Daniel 3:22 Not in Septuagint?

[daywalker]

Hello All,

I'm reading a book right now, and in it the author claims that the segment in Daniel 3:22 which states, "the flame of the fire slew those men who carried up Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego", is not found in the Septuagint, and therefore probably not genuine. This sparked my interest, so I googled it, and sure enough, it's true, the Septuagint reads:

3:22 forasmuch as the king's word prevailed; and the furnace was made exceeding hot.

http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/daniel/3.html

I then opened E-Sword to see if any of the bible translations I had recognized this, but it appears all, including the Concordant have this "added" segment. I, then, decided to check if any bible commentaries mentioned this, and sure enough:

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament:

(Note: Between Daniel 3:23 and Daniel 3:24 the lxx have introduced the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the three men in the fiery furnace; and these two hymns are connected together by a narrative which explains the death of the Chaldeans who threw the three into the furnace, and the miracle of the deliverance of Daniel's friends. Regarding the apocryphal origin of these additions, composed in the Greek language, which Luther in his translation has rightly placed in the Apocrypha, see my Lehr. der Einl. in d. A. Test. 251.)

http://kad.biblecommenter.com/daniel/3.htm


I'm not yet sure what spiritual implications this may have, but you know me, when I find something like this, I like to share. 


Godspeed,
Daywalker 

http://bible.cc/daniel/3-22.htm

[Duane]

The Concordant Literal Bible or Moody's Literal Bible seems to be B-T golden standard so does CLT or MLB include that additional portion of the verse?  In the end we have to agree on which of the many interpretations we are going to accept or we're potentially
facing derisions. 

[Duane]

Perplexed:  It is one thing to mis-translate a greek word into English;  it is quite another to add a whole sentence, out of your head, to make the Bibe story more titalating.  Why was it necessary to add that "the men who threw the three Hebrew children into the fire were consumed of the heat of the furnace" when it wasn't in the original account?  Isn't ADDING to the Bible-- one of the worst of judgements found in the last verse of Revelation?

[Samson]

The Concordant Literal Bible or Moody's Literal Bible seems to be B-T golden standard so does CLT or MLB include that additional portion of the verse?  In the end we have to agree on which of the many interpretations we are going to accept or we're potentially
facing derisions. 

Every translation contains errors based upon the prejudices of their translators.

It is the Spirit of God that shows us what is the Truth.

John From Kentucky is right ! All translations have errors is them, although overall, according to Ray, The Concordant Literal is the best. John's above point is one of the reasons I kept a copy of The New World Translation(JW Translation). Aside from passages where the the translator, Frederick Franz renders a certain passage, in such a way to reduce Christ's Deity, it's an easy to read Translation with built in Concordance, Index, Footnotes, alternate renderings, some Greek & Hebrew words defined. Also, I have a copy of their Greek Interlinear Translation of the New Testament. They don't publish it anymore, they eventually realized that they shouldn't have published this, because it exposes some of their error. Primarily, I use the New King James Version. Yesterday,while visiting My Daughter in Altoona, Pa I stumbled upon a Bible translation that I never heard of, Contemporary English Version. Since it was Free, I figured that I'd grab it. Without God's Spirit in all of this, an individual would be confused. I believe that MOST Bible Scholars and Ministers of Christendom's hope that you are, MOST of them are confused too, even if they don't realize it. Below are a few points from Ray's article, Which Bible translation is best. I really enjoyed and appreciated this article and occasionally shared some points with others.

Many people believe that understanding the Scriptures has to do with having a "perfect translation" of the Scriptures. I try to tell them that there is no such thing as a "perfect" translation. And even if you read Hebrew and Greek fluently, it is still no guarantee that you will understand what you are reading.  Truth be known, millions who believe that the King James, for example, is a perfect inerrant translation have not a clue as to what is involved in translating from one language to another.  It may be possible to translate a few specific words almost perfectly from one language to another. But once we get into whole sentences, paragraphs, pages, and whole books (written by different people over a period of many centuries, in ancient languages), the task is almost daunting. When considering the enormity of the task, I believe most translators of most Versions have done a satisfactory job.

