Getting the facts right about Psalm 110
Categories: Biblical scholarship, Christianity, God
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Getting the facts right about Psalm 110
Categories: Biblical scholarship, Christianity, God
Blogging Theology 
For an analysis of the occurrances of adoni, see Herbert Bateman’s “Psalm 110:1 and the New Testament”, Bibliotheca Sacra 149, (1992) pages 438-453. The author, a Trinitarian, argues that the Psalm cannot apply primarily to Jesus because adoni describes a human Messiah! Bateman’s Trinitarianism causes him to dismiss the obvious direct Messianic reference of this Psalm. Jesus had no doubt that he was that “lord” (Matthew 22:41-45), and he knew that he was not the One God. Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek of the Septuagint and the New Testament will permit that “lord” to be “Very God.” Both Testaments unite, therefore, against Trinitarianism. Ephesians 1:17 reaffirms this by declaring that the one Lord God is also “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Even Trinitarians cannot accept the idea that one “person” of the Trinity actually has another “person” of the Trinity as his “God”, and yet that is the very problem they face when this passage is raised. http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/398-lord-lord-and-lord/
LikeLike
Except Psalm 110 was translated around 250-200 BC into Greek and both Yahweh and Adonai/Adoni are kurios (Lord). κυριος is used for both, which shows the Jews who translated Psalm 110 say no difference between Yahweh and Adoni in Pslam 110:1. This is proved by the way Jesus uses this to prove His Messiahship, Sonship, and Deity in Matthew 22:41-46 and Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-44.
The Lord God is also Lord in the sense of “Master”, “Boss”, “Sovereign”, “All-Mighty”. That is what Adonai / Adoni points to.
Dr. White completely destroyed Anthony Buzzard’s argument on that in the Trinity Debate that they had with each other and Dr. Brown with Dr. White and another Unitarian Joseph Good with Anthony Buzzard.
Dr. White showed the Dead Sea Scrolls where the Hebrew does not have any pointing. The pointing that comes 500 years after Christ only show the Jewish Masoretic scribes rejected the Deity of Christ.
There is no difference between Adonai and Adoni in Hebrew before the Masoretic pointing.
אדני – they are the same. The only difference is in pointing, which only shows the Masoretic scribes rejected the Deity of Christ.
By the way, both Anthony Buzzard and Joseph Good believe Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 is about the Messiah who would be a substitutionary atonement for sin, and that that was fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah who died on the cross and rose from the dead. (The NT teachings.)
So, for Muslims to use Buzzard is inconsistent, because he recognizes that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah Jesus.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/trinity-debate/
LikeLike
no its not inconsistent Ken. Just because I post his interesting comments on one part of the Bible does not mean I accept everything else he says. Elementary.
LikeLike
How do you explain that Buzzard and Good agree that Isaiah 52-53 is about the Suffering Servant Messiah who is Jesus the Messiah in the NT?
LikeLike
because that is his Christian belief. I thought that was obvious. But the text itself does not mention a “messiah” and read in context suggests Israel is the subject of Isaiah 53.
Just read a good introdution to the OT.
LikeLike
It cannot be Israel since Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 use singular pronouns, “he” and because Israel has their own sins, so they cannot atone for others or for themselves. They had to be sinless, and they were not sinless. But Jesus the Messiah was sinless; which Islam also agrees. And Islam agrees with a seed of substitutionary atonement, since Qur’an Surah 37:107 proves this. “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”
LikeLike
Ken, Ken, you are really quite silly. I have explained to you many times the common scholarly view on this passage (your own scholars again!) but you will not learn. Enjoy your Fun-damentalism. May it keep you nice and warn at night.
LikeLike
Ken : “There is no difference between Adonai and Adoni in Hebrew before the Masoretic pointing.
