“Son of God” or “son of the gods” - refuting Calvin George on Daniel 3:25

Introduction:

What is being taught in our Spanish churches by teachers such as Calvin George.

Daniel 3:25 KJV 1900

25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Daniel 3:25 NIV

25 He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”

Daniel 3:25 RVR60

25 Y él dijo: He aquí yo veo cuatro varones sueltos, que se pasean en medio del fuego sin sufrir ningún daño; y el aspecto del cuarto es semejante a hijo de los dioses.

So Calvin George wants us Independent Fundamental Baptists to be ok with the NIV reading “son of the gods”.

Let’s see what he says to defend the “son of the gods” reading.

George: Regarding Daniel 3:25 , it's not a textual problem of differences between manuscripts in the original languages, because they all say the same thing.

This is true, this is not a textual issue but rather a translation issue. So far we are in agreement.

George: The issue is that in the 1909 and 1960 versions, this verse was translated very literally directly from the Aramaic, but in the King James Version (KJV), it was interpreted.

This statement is missing a lot of context that makes it seem like hey the KJV is wrong and the 1960 is right. But it is not that simple.

There are two schools of thought about how to translate here.

It is true that the Arabic word for God here is in the plural and in other instances it is in the singular form.

The NIV supporters say that the Arabic word for God always should be translated in the plural when in that form and that context does not impact it at all.

Calvin George is siding with this group and making it sound like they are the only school of thought.

There are many that disagree with this school of thought however.

Including the 54 KJV translators who were literally the best in the world.

Not just them

There is a very strong consensus of experts who disagree with the NIV and modern textual critic crowd and agree that context plays a role in whether we should transfer the word in plural or in singular.

Here are some examples:

Dr. Ken Mato: The Aramaic words found in the statement are as follows, "dâmēh lebar 'ĕlâhı̂yn" The last word corresponds to the word "elohim" in the Hebrew which shows the plurality of God. In other words, it does not signify 3 gods but is used to show "three distinct persons" as one Godhead. Now the Aramaic word "elahiyn" may be translated "gods or God" and the usage is determined by the context.

In biblical Aramaic the plural noun ʾĕlāhîn may be assumed to have the same force as ʾĕlōhîm in biblical Hebrew, which can be rendered as a plural, “gods,” or as a singular, “God,” when denoting the true God, the plural form being an attempt to express the divine fullness and majesty. - Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 123.

You can find commentary after commentary and article after article that all atest to the fact that the word can be translated as plural or singular depending on the context.

This is something that has been understood for thousands of years

We can see the ancient understanding of this word by how it is translated in very old and ancient Bibles.

Example: The Septuagint

τετάρτου ὁμοία υἱῷ θεοῦ

Note: The Septuagint is not to be followed over the Hebrew, this is just an example of how Dan 3:25 was translated thousands of years ago.

The point of showing the Septuagint translation is to show that for thousands of years this aramaic word has been translated in the singular.

Many many Bibles have done this not just the KJV translators (who by the way were the best)

1569 Biblia de Oso: y el parecer del quarto es semejante à hijo de Dios.

So George’s claim that the “son of the gods” translation is the literal translation and the “son of God” is interprative is only partly true.

The fact is, you cannot always literally translate into the receptor language and maintain the meaning.

Example: Elohim in Hebrew is in plural but it is translated as God with referring to God.

Half truths are the most dangerous kinds of lies

Because they are the most deceptive.

George: I don't have a problem with the KJV's interpretation of Daniel 3:25, because it's a correct interpretation, even if it's not entirely literal.

Again, this statement ends up being deceptive because it is lacking the context that we just discussed so its misleading.

George also has to play this game where he claims both Bibles are correct even though they say two opposite things because he wants to avoid upsetting KJV churches and/or 1960 churches.

George: Those who criticize the King James Version often complain that it interprets something instead of translating literally, but in the case of the KJV's Daniel 3:25 , they do the opposite; they complain about a literal translation in the King James Version and defend the fact that the KJV interpreted it.

This statement is based on the belief that the singular rendering is not literal…when you understand the nuance this statement becomes meaningless.

George: If you look at Strong's Concordance in English, you'll see that the key word for Daniel... Daniel 3:25 , corresponding to the number 426, was translated not only as “God” but also as “gods” on numerous occasions in the King James Version.

George: In Daniel 5:14, King Belteshazzar referred to Daniel's God as “ the spirit of the gods” in the King James Version of the Bible. If Daniel 3:25 is incorrect in the Reina-Valera, then Daniel 5:14 would be incorrect in the KJV and the RVG for the same reason.

George: As Daniel 3:25 appears in the 1909 and 1960 RV versions, the king did not immediately recognize the identity of the fourth man in the fire, reflecting the ambiguity of the original text. This is similar to the case of John 20:15 in the KJV, where Mary addressed Christ as “Sir” (similar to “gentleman” in English) instead of “Lord” as in the 1960 RV.

George: By this same logic, it should not be considered incorrect for King Nebuchadnezzar to refer to the fourth man in the fire as “like a son of the gods” in Daniel 3:25 in the 1909-1960 RV versions, since it is unlikely that the pagan king would have instantly recognized the identity of the fourth man in the fire.

George: Anyone who says that the RV1960 is in error or corrupt in this passage is actually saying that the text is corrupt in the original language.

This last statement is especially egregious…those that defend the translation “son of God” are in no way saying that the underlying text is corrupt.

So the first claim of George is that the correct translation here is always the literal and that context does not matter.

As we have already seen, context does indeed matter as to when to translate singular and when to translate plural.

That has been verified by thousands of years of translators putting into singular in other languages.

Secondly George points to a time where the word is translated plural and then tries to do a “gotcha”.

But once again, context matters.

Does the contest support the singular translation of Dan 3:25?

Yes, why?

Nebuchadnezzar knew who their God was

Daniel 2:47 KJV 1900

47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were his chief governors and advisors for many years

Daniel 2:48 KJV 1900

48 Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.

The whole matter was a competition between the false gods of Nebuchadnezzar and the singular true God of the Hebrews

Daniel 3:17–18 KJV 1900

17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

Nebuchadnezzar saw a theophany, its not strange to think that he would have recognized that Christ was the son of God (singular; Hebrew God).

The fourth guy obviously did not look like some regular guy.

It was a Divine appearance.

Example: Jesus appearing in Daniel 10

Example: Jesus appearing to John in Rev 1.

The example that George provides (Dan 5:14) is a false equivalence

Daniel 5:14 KJV 1900

14 I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee.

So this is a different king who did not even know Daniel.

He was not looking at a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ

He was a Pagan and probably had never heard of Daniel’s God.

This is not even remotely the same thing.

The KJV translators correctly put spirit of the gods here because that is the accurate translation.

Explain: George often presents the logicla fallacy of false equivalence in his arguments and you really need to watch out for it and recognize it when it shows up.

Conclusion

The KJV and many other versions did indeed get it right when they translated according to context.

The RV1960 ignoring the context and putting “son of the gods” is an incorrect rendering of the verse.

And the statement at the end where George says that we are calling the underlying text corrupt if we have a problem with “son of the gods” rendering is ridiculous.