With that said, my personal teaching, preaching, and study Bible is nonetheless, the King James Version. But the primary reason for this is that more people are more familiar with King James than any other Version. Sadly, for many unlearned students of God's Word, to quote from any Version other than the King James, is to not be quoting Scripture at all. Not to worry, one can learn the Truths of God from ANY translation once God opens one's mind to the things of the spirit.

According to Ray and I agree, One of the greatest errors in translation is found below. Personally, I believe this error is Numero Uno.

But these two "additions" to God's Word pale into little or no significance compared to the ONE GIANT INEXCUSABLE, "adding to" God's word wherein the Translators turn Greek "aions" (periods of time as short as a few years) into English "eternities." This one gross error has turned into the most devastating botch of translating in the history of the world. Which consequently brought about the most damnable heresy in the history of the world—"Eternal Punishment."

Early translations of the Greek Scriptures into English did not use the words "everlasting," "evermore," "for ever and ever" or "eternal" in their versions. Maybe the very oldest English related tongue was the Ancient Gothic Version by Wulfila, which was a language spoken about 350 AD, closely akin to the Old German and Old English spoken at that time. This version translated from the Greek, as well as later Old English versions between 680 and 995 translated from the Latin, did not use any words that meant "everlasting" or "eternal."

The solution to better understanding the Scriptures and the will of God is not solely a matter of a better translation or a perfect translation. The early church had NO translations—they had the original Greek signatures, and copies of these signatures in the Greek language, which was universally understood throughout much of the Roman Empire—even Egyptians spoke Greek. And yet, the first century was a time of MASS APOSTASY in the church. Here is Scriptural proof: "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:29-30). "HOLD FAST THE FORM OF SOUND WORDS, which you have heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing, which was committed unto you keep by the Holy Spirit which dwells in us. This you know, that ALL THEY WHICH ARE IN ASIA BE TURNED AWAY FROM ME..." (II Tim. 1:13-15).

        I know that this information was reviewed several times in the past, but it's very important and a good reminder for New Forum Members & Guests, Samson.

[Deborah-Leigh]

I'm glad to learn no one was destroyed ~

[Kat]

Just a bit about what the difference is in the translations that I pulled together from the internet.

The earliest Greek manuscripts (the originals) over time were used so much that these accepted manuscripts became worn out. Then the Church would copy these manuscripts so they would not lose them. This is why the best manuscripts are not the oldest; because now we have newer copies of the manuscripts that the church always used.

A Bible version is considered only as good as the text from which it is translated. The Alexandrian line of manuscripts are from over 5000 Greek manuscripts in existence, yet only a small handful - less than ten, and among these few are two manuscripts which many scholars value more highly than most other manuscripts. They are called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and they date a little over 200 years from the original writings. Both these manuscripts are older than the Alexandrian Text from which the KJV was translated.

All Bible translations have their advantages, disadvantages, and criticisms. There are 3 theoretical methods of translating one language into another, and their differences reflect how they choose to approach the historical time difference between the two languages (i.e. words, grammar, phrases, history, culture, etc.). The problem of historical distance can be readily seen in the challenge of translating weights (i.e. talents vs. pounds, etc.), measure (i.e. cubits vs. meters, etc.), money (shekel vs. dollar, etc. [what about inflation?]), and euphemisms (i.e. toilet vs. water closet, etc.)


Methodology--

Formal Literal Method: This method attempts to translate the grammar, language, and style of the original language, called literal or word-for-word translation. There is no attempt to bridge the historical distance between the two languages. Emphasis is on reproducing the modern English equivalent of the ancient words, with tendency to use same word order as the ancient language.

