself. He invited them to come to his home, and he and Sarah entertained them. Many commentators believe this could also be a Christophany, a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ Jesus. Who cares what commentators read into this text from their imaginations? Nothing in this verse indicates that Jesus appears here, and YAHWEH is always represented by an angel, prophet, or someone acting as His agent. No one can see God and live....remember? No one has seen God, John 1:18. Why believe things that cause conflicts and contradicts the word of YHWH? 3. Genesis 32:22-30 - Jacob wrestled with what appeared to be a man, but was actually God (vv. 28-30). This may also have been a Christophany. No, Jacob simply acknowledged the man he wrestled with was a representative of YAHWEH. Moses was YAHWEH's shalliah/agent/representative. When the Israelites defied Moses, it was as though they were defying YHWH himself, and punished by YHWH for it too. Moses spoke as YWHW and for YHWH in the same chapter in Deuteronomy, but that doesn't make Moses become YHWH either. YHWH works through people and angels, and many people come away with a sense that they encountered YHWH through others. This is a common occurrence throughout the scriptures. No one has seen YHWH, but many people saw Jesus, so Jesus is not YHWH. 4. Exodus 3:2 - 4:17 - God appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush, telling him exactly what He wanted him to do. So the burning bush is Jesus? Come on man!! 5. Exodus 24:9-11 - God appeared to Moses with Aaron and his sons and the seventy elders. I see, so every time you see the word God you see Jesus? In fact God here is YAHWEH, the future Father of Jesus, since this is OT and before Jesus was even begotten. 6. Deuteronomy 31:14-15 - God appeared to Moses and Joshua in the transfer of leadership to Joshua. Same as above. 7. Job 38-42 - God answered Job out of the tempest and spoke at great length in answer to Job’s questions. God is not Jesus. Got questions goes on to confuse theophanies with Christophanies when in fact their are no Christophanies in the OT. “the angel of the Lord,” is Gabriel, NOT the pre-incarnate Christ. The incarnation is another man-made UNBIBLICAL doctrine. Got Questions has handled the word of YHWH in a horrible, disrespectful and irreverent way on the page you sent me to. It's all based on eisegesis and not true Biblical knowledge.
@@pastorburris Let's look at 1 Corinthians 10:4 in context. Paul is using typology. "Now these things became patterns [types: from Strong's 51:79 "typoi"] for us, so that we will not lust after evil things, as they lusted." 1 Corinthians 10:6 Let's not forget this fact as we proceed to make sense of how Paul could be using the title Christ (applied to Moses) in verse 4 as a type for Christ Jesus. Moses was YHWH's anointed Christ in the dessert leading the Israelites. Paul is using Moses as a type for Jesus, our Lord and Christ. "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. (other ancient texts have "God" and some have "the LORD." Regardless, the translation the variant readings refer to Moses, who was YAHWEH's anointed for that time the Israelites were in the dessert. Christ means Messiah and both Christ and Messiah mean anointed savior. Moses was Israel's anointed savior. YHWH, the LORD, anointed Moses to be his representative, agent, shaliah. 1 Corinthians 10:9 states: "We must not tempt the Christ, as some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents." 1 Corinthians 10:9 Nowhere in scripture does it say the Israelites tempted Jesus. So full stop right there. CLEARLY the Israelites tempted “the LORD (YHWH)” many times in the O.T. by tempting Moses, YHWH's anointed. Tempting Christ Jesus is therefore viewed as Tempting YHWH in the same way the Israelites tempted YHWH by tempting Moses. Tempting any of YHWH's anointed representatives, is an act of defiance against YHWH. It doesn't mean Moses or Jesus is YHWH. 1 Corinthians 10:9 tells us the Israelites tempted “the LORD," as a result they were “destroyed by serpents.” This event took place in Numbers 21:5. The Israelites “spoke against Yahweh” so “Yahweh sent venomous snakes among them” (Num. 21:6). Yahweh is mentioned, but Jesus, or the Messiah (Christ) are not mentioned. The wrath is always YHWH's wrath. Nothing in this verse points to Jesus as being "the spiritual rock" or "the Christ" Paul refers to. Some trinitarians insist 1 Cor 10:4 means Jesus was with the Israelites in the desert 1400 years before his birth. HOWEVER, they cannot produce one scripture reference concerning him in the OT apart from prophecies of his future coming. None of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the future coming of the Messiah were ever contested by anyone. The people who heard the prophecies knew the Messiah would come some day in the future. They never questioned the prophecies by saying Jesus had already come. Conclusion: 1. The rock in this context is not Jesus. Rather, the rock that followed the Israelites is the spirit of YHWH working in Moses to anoint him as the savior of the people, including all the spiritual lessons, and the prophecies. 2. In 1 Corinthians 10:4-9 The Israelites temped YHWH by tempting "Moses" in the dessert. By tempting Moses (who was God's anointed shaliah) the Israelites were also tempting the LORD God YHWH. 3. There is no record of the Israelites tempting Jesus in the OT scriptures. 4. We do not read of anyone stating "the future Messiah is already here with us" when any of the prophets utter a prophecy of the Messiah's coming. 5. If Jesus had existed in the past, he would not have been following the Israelites around in the desert. Indeed, they would have been following Jesus. 6. The wrath poured out is YHWH's wrath (Numbers 21:5-6) not Jesus' wrath. Wrath is inconsistent with Jesus mission. Note: The wrath of God poured out in Revelation is YHWH's wrath, not Jesus' wrath. Jesus is the vessel YHWH uses to carry out His wrath. Notes on variant readings: Κύριον (LORD) was consistently adopted by most editors of the critical text, other than Griesbach, until about 1970: “Lord” was the reading adopted by Lachmann (1831), Buttmann (1862), Tregelles (1869), Tischendorf (8th edition, 1872), Westcott & Hort (1881), Eberhard Nestle (1904), Alexander Souter (1920), and the Nestle-Aland compilation up to and including the 25th edition. The first and second editions of the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament also read Κύριον (LORD).
“Lord” has appeared in First Corinthians 10:9 in several English Bibles of the past 150 years, including the Revised Version (1881), the American Standard Version (1901), the Revised Standard Version, the Living Bible, the New Life Version, the New American Standard Bible (1960 & 1995), the New International Version 1984, and the Tree of Life Version (2011). Tyndale House GNT reads “κύριον” LORD. The Sinaiticus reads “Lord.” There is growing evidence that “Lord,” was the original reading. Other manuscripts read “God,” and some read “Christ.” Manuscripts differ from one another. Scholars differ in their opinions as to which texts are original and which texts have been altered. There are even early texts that read both ways. Evidence for LORD is strong. Κύριον "LORD" is supported by À B C P 0150 33 43 104 181 255vid 256 263 326 365 436 1175 2110 2127 2464 and 22 other minuscules, and the margin of the Harklean Syriac, the Armenian version and the Ethiopic version. LORD is supported by Epiphanius, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Cassiodorus, John of Damascus, and Sedulius Scotus. Chrysostom is cited as using LORD. The Anchor Yale Bible-First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 2008, (Vol. 32) says of 1 Corinthians 10:9: “Most older commentators preferred to read kyrion [Lord] and to understand it as in the LXX [Septuagint], meaning Yahweh.” The book, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, edited by John Parry, 1916, on page 147 makes this comment on 1 Corinthians 10:9: “We cannot conclude that S. Paul meant to speak of the Israelites as ‘tempting Christ’; . . . Even in view of v. 4 it would not be natural to speak of the Israelites tempting Christ.” Even if "Christ" is the correct translation, this particular reference to Christ is a title, not a name, and this title was given to Moses as the anointed one to lead the Israelites. Paul is not referring directly to Jesus because Jesus did not exist until 1400 years later. This Christ Paul refers to is Moses, a type for the anointed Jesus reference 1 Corinthians 10:6 "typoi" Strong's 5179 meaing types, patterns, figurative.
@@pastorburris Walk a mile with me brother. If you are unwilling, after I took the time to watch two of your videos and make comments, then what does that say about your commitment and faith in the word of YHWH? I'm calling you out for believing and teaching false doctrines. Prove me wrong or repent and become enlightened.
There is no such thing as a third person of a godhead in the Bible. You are making that up. In fact, your KJV misinterpreted Colossians 2:9 ; also see Colossians 1:19 In Colossians 2:9 the Greek word "theotes" is incorrectly translated as “Deity” or “Godhead” in most English Bibles. Deity of course means God from the Latin word Deus. This conflicts with many unambiguous verses in the Bible. The Greek word "theotes" occurs only once in the Bible. "Godhead" (KJV) is a trinitarian concept, which is why it is found in most English Bibles and only in one verse (Colossians 2:9) To understand the meaning of theotes we have to consider the context and how the first century Greek speaking Colossians understood the meaning of "theotes."
Other translations have theotes translated as: "divine plenitude" Mace New Testament "Divine Nature" Catholic Public Domain Version "God's nature" Weymouth New Testament "divine nature" Good News translation "God's nature" Holman Christian Standard Bible "God's nature" Christian Standard Bible "divinity" Smith's Literal Translation The above translations demonstrate the correct meaning of the verse is: "the fullness of YHWH's divine nature dwells in Jesus." EIther way you choose, the KJV rendering or the above, neither means Jesus is YHWH. Liddell and Scott's Greek lexicon for ancient Greek translates "theotes" as “divinity, divine nature.” This is the meaning the Colossians would have perceived from Paul's use of "theotes." Paul would have understood the word "theotes" the same way the Colossians understood its meaning in their culture. Paul was not presenting them with a new definition of the word "theotes." If he was, he would have said so and he would have given an explanation for any such change in meaning. Imposing modern views on the text while ignoring the contemporary language and views of Paul's time is eisegesis, not exegesis. Paul wrote his letters in Koine Greek, common Greek. "For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body." Colossians 2:9 REV Bible. This translation conveys the correct meaning, although "the fullness of the divine nature" is my preference, as this is how the Colossians would have read the verse. The "Fullness of God" or "Fullness of Deity" relates to Jesus being filled with YHWH's holy spirit “without measure,” (SEE: John 3:34). Clearly Jesus had the fullness of the “divine nature” dwelling in him. This is what Paul is stating in 1 Colossians 2:9. Does this mean Jesus is God? For those who think so, what about the next verse? *_"So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority."_* Colossians 2:10 The same is said about every Christian elsewhere in the Bible (Ephesians 3:19; and 2 Peter. 1:4). Since believers are complete through their union with Jesus, these verses cannot be saying Jesus is God without his followers being God also. The fulness of God is another way of saying "being full of God's spirit." John states: *_“.......for God gives him the spirit without limit."_* John 3:34 Paul states: *_“God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.”_* Colossians 1:19 *_"And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God."_* Ephesians 3:19 Colossians 2:10; Ephesians 3:19; and 2 Peter 1:4 tells us (believers) that we have that same fullness, so verse 9 does not convey the idea that Jesus is God.
Daniel 3:25 -- .......and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God....... Daniel 3:26 ......Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God,..... Daniel 3:28 -- .......Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,...... Context. Going to greek and hebrew can send you into a ditch and you wont even know it. There are videos that alledgedly ' irrefutably refute' this understanding of aramic and hebrew as well. I personally take stock in neither. But, pray for understanding always. In love.
Oh my dear friend, what a mistake you have made. Going to the original languages is exactly what we must do. It is what the KJV translators did. Did it get them and everyone who reads their translation into a ditch? I have shown that Daniel 3:25 contains a masculine plural Aramaic word for “gods”. Daniel 3:26 contains a masculine singular Aramaic word for “god” because he is speaking of only one god. Daniel 3:28 contains a masculine singular Aramaic word for “god” because he is speaking of only one god. BUT! You didn’t finish Daniel 3:28! Here is the text: Daniel 3:28 (KJV): 28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God. Who did Nebuchadnezzar say that their “god” had sent to protect them in the fire? “His angel” - not his “son”. Thank you. Case closed. Goodnight. Brother, you walked right into it. I don’t mean to be rude, but I fear that you were so willing to affirm the KJV at any cost that you didn’t even realize the conflict of your position with the passage itself.
@@scottw1828, no Sir. That’s not what Nebuchadnezzar said, that’s what Jerome said. Watch the video. Facts are facts. Jerome, who changed it, even said his wasn’t the correct translation. You have to absolutely choose to ignore clear and irrefutable facts in order to side with the KJV reading of Daniel 3:25 over “a son of the gods”.
@@pastorburris YIKES!!! how can you even say this? Nope if this is what you believe, I can totally see why you got fired. It's basically heresy. We don't need to go to Greek and Hebrew that's absolutely incorrect. The Bible is produced in our own language in the KJV. If we all needed to learn Greek and Hebrew to know God, that would be really sad. You are really hard headed too by the absolutist comments you make. You need to choose a side. If you're just going to be a compromiser then you will get your reward. Please rethink this position. Watch the following documentaries and maybe you will get it: "The True Christian History of America", "Bridge to Babylon: Rome, Ecumenism & the Bible", "A Lamp in the Dark", and "Tares Among the Wheat: Sequel to a Lamp in the Dark" I have no idea how you could be trained in fundamentalism and suddenly start preaching this garbage belief on your channel please reconsider. We don't need to become scholars to know God's word!!!
When will people start accepting the Truth...! GOD is Not what He is, God is who He is... Using the word gods is Blaspheming. There is only ONE...! Which is, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit...!! They are ONE... God Bless
How is it blaspheming to use what was originally written? Until the pope’s personal secretary, Jerome, wrote “the son of God”, everyone who read the scriptures prior read “a son of some gods” or “a son of the gods” in Greek and Aramaic. Your argument is entirely based on symbolism. We don’t do interpretation before translation.
I enjoy your talks and questions. I fear though, your thoughts and questions, are from that of man's opinions books. There is only one authority of God Word on earth for us, given to us by Jesus, the KJB... All other books and bible books were written for man's profit... God Word speak for itself, without interpretation... @@pastorburris
Sir, this video clearly demonstrates that Jerome interpreted instead of translating in Daniel 3:25. He admitted doing so. Jerome is the one who changed the text of scripture by his own admission. How can you disagree with the clear and indisputable facts that have been presented in this video? Do you agree that Jerome admitted to changing the text? Do you agree that I presented his own words from his commentary on Daniel 3:25? Do you agree that I properly displayed the Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and English honestly? Unless I misrepresented the facts, you cannot, with any intellectual honesty, tell me I am wrong.
