Theophany or Angel?

[1Timothy115]

23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. 24 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
 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. 26 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. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire. 27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them. 28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath 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. Daniel 3:23-28

Was it pre-incarnate Christ or an angel sent by our Lord?

 

[Hugh_Flower]

Pre incarnate Christ

 

angel can be used to to mean ‘appearance’

[BrotherTony]

I've never heard of it being presented as anything other than Christ. As Hugh has pointed out, "angel" can be used to men "appearance." 

[Jerry]

Lost Nebuchadnezzar said it was an angel (and Daniel recorded his statement). The Bible overall teaches these appearances are Christ before He came to earth as a man. The word angel also means messenger, and the context often shows what kind of messenger it was - ie. a heavenly messenger sent from God or God Himself (ie. the Son of God) appearing - though admittedly this particular passage does not specify.

[1Timothy115]

I had always thought that it was Jesus Christ "Son of God" with them in the fiery furnace but, for some reason my mind went right on by "angel". Yes, I understand that angel means messenger and that many times "angel of the Lord" is pre-incarnate Christ and other instances where I believe the context points to an angelic appearance as God appearing. I've read it so many times but never solicited commentary from any source before. Thanks to all for commentary.

[Jerry]

An interesting point worth noting is some modern versions change the wording in that passage of Daniel to read "a son of the gods." Therefore, removing any reference or even idea that it could be Christ.

[BrotherTony]

23 minutes ago, Jerry said:

An interesting point worth noting is some modern versions change the wording in that passage of Daniel to read "a son of the gods." Therefore, removing any reference or even idea that it could be Christ.

Do they stay true to their underlying texts? If so, then they're not changing anything. They're simply going by their underlying texts. 

[Jerry]

Whether the current translators changed the text or an earlier copier or editor does not matter - what matters is God inspired it one way or the other and somewhere along the way someone changed it. From what I understand of the Bible, lost human nature, and spiritual warfare - unless it was one copy being different because of accidently transcribing a word wrong (which can usually be proven or determined by comparing similar manuscripts), usually the changes are deliberate and demonic (ie. the source of Bible corruption is ultimately the Devil and his fallen angels and those who listen to them).

The Devil is real, hates the Word of God, God Himself and His people, and therefore is determined to wipe out the Word of God or corrupt it over time. We see that result in the Critical Text manuscripts and the versions translated from them. It doesn't matter if the corruption starts in their Hebrew and Greek (and Latin) manuscripts and lexicons or in the minds of the modern version translators, it is there now, and can be seen and compared to the preserved Greek Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic Text, and the sound lexicons and foreign language translations that came from them.

[BrotherTony]

5 hours ago, Jerry said:

Whether the current translators changed the text or an earlier copier or editor does not matter - what matters is God inspired it one way or the other and somewhere along the way someone changed it. From what I understand of the Bible, lost human nature, and spiritual warfare - unless it was one copy being different because of accidently transcribing a word wrong (which can usually be proven or determined by comparing similar manuscripts), usually the changes are deliberate and demonic (ie. the source of Bible corruption is ultimately the Devil and his fallen angels and those who listen to them).

The Devil is real, hates the Word of God, God Himself and His people, and therefore is determined to wipe out the Word of God or corrupt it over time. We see that result in the Critical Text manuscripts and the versions translated from them. It doesn't matter if the corruption starts in their Hebrew and Greek (and Latin) manuscripts and lexicons or in the minds of the modern version translators, it is there now, and can be seen and compared to the preserved Greek Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic Text, and the sound lexicons and foreign language translations that came from them.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It was a simple question. Nobody is saying that the devil isn't real and isn't trying to wipe out the WoG. And I've already stated many times here I only use the KJV in my preaching and teaching. But, to say that these things were "changed" and trying to make them fit to the TR or the HMT isn't honest. And yes, nearly all, if not all of the MV's have differences in the wording in that particular passage. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Salyan
Removed first sentence: Don't get your panties in a wad, Jerry.

[Salyan]

And there you go again. What’s with the zero to 100 on the aggression factor, Tony? Editing for improper language. 

[BrotherTony]

10 hours ago, Salyan said:

And there you go again. What’s with the zero to 100 on the aggression factor, Tony? Editing for improper language. 

No aggression here... I saw nothing wrong with the language. I've heard it used in my IFB church growing up, and in almost every church I've been associated with. Have never heard it called or pointed out as improper. You seem to have a problem with me.

Edited July 16, 2022 by BrotherTony

[Salyan]

Nevertheless, it is vulgar and rude and should not be used here. Stop arguing with the mods, Tony.

[BrotherTony]

2 hours ago, Salyan said:

Nevertheless, it is vulgar and rude and should not be used here. Stop arguing with the mods, Tony.

I won't use it again since it's been pointed out as offensive. Thanks for the heads up. 

[1Timothy115]

On 7/15/2022 at 3:40 PM, Jerry said:

An interesting point worth noting is some modern versions change the wording in that passage of Daniel to read "a son of the gods." Therefore, removing any reference or even idea that it could be Christ.

Sad.

[1Timothy115]

On 7/16/2022 at 7:56 AM, BrotherTony said:

No aggression here... I saw nothing wrong with the language. I've heard it used in my IFB church growing up, and in almost every church I've been associated with. Have never heard it called or pointed out as improper. You seem to have a problem with me.

Not in any IFB I've ever been associated with,,, and there are many. Maybe in one of your SBC more liberal churches but IFB KJV churches NO.