KJV: The King James Version was the only complete Bible available from 1611 to the 1880s. The translation was based on the best available manuscripts at the time. The Textus Receptus remains the primary textual base of this translation. Since then, archeological discoveries of earlier manuscripts and advances in anthropologic and historical understanding of early Semitic history have provided a better basis for the more recent translations of the Bible. This translation is noted principally for its majestic style.

NKJV: The New King James Version was developed by Thomas Nelson Publishers (1982). This is a revised update of the KJV with the changes primarily in vocabulary, grammar, and punctuation to make it more easily readable while maintaining its majestic and lyrical style. The revision, which took 7 years, sought equivalence to the original and was not a new translation.

YLT: The Young's Literal Version was first published in Edinburgh in 1862. Probably the most extreme word-for-word English translations by Robert Young. It claims on its title page to be translated "according to the letter and idiom of the original languages."

Rotherham's Emphasized: The New Testament appeared in 1872. It is even more woodenly literal than Young's translation as another extreme word-for-word English translations.

CLV: The Concordant Literal Version is a word-for-word translation of Greek originally completed in 1926 on the far end of literal equivalence.

ASV: The American Standard Version of 1901 may be classified as mildly concordant, but there is a wide difference between the ASV and Young or Rotherham.

RSV: The Revised Standard Version is probably stands close to the concordant or word-for-word category.

NASB: The New American Standard Bible is less archaic and more theologically conservative, but is so literal that it feels wooden. It is perhaps the most literal modern translation.


Dynamic Equivalence Method: This method attempts to translate the grammar, words, and style of the original language into the equivalent of the other, called functional or thought for thought translation. But it maintains the historical distance of historical facts and objects. The principle of closest equivalence is designed to avoid awkward literalness on the one hand and unjustified interpretations on the other. The method employs idiomatic equivalence when necessary and word-for-word translation when possible. Emphasis on reproducing the functional meaning of the ancient words with freedom to rearrange the order of the words (syntax) in the target language.

GNB: The Good News Bible was formerly known as Today's English Version (TEV), but in 2001 was renamed the Good News Translation because of misconceptions that it was merely a paraphrase and not a genuine translation. The focus is strongly on ease of understanding, poetry is sometimes sacrificed for clarity.

CEV: The Contemporary English Version translation simplifies Biblical terminology into more everyday words and phrases. It often paraphrases in order to make the underlying point of a passage clear, rather than directly translating the wording.

NLT: The New Living Translation is a functional equivalent translation. The translators have gone to great lengths to convey the thoughts of the writers, and it is therefore highly interpretive by the translators.


Dynamic and formal combination:

NIV: The New International Version contains elements of word-for-word and thought-for-thought translation. It is probably the most popular translation today.

TNIV: a new version on the heritage of the NIV created as a balanced mediating version, one that would fall in-between the most literal translation and the most free; word-for-word and thought-for-thought.

NET: The New English Translation attempts to be the most accurate, the most readable, and elegant at the same time


Free (Paraphrase) Method: This method attempts to translate the ideas of the original language into another. Emphasis is on expressing the meaning in contemporary language, with numerous additional words. The translator restates the "gist" of the text in his own words and is usually done by a single translator.

The Living Bible: a paraphrase of American Standard Version (1901).

The Message: a paraphrase Bible from original languages that uses a lot of English figures-of-speech.


