(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

Hey everybody, Pastor Steven Anderson here from Faith Forward Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. Today I want to talk to you about Daniel chapter 3 verse 25. The Bible reads, He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no herd, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. And I'm reading this from the King James Version. If you have a modern version like the ESV or the NIV or something along those lines, it's going to say, a son of the gods. So King James says the Son of God and these modern versions say a son of the gods. So which one's right? Is the King James right or are the modern versions right? In this video, I'm going to prove to you beyond any shadow of a doubt that the translation found in the NIV, the ESV, and these others is literally grammatically impossible according to the rules of Aramaic grammar. I'm going to prove this to you so clearly. Even a layman will be able to understand what I show you. And if you verify this information with any Hebrew professor, any Aramaic professor, I guarantee you that they will confirm the validity of what I'm about to show you. Okay, so before I get into this, let me just explain to you the importance of this passage. Of course, this is Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. They refuse to bow down to false gods. They get thrown into the fiery furnace and then Nebuchadnezzar is astonished to look into the fiery furnace and see not three men, but four men. And he makes this prophetic utterance, the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. So this, of course, pictures Jesus Christ saving us from hell and Jesus is the Son of God. Amen? We know that. But there are false religions out there like the Unitarian, modalist, oneness Pentecostals who don't believe in the Trinity and they don't believe that the Son of God existed in the Old Testament. So this verse just absolutely demolishes their doctrine. They hate this verse because they don't like the fact that it talks about the Son of God in the Old Testament. Of course, people object to this and say, well, what does Nebuchadnezzar know? He's just a pagan king or whatever. But obviously, God is allowing him to make this prophetic utterance that the form of the fourth is like the Son of God, that Jesus is the fourth man in the fire, just like Caiaphas or Cyrus the Great make utterances by the Holy Ghost, even though they're not even saved. I mean, Caiaphas was unsaved, yet he's faked by the Holy Ghost in the book of John. But anyway, I'm getting a little ahead of myself. This is a really cool verse. I remember the first time I read this as a kid. It really blew my mind. Daniel 3.25. But let's look at the facts, right? Let's look at the grammar and let's see what's going on here. So I've written two different things on the board here. First of all, let me just explain to you that Aramaic and Hebrew are very closely related languages. They're both Semitic languages. They are like Spanish and Portuguese, you know, where they're just that close. Closer than, say, Spanish and Italian, in my opinion. I mean, they're very close together. If you can understand the one, it wouldn't be very hard for you to learn the other because they're both very closely related. Okay, so we have these two terms here that I've written. This is the term in question in Daniel 3.25 in the original Aramaic. In case you didn't know, the book of Daniel, part of it is not written in Hebrew. Part of it's written in Aramaic. And this verse in question, Daniel 3.25, comes from the Aramaic section. So we have up here Bar Elohim, okay, which this is the phrase where the King James translates it, the Son of God, and the ESV NIV translated as a son of the gods. And then down here I have the Hebrew equivalent. Basically the exact same thing in Hebrew would be Ben Elohim. So up here we have Bar Elohim and here we have Ben Elohim. So you can see that there's very little difference between these two words here. We've got Elahim and Elohim. So El becomes Ah and then the M at the end becomes an N. But you can see how these words are the same thing. Okay, now what does this word mean Elohim or Elohim? The reason I'm putting it up here in Hebrew is because people are more familiar with Hebrew than they are with Aramaic, so I'm just trying to make this easier. So most people are pretty familiar with the word Elohim and let me explain to you what's going on with this word. This word is the name of the true God. Okay, so when we see this word Elohim being used as a singular, it's the true God. Okay, first verse of the Bible. Genesis 1-1. Bereshit bara Elohim et ha'shamayim ve'et ha'aretz. Okay, in the beginning God created God is Elohim. Right, singular God and it's Bereshit bara. Bara means created. Okay, that bara is singular. Okay, so this is being treated as a singular word Elohim. Okay, but this em ending is a plural ending. Okay, and you're probably familiar with that even just from reading the King James where you see these words that end in i-m like cherubims or baalim or things like that. So this is a plural ending in Hebrew. So the name of God in Hebrew in Genesis 1-1 is a plural word Elohim, but it's treated as singular. So it takes a singular verb verb. It's going to take singular adjectives. It's grammatically singular, but it is plural in its nature plural in its ending. Now the word Elohim can also mean God's with a little g plural. So this word Elohim can either mean the true God like in Genesis 1-1. Right, Elohim, God, the true God or it can mean God's plural with a little g. Okay, so throughout the Old Testament sometimes the King James is going to translate this as God's because it's plural. You say well how do I know when it's singular and how do I know when it's plural? How do I know when it's the true God and how do I know when it's these false