Daniel

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jonni
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jonni

Guest
Thank you very much for all your time in replying on my last question. Its much appreciated.

I have another question. Why in Daniel 3:25 (RSV and other new revised versions) does it say God’s and not God?
“But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

In the Douay-Rheims it says God. Is there something I am missing or is it bad translation with the revised versions?

Also I came across something on the net that shows verses missing out of new revised versions of the bible. You can see this if its compared with the King james bible.
This Is the info i came across youtube.com/watch?v=Z0aRV89NWbE&feature=related It at 24:28 and onwards.

Thanks in advance.

jon
 
Daniel 3:

24 And they walked in the midst of the flame, praising God, and blessing the Lord. 25 Then Azarias standing up, prayed in this manner, and opening his mouth in the midst of the fire, he said: 26 Blessed are you, O Lord, the God of our fathers, and your name is worthy of praise, and glorious for ever:

This is from the New Advent Site. They have a bible section and this is the scripture. It is different than the one you posted. Check the site. I cannot explain right now.

newadvent.org/bible/dan003.htm
 
Like Hoping pointed out, Dan 3:25 is not the verse you cite. These verses, and the one after it, are the prayer of Azarias, who would, of course, only pray to one God. I looked it up in the Septuaginta (LXX), and it is singular.

The verse you are refering to is in the Douay-Reims 3,92. (some portions of the book of Daniel were only left to us in Greek, so many bible translations who rely only on the Hebrew to translate the OT won’t have it.)
The LXX has in this verse the genitiv singular of God, so the translators where right to translate it as Singular, too.

The Hebrew text has this portion of the text indeed as 3,25, and here, the plural is used (Gods), which is also absolutely likely, because the kind and his nobles, who talk among themselves, are not of the Jewish faith and worshipped multiple Gods. Not the men in the fire refer to “Gods”!

So it comes down to the questions: Do I use the Greek or the Hebrew for reference in this case? As I pointed out above, the long prayer of Azarias was left to us in Greek, so it makes much sense to translate the rest of the text from the Greek manuscript, not from the Hebrew, too.
Just because it is Hebrew doesn’t mean it is automatically the better or more accurate version. The OT was translated very early into Greek for the use of the Jews in the diaspora, and it frequently preservs older variants of the text or variants that are lost to us otherwise.
 
Thank you very much for all your time in replying on my last question. Its much appreciated.

I have another question. Why in Daniel 3:25 (RSV and other new revised versions) does it say God’s and not God?
“But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

In the Douay-Rheims it says God. Is there something I am missing or is it bad translation with the revised versions?

Also I came across something on the net that shows verses missing out of new revised versions of the bible. You can see this if its compared with the King james bible.
This Is the info i came across youtube.com/watch?v=Z0aRV89NWbE&feature=related It at 24:28 and onwards.

Thanks in advance.

jon
I think the word might indeed be ‘gods’. The author was trying to communicate that the observers saw beings who looked like the ‘perfect divine’ beings they imagined and worshiped falsely.
 
Thanks for your help in explaining that.
I am only starting out with religion so please excuse my lack of knowledge of it.

Also, what about the link I posted. Is he just making things up or is there a reason for missing verses?

Thanks again

jon
 
Thanks for your help in explaining that.
I am only starting out with religion so please excuse my lack of knowledge of it.

Also, what about the link I posted. Is he just making things up or is there a reason for missing verses?

Thanks again

jon
Sorry, I didn’t see the video to you when I replied and I went back to see it 🙂

I think the person in the video seems to have an inadequate understanding of the Bible versions. The ASV, RSV and KJV are simply translations from the original Greek or other languages. In the translations, theological consideration and knowledge from Tradition are taken in to account to use a better word for capturing the meaning.

A well known instance is the passage in Luke “Full of Grace”. Some translations carry “Highly Favored” and other variations of it. What is important to understand is what is meant to be communicated here. The original Greek word present here was a unique word in entire Scripture and it meant a special fullness of Grace. So the best phrase that communicated this idea was picked from the English vocabulary. That being said, understandably, Protestants for an example might prefer a certain version over the other so that it helps them remove any conflicts with their beliefs.