More technical differences between versions are caused by the translators using different families or groups of Greek manuscripts as their primary source. For instance, differences can be seen in comparisons with the New International Version (NIV) and the King James Version (KJV) of the passage 1 John 5:7-8 and their treatment of the ending of the Gospel of Mark. Variation can be anywhere from extra words in a verse, to the actual meaning of the verse being changed. There is no translation that is 100% literal, so using serveral translation will allow you to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each. With all the info we have from Ray we can use most Bibles to get to the truth.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[daywalker]

Hello All,

I'm reading a book right now, and in it the author claims that the segment in Daniel 3:22 which states, "the flame of the fire slew those men who carried up Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego", is not found in the Septuagint, and therefore probably not genuine. This sparked my interest, so I googled it, and sure enough, it's true, the Septuagint reads:

3:22 forasmuch as the king's word prevailed; and the furnace was made exceeding hot.

http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/daniel/3.html

I then opened E-Sword to see if any of the bible translations I had recognized this, but it appears all, including the Concordant have this "added" segment. I, then, decided to check if any bible commentaries mentioned this, and sure enough:

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament:

(Note: Between Daniel 3:23 and Daniel 3:24 the lxx have introduced the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the three men in the fiery furnace; and these two hymns are connected together by a narrative which explains the death of the Chaldeans who threw the three into the furnace, and the miracle of the deliverance of Daniel's friends. Regarding the apocryphal origin of these additions, composed in the Greek language, which Luther in his translation has rightly placed in the Apocrypha, see my Lehr. der Einl. in d. A. Test. 251.)

http://kad.biblecommenter.com/daniel/3.htm


I'm not yet sure what spiritual implications this may have, but you know me, when I find something like this, I like to share. 


Godspeed,
Daywalker 

http://bible.cc/daniel/3-22.htm

Whether the wording of that verse is in the Septuagint or not, I do not believe is a big deal because it is not a significant point.

After all, the Septuagint is not the gold standard of the scriptures.  It is just one translation among many.

Remember in the Lake of Fire #9, Ray brought out that the Septuagint was the source of the error in Isaiah 14 whereby the Hebrew word for "Howl" ended up in being translated "Lucifer" in the Vulgate and from there into the English KJV.  So we know that the Septuagint is not a perfect translation.  In fact, as we all know, there are no perfect translations.

You're certainly right, the Septuagint is not the gold standard by any means. But if what the commentator stated is true--that this added segment is "apocryphal"--I think it's important to take note, just as we take note of spurious passages found in the New Testament. Sure, now it may not seem like that big of a deal, but who knows, perhaps later as God enlightens us more, we may come to find out that this is very significant when it comes to the spiritual lesson of this chapter. For starters, I can see this as an ironic correlation between King Neb and the Church's idea of God today, who essentially teaches that God is "King Neb" in this story, and that all those who refuse to bow down to His Son (i.e. his exalted god) will be burned in eternal hellfire, which the Church also refers to as a fiery furnace. The only problem I've run into when analyzing this comparison is the soldiers who were killed in the fire. If we were to remain consistent then these soldiers would be symbolize followers of Christ (after all, we are called "soldiers"). But if you take them out of the equation (because it's apocryphal and therefore spurious), then there's no stumbling blocks in this correlation... Besides, we already believe that the Babylon of Revelation is the Apostate Church; so it's no surprise to us that they would "build" a fiery furnace for all their enemies!

Godspeed,
Daywalker  

[daywalker]

The Concordant Literal Bible or Moody's Literal Bible seems to be B-T golden standard so does CLT or MLB include that additional portion of the verse?  In the end we have to agree on which of the many interpretations we are going to accept or we're potentially
facing derisions. 

Every translation contains errors based upon the prejudices of their translators.

It is the Spirit of God that shows us what is the Truth.

John From Kentucky is right ! All translations have errors is them, although overall, according to Ray, The Concordant Literal is the best. John's above point is one of the reasons I kept a copy of The New World Translation(JW Translation). Aside from passages where the the translator, Frederick Franz renders a certain passage, in such a way to reduce Christ's Deity, it's an easy to read Translation with built in Concordance, Index, Footnotes, alternate renderings, some Greek & Hebrew words defined. Also, I have a copy of their Greek Interlinear Translation of the New Testament. They don't publish it anymore, they eventually realized that they shouldn't have published this, because it exposes some of their error. Primarily, I use the New King James Version. Yesterday,while visiting My Daughter in Altoona, Pa I stumbled upon a Bible translation that I never heard of, Contemporary English Version. Since it was Free, I figured that I'd grab it. Without God's Spirit in all of this, an individual would be confused. I believe that MOST Bible Scholars and Ministers of Christendom's hope that you are, MOST of them are confused too, even if they don't realize it. Below are a few points from Ray's article, Which Bible translation is best. I really enjoyed and appreciated this article and occasionally shared some points with others.