I do not and have not told you, you were wrong. What I have said is, I put no stock in man's written opinion and books... Even the very languages you speak of have over time... God Bless@@pastorburris
Gen 1:1 In the beginningH7225 GodH430 createdH1254 (H853) the heavenH8064 and the earth.H776 ----h430 is elohim therefore Gods, so in the beginning the Gods created the earth, God is the God of Gods like he states,
You greatly misunderstand the Hebrew and the use of Elohim throughout the Tanakh. Strongs is a concordance - not a dictionary or lexicon. If you would like to learn, I would be glad to recommend a number of excellent Hebrew lexicons that you could study and see how your statement is horribly incorrect. There is only One God. There is none other.
The Latin Vulgate is a corrupt text. Jerome was Catholic and took a lot of his writings from writings in Alexandra, Egypt. Which we know were an enemy of the Jewish nation and a type of the world system. Moreover, you posed the question of a idolatrous, pagan king understand seeing the pre incarnate Christ? How did Paul know he was talking to Jesus Christ? How did many others in the O.T. who seen Jesus before his bodily form know who he was? If you keep reading in Daniel, he made Nebuchadnezzar to walk around like an animal for 7yrs for him to realize that God is the true one. God has to reveal himself to man, so I take no issue here. By your logic, then John 1:18 would suggest that the O.T. saints could not have known that the pre-incarnate Christ was so. Also, how did Moses know that God was in the burning bush? I am not trying to be cruel, just want to to reevaluate your position. I'll pray for you in your endeavors.
Dear Sir, I shall only address one aspect of your comment, but I could certainly do more. Let’s start with the first statement. If the Latin Vulgate is a corrupt text, will you agree that the King James has a corrupt text in its lineage? There is no disputing the evidence that Daniel 3:25 in older English versions is based on the reading of the Latin Vulgate. We can continue to talk more after you respond to this question. Thank you for your comment.
and yet, in EVERY place where the KJV differs from from the Hebrew text they were translating, It is in complete alignment with Jerome's Vulgate! Also, the KJV translators praised Jerome's work IN THEIR PREFERACE! I have always found it odd that KJV onlyists radically disagree with the KJV translators themselves about 1. the nature of their own work, and 2. about the nature of the works of Jerome and the LXX.
Strongs says “son”. Of “God”. I will take strongs over your opinion thanks. H1247 (Strong) בַּר bar bar (Chaldee); corresponding to H1121; a son, grandson, etc.: - X old, son. Total KJV occurrences: 8 H426 (Strong) אֱלָהּ 'ĕlâhh el-aw' (Chaldee); corresponding to H433; God: - God, god. Total KJV occurrences: 95 Trying to use aramaic to refute the hebrew? Very deceptive. And you got fired you say?🤔
You have no idea how Strong’s Concordance works. Strong’s doesn’t always tell you the Greek or Hebrew word that was originally used. It tells you the equivalent of the English text. You are working backwards and using the tool improperly. I showed the Greek and Aramaic in my video. Do you think I made it up? If you wish to learn, I can help you.
Yes, refute this argument please mr Hebrew scholar? Is the Authorized Version correct, or the modern versions? The KJV translation is definitely the correct one, and the modern versions are in error, for the following reasons. First, the phrase Ny`IhDlTa_rAb in Daniel 3:25 is properly translated “the Son of God,” not “a son of the gods.” First, the definiteness of the absolute noun Ny`IhDlTa, although nonarticular, makes the construct noun rAb definite likewise-it is “the Son,” not “a son,” as in Daniel 4:9, 15; 5:11, 14 the nonarticular Ny§IhDlTa Aj…wêr “the spirit,” not “a spirit,” of the gods/God, and in Daniel 5:11 Ny™IhDlTa_tAmVkDj is “the wisdom of the gods,” not “a wisdom of gods.” Second, in Daniel 3:25 the translation “God” for Ny`IhDlTa, rather than “gods,” is superior. It is true that Ny`IhDlTa is a plural form, and it is likewise true that, unless one renders NyIhDlTa Aj…wr (Daniel 4:9, 15; 5:11, 14) as “the Spirit of God” rather than “the spirit of the gods,” in the other instances where the plural Ny`IhDlTa is found in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 10:11; Daniel 2:11, 47; 3:12, 14, 18; 4:5-6, 15; 5:4, 11, 14, 23), the translation “gods” is proper, while the singular ;hDlTa is employed of the true God of Israel or of a particular but singular false god (Daniel 2:18-20, 23, 28, 37, 44-45, 47; 3:12, 15, 17, 26, 28-29, 32; 4:5; 5:3, 18, 21, 23, 26; 6:6, 8, 11-13, 17, 21, 23-24, 27; Ezra 4:24-5:2; 5:5, 8, 11-17; 6:3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14, 16-18; 7:12, 14-21, 23-26). While these facts certainly merit consideration, they do not prove that Daniel 3:25 refers to “gods” for the following reasons. First, the equivalent Hebrew plural to the Aramaic Ny`IhDlTa of Daniel 3:25 is MyIhølTa, the plural noun regularly and overwhelmingly used for the singular true God, Jehovah. If the Hebrew plural MyIhølTa, the overwhelming majority of the time, “God” rather than “gods,” one must at least allow for the possibility that the Aramaic plural Ny`IhDlTa refers to “God,” rather than “gods,” in Daniel 3:25, when spoken of with reference to the true Deity revealed in Scripture. This possibility is strengthened by the use of plural titles interchangeably with singular ones for the one true God in the book of Daniel itself. Thus, the title NyInwøyVlRo, “the most High,” within the book always is always plural, but refers in every instance to the one true God, not to exalted pagan gods (Daniel 7:18, 22, 25, 27). The plural NyInwøyVlRo is employed interchangeably with the singular aDyD;lIo (Daniel 3:26, 32; 4:14, 21-22, 29, 31; 5:18, 21; 7:25) in Daniel 7:25-the singular and plural words are designations of the true God in successive clauses. Second, while the other instances of the Aramaic plural NyIhDlTa in the Old Testament refer to “gods,” rather than to “God” (again, on the assumption that NyIhDlTa Aj…wr is “the spirit of the gods” rather than “the Spirit of God,”-yet see Genesis 41:38-the My™IhølTa Aj…wõr is the pneuvma qeouv of the LXX, “the Spirit of God” mentioned on the lips of a pagan) in every other case the plural NyIhDlTa refers, at least in the mind of the speaker, to false gods, rather than the true God. When the Hebrew plural MyIhølTa refers to false gods, it is also properly rendered in the plural as “gods,” but such a fact does not alter the use of the plural MyIhølTa for the single true God also. As the use of the Hebrew plural MyIhølTa for a plurality of false gods does not eliminate its use for the singular true God also, the use of the plural NyIhDlTa for a plurality of false gods does not mean that the Aramaic plural cannot also refer to the singular true God. Third, Aramaic usage of the plural of forms of words for “God” in reference to solely the one true God of the Bible is abundant. The plural of hDlSa is employed 17 times in the Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan, and the Writings of the one true God, and only twice employed of “gods” (Genesis 31:53; Jeremiah 5:14; 15:16; 35:17; 38:17; 44:7; Hosea 12:6; Amos 3:13; 4:13; 5:14-16, 27; 6:8, 14; Psalm 51:16; 147:12, the true God; Psalm 135:5; 136:2, to “gods.”) The Targum Neofiti twice employs the same plural for the one true God (Exodus 18:11; Deuteronomy 1:11). The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan does the same in Exodus 18:11. Thus, the phenomenon of employing a plural form for the one true God of Israel is not restricted to Hebrew, but appears in Aramaic also. Fourth, the standard Koehler/Baumgartner Hebrew lexicon states that the word ;hDlTa, “God/gods” in Daniel 3:25, can be used in the plural of the one God of Israel (hDlTa, 2bd). Fifth, ancient translational evidence supports the rendering “the Son of God.” The LXX translated Daniel 3:25 with the singular aÓgge÷lou qeouv, understanding the reference to be to “God” with the genitive singular, rather than the genitive plural, form of qeo/ß-the LXX supports a reference to “God,” not to the “gods.” Theodotian and Aquila likewise read ui˚w◊ˆ qeouv, “the Son of God,” not a reference to “gods.” The Vulgate similarly supports a reference in Daniel 3:25 to the singular “Son of God,” rather than “the son of the gods,” through its rendering with the singular filio Dei. Furthermore, “in Akkadian the equivalent plural [to the Aramaic NyIhDlTa] is used for a single deity” (Word Biblical Commentary on Daniel 5:5). The Authorized Version follows very strong evidence in ancient translations in its reference to “the Son of God” in Daniel 3:25. Sixth, the context supports a reference to “the Son of God” rather than “a/the son of the gods.” First, the heathen gods had many sons, so Nebuchadnezzar would not speak of “the son of the gods,” but the translation “a son of the gods” has been shown to be inferior above. Second, Nebuchadnezzar immediately refers to “the most high God” (aDyD;lIo a¶DhDlTa) after his statement of v. 25. After seeing “the Son of God,” Nebuchadnezzar would naturally conclude that the three Hebrew children were “servants of the most high God,” but seeing “a son of the gods” would have no obvious connection to “the most high God.” Nebuchadnezzar would have known of the Son of God from Daniel and his three friends, as the Son of God had been proclaimed the Object of faith for the heathen nations for hundreds of years at a minimum already (cf. Psalm 2:12, where king David exhorts the heathen to trust in God’s “Son,” the Aramaic word rAb being employed by David, as it is in Daniel 3:25). Seventh, “the Son of God” is identified with the Angel of the LORD in Daniel 3:28; 6:22, the preincarnate Second Person of the Trinity, who promised, “when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned” (Isaiah 43:2). For all of these reasons, Daniel 3:25 is properly referred to “the Son of God,” not “a/the son of the gods.” Daniel 3:25, 28 both proves the preexistence of the Son of God (cf. Proverbs 30:4; Psalm 2) and makes a connection between the Son of God and the Angel or Messenger of Jehovah, the preincarnate Messiah. The Son of God delivered His beloved saints out of the midst of the fiery furnace. Furthermore, the Authorized Version is again vindicated in its rendering, while the modern Bible versions are shown to be inferior and corrupt.
Very satisfying video.....I watch some pastors that promote KJV only but accusing modern versions as a corrupt translation that why I search if theirs a video that explains the difference between KJV and NIV that I've used regularly......and Daniel 3: 25 gives me a clear understanding ....now I can conclude and depend will that NIV is not a corrupt translation but have it's origin and explain....thank you so much sir for sharing this....God bless and more power to you...
I'm sorry that you've had so much negative feedback. I loved your video on the Isaiah text and this video is great as well. You are doing good and valuable work.
Thank you and God bless! ❤❤❤
"they have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind"
Thank God for his servant William Tyndale.
Question : To which of the angels said he at any time ; Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee.
The concept of the Messiah being the Son of God wasn't even a known or understood concept by the Hebrews in the Old Testament. Much less a pagan Babylonian king.
exactly!
I've struggled with the whole KJV debate. I do have Gail's book and one other one. I was raised using and memorizing NIV. Sometimes I wonder if the KJV Only movement is a type of cult. 😢
The indefensible unbilical KJV only deception. Definitely a cult
I took Gail's book and my Wescott commentaries down from the shelf and read what he said and found Gail was cutting and pasting to make Wescott say what he was not saying..... Of course there is is some differences in doctrine as Wescott was Anglican.....BUT they were not the boogymen they have been made out to be!
I stumbled across your video on being fired over this. Your analysis is accurate. You lay it out well. It is ridiculous that studying what scripture actually says versus what a translation says would get you fired. I pray God opens a door for you where your teaching skills are valued.
It makes perfect sense that a pagan king would say “a son of the gods”. I’ve been studying a lot of these differences between modern translations and the KJV. It seems clear to me that the KJV translators and the vulgate translators thought they needed to help out the word of God in some places. The modern translators were just straight up about it. This leads KJV lovers to accuse them of taking things out or perverting the scriptures. God doesn’t need our help. We can just be honest about the scriptures.
Elohinu is not Gods but God.
Inu is not plural .
In Hebrew that is close to Aramaic .
Avinu malkenu refers father king
Avinu is not fathers
Hebrew isn't the same.
It *is* plural or the verse makes no sense. Someone who believes in many gods will not declare one god without a name.
I just found your channel and am thankful for your boldness in speaking the truth.
this guy is a liar
@@spencershaw2407How is he a liar?
Praying for you brother. I think your work/message is critically needed in this time. I love the KJV and I love most of the other major translations. Keep running the race!
I appreciate your thoroughness, Pastor. I appreciate, as well, your willingness to stand up for truth even when that truth is not popular.
I reached out to you on Facebook, love that you’re covering topics like Isaiah 14:12 and Daniel 3:25. I am only half way through this video! Keep up attacking these controversial topics.
Even Young’s literal translation differs with the KJV
Thanks you for this video. I haven't really understood this before now. People usually act like the king James translators made some mistake here and misunderstood the word they were translating (which seems unlikely in this case) or others say that the new versions are corrupt without proving it with the original language. You have explained the original language and explained why people have translated it differently and shown that there is a logical reason why they translated it as God and not gods. Both can be correct in their own way and you have helped me settle this in my mind finally 👏. I just started listening to you tonight and I dont know if you have yet but I think it would be great if you reasoned through and explained some of the verses used to argue king James only which few people ever seem to do (particularly Psalms 12). Without doing this most people will probably just say "well I believe what the bible says about itself is true, and the bible shows that the king James has the be the perfect word of God" even though there is no real foundation for king James onlyism in the bible.
Thank you so much for watching and for the encouragement. Here is a video that addresses Psalm 12.
Does Psalm 12 Teach Preservation of the Word or a Particular Bible?
th-cam.com/video/tn5JudFyx5k/w-d-xo.html
I’ve been a Christian for over 60 years, raised in church, cut my teeth on “old Pentecostal beliefs” I’ve been a member of and served in the different churches, because I was looking for the “Truth of Gods Word” I found the truth in an Independent Baptist Church, where, the Word was taught dissected and made clear, without anyones personal opinion or belief, we were taught to do exactly what you said, research it for yourself don’t take my word for it, it never ceases to amaze me how people make their assumptions and or decisions on another persons beliefs/opinions/words, “without doing their due diligence” before they make their decisions it’s so saddening that you were fired, unfortunately it’s not my first time hearing this and very unfortunately it won’t be the last, I pray your path becomes smoother but we know we are in the last days God Bless you for your Steadfast commitment to Proclaim the Word, and not hold fault against the church for firing you
Makes perfectly good sense of primary sources, through logical reasoning.