gods? Because if it takes a singular verb then it's God. If it takes a plural verb it's God's. You can see that it's being grammatically treated as plural if it has like plural adjectives and stuff like that. Then when you see it plural you know we're not talking about the true God. We're talking about God's plural. Okay, so when it's treated as singular Elohim is God, but it's only used to refer to you know the true God here. Okay, and then when it's plural then we know it's just God's. Little g is a different word so it's either a name or it's God's. Okay, it can mean either one of these two things. All right, so that's the word Elohim. Well in Aramaic it's the exact same equivalent word. Just instead of pronouncing it Elohim it's pronounced Elahim and it's you know you can see how close that is. So here's what's going on. These two words here with a hyphen in between them you can see that they're connected and they're also grammatically connected in what's called a construct state. Now bear with me this this might seem a little bit complicated but I feel like if you just listen to the video and pay attention you're going to be able to follow what I explain here. Okay, so these two words are grammatically coming together to form what's called a construct state or a construct chain. Okay, and the construct chain is something that we have both in Hebrew and Aramaic same situation. Okay, so in the construct chain you have this pattern here A of B. Okay, and when you make a construct chain you could have something like house of bread or you could have king of Salem or you know lord of lords just any word where you have an of in between one way of of doing it would be to use this thing called a construct chain. Okay, so these are both a construct chain so in Daniel 3 25 Bar Elohim is a construct chain. Okay, now here are the rules for construct chains in Aramaic and this is something that you would learn in the first semester of Hebrew or the first semester of Aramaic or any kind of an Aramaic grammar book or Hebrew grammar book this is going to be right toward the beginning of the book this is a very basic thing that I'm explaining to you right now this thing called the construct state. Okay, when you have a construct chain either the whole thing is definite or the whole thing is indefinite what do I mean by that well you could have the king of Israel okay or the king of the country both a and b have to be either definite or indefinite what is definite and mean and indefinite mean definite means something that has the in front of it right the definite article indefinite is like a something or other so the house is definite a house is indefinite okay the god is definite a god is indefinite okay well here's how this thing works both of these either have to be definite or they both have to be indefinite that's the way otherwise you'd have to use something other than a construct chain in order to express this in Aramaic or Hebrew but a construct chain must be either both definite and both indefinite in fact I even have here a textbook published by Zondervan which is the publisher of the NIV that says the exact same thing right here it says a construct chain is either entirely definite or entirely indefinite and this status is always determined by the status of the last noun in the construct chain so as it says here the construct chain is either all definite or it's all indefinite okay so you can say in a construct chain the king of the country but you cannot say a king of the country or the king of a country that's not going to work because the construct chain is one unit that is everything's definite or everything's indefinite now what determines the definiteness of the construct chain is the last word in the chain okay in fact it is impossible in Hebrew to put the word the on the first word in the construct chain or in Aramaic you cannot put the word the on the first word you only put the definiteness on the last word in the construct chain okay and it makes the whole thing definite because it's an all or nothing okay so if you're looking at a construct chain in Hebrew or Aramaic and you want to know is this definite or is it indefinite you look at the last word okay and that's going to tell you now what is definite and what is indefinite well if something has the in front of it it's definite but not only that as this book states right here proper names are also definite it says here if the noun to which the construct noun is bound is a proper noun then the construct noun is also considered definite so it says right there that if it's a proper noun it's definite okay so here's what's going on what the King James is translating here is they're looking at this right here as a proper name Elohim or Elohim is a proper name right Genesis 1-1 it's used I believe what well over 2 000 times in the Old Testament this proper name of God Elohim or in Aramaic Elohim okay so this isn't a rare word it's used over 2 000 times so because this is a proper name here Elohim then that makes this whole thing definite so then that would make this the son of God okay that's what the King James is translating the son of God right Bar Elohim the son of God now if you were to interpret Elohim as not being the true God right because remember Elohim or Elohim can either translate as God capital G proper name right which is talking about basically the God the true God right the God of the Bible or gods so the other way of translating this would be to take this as gods you know lowercase gods right but here's the thing about that if you take this as lowercase gods that's indefinite now because there's no the on it then it's indefinite at that point okay because there's no definite article here there's no the here so basically if you're going to take this as gods indefinite then that would mean this has to be indefinite as well so basically this would end up being translated