The person in the video also seems to lack a background in biblical history and theology. To give you an example, he mentions how “Lord will give you a sign. …a woman shall bear a child” is not a sign at all because its common. To the contrary, at this time, the Israelite were in captivity and the Davidic line was considered to be lost. So the Lord was promising a child will be born in the Davidic line. This for the Israelite at that time would have been THE SIGN that God was still faithful to his covenant with them. Therefore regardless of whether the word is “Virgin” or “Woman”, the miraculous character and sign of the statement was understood by all Israelite then. The person in the video seems clueless about this.

As for the use of the word Virgin vs. Woman, the study of the text and the context and the actual word used in that text and where it appears in other places lead some to believe that the better word to be used to capture the meaning from the English would be Virgin.

Overall, I wouldn’t give much attention to that video because the person seems to be lacking in even a basic understanding of Biblical history and moreover, that each of these English versions are not even the original but a translation from the Greek.

Also should be noted, some of these versions like ASV have changed wording to be politically correct. So instead of he referencing God, it would change it to be gender neutral etc.

But other than that, as long as you are paying attention to the Church’s commentary and Sacred Tradition and reading Scripture in light of that (as we are all called to do), which version you use shouldn’t be problematic. In the case where the wording has been altered a lot, the commentary will help you understand what was changed and perhaps even identify changed that the Church had not approved.

I also recommend the Ignatius Study Bible by Scott Hahn btw. Currently, it covers all of the New Testament and includes commentary from Church fathers and reasons for use of certain words when necessary. It is one of those books that you won’t regret buying! 🙂
 
But other than that, as long as you are paying attention to the Church’s commentary and Sacred Tradition and reading Scripture in light of that (as we are all called to do), which version you use shouldn’t be problematic. In the case where the wording has been altered a lot, the commentary will help you understand what was changed and perhaps even identify changed that the Church had not approved.
I also recommend the Ignatius Study Bible by Scott Hahn btw. Currently, it covers all of the New Testament and includes commentary from Church fathers and reasons for use of certain words when necessary. It is one of those books that you won’t regret buying!
I’ve often heard the Ignatius Study Bible publisher touting that the RSV (Scott Hahn’s translation) is the Bible that is closest to the original greek. I was excited when I bought it a few years ago. But I was quite shocked when I found a chart (link below) that compares various modern bible translations using a rather long list of verses that are missing. The one that was missing the largest # of verses was the RSV! Some of the verses are by no means insignificant such as Mt 17:20 “But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting”. I actually looked up each of the many “missing verses” from various modern translations that we own with the verses mentioned on this chart:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_modern_translations

After analyzing the chart and doing some more digging elsewhere, I can see that the “Catholic” bible translations which are missing the least amount of verses are: Douey-Rheims (D-R) and Catholic Community Bible (CCB). Although the latter (CCB) was not in the chart, I looked up the missing verses in my copy and it’s pretty much the same as the D-R. However, today I noticed that the CCB is missing 2 verses in Sirach 24 (verses 18 & 24; the verse #'s jumped from 17 to 19, and from 23 to 25 without any footnotes.) But it’s still my favorite translation b/c the commentary of the CCB is like no other (it reads like a homily) and the verses are very easy to understand. Even comes with a thumb index.

So, does anyone know what led to Catholic bibles intentionally leaving out so many verses?

Thank you.
 
Someone may correct me, but I believe the RSV incorporates additional manuscript evidence not available at the time of the earlier translations. Earlier translations had incorporated text not in the original scriptural writings (transcription errors, etc.).
 
Daniel 3:25 is the verse cited by the OP in the RSV. It’s not in the NAB and some other versions.

He answered, “But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.” (Daniel 3:25)

Reference quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=3344080

This is the answer to the OP’s question → King Nebuchadnez’zar was a pagan. He was the king of Babylon during the exile of the Jews who were taken captive to his land. King Nebuchadnez’zar made an image of gold and commanded everyone, including the Jews, to worship it at the beginning of chapter 3. He did not yet know the God of Israel but believed in multiple gods.

-Tim-
 
Sorry, I didn’t see the video to you when I replied and I went back to see it 🙂

A well known instance is the passage in Luke “Full of Grace”. Some translations carry “Highly Favored” and other variations of it. What is important to understand is what is meant to be communicated here. The original Greek word present here was a unique word in entire Scripture and it meant a special fullness of Grace.
Here’s an excellent article defending the use of “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 (virgin birth prophesy): archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9807fea4.asp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top