I prefer a literal translation; and the KJV NT is good that way.
But my 1982 NKJV has a note right beside Daniel 3:25. The note says, "Or [a son of the gods]". (Brackets are mine, to show what they have in italics.)
Thank you!
Kurios Iesous Xristos!
:--}>
(Don't know why, or to whom, the video would be controversial.)
In the Peshitta Bible, in Daniel 3:25 it says: likeness to a son of the gods
Good video. KEEP Preaching Jesus Christ.
I don't consider this a major problem. Now, if a translation says that Jesus didn't shed his blood and die for my sins, and was buried, and arose from the dead, I'd have a problem with that translation. And I'm an American, I read and speak a form of English. Not Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. I believe God. I like the KJV. I like the way it reads. I trust it. It showed me the Gospel. I don't question the Gospel. I believe the Gospel. I Love Jesus.
Verse 25 of the Concordant Literal Old Testament says "He was responding and saying, Aha! I am perceiving four masters, untied, walking about in the midst of the flame, and there they are, unharmed! And the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the elohim."
Correct. And even though Nebuchadnezzar didn't say "son of God", it does not take away from the deity of Christ or His faithfulness in any way. Thanks for the note. I had not looked up that the verse in the Concordant Literal Old Testament. Now I have to go find it.
@@pastorburris
s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchablerich/misc/Concordant+Version+Old+Testament++(2015+edition).pdf
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Your conclusion lines up well with the text note in the NET Bible. I think you’d find it interesting. I was surprised to learn that you still preach from the KJV. I’m not saying that that’s good or bad. Just a little surprising. Excellent video.
Regarding "filio Dei" in the Vulgate, Latin doesn't have a definite article ("the"), and it has to be implied from context.
I think it was pretty common for the LXX to use "angel of God" rather than "son of God", e.g., Deuteronomy 32.8.
Thank you for sharing this, I was stumped by an apologist and had no clue what happened.
Son of the God's is exactly . Correct Nebuchadnezzar had NO understanding of the one true God and just saw the God of the Hebrew children has stronger than the Babylonian gods.
I agree with you. But what is funny is that I looked up in this verse in my Logos and brought up the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible and in that verse, there is a square bracket that begins at the "s"of gods and ends at the word "fire" in verse 26. And the square brackets surround areas lost in the scroll due to various types of damage.
The Statenvertaling (Dutch bible) of 1637 and the Haak Bible of 1657 which was cross-translated from the Statenvertaling to English are problematic to KJVOs, regarding both Is 14.12 and Dn 3.25.
Two questions - 1. Do you think that as most people today can barely read a comic book, they would be able to understand the language of the KJV?
2. Do you believe that God is unable to watch over His word to preserve it?
The church argues and fights and meanwhile millions of people go to Hell without hearing one word of any version.
I believe that, for many, the best Bible is the one they have in their hands.
@@pastorburris Amen to that! I was saved 41 years ago after someone told me Jesus was going to come back. In "Christian England" I'd never heard that before. I dug out an old RSV Bible and started reading, all over the place, Isaiah, Revelation... no one told me where to start, and it led me to give my life to God, track down the one who told me and ask to go to his church. We need to trust Him more.
Hey pastor, interesting discussion. I learned a few things about the Latin and Greek for this verse.
On Bible Gateway, there is a 1599 Geneva Bible in modern American spelling, and here is its commentary for "the son of God" in this passage:
"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 in these great torments, the son of God."
In Isaiah 14:12, here is its commentary for "Lucifer":
"Thou that thoughtest thyself most glorious, and as it were placed in the heaven: for the morning star that goeth before the sun, is called Lucifer, to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared."
I thank you for your courage sir to search out the matter in pursuit of truth. I would however say, that the NIV is more of a hybrid translation. Its about 50% word for word and 50% dynamic equivalence. Blessings!!
I appreciate your video. As someone who grew up with and still uses a King James, it is still important to go to the original languages and see what they actually say. It's also why sometimes English to English comparisons between various versions can be misleading somewhat. We have to ask why did the translators of modern translations choose the English words they did. Sometimes, there is a textual variant between manuscripts (i.e. Alexandrian vs. Byzantine). Other times they are actually being more literal than the King James translators. Case in point, in the New Testament, Paul's use of the emphatic negation rendered in King James English "God forbid." The word God is not in any Greek manuscript including the ones the King James translators used. The phrase is literally may it never be/come to be/come to pass. But how would you express that in 17th century English? With the figure of speech "God forbid." Paul did not say that in the Greek, but it conveys the same thought of "absolutely not!"
Thank you for standing up for and teaching and preaching the truth.
It should be noted that Wycliffe's translation is a translation of the Vulgate.
Yes it is. Wycliffe was well versed in Latin, but not Greek and Hebrew.
Dr. Heiser's Unseen realm explains the background knowledge for son/sons of God, gods, elohim...etc. We just need to approach it in the least offensive way like keep assuring that those elohims are so-called god the creature NOT the Creator. Dr. Heiser did pretty good job with that. We went through hot trials at seminaries but congregant arent. Their size of bowl is not like ours. Sorry about your situation. May the Lord be with you and guide you for the best.
The thing in Isaiah clearly refers to Satan, from all versions, people don't want to hear that Satan was an angel before he fell and he desired to be higher than God and was cast out of heaven. And the things in Daniel is that Nebudkadnezar didn't recognize God, therefore imo he wouldn't say "the son of God" it makes more sense in my mind for him to say "the son of the gods". It took for him many years before God humbled him. "Sons of God" is referencing the fallen angels or angels, depending upon their affiliation. I say that because many christians to this day debate about the origin to nephlim. Nephlim in my opinion, are hybrids of fallen angels/demons and human women. People just want to cherry pick scripture and that's how inquisitions start. And what did Jesus say about this? Read the gospels for the answer. And He said that to show, regardless, we are to be reconciled with each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. We need to look past opposition of our opinions and love each other the way God intended.
Solid job of working through the text.
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽you’re a blessing thank you.
Here is what the Reformers behind the Geneva Bible said in 1599 about this passage:
"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 in these great torments, the son of God."
Clearly, they didn't believe that this was talking about Jesus, but about a regular messenger or angel of God. Interestingly enough, in the Coverdale Bible 1535 and the Matthew's Bible 1537, they both say "and the fourth is like an angel to look upon", which would be more in line with the Septuagint. But, there's more; in Daniel 3:28, in the KJV, it says, "Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent his ANGEL, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." So, even if we assume that the original wording of what Nebuchadnezzar said was "the Son of God", he still equated this person with an angel or messenger.
To which of the angels said he at any time ; Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee.
To which of the angels said he at any time ; Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee.
Can you make a video of Acts 7:45 and 12:4?
I have an article on my website dealing with Acts 12:4. The Jesus/Joshua video is a great idea.
@@pastorburris it would be a great video, the one that really gets me is the "Trinity". My belief is if it came out of the Catholic Church then how did it go to be in the christian church? When I first heard of it back in 2004 or so I didn't believe it let alone did it sit well with me.
Pastor Burris, Something I have come to believe through years of KJV onlyism, is that for many within this group, they may not realize the extent to which they feel as though their entire faith is questioned each time someone suggests that the KJV may contain an error, or imperfection.
When people are taught that God failed if there isnt a perfect Bible for them to read, and they are shown the issues with all Bibles except for one.....they are set up to believe God failed, if that one last shot at a perfect Bible is shown to have an error. They are not taught how to handle the situation if that turns out to be the case, and it can completely pull the rug out from under them. And I believe that causes a lot of strong responses and even a lot of hate and anger, because its attacking all of their entire faith. Because their faith was based on Jesus, but only if the KJV was perfect. Their is a clause there, if the KJV is perfect, then you can trust Jesus. And I actually got very angry and filled with hate myself, until I read the KJV translators own words, and William Tyndales book. Then I found peace.
Now my foundation is Jesus and the scripture. Not Jesus, and only if the 1769 revision of the KJV is perfect.
We must always remember that we are dealing with men here. The translators had no idea what God was doing when they prayerfully translated the words of God into the King James Bible. They were humble men, so we would accept nothing less than their very own words in the preface. As far as KJVO goes; I am most definitely in that group, but I had far more bitterness towards the KJVO group before it was revealed to me that they are absolutely correct than I now have towards those who simply have been decieved by these modern perversions. So, lumping people into one category and stereotyping them like they do to us is wrong on many levels. You have to be willing to submit to authority, and man has a serious problem with that. All of us do, including myself. What was said about someone trusting Jesus based on the KJB and then when an error is shown to them, they start to doubt or whatever. What do you think our adversaries plan was all along? Seriously. He wants people to never quite be sure that they can open their bibles and read God's perfect word. There are multitudes of passages ommited and changed in these new versions, so do you think that they are all correct? Where does it end?
@@flman9684 My issue is not with the KJV Bible. That is the one I have read for decades. The problem, and it is a real problem, is that there are a lot of KJV only people, that have come to believe that a person can only have full confidence of God, and salvation, if they have the perfect text of scripture. Meaning they must know the original reading, where every single variant exists in the manuscripts. And if they don't know everything about all of this, then they can't really trust God.
This line of thinking does not work for a person living in England in 1539..... They only speak English, and their Bible options are the Tyndale/Coverale Bible, the Matthews Bible, and the Great Bible. None of which read as the KJV in Psalm 12:7 for example. These Bibles are not the KJV Bible, and do not read the same in all places. And yet, all they have to read in their language that they can understand, are Bibles that do not match what the KJV says in all places. But it's still important for them to read the scripture, and they still need to place faith in God. But they cannot use the same argument for their Coverdale Bible, that the KJV onlyist will use for the KJV BIble today, and have them, and the KJV onlyist both be correct.
In 1539 the Erasmus New testament would be available and yet Erasmus plainly isn't convinced that 1st John 5:7 is original. Tyndale has the long reading in brackets. And Stephanus, and Beza have not completed their Greek New testaments, so they are not available for reference. Meaning the texts the KJV leaned on the most, are manuscripts sitting in libraries somewhere, at this point. But those Greek texts do nothing for an English only reader.
The bottom line is that according to KJV onlyism, these English people in 1539 cannot read these Bibles they have available, and truthfully claim that they are perfect. And yet, somehow, they still have to have faith, in God, and learn from the scripture. And they did. Because regardless of whatever weaknesses their translation had, the testimony of the gospel was plainly set forth in them, and it was trustworthy. And once placing faith in Jesus, those Christians recieved the Holy Spirit, who will teach them, and they don't have to lean on their own understanding of the perfect reading everywhere, in order to have confidence in God.
@@hayfieldhermit9657Good evening brother. I appreciate your response. I hear the "pre-King James Bible" argument all of the time but the funny thing is; I never hear the same from the long list of KJVO teachers that I listen to. Isn't it strange that everyone that I lean on NEVER claims that someone did not have the Scriptures prior to 1611? The Scriptures have always existed. Romans 9:17 "for the scripture saith unto Pharaoh"
You see; they have always existed even before being penned. Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue. Did Jesus Himself have the originals? We both know that he didn't. Did the Ethiopian eunuch have the original scroll of Isaiah? Absolutely not. That doesn't mean that Jesus didn't read the Scriptures or that the Ethiopian eunuch wasn't saved by reading of the suffering servant and being shown that it was speaking of Jesus. I also never hear that salvation is not possible if you don't read from a KJV. There may be some on the extreme fringe that feel that way, but as a whole, that simply is a false allegation. Even the despised Peter S. Ruckman, in whom I dearly love, continually stated that man can profit and hear the Gospel in even the corrupt versions. Of course, those are not the quotes that are ever posted from the graceless bunch that hates his guts. Shameful.
Let's be honest. From the very beginning, God has had His remnant and he has preserved His Word. Satan has also has had one desire, and that is to corrupt the words of God. Corruption of the Scriptures has always existed. Where the separation of those who think like me and those who don't is a simple contrast. I firmly believe that God gave us His perfect word in the KJB for the English speaking people. It came on the heels of so many great men of God who diligently sought to write the word of God in their hearts. Many committing Scripture to memory so that it didn't matter when their copies were snatched from their hands. The Waldenses come to mind.
So, the answer to your concerns are this: we do not believe that people prior to 1611 were not able to read the Scriptures with confidence. We do not believe that a modern version does not contain truth. We do not believe that salvation can be obtained by any other means apart from believing in the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ whose blood is the only satisfactory atonement for our iniquities. And that includes the book that we cherish.
It really all boils down to whether or not one believes that God supernaturally signed that King James Bible or not. I believe with all of my heart that he did. I feel it when I read it. I read and studied from an NASB most of my saved life and it did not have the same effect on me. Not even close.
Add the fact that all of these new translations have come out basically in my lifetime, and one has to at least pause and consider why? Have they produced the fruit that the KJB has? Not hardly. Do they have the mathematical perfection of the KJB? Absolutely not. That alone is enough to make any critic a believer if they didn't try to explain it away like they do. It is absolutely perfect because it is His book to us. I don't just respect it as good literature, I fully and wholly submit to the words contained within. The words that tell me everything about my Lord and my Saviour from beginning to end. God bless you and yours.
@@hayfieldhermit9657 I just read back through your original post and something struck me to the core.
You are saying that those who "have been taught", whereas I say there are those "who believe", but nonetheless, those individuals are not taught how to handle it when someone shows them the errors in their King James Bible. That is an astonishing statement considering the very dilemma that we are faced with in this Laodicean age. Who is telling people that there are mistakes and errors in the Bible that has stood the test of time? The modern day scribes and those who trust them above and beyond the very Holy Bible. This is absolute proof that the sole purpose of Satan is to cast doubt in the hearts and minds of people. Now I am not disagreeing with your statement and analysis at all. Far from it actually.
Please ask yourself one question: if not one single new version had ever been composed and the KJB had been left alone as the Holy Bible, would we have this exact situation that you correctly stated? Just food for thought, because you are on to something. It just doesn't shed much positive light on modern scholarship with their vanity and pride as they sift through perverted manuscripts to disprove the very word of God. I love ya and I thank you.