as a son of gods a son of God so basically grammatically there are only two possibilities here how we can translate this term there's only two ways to do it these are your two choices okay the two choices are what the king James says the son of God okay that's your first choice if you're going to take Elohim as the God of the Bible Elohim or you could translate it as a son of gods well you say well pastor Anderson we haven't gotten anywhere you know it could be either or here's the thing though is this what the NIV says no is this what the ESV says no the ESV says a son of the gods and this is violating the most basic rule of the construct chain in Aramaic and Hebrew that either both halves have to be definite or both halves have to be indefinite so a son of the gods is grammatically impossible here because it either has to be the the or a a but you cannot have half of a construct chain be definite and the other half be indefinite so you can't have a son indefinite of the gods definite these are your two choices so the NIV and the ESV's rendition of this is grammatically impossible and you say well maybe they're just you know paraphrasing it there's a translation folks that's called Young's Literal Young's Literal translation you know what Young's Literal says a son of the gods which is impossible grammatically okay listen to this Bozo Doug Kudalek this guy used to run a website called kjvonly.org an anti-KJV website and he's got his bachelor's degree and he's got his master's degree here's what Bozo Doug Kudalek says the precise literal English equivalent of Bar Elohim is a son of the gods the ASV the NASB and the NIV have it folks this guy is either a complete idiot that didn't even finish the first semester of Aramaic and didn't even finish this first semester of Hebrew how do you get a master's degree like that or he's just a brazen liar because he's not just saying oh it's a paraphrase let me quote this Bozo again a precise literal English equivalent of Bar Elohim is a son of the gods as the ASV NASB and NIV have it it should not surprise us to find a pagan king who acknowledged and worshipped many gods speaking of the appearance of a supernatural person as a son of the gods either he's a bold-faced liar or he doesn't know jack about Aramaic nor does he know jack about Hebrew okay so how can you call this precise and literal no these are the two possible precise literal translations here just to prove my point a little bit further I have here a Hebrew translation of the New Testament okay so this is the New Testament translated into Hebrew and when you look up verses in here that say the son of God guess how it renders them sometimes it renders them as Ben Elohim right and it's not a son of the god right it's the son of God listen to this verse this is from uh Matthew chapter 14 uh where they're on the ship and he calms the storm listen this uh I'll give you the Hebrew it says truly you are the son of God okay so when the disciples are acknowledging Christ as the son of God and saying of a truth thou art the son of God in Matthew 14 this Hebrew New Testament translates it as Ben Elohim because this means the son of God and this is the Aramaic equivalent Bar Elohim okay same thing in Matthew chapter 27 this is when the uh the the the Roman soldier says oh man you know truly this was the son of God Zechariah Ben Elohim Ben Elohim as the son of God so you can either say Ben Elohim or you can say Ben Ha Elohim because sometimes uh Hebrew or Greek will put the in front of the true God like the God in English we just say God right but I just gave you a couple examples there from a Hebrew New Testament uh Matthew 14 and Matthew 27 where Ben Elohim is translating the son of God okay because that's what it means so these are your two precise literal translations Doug Kudalek and what you're putting forth what the ESV is putting forth what the NIV is putting forth is not even an option okay so how do we know which of these is true is it the son of God or is it a son of gods okay well at that point we have to go to context now there's no verb like in Genesis 1 1 it's obvious because we've got that singular verb uh Bara Barashit Bara Elohim so then we know immediately okay Elohim is singular it's the true God it's definite etc since we don't have that we can only go by context so let's get the context in Daniel chapter 3 what does it say right after verse 25 it says the form of the fourth is like the son of God then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace and spake and said Shadrach Meshach and Abednego ye servants of the most high God come forth and come hither so he's acknowledging them as the servants of the most high God then he says in verse 28 blessed be the God of Shadrach Meshach and Abednego not blessed be the holy gods that came and rescued you blessed be a son of gods that came and saved no he's saying blessed be the God of Shadrach Meshach and Abednego watch this who had sent his angel his ain't no look Jesus is called in the Old Testament many times the angel of the Lord look at Exodus chapter 3 right at the beginning of Exodus 3 who's talking to Moses out of the burning bush the angel of the Lord is speaking out of the burning bush and what does the angel of the Lord say the angel of the Lord is calling himself Jehovah okay why because the angel of the Lord frequently in the Old Testament like when when Jacob wrestles with the man he wrestles with the angel Peniel the face of God Genesis 32 he said I saw the face of God okay the Lord Jehovah appears to Abraham in the tent door in Genesis 18 okay so we see in Exodus 3 the burning bush Jesus is referred to as the angel of the Lord why because anytime we have uh God physically appearing in a body that's not God the Father okay because God the Father is spirit and he's heaven and he does not appear in a physical by no man had seen God at any time