אדני – they are the same. The only difference is in pointing, which only shows the Masoretic scribes rejected the Deity of Christ.”
lol White destroys Buzzards argunent! ???… Ken your false presumptions have been refuted long time ago, please refer to the following refutation that destroys White’s argument 🙂
You see White claims that the Masoretes had a bias toward Christianity and a Triune God, so they purposely positioned the vowel points to support a ‘adoni’ vocalization for the second Lord in Psalm 110:1. White he is referring to what Brown had incorrectly assumed where he stated “As every student of Hebrew knows, BIBLICAL HEBREW WAS WRITTEN WITH CONSONANTS AND “VOWEL LETTERS” ONLY; the VOWEL SIGNS were added hundreds of years later. Yet both ‘adonai (used only for Yahweh) and ‘adoni (used for men and angels, as we just noted) are SPELLED IDENTICALLY IN HEBREW, consisting of the four consonants a-d-n-y. How then can Rabbi Singer make such a dogmatic statement about the differences between these two forms in the Bible? His argument stands only if we accept the absolute authority of the Masoretic vocalization, which in some cases follows the original Hebrew by almost two thousand years [footnote] 277.”
Now as you will see in the following refutation both White and Dr. Brown’s statements are full of over-generalization, and lack proper manuscript research.
http://lhim.org/blog/2012/02/02/judges-6-and-the-hebrew-masoretic-vocalization-of-adny-trinitarian-arguments-challenged/
LikeLike
Also, Psalm 35:23 also shows this – “My Lord and My God” – which is also what Thomas said to Jesus in John 20:28.
and Psalm 16:2 – I say to Yahweh, you are my lord (Adonai). (both translated to kurios in Greek = Lord)
LikeLike
Ken this story in John is probably not historical.
Remember:
‘In preaching and devotional Bible study the assumption is regularly made that all four Gospels are straightforward historical sources for information about what Jesus did or said. Whereas scholars have almost always found themselves pushed to the conclusion that John’s Gospel reflects much more of the early churches’ understanding of Jesus than of Jesus’ own self-understanding. There is Christian interpretation in the other three Gospels, as we have seen, but in John’s gospel there is much more of it.’
LikeLike
No; it is totally historical and true. Thomas’ statement to Jesus, “My Lord and My God” is true and proves the Deity of Christ. John 20:28
LikeLike
like so many Christians, tragically, you are out of touch with what your own scholars are saying about the gospels.
LikeLike
Ken refer also to ‘Psalm 110:1 and the Status of the Second Lord – Trinitarian
Arguments Challenged’ where Sam Brown and White are also refuted http://www.21stcr.org/multimedia-2011/1-pdf/jz-psalm_110_LXX.pdf
LikeLike
The context of John 20:28.shows that Thomas’ new-found belief was not in the deity of Christ, but the resurrection of Christ. Ken refer here for a refutation of your false presumptions about John 20:28.
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/5995-john-2028/
LikeLike
An ineresting JW refutation in relation to Trinitarian interpretation –
http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/marks.htm
Trinitarian: In John 20:27 the Lord Jesus appeared in resurrection to Thomas, the doubting one, and charged him, ‘Do not be unbelieving, but believing.’ Thomas then said to the resurrected Jesus: ‘My Lord and my God!’ (vs. 28). Jesus responded to Thomas by saying, ‘Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed” (vs. 29.) Because Thomas saw the Lord Jesus, he believed that Jesus is God.”
Response: Do we have evidence here of the Trinity or even a Duality in One? Let us take a deeper look and see.
In the Greek, the noun may take several forms according to case. Take, for example, the name “Peter”. When “Peter” occurs as the subject of a sentence, the doer of an action, it is in the “nominative case” and would look like this: “πετρος”. When “Peter” is receiving the action of a verb, is the direct object, then it is in the “accusative case” and would look like this: “πετρον”. And, when “Peter” occurs as a direct address, then it is in the “vocative case” and would look like this: “πετρε”.
This somewhat simplistic explanation is, nevertheless, sufficient to make a compelling point.