@@flman9684 I'll share some of my background with you. I'm Baptist, and always have been. My Baptist circles have tended to be friendly with the Hyles, Fairhaven type of Baptists, if you are familiar with those churches, or their colleges. So Jack Hyles taught that if one word was wrong in the Bible, then a person would have to wonder if they are even saved. He also said that people born of the corruptible seed, which he said was all the other Bibles outside the KJV, were not saved. So that is the kind of KJV position that I have seen, and I oppose strongly. Just so you know where I'm coming from. And there are still churches that are using these types of arguments for the KJV, that place a question in the mind of the congregation, that they may not be able to know anything for sure, if anything at all in their Bible is less than perfect. Which leads to a loss of confidence in God and salvation if there is a word in their Bible that is not perfect.
I have close relatives that have spent many years as missionaries to a people that do not speak English, and in their language, those people do not have a Bible that a KJV only position could call perfect.... That realization made me think through some things I believed, and how I would have taught these foreign people. They had a decent Bible available, but not a perfect equivalent to the KJV. But these people read what they had and studied it. They grew as Christians, and some of them even became pastors and missionaries themselves, without being able to read, what I would have called a perfect Bible.
So I really had to question the Hyles type of thinking, that I had grown up with. That if you don't have a perfect text, you can't have true faith. Or that you can't trust God.
So essentially, I had this doctrine, that I would have held to be Christian, and true, and yet, I couldn't take my doctrine and take it with me to other countries, and apply it to their situation, and it still be true, or right. And I believe that if my doctrine were a correct doctrine, then it would travel to any place and any people and still work, because it would be a doctrine taught in scripture. So I have moved away from KJV only, as I was accustomed to as a child, and for many years after. Now I simply hold to the doctrine that God preserved the scripture and that it is still available to this day, and will be forever.
Again, and excellent explanation.
One of the best, most reasoned and level-headed Pastor\Teachers on TH-cam. This is how the subject should be handled.
Thank you so much Pastor Burris for providing this wonderfully helpful content, especially for layman who need it so badly. Would to God I was local to your Assembly!
You are very kind. Thank you for the encouragement.
Then you don’t get out much
This bro believes Jesus(in the flesh folks birthed through a earthen vessel called THE ONLY BEGOTTEN) and Lucifer are brothers
It doesn’t get more blasphemous then that
BTW Who’s lucifers momma
UGH
@@beppiek, I’m not trying to be rude, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Your accusations are unfounded and absurd. I am not a Mormon. I can defend my faith against Mormons. Can you? It would be different if you actually represented my position or had a single fact right in your comment. You either did not watch the video and are are silly enough to comment on something you know nothing about or you watched the video and are willing to misrepresent me. That’s bearing false witness.
@@pastorburris
Sorry wasn’t that why you were fired because of that belief and exegesis
If I’m mistaken
And you don’t believe that please forgive me for totally misunderstanding your video on your firing
I will revisit the video
Shalom
Can you make a video on Hebrews 4:8, why does KJV say "Jesus" and not "Joshua" like most other modern translations?
They are the same name but its how it’s translated from the Hebrew and from the greek. This is also why other Old Testament names appear different in the New Testament as well
@@Thrasher796 Oh, I unserstand they are the same name. But we don't translate Joshua in the old testament as Jesus even if they are the same name because that would cause confusion. My point is for christians Joshua, in that spelling is the israelite who left Egypt etc, Jesus in the new testament is the Son of God, God incarnate, our Lord, our Saviour and on and on. So why do some bibles translate Joshua and others Jesus in the same passage in Hebrew 4:8? Who is it talking about? Joshua from the old testament or our Lord Jesus Christ?
@@aitornavarro6597 its referring to Joshua and leading the people into the promised land, thereby giving them rest but its only a picture of the rest God gives. Translations that use Joshua are making it clear the text is speeking of him and not Jesus
Excellent study!
Excellent video. Your honesty is rare. I would only ask for clarification/further study on this one point: your claim at 13:50 about plurality emphasizing majesty. Does literally even one example exist if this in ancient Hebrew? I have heard it does not, that it was a Middle Age European custom?
You are very kind and you asked a great question. My statement on the plurality of El -> Elohim speaking to majesty is a common interpretation of the text due to the vast and differing usage of Elohim.
GotQuestions.com, for example, agrees with my assessment and says, “It is best to understand the word construction as a plural of majesty; that is, writing “Elohim” is a stylistic way of emphasizing greatness, power, and prestige.” (source: www.gotquestions.org/meaning-of-Elohim.html)
Elohim is used in various ways: in hundreds of cases it refers to God and is used in conjunction with YHWH many times in the Psalms; in other cases it refers to false gods; and at other times it is even used to refer to judges twice in the Book of Exodus.
What is clear is that each time Elohim is used to refer to God or judges, there is an exaltation or significance of either God or the judges who are referred to as elohim. It is for this reason, I made the association of the plurality of elohim to majesty. I was not basing it on linguistic practices of any time period.
I hope that sheds some light on why I made that statement. Thank you again for such a great question and for not simply taking my word for anything.
Please forgive me. My previous comment explained my reasoning, but I did not provide a scriptural example supporting the use of Elohim (plural of El) so as to speak to majesty.
Psalm 18:21 (KJV 1900): For I have kept the ways of the Lord,And have not wickedly departed from my God.
Psalm 18:22 (BHS): 22 כִּֽי־שָׁ֭מַרְתִּי דַּרְכֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה וְלֹֽא־רָ֝שַׁ֗עְתִּי מֵאֱלֹהָֽי׃
In Psalm 18:21 (verse 22 in Hebrew), the word, LORD, is the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (יְהוָ֑ה or YHWH). The word, God, in the same verse is Elohim (אֱלֹהָֽי).
There are other examples: Psalm 18:6, 21; 24:5; 29:3; 55:16; 69:13; 94:22.
My KJV has a footnote that says "or the son of the gods".
That particular footnote is not original to the KJV. It was added by whichever publisher released the edition you're using. However, many of the original KJV marginal notes do agree with the choices made by modern translators. If you look at the 1900 Cambridge edition of the KJV hosted on Biblia, you can click on the asterisks to check the translator notes as you read. (They're also available in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible on Biblia.)
NKJV has that same footnote and I'm perfectly fine with that, in the Peshitta Bible it says the same as the footnote: "and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods". We know the Peshitta is based on the Aramaic texts.
th-cam.com/video/1ZWwRw1BKJQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=EYm9bWxqGrtLYdVj
What is your view on this?
Well done for seeking out the truth. Jesus spoke the truth even if the religious leaders of His day didn't like it. I can't help but think that God must be really happy with you. And I guess that's what we Christian's are here for to please God and tell the truth and not bend things to fit our narrative or tradition. Well done Christian brother. Love to hear more from you on those kind of things. Thanks for speaking up on the truth. If it's God's will I hope He gives you a bigger platform for those kind of things. Keep up your truthful work for God.
Well done!
In all my bibles (in spanish) in Daniel chapter 3 verse 25 (verse 92 in catholic bibles) says 'hijo de los dioses' (son of the gods/child of the gods) or 'ángel de Dios' (angel of God) or 'appearance of a god'.
Indeeed the RV60 says "semejante a hijo de los dioses" (similar to [a] son of the gods) and NBLA says "semejante al de un hijo de los dioses" (similar to that of a son of the gods).
I have a Portuguese bible - it was produced by borderline KJVO types (Trinitarian Bible Society), so it does have that bent - and it reads "semelhante ao Filho de Deus" (similar to the Son of God); go figure.
This is so cool. I don’t know if you know about polemics that were used in the old testament. But this reminds me of them. That God allowed both to be translated these versions their own certain way. Especially in Daniel 2:11. When a believer reads it and interprets it rightly they will see that Nebuchadnezzar and his magicians believe in their false gods but we know that the one true triune God prevails. But when an unbeliever interprets it wrongly as to sew discord, the truth passes over them so they will not see it. Amazing. This reminds me of the story of Balaam when instead of cursing God’s people he blesses them instead. Or when the high priest they accused Jesus of blasphemy and tore his clothes actually ended up quoting a prophecy unknowingly. lol it’s hilarious how God does things.
Pastor very good video sorry for all the trouble that has followed for speaking what you believe. I would like to suggest a book you may have already read the title is which version is the Bible by Floyd Nolen Jones. I believe you will appreciate what he shares.
This my friend is a perfect example why you have to be very careful what and who's book you are reading. This unbiblical stuff is what creates cults and crazy denomination. Its why I never go by popular teachings and all those books out there that twist God’s Word. Rightly divide the word and understand the thought behind it. No wonder you lost your job. People be careful who you're listening to!!
I don't understand d what youre saying here? he can't rightly divide the word because thats on in the KJV, the modern versions say correctly handle
the berean people searched the scriptures to see if it was in which was preached, acts 17:11
My understanding of the use of God vs. gods here is that Elohin, being the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew Elohim is that noun is considered by Hebrews as an "intensive noun", and functions as a title for GOD. Otherwise, why would Genesis 1:1 not read, "In the beginning gods created the world."? Because the same exact word Elohim (Hebrew) literally means "gods" and is correctly translated as "gods" in several places. Can you help me understand how you reconcile that? My information is coming from a Messianic Jewish rabbi and my Hebrew professor. Have you heard that explanation before? Thank you :)
The phrase is correctly translated "“the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods" with a lowercase "g".
ALL English translations must justify using uppercase God and they cannot justify it by the context. You are going about this all wrong. You don't need to compare all those other translations that have God vs. god because the context demands god with a lowercase "g."
This is Nebuchadnezzar speaking. It's his understanding of what a son of one of his false gods might look like because he didn't acknowledge the one true God YHWH until after he said this.
The Hebrew, the phrase ben elohim (לְבַר־אֱלָהִֽין), can refer to “a god,” “gods,” or “the LORD God Almighty who is YAHWEH, the only true God and creator.” In this instance, elohim is not referring to YAHWEH.
There is only one stated who appears as "like the son of the gods."
It's "like the son of the gods" to King Nebby because at the time Nebuchadnezzar didn't acknowledge any other gods then the ones he worshiped. It was like a son of one of the gods he worshipped.
In this context, we know that Nebuchadnezzar worshipped a number of Babylonian gods, and at this time he did not recognize Yahweh as the only true God. In fact, when the three young men defied him, he denied the power of Yahweh and said, “who is that god that can deliver you out of my hands?” (Dan. 3:15).
When he saw they were alive and unharmed in the fire, THEN, and only then does Nebuchadnezzar acknowledge their God as the “Most High God” (Dan. 3:26). But that doesn't mean ole Nebby knew YAHWEH.
The Bottom line is that Nebuchadnezzar was describing a fourth "being" of some sort in the fire that he believed to be the son of a god that he worshiped. He could not be referring to a preexistent appearance of Jesus as the Son of God because he was completely ignorant of YAHWEH's existence in verse 25. Jesus wasn't even begotten or born at the time. That's why he says "like the son of a god" or "like the son of the gods" is also acceptable. He never knew about God (Yahweh) at the time he said what he did in verse 25. Sheesh, come on people.
There is no justification for the use of uppercase "Son" or uppercase "God" in this text. Doing so is misleading the believer into thinking King Nebby saw Jesus in the fire, and that is an abuse of the word of YHWH.
John the Baptist said, Look the lamb of God. Therefore the lamb is the body of God. Almighty God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell/live in Christ's physical body 🙏 🙌
????😳
@@beppiek please let us know what is your question?
@@marcusvanrensberg6060
The lamb is the body of God?!!!
Weird sentence and WHATS it suppose to even mean
@@beppiek John the Baptist said, look,the lamb of God. Question what is the lamb in bodily from, what if John said, look the body of God. And the father does live in the lamb.
@@marcusvanrensberg6060
The lamb of God is different then to say “The lamb is the body of God”
Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God
Wow
I'm catholic and I watch your KJV videos fight Hebrew Israelism. But I NEED to point this out to you: the exact same argument you make at the beginning of this video is the argument catholics make to protestants. Still love your videos. You make great KJV points. Just hope for logical consistency across the board.
The translation of Jerome's commentary has "God" instead of "god" and I want to know how anyone can justify uppercase God in that verse when in Nebuchadnezzar's mind he doesn't even know or acknowledge God (YHWH)??
It should be god or gods with a lowercase "g" because all the gods old Nebby knew were FALSE gods.
In addition, there is NO justification for using uppercase "Son" in verse 25 for the same reason. Nebby didn't know, and could not have been referring to the Son of YHWH who is Jesus, because he knew nothing about either of them.
This is a classic case of translators writing into the text from their own imaginations.
Nothing in these verses are a foreshadowing of Jesus.
I recommend reading Bart Ehrman and checking out his TH-cam channel to get a real in-depth historical view/histology of the region and civilizations that predated and influenced the Hebrew people, as well as their contemporaries.
This is one of the reasons why I love my Companion Bible. Bullinger's note for Daniel 3:25 reads: "the son of God=a son of God (no Art.): i.e. a superhuman being, or an angel. Cp. v 28, and see App. 23. Nebuchadnezzar could know nothing of N.T. revelation." The KJV goes on to say in Daniel 3:28 that Nebuchadnezzar said "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, WHO HATH SENT HIS ANGEL, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." It should be noted here that Nebuchadnezzar saw a singular being that he attributed to be an angel from God. None of this is a problem. I agree that Nebuchadnezzar likely said "a son of the gods." Your error was that you preached at a KJV-only church where the level of intelligence was likely equivalent to a broken lightbulb.
Crickets...... So far no one is throwing stones at you.... You just couldn't resist reading the context, could you.... You had to go pointing out that he clarifies what he said a few verses later.... Well, you have challenged all of KJV onlyism here. And they can be a people of profanity and filthy mouths, as well as threatening if they are the of the Ruckman, Stephen Anderson variety. Hopefully they won't be violent towards you.
I seem to be the only person I know that uses a KJV and believes it to be the only inerrant and authoritative English version of God's word. Seems to be a dying breed of us. I stand by my conviction despite the naysayers. There's just so many things changed or omitted in other versions that leads me to believe the KJV is the way to go.
Keep the faith!