the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father he had declared him nobody's ever seen God the Father face to face no one can see his face and live okay only Jesus has seen his face and Jesus is the express image of his person but when we see God in bodily form that has to be Jesus Christ so here we have the angel of the Lord we have the Son of God Jesus is the fourth man in the fire but listen to this it says blessed be the God of Shadrach Meshach and Abednego who had 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 isn't it pretty clear that Nebuchadnezzar sees a big difference between their God their own God the mighty God and other gods that they refuse to worship okay and he says in verse 29 therefore I make a decree that every people nation and language would speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach Meshach and Abednego shall be cut in pieces and their houses shall be made of dung hill because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort so if Nebuchadnezzar is saying no other God can deliver after this sort what in the world sense would it make for him to say that a Son of God is who delivered them oh look a Son of God's delivered them no other God can deliver after only the true God the most high God only the God of Shadrach Meshach and Abednego he's the only one who can deliver like this he's the only one who can do it but we're supposed to believe that a minute earlier he said a Son of God's is delivering them hey that looks like a Son of God no it's the Son of God because it's their God it's the most high God it's the God of Shadrach Meshach and Abednego folks the whole reason why they're thrown in the fiery furnace in the first place verse 17 they say to Nebuchadnezzar 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 oh king but if not be it known unto thee oh king that we will not serve thy gods they're saying we will not serve your gods our God's going to deliver us but we're supposed to believe that he looks into the fiery furnace and says oh look one of the gods that they refuse to worship is going to save them that doesn't make any sense and then right after it so that's before the first and then after verse 25 he's talking about the most high God the God of Shadrach nobody else can do this is only the true God if anybody talks crap about the God of the Bible his house is going to be made into a dung hill okay he says that if anyone speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach Meshach and Abednego he shall be cut in pieces and their houses shall be made a dung hill because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort so these are your two options and we go by the context and we see that this is the option that actually fits the context and makes sense and this is also the one that is the most theologically rewarding right this is i like this one better anyway this is great okay uh because of the fact that i love jesus and i believe the whole bible is about jesus jesus is in every book of the bible to him give all the prophets witness that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sense you say well is Nebuchadnezzar a prophet actually yes because of the fact that he actually penned an entire chapter of the bible daniel chapter four the author of daniel chapter four is Nebuchadnezzar so we have an entire chapter of god's word from Nebuchadnezzar uh i believe that Nebuchadnezzar got saved and so he was a holy man of god speaking as he was moved by the holy ghost now at this point in the story Nebuchadnezzar is not yet saved when he makes this utterance so a lot of people say well wow this pagan king know to say that but here's that god can even use an unsaved person to speak profound truths like for example in the book of john when the holy ghost causes caiaphas to talk about how jesus is going to die for the sins of the whole nation says he did not speak that of himself but being the high priest that year the holy ghost was speaking through him and he was an unsaved man you know god used men like balaam and cyrus i mean this is not the only time that an unsaved person could make a profound spiritual utterance by the power of god also remember we don't know about all the conversations that Nebuchadnezzar has had with daniel we know that he communed with him in chapter one and he proved him with hard questions and he knows about their god it's obvious from the i don't have time to go verse by verse through the whole daniel chapter three but there are many things in the chapter that show he knows about their god he knows what they believe and so it's obvious here that the king james has it right and by the way the king james is not the only bible that translates it as the son of god also the predecessor the king james the bishop's bible the son of god the geneva bible the son of god the latin vulgate the son of god the septuagint the son of god right so you have a lot of other options out there and other more minor translations lots of translations out there in various languages that have correctly translated this as the son of god but you know the translation the niv has is not even possible and look folks this book right here is published by zondervan this grammar book and uh that's who puts out the niv and notice how they translate bar elohim there as a son of gods not a son of the gods because remember this whole page is is teaching you this concept that either the whole chain is definite or the whole thing's indefinite and it even uses daniel 325 as an example of course this book is coming down on the wrong side of the issue but the esv is not translating this literally the niv is not translating as literal but the king james is actually providing a literal translation here of daniel 325. anyway i hope this video wasn't too complicated i hope that you're able to grasp and comprehend what i've explained in this video god bless you have a great day