You will observe that throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures when someone was being addressed as “Lord” that the Greek word used was “κυριε,”. As you can see, this is the word for “lord” in the vocative case. Review these examples:
Matthew 7:21 “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord’ [κυριε], Lord’ [κυριε] , who will enter the kingdom of heaven…” THE JERUSALEM BIBLE
Mark 7:28 “But she answered and saith unto him, Yea, Lord [κυριε] ; even the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.” THE AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION
Luke 5:12 “While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy; and when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and besought him, ‘Lord [κυριε], if you will, you can make me clean.”’ REVISED STANDARD VERSION
John 11:3 “so the sisters sent to Him saying, Lord [κυριε], he whom You love (so well) is sick.” AMPLIFIED BIBLE
The point being established here is that when someone was being addressed as Lord, the form used was κυριε. Now, it is time for you and I to look at John 20:28 in the Greek. Here is how we find it:
“απεκριθη θωμας και ειπεν αυτω ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου”
You will observe that the word for Lord in this verse is κυριος and not κυριε. In other words, Jesus was NOT being addressed in this comment. If he was being addressed, then Thomas would have stated:
“κυριε μου. . .”
Because of that simple fact, some scholars have acknowledged that this probably was an exclamation rather than an affirmation that Jesus was the Almighty God. This conclusion is not readily seen in translations into English and many other languages that have no regular case endings that make it easy to differentiate the nominative, dative, vocative accusative et al. If I saw you tomorrow and said to you: “My God, is that you Ed Marks?”, would that be sufficient evidence since I “said to you” in clear terms “My God” that I was acknowledging that you were a God–and not only that but MY God?
LikeLike
JW’s have no credibility. their founder claimed to know Greek but he did not. This has been documented, and also their mistranslation of John 1:1 and their history of failed prophesies, and their cultic behaviors. Even Paul Williams agreed that John 1:1 teaches the Orthodox position.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/muslim-agrees-with-greek-of-john-11.html
LikeLike
Ken and his backwood fundamentalism have no credibility. End of.
LikeLike
All you can do is call names, when you are refuted. Thinking, believing Reformed Evangelicals are not “backwood”. the KJVOnlists are; the “fighting fundys” like Bob Jones, Jack Hyles (discredited for sexual sins), Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, the evil Hyper-Calvinists heretics and hate-filled cultic family of Westboro Baptist Church, etc. – those types are “backwood fundamentalists” in the USA.
We are not and you have no right to impute that term to me.
LikeLike
you are are the perfect specimen of a fundamentalist: narrow minded, uncritical, obscurantist, know-it-all; disparaging of others who do not follow your intolerant brand of American evangelicalism.
Classic.
Yet a Muslim gives you free reign to argue for your beliefs. For years! How ironic!
LikeLike
In your opinion (I am those things in your opinion, seemingly because you run out of rational argumentation); but all I have done is sought to honestly give credible answers to your attacks on Christianity.
But I do appreciate sincerely you allowing my comments to go through; that is very good of you.
LikeLike
Except the Vocative is always by itself (“O Lord”, or “O God”); but John 20:28 has “Thomas answered and said “to Him”ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
“the Lord of mine and the God of mine”
Besides, no religious Jew would say, “O My God, is that you . . . ” or “O God !!” – because that way of speaking is taking the Lord’s name in vain and violation of the 3rd commandment. “You shall not take the Lord Your God’s name in vain.”
LikeLike
“JW’s have no credibility. their founder claimed to know Greek but he did not. This has been documented…”… Lol So what about the founder Ken!. that has nothing to do with the article that refutes your false trinitarian presumptions about John 20:28 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
As mentioned before Ken The context of John 20:28 illustrates that Thomas new-found belief was not in the deity of Christ, but the resurrection of Jesus
Thomas belief was not uttered in vain he basically eas praising God Almighty not Jesus cos of his belief 🙂
LikeLike
Thomas said “to Him”, “My Lord and My God” proves that the resurrection proved to Thomas that Jesus was Lord and God in the flesh.
LikeLike
Ken like orher trinitarians make the mistake of reading Thomas’ words without reference to Jesus’ earlier statement:John 20:17.
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Here we see that Jesus speaks of:
His own God.
The God of his disciples.
Who is that God to whom Jesus refers? Is it the Father, or Jesus himself? 😉
LikeLike
I see we have another Muslim pretending to know the Biblical languages and inconsistently citing sources without realizing how the claims made by his authorities end up backfiring against Muhammad.
