xmas3.gif (5351 bytes)


Bar Means Old

In Daniel 7:13, the KJV translators presumed that the word "bar" [#1247] meant "son", and that the proper noun "Enosh" [#606] meant "man".   However, there was no justification for translating "bar" as "son", changing the proper noun to a common noun, capitalizing the "s" on "son", and adding the word "one":

Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Dan 7:13 I saw1934, 2370 in the night3916 visions,2376 and, behold,718 one like the Son1247 of man606 came1934, 858 with5974 the clouds6050 of heaven,8065 and came4291 to5705 the Ancient6268 of days,3118 and they brought him near7127 before6925 him.

come dream night visions behold son Enosh come brought like clouds heaven came even ancient days came before

Notice in the same Book of Daniel that the word "bar" appears as "old":

Dan 5:31 And Darius1868 the Median4077 took6902 the kingdom,4437 being about threescore8361 and two8648 years8140 old.1247

Is it really possible that one single Hebrew word could mean both "old" and "son".  If it is possible, then what could be the distinction between "ben" and "bar"?   Since Daniel used the word "ben" in Daniel 5:21 in his reference to descendants of Enosh, why would he use a different word for "son" in Daniel 7:13 in reference to the same people?

Dan 5:21 And he was driven2957 from4481 the sons1123 of men;606 and his heart3825 was made7739 like5974 the beasts,2423 and his dwelling4070 was with5974 the wild asses:6167 they fed2939 him with grass6211 like oxen,8450 and his body1655 was wet6647 with the dew4481, 2920 of heaven;8065 till5705, 1768 he knew3046 that1768 the most high5943 God426 ruled7990 in the kingdom4437 of men,606 and that he appointeth6966 over5922 it whomsoever4479, 1768 he will.6634

If "ben" means "old" in Daniel 5:31, then certainly it could have meant "old" only 9 verses earlier, particularly when "his son" in Daniel 5:22 doesn't even specify who Belshazzar was the son of, appearing as an appendix which doesn't belong there:

Dan 5:22 And thou607 his son,1247 O Belshazzar,1113 hast not3809 humbled8214 thine heart,3825 though3606, 6903, 1768 thou knewest3046 all3606 this;1836

[antah = as for thee] [bar = old] [belshazzar = Belshazzar] [la = not] [stephal = humbled] [lebab = heart] [kol = all [qebel = forasmuch] [diy = whom] [yeda = known] [kol = all] [den = this]

as for thee old Belshazzar not humbled heart all forasmuch whom known all this

As for thee, old Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart though thou knewest all this.

The phrase "son of God" never appears anywhere else in the Old Testament.  For thousands of years, tens of millions of God's holy people never even heard of, wrote about, nor taught such a phrase.  Now suddenly in Daniel 3:25, a highly flexible Hebrew word which can mean both "old" and "son" is suddenly presumed to be a reference to the "son of God".

Dan 3:25 He answered6032 and said,560 Lo,1888 I576 see2370 four703 men1400 loose,8271 walking1981 in the midst1459 of the fire,5135 and they have383 no3809 hurt;2257 and the form7299 of1768 the fourth7244 is like1821 the Son1247 of God.426

We're all sons of God.  Sons of Adam, even sons of Enosh, sons of Ish, sons of Methim, and sons of Geber, are all sons of God.  But to take a Hebrew word which means "old" in most of its applications and presume that it also can mean "son" is the ultimate blasphemy against God, the God who said "I change not".   The following rendering is a possible, and in fact most likely, sense of the word "bar":

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 God of old.