You're not alone. Stay in a standing position because many are falling away.
Why is the KJV your standard in which to judge all other translations? I would urge you to actually study into the topic without the blinders of KJV Onlyism. I would challenge you on the biblical support for making a translation an idol instead of what it was intended to be, a tool to aid in the studying of God's Word.
I respect your conviction. ❤
I know you have a lot on your plate at the moment, and you are doing some good work, but I have a question. Respectfully, why do you think this passage has anything to do with Jesus? Obviously that is Jerome's opinion, as you say, but does it have any merit? It isn't a cut and dry thing. To my knowledge, the connection is never made in the Bible, it's just pure speculation on the part of readers. I can only assume the Septuagint translators used "angel" because they felt that is an equivalent idea. I believe if you use your own reasoning you will see there is no way of claiming this passage is about Jesus. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It doesn't seem to be the point to me.
Keep up the good work, sir. I'm enjoying your videos. They are a good reminder for all Christians to think carefully about what you believe.
Thank you for the question. At its core and in its truest interpretation, I do not think it is about Jesus. But, looking at it from the perspective of hindsight, I think it is possible/likely that it may have been a Theophany/Christophany. I think I was a little more firm in how I said it in the video, but that is purely based on interpretation -- not clear observation of the text.
Can you review the books you talked about like Grady’s? It would be helpful to know what is and isn’t right about the KJV.
I understand what the KJV editors did here, however old testament rumor of pagans is that they believed that all gods had sons. And going back to the beginning of Daniel, Nebekanezzer knew what god and kind of God The Hebrews served, so the KJV text is based on what was obviously the fourth man, the modern is based on the pagan culture. But In the "KJVER" Son of God is underlined as Elah????? Help me out with that please
That is the actual Aramaic word used. That’s why you will see it mentioned there. You may see it spelled different ways.
Thank pastor I just happened to see your video best wishes for you
Here some information maybe it will help
Daniel 3:25 (SDAC 4): 25. Like the Son of God. Commentators have variously interpreted the exclamation of the astonished Nebuchadnezzar concerning the fourth individual in the fiery furnace. Jewish scholars have always identified him simply as an angel. This view is reflected in the LXX, which translates the phrase “like an angel of God.” Early Christian interpreters (Hippolytus, Chrysostom, and others), on the other hand, saw in this fourth personage the second person of the Godhead. The rendering of the KJV reflects this interpretation. The majority of conservative Christians hold to this view, although modern critical commentators have now generally discarded it, as is seen by the translations of the RV, ASV, RSV, and other modern versions, “like a son of the gods.”
The problem is one of Aramaic grammar and interpretation. The Aramaic ’elahin, “gods,” is the plural of ’elah, “god.” In some cases where ’elahin is used, reference is made to pagan gods (chs. 2:11, 47; 5:4, 23). However, there are two passages besides the one under discussion where ’elahin can be interpreted to refer to the true God of Daniel (ch. 5:11, 14; see RSV footnote). Hence the translation “God” for ’elahin is justifiable if it can be established that Nebuchadnezzar was employing the term as a proper name. Grammatically, both translations, “like the son of God,” and, “like a son of the gods,” are correct.
The context reveals that Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged the superiority of the most high God of Israel (see chs. 3:26, 28, 29; 4:2). In these statements the king was not referring to gods in general but to the God in particular. For this reason conservative interpreters prefer the translation of the KJV and can linguistically defend their preference (see PK 509; Problems in Bible Translation, pp. 170-173).
But the Lord did not forget His own. As His witnesses were cast into the furnace, the Saviour revealed Himself to them in person, and together they walked in the midst of the fire. In the presence of the Lord of heat and cold, the flames lost their power to consume. - {PK 508.3}
From his royal seat the king looked on, expecting to see the men who had defied him utterly destroyed. But his feelings of triumph suddenly changed. The nobles standing near saw his face grow pale as he started from the throne and looked intently into the glowing flames. In alarm the king, turning to his lords, asked, “Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? ... 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 Son of God.” - {PK 509.1}
How did that heathen king know what the Son of God was like? The Hebrew captives filling positions of trust in Babylon had in life and character represented before him the truth. When asked for a reason of their faith, they had given it without hesitation. Plainly and simply they had presented the principles of righteousness, thus teaching those around them of the God whom they worshiped. They had told of Christ, the Redeemer to come; and in the form of the fourth in the midst of the fire the king recognized the Son of God. - {PK 509.2}
And now, his own greatness and dignity forgotten, Nebuchadnezzar descended from his throne and, going to the mouth of the furnace, cried out, “Ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither.” - {PK 509.3}
It begs the question then.. what else is in the KJV that was not translated correctly? I mean, that's a big mistake to make. He should have translated the bible properly without injecting his own philosophy.
Way to many comments are made here whereby the individual is assuming that their particular understanding is the only resonable conclusion. It is sad to read these statements and see the extreme biasness of those who pen them. It always draws my interest when reading responses that express an opinion that is not represented by scripture. We all seem to believe that we have the right to say what we think simply bc we think it!! There was one mentioned in the Word who said "I will be like the most high." What will be his final state? I would guess that it would be dependent upon which version you use!?
An easier way to explain this is that the Babylon King had no earthly idea who the Son of God was much less the God of Israel. The Babylonians worshipped many gods, thus the King said and the fourth looks like a son of the gods. Your welcome.
But if you are teaching people who believe that all other English Bibles besides the KJV are “perversions”, you have to do like I did and provide tons of textual evidence.
@@pastorburris and @Imsaved777, The Babylonians, certainly knew about the Hebrew God. The proof is that when they went into Jerusalem, they recognized the significance of Solomon's temple, destroyed it, and took its treasures. This indicates a level of religious knowledge. Soloman was about 325 years prior to Daniel so even if it seems far fetched, I think even Nebuchadnezzar would have heard of Soloman.
Daniel and his peers were incorporated into the Babylonian court. The book of Daniel is written in Hebrew up until Dan 2:4 and from thence, written in Aramaic. So what I'm saying is, that Daniel would have certainly shared his faith, especially at meal time. So without even looking at the "textual evidence" (which I think means looking at the Aramaic text) we have enough evidence to see how Nebudchadnezzar would have understood what he was seeing. I also read Jerome's commentary and I actually think his question about why Nebuchadnezzar could recognize Christ was rhetorical and not his own personal thought. I think that passage was showing how someone could understand the typology here for Christ in the furnace. Recognize that there is sooooo much in the Bible that is meant to make you think, question and seek out answers. I don't think Occum's razor is a common approach to Biblical interpretation. We should be encouraged to look throughout the bible for clues and often the best clues to start with are referred to as the "scarlet thread."
3:28 says angel but I haven’t checked the Aramaic to know for sure
That is correct
“Contrary to what I’ve been trained to believe” sounds like a parody of someone stuck in a cult.
I pray the people of your former church will ask those deacons to step down and ask you to be their pastor.
Please read the Unseen Realm by Dr. Heiser.
Dr. Thomas Ross at Faith Saves debunks your argument if you care to read it. Blessings.
I have read much of Dr. Ross. He is wrong on this and many other points. As a Landmarkist, he also believes that those not part of the true Baptist church are not true Christians.
Ultimately, he makes the same argument that Steven Anderson does. But, he does so without scholarly evidence. He wants to equate Elohim (Hebrew) and Elahin (Aramaic). They are not equatable. He implies the definite article and singularity of Elahin based on conjecture - not linguistic usage. Dr. Ross is very intelligent. But he, in this case and others, uses his intelligence to support his presupposition rather than dealing with the clear facts.
@@pastorburrisNo offense, but I will trust the forty-seven KJV translators who wrote, read, spoke, and ate multiple languages for breakfast every morning, along with God's promises of divine preservation for a perfect Bible in the year 2023. Blessings.
@@writethevisionministry3050, let’s see how much you trust them. Do you trust those 47 translators when they said in the preface that even the meanest (poorest) translation contains, nay IS the Word of God? Do you trust the translators when they said their work was not perfect? Do you trust the translators when they said their work should be improved upon? Do you trust them when they said they guessed at some Hebrew words and their meanings? Do you trust their decisions to go with the Latin Vulgate over 60 times instead of the reading of the Textus Receptus? Do you trust their translation of Ruth 3:15 or do you trust those that revised it after them and changed it? I do hope you will clarify what you mean when you say you trust the KJV translators.
@@pastorburris Thanks for asking me this. I shall respond.
Not to toss you off to Dr. Ross again, but he just finished a series reviewing his debate with Dr. James White and went over the KJV preface to the reader argument. The KJV translators also said “But it is high time…… that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one…. but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one.” The entire 54-page context of the original preface to the KJV in book form by Edgar J. Goodspeed says something different than what the modern scholars attempt to make it say, in my view.
< Do you trust their decisions to go with the Latin Vulgate over 60 times instead of the reading of the Textus Receptus?>
Yes, I do. God also used the Latin Vulgate (not to be confused with the better Old Latin/Italic) that at times preserved some readings that the early Gnostics corrupted in the Greek. Case in point the Comma in I John 5:7, of which 49 out of 50 Old Latin manuscripts have the Comma in the text. “The Latin churches did not have as difficult a problem with Arianism or with the other Trinitarian controversies because they kept the Comma! This is a generalization based on historical observation: It is too much of a coincidence that where the Comma was kept - the Trinitarian controversies were minimized. Where the Comma was deleted - the Trinitarian controversies raged” (Robert P. Wieland).
Yes, I still trust the KJV translators, especially in light of Ruth and Boaz both going into the city. If you read the context, we find several verses later in Ruth 4:1-11 that Boaz, “he” also went into the city, for Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi saw the matter as urgent, saying Boaz “will not be in rest, until he have finished the thing this day” Ruth 3:18 (KJV). Thus within ‘the same day’ both Ruth and Boaz went into the city. I recommend my online paper on this called ‘The Oxford vs. Cambridge fallacy.’ Were there printing errors in the original 1611 KJV? Yes, there was. But these typographical errors were corrected within several years (Scrivener 1884) and have remained the same ever since, and the standardization of 1769 is what the KJV comes from today.
I hope that helps clarify a bit when I say, ‘I trust the KJV translators.’ But my faith is primarily in God’s promises of preservation working through them (Job 32:8) KJV. I wrote a 444-page book answering many such questions as these called, "The King James Only Debate: Can you trust the Modern Scholars"?
Blessings.
You should look at coverdales translation of this verse.
If you are implying it was Jesus then you're interpreting and applying something to the Bible that isn't there in the translation. Whether Neb saw Jesus or not, we can't confirm or build theology off of it. We have to take it at face value. Whether it was Jesus or not, it holds no significance to the point of the story or our salvation. Not one person will be in heaven or hell because they believe or don't believe that was Jesus. God won't be at the gates telling people that they did everything right with salvation except that one story in Daniel, you didn't believe it was Jesus so off to hell you go. It should hardly be a fireable offense of a Pastor.
just told my hubby the other day about the "inconsistencies" in the NIV!!!!!!!
Did you watch this video? In this video, I clearly show that there are inconsistencies in the KJV as well. It is a translation. It should be expected to a certain extent with any translation. What is important is that we know why translation decisions were made. We can be confident in the Word of God.
There are inconsistencies in the KJV.
The important thing to understand is why those inconsistencies exist and to know that, whether in the KJV or MEVs, the inconsistencies are a result of translation or scribal errors. They do not impact the inerrant, infallible, verbal plenary inspiration of the scriptures in the original languages.
@@pastorburrisI pray those we love and care about understand this truth. I wanted to message you or comment but wasn’t sure of exactly what to say. But after reading your comment here, that is my prayer, that others understand this truth.
I’ve watched many of your videos over the past few months. I truly enjoy your preaching and your teaching.
I was shocked and sad when I was finally able to make it tonight and walked into heartbreak. We are praying for you and your family. Our Father in heaven always provides for His children. When He closes one door, it’s for our own good. And He will take us to where He wants us.
You’re in our prayers.
With love,
Duran & Chadell
That made me ugly cry. I am so sorry that you witnessed the events of tonight. Your family means the world to me and my family. Thank you for your prayers.
Also, "God" in verses 26 and 28 is the same Aramaic word as in VS 25.
"a son of the gods" doesn't make much sense in light of King Neb.'s confession in VS 26 and 28. He wasn't talking about "gods" he was talking about THE most high God (VS 26), the God of Israel (VS 28).
I’m interestingly Bible gateway has the AV KJV translate its as Gods! Hhmm.
Look at Daniel 3:26 "Most high God," Nebuchadnezzar knew that Daniel served the most High God
True, but he had no concept of the Trinity or that that most High God had a Son. And for the record even “Most High God” being capitalized is an interpretation of the translators. Do not read into the text what the text does not say. Nebuchadnezzar is a polytheist. While he is acknowledging the greatness of their God, he is still believing of many gods at this time. And there is no way to translate what Nebuchadnezzar said in Daniel 3:25 without interpreting; which is exactly what Jerome did. I show this irrefutably in my video near the end
All of this ignores a key issue and something that is never offered to listeners. This reliable and that preferred is not enough. Is there a perfect bible on Earth today (any language / any version)? Faith indeed is based upon evidence and if there is a perfect copy of God's Word on Earth, the best evidence should allow you to trust a version as flawless (not reliable / preferred) until eveidence proves another version to be that, one must abandon the first as imperfect.
What the Autograph Onlyist offers is endless criticism (finding all the errors in this version and that manuscript) but they NEVER offer their audience a perfect Bible. They only seek to ensure anyone who is foolish to believe God's Word exist in perfect form no longer do.
So why would a Bible believer abandon their copy of the Word of God (that they can hold and read) without you offering them something to replace it. Even you don't fully trust any Bible, why is it so important to ensure everyone else has no faith in God's ability to preserve His Word?
That's like a religious person coming to Christians and telling them that the orthodox version of Jesus is not God and we shouldn't believe in Him. And when we ask what we should believe, they say "anything so long as we don't believe in that version of Him." Just keep studying but be sure to never settle on anything.
Every person should believe the Bible they read as perfect BY FAITH (which is evidence based). If they believe every version at once (knowning they're all different), that person is their own final authority they only have faith in their intellect.