Let’s take Omar’s assertion regarding Kyrie and Kyrios:
BEGIN
You will observe that throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures when someone was being addressed as “Lord” that the Greek word used was “κυριε,”. As you can see, this is the word for “lord” in the vocative case…
The point being established here is that when someone was being addressed as Lord, the form used was κυριε. Now, it is time for you and I to look at John 20:28 in the Greek. Here is how we find it:
“απεκριθη θωμας και ειπεν αυτω ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου”
You will observe that the word for Lord in this verse is κυριος and not κυριε. In other words, Jesus was NOT being addressed in this comment. If he was being addressed, then Thomas would have stated:
“κυριε μου. . .”
Because of that simple fact, some scholars have acknowledged that this probably was an exclamation rather than an affirmation that Jesus was the Almighty God. This conclusion is not readily seen in translations into English and many other languages that have no regular case endings that make it easy to differentiate the nominative, dative, vocative accusative et al. If I saw you tomorrow and said to you: “My God, is that you Ed Marks?”, would that be sufficient evidence since I “said to you” in clear terms “My God” that I was acknowledging that you were a God–and not only that but MY God?
END
It is too bad that Omar pretends to know a thing or two about Greek since it is now going to come back to expose him as someone who doesn’t have a clue about NT Greek.
Although it is true that Kyrie is typical the case used for direct address (vocative) it is also true that the nominative form Kyrios is also used for direct address just as we find in the following example:
“You call me Teacher and Lord (HO DIDASKALOS kai HO KYRIOS); and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher (HO KYRIOS kai HO DIDASKALOS), have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. ” John 13:13-14
Here we have the nominative used in direct address since there is no doubt that the disciples were calling Jesus both Teacher and Lord. Now let’s see what the greatest NT Greek scholar of the last century stated about this passage:
Master (ο διδασκαλος — Ho didaskalos). NOMINATIVE FORM (not in apposition with με — me accusative after πωνειτε — phōneite), BUT REALLY VOCATIVE IN ADDRESS with the article (called titular nominative sometimes) like ο Κυριος και ο τεος μου — Ho Kurios kai ho theos mou IN JOHN 20:28. “Teacher.” See John 11:28 for Martha‘s title for Jesus to Mary.
Lord (ο Κυριος — Ho Kurios). Another and separate title. In John 1:38 we have Διδασκαλε — Didaskale (vocative form) for the Jewish αββει — Rabbei and in John 9:36, John 9:38 Κυριε — Kurie for the Jewish καλως — Mari It is significant that Jesus approves (κυριος — kalōs well) the application of both titles to himself AS HE ACCEPTS FROM THOMAS THE TERMS τεος — kurios and ειμι γαρ — theos (A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament)
Here is another example:
“Worthy art thou, our Lord and God (HO KYRIOS kai HO THEOS HEMON), to receive glory and honor and power, for thou didst create all things, and by thy will they existed and were created.” Revelation 4:11
This verse is virtually identical to John 20:28 since it uses two nominatives even though the words are directly address to God. Once again, note the words of Robertson:
Our Lord and our God (ο κυριος και ο τεος ημων — ho kurios kai ho theos hēmōn). THE NOMINATIVE FORM HERE USED AS VOCATIVE AS IN JOHN 20:28 AND OFTEN. (Word Pictures of the New Testament)
And here is the final example where the nominative is used for direct address:
“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘E′lo-i, E′lo-i, la′ma sabach-tha′ni?’ which means, ‘My God, my God (HO THEOS MOU, HO THEOS MOU), why hast thou forsaken me?'” Mark 15:34
Compare:
“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eli, Eli, la′ma sabach-tha′ni?’ that is, ‘My God, my God (THEE MOU, THEE MOU), why hast thou forsaken me?” ” Matthew 27:46
These examples where the nominative is used in place of the vocative are the reason why Robertson could say the following about John 20:28:
My Lord and my God (ο κυριος μου και ο τεος μου — Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou). Not exclamation, BUT ADDRESS, THE VOCATIVE CASE THOUGH THE FORM OF THE NOMINATIVE, A VERY COMMON THING IN KOINE. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing. (Word Pictures of the New Testament)
Robertson wasn’t the only NT Greek scholar to make this argument:
28.] The Socinian view, that these words, ὁ κύρ. μου κ. ὁ θεός μου, are merely an exclamation, is refuted—(1) By the fact that no such exclamations were in use among the Jews. (2) By the εἶπεν αὐτῷ. (3) By the impossibility of referring ὁ κύριός μου to another than Jesus: see John 20:13. (4) BY THE N.T. USAGE OF EXPRESSING THE VOCATIVE BY THE NOM. WITH AN ARTICLE. (5) By the utter psychological absurdity of such a supposition: that one just convinced of the presence of Him whom he deeply loved, should, instead of addressing Him, break out into an irrelevant cry. (6) By the further absurdity of supposing that if such were the case, the Apostle John, who of all the sacred writers most constantly keeps in mind the object for which he is writing, should have recorded any thing so beside that object. (7) By the intimate conjunction of πεπίστευκας—see below. Dismissing it therefore, we observe that this is the highest confession of faith which has yet been made;—and that it shews that (though not yet fully) the meaning of the previous confessions of His being ‘the Son of God’ was understood. Thus John, in the very close of his Gospel (see on John 20:30-31) iterates the testimony with which he began it—to the Godhead of the Word who became flesh: and by this closing confession, shews how the testimony of Jesus to Himself had gradually deepened and exalted the Apostles’ conviction, from the time when they knew Him only as ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἰωσήφ (ch. John 1:46), till now when He is acknowledged as their LORD and their GOD. (Henry Alford’s Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary)
And now let’s take the following claim of Omar and turn it against him once again:
BEGIN
Ken like orher trinitarians make the mistake of reading Thomas’ words without reference to Jesus’ earlier statement:John 20:17.
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Here we see that Jesus speaks of:
His own God.
The God of his disciples.
Who is that God to whom Jesus refers? Is it the Father, or Jesus himself?
END
It is truly sad that this gentleman doesn’t see how Jesus’ words prove Muhammad was a false prophet and that his god Allah is a false deity. According to Jesus, his God happens to be his Father and the Father of all of those who believe in him. And yet Quran 5:18 and 9:30 says Muhammad’s god is a father to no one, including Jesus.Therefore, Jesus’ words condemn Muhammad as a false prophet who was not sent by the true God revealed in Christ.
And to answer the question. In v. 17, the God Jesus refers to happens to be none other than his own Father who glorifies the Son in the same way that the Son glorifies him, and who has appointed the Son to have power over all flesh, which includes Muhammad and all Muslims, and who shall personally give eternal life to all those that the Father gives to him:
“When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, ‘Father, the hour has come; GLORIFY THY SON that the Son may glorify thee, since thou hast given him power OVER ALL FLESH, TO GIVE ETERNAL LIFE TO ALL WHOM THOU HAST GIVEN HIM.'” John 17:1-2
At the same time, Jesus is also the God of Thomas and all who, like Thomas, believe in the Son of God:
“Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.’ Thomas answered and said TO HIM (eipen AUTO), ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.’ Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” John 20:26-31
This, therefore, establishes that the one true God according to John is both the Father and the Son together.
So much for Omar’s arguments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Omar’s arguments were shish kebabed.
LikeLike
Now let me put holes through Omar’s other claim. He writes:
BEGIN
Ken refer also to ‘Psalm 110:1 and the Status of the Second Lord – Trinitarian
Arguments Challenged’ where Sam Brown and White are also refuted http://www.21stcr.org/multimedia-2011/1-pdf/jz-psalm_110_LXX.pdf
END
This is more of wishful thinking on Omar’s part since, not only does that article and the one it links to fail to refute anything, but its supposed reply to me shamelessly butchers my actual argument in order to attack strawman. I have already written over a half dozen articles obliterating this lie of adoni never being used of God. Here I will only provide one of the many evidences which I presented in my one of responses. The following is taken from my rebuttal to Sami Zaatari:
Is Adoni never used of Yahweh?
The second problem that Zaatari faces is that it is simply not true that Adoni is never applied to Yahweh, since it is definitely used in reference to him in what is typically referred to as theophoric names (Gr. theoforētos, “bearing a deity”), e.g. proper names which contain or embed a name and/or characteristic of the deity worshiped by a particular individual.