Many people believe that understanding the Scriptures has to do with having a "perfect translation" of the Scriptures. I try to tell them that there is no such thing as a "perfect" translation. And even if you read Hebrew and Greek fluently, it is still no guarantee that you will understand what you are reading.  Truth be known, millions who believe that the King James, for example, is a perfect inerrant translation have not a clue as to what is involved in translating from one language to another.  It may be possible to translate a few specific words almost perfectly from one language to another. But once we get into whole sentences, paragraphs, pages, and whole books (written by different people over a period of many centuries, in ancient languages), the task is almost daunting. When considering the enormity of the task, I believe most translators of most Versions have done a satisfactory job.

With that said, my personal teaching, preaching, and study Bible is nonetheless, the King James Version. But the primary reason for this is that more people are more familiar with King James than any other Version. Sadly, for many unlearned students of God's Word, to quote from any Version other than the King James, is to not be quoting Scripture at all. Not to worry, one can learn the Truths of God from ANY translation once God opens one's mind to the things of the spirit.

According to Ray and I agree, One of the greatest errors in translation is found below. Personally, I believe this error is Numero Uno.

But these two "additions" to God's Word pale into little or no significance compared to the ONE GIANT INEXCUSABLE, "adding to" God's word wherein the Translators turn Greek "aions" (periods of time as short as a few years) into English "eternities." This one gross error has turned into the most devastating botch of translating in the history of the world. Which consequently brought about the most damnable heresy in the history of the world—"Eternal Punishment."

Early translations of the Greek Scriptures into English did not use the words "everlasting," "evermore," "for ever and ever" or "eternal" in their versions. Maybe the very oldest English related tongue was the Ancient Gothic Version by Wulfila, which was a language spoken about 350 AD, closely akin to the Old German and Old English spoken at that time. This version translated from the Greek, as well as later Old English versions between 680 and 995 translated from the Latin, did not use any words that meant "everlasting" or "eternal."

The solution to better understanding the Scriptures and the will of God is not solely a matter of a better translation or a perfect translation. The early church had NO translations—they had the original Greek signatures, and copies of these signatures in the Greek language, which was universally understood throughout much of the Roman Empire—even Egyptians spoke Greek. And yet, the first century was a time of MASS APOSTASY in the church. Here is Scriptural proof: "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:29-30). "HOLD FAST THE FORM OF SOUND WORDS, which you have heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing, which was committed unto you keep by the Holy Spirit which dwells in us. This you know, that ALL THEY WHICH ARE IN ASIA BE TURNED AWAY FROM ME..." (II Tim. 1:13-15).

        I know that this information was reviewed several times in the past, but it's very important and a good reminder for New Forum Members & Guests, Samson.

Hey Samson,

Not sure if you've heard of it, but I stumbled upon a translation a few weeks ago called the World English Bible (WEB). It's another simple-to-read translation AND the word "hell" is absent! You can download the audio version for Free too:

http://www.audiotreasure.com/webindex.htm


Thought you may be interested.

Daywalker 

..............................................................................


Hey, KAT, thanks for that information of translation methods; much appreciated!! 

[Deborah-Leigh]

Like two different Calendars! ~ 

[Deborah-Leigh]

~ Okay ~ Same difference ~

[daywalker]

Another problem with the Septuagint (translated around 250 B.C.) is that the years of life of Adam and his descendants in Genesis differ from the standard Hebrew text.