I have addressed this argument many times in the comments of my videos. I reject your premise. We do have the perfect Word of God. What we do not have is a perfect translation. And the burden is on you to prove that your particular translation is perfect. How do you know that the KJV is perfect? Which version of the KJV is perfect? If there is any part that is different between versions calling themselves KJV, then they cannot both be perfect and say different things - no matter how insignificant. Which KJV is perfect Sir? As you said, “faith is indeed based upon evidence”. Be sure to give some evidence to support your claim of perfection for a specific edition of the KJV. I eagerly await your reply.
@@pastorburris You just used the word know. I do not know that any Bible is the perfect Word of God. I believe the King James Bible I read is God's perfectly preserved Word. You are welcome as usual to tell what isn't the Word of God. Can you please tell me what version is the Word of God. Maybe I'll abandon my position and chalk the KJV up at fallible as you have once I can get a copy of your Perfectly Preserved version.
@@mmhm007, I believe exactly what the KJV translators said in their preface to the reader:
“That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of their's of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God:”
While no translation is perfect, we absolutely do have the preserved Word of God. I answered your question. Now, please return the courtesy and answer the question I asked you in the comment you responded to.
@@pastorburrisNo, you did not answer my question. I understand your no translation axiom. There is not reason therefore to again discuss ANY translation(s) or version(s) of translations with you. That would be quiet futile. We can continue then as though ALL of them are therefore fallible and incapable of conveying the full meaning from the original languages.
You made assertions about me knowing something I can't possibly know and to prove something you have already axiomatically excluded as a topic of discussion. Yet I am here extremely interested in your position because you are one of the only people who is not KJV who also believes that we have God's perfectly Preserved Words on Earth. That's Fantastic! I want a copy! I currently believe the KJV BUT would completely abandon it if you indeed have a copy that evidentially proves superior.
When I was first saved, I had an NIV. Then the man who preached the gospel to me told me that the KJV was God's Perfect Word so I started using it as there were copies available at Walmart. Since that time, many have told me the KJV isn't God's Word but the strange thing is that they NEVER have offered me a copy of what actually is.
Again, I am extremely interested in getting a copy of the one you have determined is indeed the preserved Word of God. WHAT IS IT? I honestly don't care what language it is, I'll start to learn the language or at the very least know I can't discuss actual scripture if I'm still referencing a translation until I do.
@@mmhm007, let’s do this. Since you are failing to recognize or acknowledge the categorical difference between preservation and translation, this banter is going nowhere. You are avoiding my questions while hiding behind a false premise that I have already dispelled. Therefore, let’s settle this in this way: I challenge you to a formal, in-person, public, moderated debate at a time and place to be determined on the subject of “The KJV as the Perfectly Preserved Word of God”. You argue the affirmative position and I will argue in opposition. I propose the following debate format:
20-minute opening statements by each of us, followed by a 10-minute rebuttal by each. Next, we will do two 10-minute each cross-examinations where we ask direct questions of another with the opponent agreeing to answer without filibustering. The debate will conclude with 10-minute closing statements by each party. Following closing arguments, there will be a 20-30 minute QA from the audience members.
If you accept my challenge, please reach out to me on Facebook Messenger, Twitter DM, or via email. All are listed in the description of my videos. I will prepare a contract and send it to you for your review. I do hope you will accept my invitation. I look forward to having this conversation face-to-face before a live audience.
"Promo SM"
ive had alot of debate regarding sons of Gods, many thinking its angels when it isnt always the case, i use the berean literal, the nkjv, and the strongs concordance, and my faith is im a full pretersit, therefore believe everything has been fulfilled as christ stated in matthew 24:34, but also see that God has other sons. which makes sense as God Gave us Christ and christ was eternal with The lord at the beginning of time ---John 1:1-2 ---- but all riddled through out the bible it shows theres more then one son
Your full preterism is concerning, but for another conversation. My greatest concern is that you are not Trinitarian. On what evidence do you support your claim that God had “other sons”? Are you a polytheist believing in a pantheon of gods? I am most curious to your theology (doctrine of God).
@@pastorburris what are you talking about-------everything is fulfilled since 70 ad. the tribulation, the abomination of desolation, was all complete in 70 ad.... iom concerned that you dont know what that is.... what kind of bible are you reading l,ololol..... have you read the bible. you sound like a fool. however --- christ came to establish the new covenant---Heb --8:13-- In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. ----- cossss, the end of the age was near----1Co --10:11-- Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. ------ and when christ discussed the end of the age, the second coming of man it was for ----Mat --23:36-- Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. ----- where the fk you Got polytheism is weird bro... there is one true God, there is the christ. i believe their are sons of God, andelohim. there not to be worshipped... have a great day. dont bother responding, your too low iq
Does anybody believe that God has any bearing on anything ?
You seem so determined to destroy the KJV.....I'm actually not a KJV only, but you make me love it more
You obviously know nothing about me and haven't watched many of my videos. I preach from the KJV. I love it. I simply said that, in this verse, the NIV was not wrong. Grow up.
@@pastorburris ok
I know you're saying the NIV got it right, but are you saying the KJV got it wrong? It's one thing to say something can be translated multiple ways, but it's another to say one of right while the other is wrong. I'll repeat, if you don't mind answering, are you saying the KJV is wrong?
I specifically said in the video that the KJV is not wrong. It merely copied over the Latin word. The NIV is more accurate here because it actually tells us the meaning of the word. It translates from the original language. The KJV does not here. Think of it this way: if the KJV had told us what that Latin word actually meant, we wouldn’t be debating this verse 1600 years after Jerome wrote “lucifer”. But no. The KJV is not wrong. It is just different. That’s the beauty and complexity of translation that I spoke of in the video.
@pastorburris I watched the whole video, but I must have missed that. Thank you for answering.
But the same Latin word “lucifer” is used in 2 Peter 1:19 in the vulgate. I fully understand they are talking about two different people. But two questions: 1) why are KJVO who stress the English so tied to a Latin word rather than the actual English translation? 2) if KJVO are tied to the Latin word in Isaiah 14, why are they not tied to the very same Latin word in 2 Peter 1?
Neblet was Jewish so he was familiar with the Son of God and the coming Savior. So indeed, GOD can remove the scales for Neblet to actually see and discern the 4th man. Give the glory to GOD, not to man’s interpretation.
Dr. Phil Stringer addressed this verse, here: th-cam.com/video/2FAEB9CieW0/w-d-xo.html And it's a great sermon. It got me thinking, Pastor Burris, how are you going to preach a message on Dan 3:25 if the only message you have to say is that the NIV is correct and you can't trust your KJV Bible? How will that sermon go? Anyway, still praying for you, even if you hate me and send a heart to everyone but me. I know, and God knows I tried really hard to show you love in Christ.
God only tnspired certain writers certain writers did theirown thing same with translators wescort and hort changed the greek language to suit their thinking
Your statement demonstrates an absence of facts and logic. It’s almost as if you simply made it up.
stalemateyou wont changa and neither will l
The Septuagint is actually older than any Hebrew Bible we have. Fact. So I always check it first. But I also checked the Hebrew I did not check the Latin. It says son of God in all these the Kjv is correct. The kjv is translated from the majority text. The niv, and all the other modern texts are translated from the minority or as you liberals like to say the Alexandrian. So you choose to accept the minority 40 fragments versus the 5500 majority.
What this demonstrates is you are siding with modern scholarship. All the early church that I'm aware also saw it as Son of God. But I did translate it myself before making this post.
You probably have other theological issues. You probably think the world is a billion years old. You probably don't accept the book of revelation and a pretrib rapture so I'm sure you have other issues .
Would you mind showing me where you looked it up in the Hebrew so I can see it as well? When I looked at the Aramaic as it is presented in the Masoretic Text, it says “a son of the gods”. When I read it in the Septuagint, I saw angels. As I showed in the video, “son of God” doesn’t show up until the Latin Vulgate around 384. I look forward to hearing back from you.
Pre-trib rapture isn't Biblical. Post-trib pre-wrath is. Rev 7 makes this quite clear. Christ isn't coming back three times.
1. While the LXX is older than the Masoretic text, the DSS, which is older than any LXX manuscript we have attests to the majority of the Masoretic text. Further, the Syriac translation of the Hebrew Bible we have, which is just as old as the LXX manuscripts we have, also tends to align with the Masoretic text. 2. On top of that, it is commonly noted by KJVO advocates that "older doesn't mean correct" when you are arguing against those who use the modern Critical Texts and translations form them of the NT. 3. The Aramaic text (or as you ignorantly called it, "The Hebrew") doesn't have "son of God", but "to a son of the gods". 4. the KJV didn't translate form the Majority Text. It translated from the Masoretic Text (particular form the 2nd Rabbanical Bible by Yaakov ben Chayyim) in the Old Testament (be diverged and followed the Latin Vulgate in a number of places), and a series of printed editions of the NT that became later to be called "the Textus Receptus", which were themselves based on about 6 to 12 late Byzantine manuscripts (and in Revelation, the last chapter from a backtranslation form Latin into greek).
If "older" is your standard, then you need to reject the KJV, if "Majority" is your standard, you need to reject the KJV., in both cases, you should reject the nearly idolatrious position of KJV Onlyism.
What is your evidence that he is a theological liberal?/ I don't know the guy, but I venture to say, that you don't either. Merely noting that the NIV happens to get one thing right in translating the Hebrew text, doesn't make him a theological liberal. Heck, it doesn't even make him a non-KJV preffered guy.
@@pastorburris The Leningrad Codex is where I looked it up. It's written in Hebrew and I'll try to paste it below if TH-cam allows me. It's about 1000 AD so not as old as the LXX but I believe more reliable. The LXX is an Alexandrian text and written in Greek not Hebrew. It's probably not the best translation too but I understand why it would be translated as angels.
עָנֵ֣הV-506 - He answered וְאָמַ֗רV-506 - and said, הָֽא־In-100 - Lo, אֲנָ֨הPP-129 - I חָזֵ֜הV-506 - see גֻּבְרִ֣יןN-169 - men אַרְבְּעָ֗הN-144 - four שְׁרַ֙יִן֙V-509 - loose, מַהְלְכִ֣יןV-260 - walking בְּגֽוֹא־N-173 - in the midst נוּרָ֔אN-228 - of the fire, וַחֲבָ֖לN-172 - hurt; לָא־NPar-102 - no אִיתַ֣יN-226 - and they have בְּה֑וֹן וְרֵוֵהּ֙N-172 - and the form דִּ֣י[רְבִיעָיָאof כ] (רְֽבִיעָאָ֔הN-144 - the fourth ק) דָּמֵ֖הV-506 - is like לְבַר־N-173 - the Son אֱלָהִֽין׃of God. ס Dan 3:25
There is God the Father who is the creator of all things there is God the Son who is Jesus who died for us who was crucified on the cross for all our sins and the Holy Spirit which was given to us to help guide us if you believe in other Gods than you don't believe in the Bible and God's word shall shall not put no other God before me
Colossians 1:16 says all things were made by the Son. Do not divide the Trinity. There is only one God.
If there was a problem with the bible I very sure God should have stepped in because it's his word I trust the king james version it's been around for a very long time these new bibles have things taken out and mans opinions put in
The Niv was wrong. He was speaking in reference to their God, not his gods... He had already come to some understanding of Daniel belief in his God and understood who he was looking at, for he knew that they did not worship gods... God Bless
A couple questions if you don’t mind. How did the pagan king have an understanding of the Trinity? How can you say the king saw Jesus when he calls the fourth person an angel in Daniel 3:28?
I said nothing. The Bible speaks for itself. The word Trinity is pagan. Nebuchadnezzar First referred to the fourth Person in the furnace as the Son of God, then referred to Him as an Angel sent by God. As many people in the Bible will refer in different ways, just as we all do today... I believe his first statement was laid on his heart by God Himself, while in his state of shock... Thank you for your talks, I do enjoy them, except the silly one. @@pastorburris
@@faithhope7777 the Trinity is pagan? Can you tell me, specifically, who Nebuchadnezzar saw? Was it a mere man? Was it the same Jesus who is in the gospels? Who is this person? Is He merely a man? Is He God the Father in a different form? Is He an exalted being? Is He God or not? Is He the “son of God” or the “Son of God”? Is He “a son of God” or is He “the Son of God”? Please explain what knowledge Daniel or the king had of “the Son of God”. Who was this person? I’m trying to be exhaustive in my questioning, because I am very curious what your view of God is and also who this person Nebuchadnezzar saw was. Thanks.
The person who Nebuchadnezzar saw is simple, as all God work is. It was the Glory of God standing with His Children, as He wanted to be represented... God Bless@@pastorburris
You believe King Nebby saw Jesus? How is that possible when Jesus hadn't been born yet. No one else in the OT ever said they saw Jesus...so what's with that? You are on conflict with the Bible when you believe stuff you make up in your own mind.
*"Begotten today" and "born this day" means Jesus was fathered (procreated by God) in the womb of Mary. (Psalms 2:7; Acts 13:33; Isaiah 9:6; Matthew 1:18; Luke 2:11; John 3:16; John 1:14-18 ; Matthew 1:20).
Jesus was given life by YHWH.
“For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the Son to have life in himself.” John 5:26.
YHWH didn't give life to himself. If he gave life to Jesus to have in himself, that means Jesus could not have pre-existed. The incarnation (God becoming a man) requires a pre-existent Jesus. So man invented it to support his heresies.
We can't have it both ways. All the texts that clearly point to Jesus having a beginning cannot be tossed aside for a few loosely interpreted and misunderstood texts.
We interpret the complicated verses to be compatible with the simpler more pain texts. We don't throw out the plain texts in order to hold to a doctrine that contradicts them.
The context in such verses always point to Jesus having been in YHWH's plan, in His foreknowledge, and Jesus being predestined for glory. (John 17:5-24). The Bible cannot contradict itself.
Doctrines or beliefs that do not harmonize with the Bible, are false doctrines.
Jesus the Nazarene, was a MAN delivered over by the PREDETERMINED PLAN AND FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD.
He was put to death by godless men. Acts 2:22-23.
Jesus was PREDETERMINED and PLANNED to come into existence.
"In the past YHWH spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
[In the past YHWH never spoke through Jesus because Jesus did not exist]!!
