3Scriptures.com
 

An Anomoly: The mystery of Daniel 3:19

"...therefore, he spake and commanded that they should heat the furnace
one seven times more than it was wont to be heated."

  The odd phrase "one seven" is in the King James Version and the Inspired Version. The word "one" doesn't seem to make sense. Is it an lengthy way of enumeration, meaning the fire was really to be heated seventeen times hotter!? To make sense of it we need to understand the reason the "one" is there by going back to the original Hebrew language.
The Strong's reference is 2298

חַד
khad
(Aramaic) corresponding to 'chad' (2297); as cardinally one; as article single; as an ordinal, first; adverbially, at once:--a, first, one, together.

  Let's focus on "as an ordinal, first." An ordinal number is a positional number in a series, e.g. first, second, third, etc.
  Considering this meaning, the "one" could properly be interpreted in this instance as "first."
  Exchanging "first" for "one" in this verse, the wording of the verse becomes:
"therefore, he spake and commanded that they should heat the furnace first seven times more than it was wont to be heated."
  Or, to grammatically rearrange the wording...

..."therefore, he spake and commanded that they should first heat the furnace seven times more than it was wont to be heated."

  It is a detail to be sure, that the text so specifically states Nebuchadnezzar first ordered the furnace should be heated seven times hotter, and it is not easily understood in the KJV and IV. However then, the next verse "20 And he commanded the most mighty men that were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace." is then better understood as the second and third of a very detailed, very specific set of orders given by Nebuchadnezzar.
  In a first reading of this verse it seems an error has been introduced into the language. The Scriptures are filled with these odd quirks that in modern english have lost their meaning. However, this particular "quirk" is not even in any other translation I can find, and the detail, while minor, is completely lost from those translations. The It must be remembered that these oddities come from another culture, and our translation of their writing is a "meticulous approximation" of what the original text's literal words and meaning were. I find it fascinating that this detail, while easily understood when studied, should be so obscured in our translation and completely be left out of other translations.

Original publish date unknown