Daniel Chapter 3 verse 25 Holy Bible
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.
read chapter 3 in ASV
He made answer and said, Look! I see four men loose, walking in the middle of the fire, and they are not damaged; and the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods.
read chapter 3 in BBE
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of God.
read chapter 3 in DARBY
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.
read chapter 3 in KJV
read chapter 3 in WBT
He answered, Look, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.
read chapter 3 in WEB
He answered and hath said, `Lo, I am seeing four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the appearance of the fourth `is' like to a son of the gods.'
read chapter 3 in YLT
Daniel 3 : 25 Bible Verse Songs
Pulpit Commentary
Pulpit CommentaryVerse 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. The Greek versions do not present much worthy of note, only both insert molka, "king," instead of the pronoun, and omit "answered." From the fact that ver. 24 ends with malka, it may have been dropped out of the Masse-retie text. The insertion of ענה ('ana), "answered," may be due to the frequent recurrence of this phrase. The Peshitta omits "four," otherwise agreeing with the Massoretic. The phrase," the Son of God," is clearly wrong; the correct translation is, "The appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods." Along with the three victims of his superstition was seen a fourth figure, like one of the figures portrayed on his palace walls as belonging to the demi-gods. This is the culmination of the king's astonishment. It was astonishing to see those men loose that had been east into the furnace bound; still more so to see them walking, and none showing signs of having received any hurt; but most awe-inspiring of all is the vision of the fourth figure, like a son of the gods. We must not interpret this on Hebrew lines, as does Mr. Bevan, and comp. Genesis 6:2. He knows the usage in the Tar-gums is to retain the Hebrew plural in ־ים when "God" is meant, as in the Peshitta Version of the passage he refers to. As in most heathen mythologies, there were not only gods, but demi-gods, of several different classes. The god Nebuchadnezzar specially worshipped, Silik-Moulou-ki (Marduk), was regarded as the son of Hea. There was a god of fire also, who was associated with these. The suggestion of Dr. Fuller, that here in bar we have not the word for "son," but rather a truncated form of this god of fire, Iz-bar, is worthy of consideration. It is impossible to say whether Ibis vision of a divine being was vouchsafed to those standing about Nebuchadnezzar as well as to himself. While we ought to guard against ascribing to the Babylonian monarch the idea that this appearance was that of the Second Person of the Christian Trinity, we are ourselves at liberty to maintain this, or to hold that it was an angel who strengthened these servants of God in the furnace. The Septuagint renders bar-cloheen by ἄγγελος. Theodotion has υἱῷ Θεοῦ.
Ellicott's Commentary
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(25) The Son of God.--These words, let us remember, are uttered by a heathen king, who calls this same Person, in Daniel 3:28, "an angel" of the God whom the three children worshipped. Probably Nebuchadnezzar thought that He stood to Jehovah in the same relation that he himself did to Merodach. His conceptions of the power of Jehovah were evidently raised by what he had witnessed, though as yet he does not recognise Him as being more than a chief among gods. He has not risen to that conception of the unity of God which is essential to His absolute supremacy. But still the question has to be answered, What did the king see? The early Patristic interpretation was that. it was none other than Christ Himself. We have no means of ascertaining anything further, and must be content with knowing that the same "Angel of God's presence" who was with Israel in the wilderness watched over the people in Babylon.