I have not read a good explanation of that yet.  There is still a lot that we don't know or understand.  Another reason we are human and God is God.

I don't think anyone hear will disagree with you that the Septuagint has its issues. Yet in the same token, what we call "original" Hebrew and Greek texts are actually copies of the "original" texts, and copies "of copies of the 'original' texts". Even the oldest known fragments of the N.T. date to the 2nd century AD, though many scholars believe the "originals" were completed within the first 60 years following Christ's crucifixion around 33 AD. And we know, both through scholars and through Ray's study on Bible translation history that even the manuscripts don't all completely harmonize with each other as some are missing words, verses, even whole chapters. Quite frankly, is there any such thing as an "original" manuscript these days? To my knowledge, none have been found.

Honestly, the more I research these things, the more I realize that if it weren't for "faith....a gift of God", I'd probably believe along with many that the scriptures are nothing more than ancient writings of religious men, and not of Divine origin.

Daywalker 

[Joel]

I don't know of any translation that disputes that Jesus is who he says he is.
We are blessed in this day and age to have so many translations to choose from, and I do have a few favorites myself. And as Ray says, he can teach truth from any version.

Jesus said something interesting in Luke 24:44-45
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

It's pretty evident that he has done that for us also, or we wouldn't be enjoying the fellowship that we have here at Bible-Truths., as we learn the deeper truths of God.

Joel

[Heidi]

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

What an awesome verse.....I pray for God to open my understanding regarding is scriptures....

[Duane]

Isn't it wonderful to have a God-inspired Bible, that no matter the date written or translation, they are basically the same? 
When talking to my VA doctor, a Muslim, I brought up the truths of the Bible and the things that I learned from reading the Koran that directly made peace and understanding with "infidels"-- impossible.  He said "well WHICH Koran were you reading"??  Like if I am a peaceful, American Muslim I read this version, but if I am looking to wage war on unbelievers, I read that one; and, there just may be a Koran or two written for in-between-ers.  Incidentl, how wwould you like one of the books of the Bible named COW? 

[mmijares]

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

What an awesome verse.....I pray for God to open my understanding regarding is scriptures....

Truly, without God's Spirit, without His Intention of us understanding the scriptures, we will never ever come to correct knowledge of His written words however precise the copy and the translation of the scriptures.

[Deborah-Leigh]

That bulldog picture with nose sticking out for air ~ a classic ~ lol ~

Too cute when a grown up hugs the kid inside!...

Arc

[daywalker]

I don't know if I'd go that far Daywalker.

Before I became an accountant (for the money), I was going to be a History professor (for the fun of it).

One historical truth is that we have more copies of the Greek New Testament than any other ancient writing.

Another truth is that when you compare all the manuscripts together, we have an excellent understanding of what the scriptures say, as a whole.

While this is all true, these facts don't prove "Divine" origin. That's where our "faith" comes in.

I am not aware of any major doctrine from God that is called into question when you consider the majority of sources.

God is behind all of this.  The differences are there in order to throw the "Many" off the truth.  For the "Few" the Spirit of God leads to all truth---"here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept".  The hunt for the truth is fun.  Just like a treasure hunt.  

Stay on the trail my friend.  God is looking for certain qualities of the bulldog in his jewels.

All a bulldog needs to do is to bite deep, hang on, and only stick one nostril out for a little air.   

Amen, brother! Love the bulldog analogy. 


Daywalker 

[Deborah-Leigh]

 


"The Covenant: I shall be your God and you shall be my people.

    The Promise - living in each soul, each atom, each heart:
    I shall be your God and you shall be my people. "~ Julie Redstone

[aqrinc]

Daywalker,

keep digging bro, there is Gold in them thar fields, keep digging.

george.

[daywalker]

Daywalker,

keep digging bro, there is Gold in them thar fields, keep digging.

george.

Haha, thanks George, I will!

I may need a bigger shovel soon though... 

Daywalker