"BUT IN THESE LAST DAYS
YHWH has spoken to us by His Son, whom He APPOINTED heir of all things, and THROUGH whom He made the ages [this present age and the ages to come]." HEBREWS 1:1-2
"But NOW HE has been revealed ONCE, AT THE END OF THE AGES, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." *Hebrews 9:26*
"But WHEN the FULLNESS OF TIME CAME, God SENT HIS SON, born from a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law so that we could receive adoption as sons." *Galatians 4:4*
He was FOREKNOWN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, BUT WAS REVEALED IN THESE LAST TIMES for your sake, who THROUGH him are believers in God, the one who raised him out from among the dead and gave him glory so that your trust and hope are in God. *1 Peter 1:20*
*Revelation 13:8* states Jesus is the: “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
Was Jesus slain before the earth was made?
We know Jesus was crucified long AFTER the foundation of the world. What John obviously means is that before Jesus was brought into existence he was predestined to be the Savior of the world before the world was even formed. God’s plan for mankind's redemption, (from the beginning, before the earth was formed), was to be carried out through the person of Jesus.
Reading preexistence into scripture rather than accepting predestination, destroys the harmony of the Bible. Jesus and all believers were in God's foreknowledge as a forethought (divine plan) before the earth was created.
"If only there was a MEDIATOR between us, who might lay his hands upon us both." *Job **9:33*
"No mediator" means no Jesus with YHWH.
"IF ONLY there was one who would PLEAD FOR A MAN WITH YAHWEH, as a man pleads for his brother."
*Job **16:21*
No one to plead for a man means no Jesus.
"But HE IS ALONE, so who can make Him change? What He desires to do, that is what He does." *Job **23:13*
"YHWH is alone" means no Jesus with YHWH.
Deuteronomy 18:18 states God would raise up a prophet (Jesus) from among the people of Israel and place His own words in his mouth.
Also, Matthew 1:1-16 traces Jesus ancestry. Jesus was a begotten and born human being who was the result of a special act of procreation by God. God anointed Jesus and gave him His spirit without Limit.
Jesus declares himself to be a MAN who has told the truth he received from God. John 8:40
Men do not exist before they exist.
My dear friend, I am not sure what your Christian worldview is or what denomination you affiliate with, but I will be brief in my response to you lengthy comment.
I believe Jesus appeared to Abraham and many others. It is known as a Christophany.
www.gotquestions.org/theophany-Christophany.html
@@pastorburris Listen, I have studied the Bible since 1964. I have put in over 100,000 hours of Bible study during the last 59 years. I only have one degree, a Minster's Degree from the Canadian Pentecostal Bible College in Vancouver. That was 1994, before I was enlightened regarding the man-made trinity doctrines.
I really don't care what anyone thinks the Bible means to them. What I care about is what the Bible says when it is rightly translated, rightly interpreted, and rightly divided.
Your beliefs MUST harmonize with the scriptures, and the scriptures must harmonize with the Bible, otherwise a conflict between verses means someone got it wrong.
A preexistant Jesus is a FALSE Jesus.
Now you mentioned Jesus appeared to Abraham and others. Please prove it. Show me in the scriptures where Jesus appeared in the OT. I gave you my proof texts that refute that belief.
I wait to hear from you.
@@pastorburris Got questions is a Trinitarian source and therefore is tainted.
1. Genesis 12:7-9 - The Lord appeared to Abraham on his arrival in the land God had promised to him and his descendants.
No Jesus there. the LORD is YAHWEH not Jesus. Remember, the LORD GOD ADONAI YAHWEH is the God and Father of Jesus who anointed Jesus as Lord and savior. Acts 2:36 note that the title "Christ" means savior according to Luke 2:11.
Reading Jesus into this verse is eisegesis, not exegesis.
2. Genesis 18:1-33 - One day, Abraham had some visitors: two angels and God Himself. He invited them to come to his home, and he and Sarah entertained them. Many commentators believe this could also be a Christophany, a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ Jesus.
Who cares what commentators read into this text from their imaginations? Nothing in this verse indicates that Jesus appears here, and YAHWEH is always represented by an angel, prophet, or someone acting as His agent. No one can see God and live....remember? No one has seen God, John 1:18. Why believe things that cause conflicts and contradicts the word of YHWH?
3. Genesis 32:22-30 - Jacob wrestled with what appeared to be a man, but was actually God (vv. 28-30). This may also have been a Christophany.
No, Jacob simply acknowledged the man he wrestled with was a representative of YAHWEH. Moses was YAHWEH's shalliah/agent/representative. When the Israelites defied Moses, it was as though they were defying YHWH himself, and punished by YHWH for it too. Moses spoke as YWHW and for YHWH in the same chapter in Deuteronomy, but that doesn't make Moses become YHWH either. YHWH works through people and angels, and many people come away with a sense that they encountered YHWH through others.
This is a common occurrence throughout the scriptures.
No one has seen YHWH, but many people saw Jesus, so Jesus is not YHWH.
4. Exodus 3:2 - 4:17 - God appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush, telling him exactly what He wanted him to do.
So the burning bush is Jesus? Come on man!!
5. Exodus 24:9-11 - God appeared to Moses with Aaron and his sons and the seventy elders.
I see, so every time you see the word God you see Jesus? In fact God here is YAHWEH, the future Father of Jesus, since this is OT and before Jesus was even begotten.
6. Deuteronomy 31:14-15 - God appeared to Moses and Joshua in the transfer of leadership to Joshua.
Same as above.
7. Job 38-42 - God answered Job out of the tempest and spoke at great length in answer to Job’s questions.
God is not Jesus.
Got questions goes on to confuse theophanies with Christophanies when in fact their are no Christophanies in the OT.
“the angel of the Lord,” is Gabriel, NOT the pre-incarnate Christ. The incarnation is another man-made UNBIBLICAL doctrine.
Got Questions has handled the word of YHWH in a horrible, disrespectful and irreverent way on the page you sent me to. It's all based on eisegesis and not true Biblical knowledge.
@@pastorburris Let's look at 1 Corinthians 10:4 in context. Paul is using typology.
"Now these things became patterns [types: from Strong's 51:79 "typoi"] for us, so that we will not lust after evil things, as they lusted."
1 Corinthians 10:6
Let's not forget this fact as we proceed to make sense of how Paul could be using the title Christ (applied to Moses) in verse 4 as a type for Christ Jesus.
Moses was YHWH's anointed Christ in the dessert leading the Israelites.
Paul is using Moses as a type for Jesus, our Lord and Christ.
"and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. (other ancient texts have "God" and some have "the LORD." Regardless, the translation the variant readings refer to Moses, who was YAHWEH's anointed for that time the Israelites were in the dessert.
Christ means Messiah and both Christ and Messiah mean anointed savior. Moses was Israel's anointed savior. YHWH, the LORD, anointed Moses to be his representative, agent, shaliah.
1 Corinthians 10:9 states:
"We must not tempt the Christ, as some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents." 1 Corinthians 10:9
Nowhere in scripture does it say the Israelites tempted Jesus. So full stop right there.
CLEARLY the Israelites tempted “the LORD (YHWH)” many times in the O.T. by tempting Moses, YHWH's anointed. Tempting Christ Jesus is therefore viewed as Tempting YHWH in the same way the Israelites tempted YHWH by tempting Moses. Tempting any of YHWH's anointed representatives, is an act of defiance against YHWH. It doesn't mean Moses or Jesus is YHWH.
1 Corinthians 10:9 tells us the Israelites tempted “the LORD," as a result they were “destroyed by serpents.” This event took place in Numbers 21:5. The Israelites “spoke against Yahweh” so “Yahweh sent venomous snakes among them” (Num. 21:6). Yahweh is mentioned, but Jesus, or the Messiah (Christ) are not mentioned. The wrath is always YHWH's wrath.
Nothing in this verse points to Jesus as being "the spiritual rock" or "the Christ" Paul refers to.
Some trinitarians insist 1 Cor 10:4 means Jesus was with the Israelites in the desert 1400 years before his birth. HOWEVER, they cannot produce one scripture reference concerning him in the OT apart from prophecies of his future coming.
None of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the future coming of the Messiah were ever contested by anyone. The people who heard the prophecies knew the Messiah would come some day in the future. They never questioned the prophecies by saying Jesus had already come.
Conclusion:
1. The rock in this context is not Jesus. Rather, the rock that followed the Israelites is the spirit of YHWH working in Moses to anoint him as the savior of the people, including all the spiritual lessons, and the prophecies.
2. In 1 Corinthians 10:4-9 The Israelites temped YHWH by tempting "Moses" in the dessert. By tempting Moses (who was God's anointed shaliah) the Israelites were also tempting the LORD God YHWH.
3. There is no record of the Israelites tempting Jesus in the OT scriptures.
4. We do not read of anyone stating "the future Messiah is already here with us" when any of the prophets utter a prophecy of the Messiah's coming.
5. If Jesus had existed in the past, he would not have been following the Israelites around in the desert. Indeed, they would have been following Jesus.
6. The wrath poured out is YHWH's wrath (Numbers 21:5-6) not Jesus' wrath. Wrath is inconsistent with Jesus mission.
Note: The wrath of God poured out in Revelation is YHWH's wrath, not Jesus' wrath. Jesus is the vessel YHWH uses to carry out His wrath.
Notes on variant readings:
Κύριον (LORD) was consistently adopted by most editors of the critical text, other than Griesbach, until about 1970:
“Lord” was the reading adopted by Lachmann (1831), Buttmann (1862), Tregelles (1869), Tischendorf (8th edition, 1872), Westcott & Hort (1881), Eberhard Nestle (1904), Alexander Souter (1920), and the Nestle-Aland compilation up to and including the 25th edition.
The first and second editions of the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament also read Κύριον (LORD).
“Lord” has appeared in First Corinthians 10:9 in several English Bibles of the past 150 years, including the Revised Version (1881), the American Standard Version (1901), the Revised Standard Version, the Living Bible, the New Life Version, the New American Standard Bible (1960 & 1995), the New International Version 1984, and the Tree of Life Version (2011). Tyndale House GNT reads “κύριον” LORD.
The Sinaiticus reads “Lord.” There is growing evidence that “Lord,” was the original reading.
Other manuscripts read “God,” and some read “Christ.” Manuscripts differ from one another. Scholars differ in their opinions as to which texts are original and which texts have been altered. There are even early texts that read both ways.
Evidence for LORD is strong.
Κύριον "LORD" is supported by À B C P 0150 33 43 104 181 255vid 256 263 326 365 436 1175 2110 2127 2464 and 22 other minuscules, and the margin of the Harklean Syriac, the Armenian version and the Ethiopic version.
LORD is supported by Epiphanius, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Cassiodorus, John of Damascus, and Sedulius Scotus. Chrysostom is cited as using LORD.
The Anchor Yale Bible-First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 2008, (Vol. 32) says of 1 Corinthians 10:9: “Most older commentators preferred to read kyrion [Lord] and to understand it as in the LXX [Septuagint], meaning Yahweh.”
The book, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, edited by John Parry, 1916, on page 147 makes this comment on 1 Corinthians 10:9: “We cannot conclude that S. Paul meant to speak of the Israelites as ‘tempting Christ’; . . . Even in view of v. 4 it would not be natural to speak of the Israelites tempting Christ.”
Even if "Christ" is the correct translation, this particular reference to Christ is a title, not a name, and this title was given to Moses as the anointed one to lead the Israelites. Paul is not referring directly to Jesus because Jesus did not exist until 1400 years later. This Christ Paul refers to is Moses, a type for the anointed Jesus reference 1 Corinthians 10:6 "typoi" Strong's 5179 meaing types, patterns, figurative.
@@pastorburris Walk a mile with me brother. If you are unwilling, after I took the time to watch two of your videos and make comments, then what does that say about your commitment and faith in the word of YHWH? I'm calling you out for believing and teaching false doctrines. Prove me wrong or repent and become enlightened.
There is no such thing as a third person of a godhead in the Bible. You are making that up. In fact, your KJV misinterpreted Colossians 2:9 ; also see Colossians 1:19
In Colossians 2:9 the Greek word "theotes" is incorrectly translated as “Deity” or “Godhead” in most English Bibles.
Deity of course means God from the Latin word Deus. This conflicts with many unambiguous verses in the Bible.
The Greek word "theotes" occurs only once in the Bible.
"Godhead" (KJV) is a trinitarian concept, which is why it is found in most English Bibles and only in one verse (Colossians 2:9)
To understand the meaning of theotes we have to consider the context and how the first century Greek speaking Colossians understood the meaning of "theotes."
Other translations have theotes translated as:
"divine plenitude" Mace New Testament
"Divine Nature" Catholic Public Domain Version
"God's nature" Weymouth New Testament
"divine nature" Good News translation
"God's nature" Holman Christian Standard Bible
"God's nature" Christian Standard Bible
"divinity" Smith's Literal Translation
The above translations demonstrate the correct meaning of the verse is:
"the fullness of YHWH's divine nature dwells in Jesus."
EIther way you choose, the KJV rendering or the above, neither means Jesus is YHWH.
Liddell and Scott's Greek lexicon for ancient Greek translates "theotes" as “divinity, divine nature.” This is the meaning the Colossians would have perceived from Paul's use of "theotes."
Paul would have understood the word "theotes" the same way the Colossians understood its meaning in their culture. Paul was not presenting them with a new definition of the word "theotes." If he was, he would have said so and he would have given an explanation for any such change in meaning.
Imposing modern views on the text while ignoring the contemporary language and views of Paul's time is eisegesis, not exegesis. Paul wrote his letters in Koine Greek, common Greek.
"For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body." Colossians 2:9 REV Bible. This translation conveys the correct meaning, although "the fullness of the divine nature" is my preference, as this is how the Colossians would have read the verse.
The "Fullness of God" or "Fullness of Deity" relates to Jesus being filled with YHWH's holy spirit “without measure,”
(SEE: John 3:34).
Clearly Jesus had the fullness of the “divine nature” dwelling in him. This is what Paul is stating in 1 Colossians 2:9.
Does this mean Jesus is God? For those who think so, what about the next verse?
*_"So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority."_*
Colossians 2:10
The same is said about every Christian elsewhere in the Bible (Ephesians 3:19; and 2 Peter. 1:4).
Since believers are complete through their union with Jesus, these verses cannot be saying Jesus is God without his followers being God also.
The fulness of God is another way of saying "being full of God's spirit."
John states:
*_“.......for God gives him the spirit without limit."_* John 3:34
Paul states:
*_“God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.”_* Colossians 1:19
*_"And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God."_* Ephesians 3:19
Colossians 2:10; Ephesians 3:19; and 2 Peter 1:4 tells us (believers) that we have that same fullness, so verse 9 does not convey the idea that Jesus is God.
Daniel 3:25 -- .......and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.......
Daniel 3:26 ......Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God,.....
Daniel 3:28 -- .......Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,......
Context.
Going to greek and hebrew can send you into a ditch and you wont even know it. There are videos that alledgedly ' irrefutably refute' this understanding of aramic and hebrew as well.
I personally take stock in neither. But, pray for understanding always.
In love.
Oh my dear friend, what a mistake you have made. Going to the original languages is exactly what we must do. It is what the KJV translators did. Did it get them and everyone who reads their translation into a ditch?
I have shown that Daniel 3:25 contains a masculine plural Aramaic word for “gods”.
Daniel 3:26 contains a masculine singular Aramaic word for “god” because he is speaking of only one god.
Daniel 3:28 contains a masculine singular Aramaic word for “god” because he is speaking of only one god.
BUT! You didn’t finish Daniel 3:28! Here is the text:
Daniel 3:28 (KJV): 28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.
Who did Nebuchadnezzar say that their “god” had sent to protect them in the fire? “His angel” - not his “son”. Thank you. Case closed. Goodnight. Brother, you walked right into it. I don’t mean to be rude, but I fear that you were so willing to affirm the KJV at any cost that you didn’t even realize the conflict of your position with the passage itself.
@@pastorburris
Ok. Case closed then.
However,
the form of the fourth is like the Son of God
Like, is what he says. Simile.
@@scottw1828, no Sir. That’s not what Nebuchadnezzar said, that’s what Jerome said. Watch the video. Facts are facts. Jerome, who changed it, even said his wasn’t the correct translation. You have to absolutely choose to ignore clear and irrefutable facts in order to side with the KJV reading of Daniel 3:25 over “a son of the gods”.
@@pastorburris YIKES!!! how can you even say this? Nope if this is what you believe, I can totally see why you got fired. It's basically heresy. We don't need to go to Greek and Hebrew that's absolutely incorrect. The Bible is produced in our own language in the KJV. If we all needed to learn Greek and Hebrew to know God, that would be really sad. You are really hard headed too by the absolutist comments you make. You need to choose a side. If you're just going to be a compromiser then you will get your reward. Please rethink this position. Watch the following documentaries and maybe you will get it: "The True Christian History of America", "Bridge to Babylon: Rome, Ecumenism & the Bible", "A Lamp in the Dark", and "Tares Among the Wheat: Sequel to a Lamp in the Dark" I have no idea how you could be trained in fundamentalism and suddenly start preaching this garbage belief on your channel please reconsider. We don't need to become scholars to know God's word!!!
When will people start accepting the Truth...! GOD is Not what He is, God is who He is... Using the word gods is Blaspheming. There is only ONE...! Which is, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit...!! They are ONE... God Bless
How is it blaspheming to use what was originally written? Until the pope’s personal secretary, Jerome, wrote “the son of God”, everyone who read the scriptures prior read “a son of some gods” or “a son of the gods” in Greek and Aramaic. Your argument is entirely based on symbolism. We don’t do interpretation before translation.
I enjoy your talks and questions. I fear though, your thoughts and questions, are from that of man's opinions books. There is only one authority of God Word on earth for us, given to us by Jesus, the KJB... All other books and bible books were written for man's profit... God Word speak for itself, without interpretation... @@pastorburris
Sir, this video clearly demonstrates that Jerome interpreted instead of translating in Daniel 3:25. He admitted doing so. Jerome is the one who changed the text of scripture by his own admission. How can you disagree with the clear and indisputable facts that have been presented in this video? Do you agree that Jerome admitted to changing the text? Do you agree that I presented his own words from his commentary on Daniel 3:25? Do you agree that I properly displayed the Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and English honestly? Unless I misrepresented the facts, you cannot, with any intellectual honesty, tell me I am wrong.
I do not and have not told you, you were wrong. What I have said is, I put no stock in man's written opinion and books... Even the very languages you speak of have over time... God Bless@@pastorburris
Gen 1:1 In the beginningH7225 GodH430 createdH1254 (H853) the heavenH8064 and the earth.H776 ----h430 is elohim therefore Gods, so in the beginning the Gods created the earth, God is the God of Gods like he states,
You greatly misunderstand the Hebrew and the use of Elohim throughout the Tanakh. Strongs is a concordance - not a dictionary or lexicon. If you would like to learn, I would be glad to recommend a number of excellent Hebrew lexicons that you could study and see how your statement is horribly incorrect. There is only One God. There is none other.
The Latin Vulgate is a corrupt text. Jerome was Catholic and took a lot of his writings from writings in Alexandra, Egypt. Which we know were an enemy of the Jewish nation and a type of the world system. Moreover, you posed the question of a idolatrous, pagan king understand seeing the pre incarnate Christ? How did Paul know he was talking to Jesus Christ? How did many others in the O.T. who seen Jesus before his bodily form know who he was? If you keep reading in Daniel, he made Nebuchadnezzar to walk around like an animal for 7yrs for him to realize that God is the true one. God has to reveal himself to man, so I take no issue here. By your logic, then John 1:18 would suggest that the O.T. saints could not have known that the pre-incarnate Christ was so. Also, how did Moses know that God was in the burning bush? I am not trying to be cruel, just want to to reevaluate your position. I'll pray for you in your endeavors.
Dear Sir, I shall only address one aspect of your comment, but I could certainly do more. Let’s start with the first statement. If the Latin Vulgate is a corrupt text, will you agree that the King James has a corrupt text in its lineage? There is no disputing the evidence that Daniel 3:25 in older English versions is based on the reading of the Latin Vulgate.
We can continue to talk more after you respond to this question.
Thank you for your comment.
and yet, in EVERY place where the KJV differs from from the Hebrew text they were translating, It is in complete alignment with Jerome's Vulgate! Also, the KJV translators praised Jerome's work IN THEIR PREFERACE! I have always found it odd that KJV onlyists radically disagree with the KJV translators themselves about 1. the nature of their own work, and 2. about the nature of the works of Jerome and the LXX.
Pastor is a privilege…. Don’t be so high and mighty
Thank you for your comment. I wasn’t aware I came across as high and mighty in this video.
@@pastorburrisYou didn't. Some people assume it's arrogant to question themselves.....
Strongs says “son”. Of “God”.
I will take strongs over your opinion thanks.
H1247 (Strong)
בַּר
bar
bar
(Chaldee); corresponding to H1121; a son, grandson, etc.: - X old, son.
Total KJV occurrences: 8
H426 (Strong)
אֱלָהּ
'ĕlâhh
el-aw'
(Chaldee); corresponding to H433; God: - God, god.
Total KJV occurrences: 95
Trying to use aramaic to refute the hebrew?
Very deceptive.
And you got fired you say?🤔
You have no idea how Strong’s Concordance works. Strong’s doesn’t always tell you the Greek or Hebrew word that was originally used. It tells you the equivalent of the English text. You are working backwards and using the tool improperly. I showed the Greek and Aramaic in my video. Do you think I made it up? If you wish to learn, I can help you.
Yes, refute this argument please mr Hebrew scholar?
Is the Authorized Version correct, or the modern versions? The KJV translation is definitely the correct one, and the modern versions are in error, for the following reasons.
First, the phrase Ny`IhDlTa_rAb in Daniel 3:25 is properly translated “the Son of God,” not “a son of the gods.” First, the definiteness of the absolute noun Ny`IhDlTa, although nonarticular, makes the construct noun rAb definite likewise-it is “the Son,” not “a son,” as in Daniel 4:9, 15; 5:11, 14 the nonarticular Ny§IhDlTa Aj…wêr “the spirit,” not “a spirit,” of the gods/God, and in Daniel 5:11 Ny™IhDlTa_tAmVkDj is “the wisdom of the gods,” not “a wisdom of gods.”
Second, in Daniel 3:25 the translation “God” for Ny`IhDlTa, rather than “gods,” is superior. It is true that Ny`IhDlTa is a plural form, and it is likewise true that, unless one renders NyIhDlTa Aj…wr (Daniel 4:9, 15; 5:11, 14) as “the Spirit of God” rather than “the spirit of the gods,” in the other instances where the plural Ny`IhDlTa is found in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 10:11; Daniel 2:11, 47; 3:12, 14, 18; 4:5-6, 15; 5:4, 11, 14, 23), the translation “gods” is proper, while the singular ;hDlTa is employed of the true God of Israel or of a particular but singular false god (Daniel 2:18-20, 23, 28, 37, 44-45, 47; 3:12, 15, 17, 26, 28-29, 32; 4:5; 5:3, 18, 21, 23, 26; 6:6, 8, 11-13, 17, 21, 23-24, 27; Ezra 4:24-5:2; 5:5, 8, 11-17; 6:3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14, 16-18; 7:12, 14-21, 23-26). While these facts certainly merit consideration, they do not prove that Daniel 3:25 refers to “gods” for the following reasons. First, the equivalent Hebrew plural to the Aramaic Ny`IhDlTa of Daniel 3:25 is MyIhølTa, the plural noun regularly and overwhelmingly used for the singular true God, Jehovah. If the Hebrew plural MyIhølTa, the overwhelming majority of the time, “God” rather than “gods,” one must at least allow for the possibility that the Aramaic plural Ny`IhDlTa refers to “God,” rather than “gods,” in Daniel 3:25, when spoken of with reference to the true Deity revealed in Scripture. This possibility is strengthened by the use of plural titles interchangeably with singular ones for the one true God in the book of Daniel itself. Thus, the title NyInwøyVlRo, “the most High,” within the book always is always plural, but refers in every instance to the one true God, not to exalted pagan gods (Daniel 7:18, 22, 25, 27). The plural NyInwøyVlRo is employed interchangeably with the singular aDyD;lIo (Daniel 3:26, 32; 4:14, 21-22, 29, 31; 5:18, 21; 7:25) in Daniel 7:25-the singular and plural words are designations of the true God in successive clauses. Second, while the other instances of the Aramaic plural NyIhDlTa in the Old Testament refer to “gods,” rather than to “God” (again, on the assumption that NyIhDlTa Aj…wr is “the spirit of the gods” rather than “the Spirit of God,”-yet see Genesis 41:38-the My™IhølTa Aj…wõr is the pneuvma qeouv of the LXX, “the Spirit of God” mentioned on the lips of a pagan) in every other case the plural NyIhDlTa refers, at least in the mind of the speaker, to false gods, rather than the true God. When the Hebrew plural MyIhølTa refers to false gods, it is also properly rendered in the plural as “gods,” but such a fact does not alter the use of the plural MyIhølTa for the single true God also. As the use of the Hebrew plural MyIhølTa for a plurality of false gods does not eliminate its use for the singular true God also, the use of the plural NyIhDlTa for a plurality of false gods does not mean that the Aramaic plural cannot also refer to the singular true God. Third, Aramaic usage of the plural of forms of words for “God” in reference to solely the one true God of the Bible is abundant. The plural of hDlSa is employed 17 times in the Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan, and the Writings of the one true God, and only twice employed of “gods” (Genesis 31:53; Jeremiah 5:14; 15:16; 35:17; 38:17; 44:7; Hosea 12:6; Amos 3:13; 4:13; 5:14-16, 27; 6:8, 14; Psalm 51:16; 147:12, the true God; Psalm 135:5; 136:2, to “gods.”) The Targum Neofiti twice employs the same plural for the one true God (Exodus 18:11; Deuteronomy 1:11). The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan does the same in Exodus 18:11. Thus, the phenomenon of employing a plural form for the one true God of Israel is not restricted to Hebrew, but appears in Aramaic also. Fourth, the standard Koehler/Baumgartner Hebrew lexicon states that the word ;hDlTa, “God/gods” in Daniel 3:25, can be used in the plural of the one God of Israel (hDlTa, 2bd). Fifth, ancient translational evidence supports the rendering “the Son of God.” The LXX translated Daniel 3:25 with the singular aÓgge÷lou qeouv, understanding the reference to be to “God” with the genitive singular, rather than the genitive plural, form of qeo/ß-the LXX supports a reference to “God,” not to the “gods.” Theodotian and Aquila likewise read ui˚w◊ˆ qeouv, “the Son of God,” not a reference to “gods.” The Vulgate similarly supports a reference in Daniel 3:25 to the singular “Son of God,” rather than “the son of the gods,” through its rendering with the singular filio Dei. Furthermore, “in Akkadian the equivalent plural [to the Aramaic NyIhDlTa] is used for a single deity” (Word Biblical Commentary on Daniel 5:5). The Authorized Version follows very strong evidence in ancient translations in its reference to “the Son of God” in Daniel 3:25. Sixth, the context supports a reference to “the Son of God” rather than “a/the son of the gods.” First, the heathen gods had many sons, so Nebuchadnezzar would not speak of “the son of the gods,” but the translation “a son of the gods” has been shown to be inferior above. Second, Nebuchadnezzar immediately refers to “the most high God” (aDyD;lIo a¶DhDlTa) after his statement of v. 25. After seeing “the Son of God,” Nebuchadnezzar would naturally conclude that the three Hebrew children were “servants of the most high God,” but seeing “a son of the gods” would have no obvious connection to “the most high God.” Nebuchadnezzar would have known of the Son of God from Daniel and his three friends, as the Son of God had been proclaimed the Object of faith for the heathen nations for hundreds of years at a minimum already (cf. Psalm 2:12, where king David exhorts the heathen to trust in God’s “Son,” the Aramaic word rAb being employed by David, as it is in Daniel 3:25). Seventh, “the Son of God” is identified with the Angel of the LORD in Daniel 3:28; 6:22, the preincarnate Second Person of the Trinity, who promised, “when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned” (Isaiah 43:2).
For all of these reasons, Daniel 3:25 is properly referred to “the Son of God,” not “a/the son of the gods.” Daniel 3:25, 28 both proves the preexistence of the Son of God (cf. Proverbs 30:4; Psalm 2) and makes a connection between the Son of God and the Angel or Messenger of Jehovah, the preincarnate Messiah. The Son of God delivered His beloved saints out of the midst of the fiery furnace. Furthermore, the Authorized Version is again vindicated in its rendering, while the modern Bible versions are shown to be inferior and corrupt.