In the Hebrew Bible there are certain theophoric names which identify Yahweh as Adoni, i.e. names which single out the God whom the person bearing that specific name confesses and worships (or is supposed to confess and worship) as his/her Lord. These include the following:
Adonijah (adoniyah) = “My Lord (Adoni) is Yahweh”.
“Sons were born to David at Hebron: his firstborn was Amnon, by Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; and his second, Chileab, by Abigail the widow of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom the son of Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur; and the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; and the sixth, Ithream, by David’s wife Eglah. These were born to David at Hebron.” 2 Samuel 3:2-5
“Adonijah, Bigvai, Adin,” Nehemiah 10:16
Tobadonijah (tob adoniyah) = “My Lord (Adoni) Yahweh is good”.
“and with them the Levites, Shemaiah, Nethaniah, Zebadiah, Asahel, Shemiramoth, Jehonathan, Adonijah, Tobijah and Tobadonijah, the Levites; and with them Elishama and Jehoram, the priests.” 2 Chronicles 17:8
Adoniram = “My Lord (Adoni) is exalted”.
“Now King Solomon was king over all Israel. These were his officials: Azariah the son of Zadok was the priest; Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha were secretaries; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was the recorder; and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the army; and Zadok and Abiathar were priests; and Azariah the son of Nathan was over the deputies; and Zabud the son of Nathan, a priest, was the king’s friend; and Ahishar was over the household; and Adoniram the son of Abda was over the men subject to forced labor.” 1 Kings 4:1-6
“Now King Solomon levied forced laborers from all Israel; and the forced laborers numbered 30,000 men. He sent them to Lebanon, 10,000 a month in relays; they were in Lebanon a month and two months at home. And Adoniram was over the forced laborers.” 1 Kings 5:13-14
Adonikam = “My Lord (Adoni) arose”.
“Now these are the heads of their fathers’ households and the genealogical enrollment of those who went up with me from Babylon in the reign of King Artaxerxes… and of the sons of Adonikam, the last ones, these being their names, Eliphelet, Jeuel and Shemaiah, and 60 males with them;” Ezra 8:1, 13 – cf. 2:13; Nehemiah 7:18
Therefore, it is simply not true that Yahweh is never called Adoni since he definitely is, just as the foregoing examples clearly demonstrate. Besides, Adoni simply means “my Lord,” and if Yahweh isn’t a believer’s Lord than nobody is!
SOURCE: http://www.answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zaatari/psalm110_1_1.html
Lord willing I have a lot more to add but I will wait to see what Omar will say in response to my refutation of his desperate and pathetic polemics.
LikeLike
Sam your reply in reference to Ps 110 is a rotten shiskabab lol
Firstly, proving that some people are called “Adonijah” in the Bible is not the same as claiming that God himself is called Adoni. This is a bogus response. All you has illustrated is that some people were called “Adonijah”. You has not proved that God was called Adoni.lolol…
Secondly, you did not addressed the argument. The argument was not “God is never called Yahweh Adoni, nor was it “Nobody in the Bible is ever called Adonijah”. The argument was “God is never called Adoni. So the challenge is clear: you needs to show clear evidence of repeated cases in which God is called Adoni and nothing else. But this is precisely what you have failed to do.
so please illustrate examples of passages in which God is simply called Adoni and nothing else shishabab… im hungry now 😅
LikeLike
sammyshishkabab “This, therefore, establishes that the one true God according to John is both the Father and the Son together.”… hahah what a ridiculous presumption lol… where is the holy spirit in the One tue God of John!?. .hilarious! sorry sammy..your counter argument in reference to the notion of ‘father’ and islam is totally irrelevant lol…and did not engage my point at all!
LikeLike
who made that quote ? He is wrong.
LikeLike
James Dunn. He knows a great deal more about the Bible than you do.
LikeLike
“your own scholars” – NO. Those are liberal or quasi-believing scholars. So therefore, they are not “my scholars”
LikeLike
Yes they are Ken lol
LikeLike
Dunn has been proven to be like Raymond Brown, “trying to have his cake and eat it too”; just as Geza Vermes said about R. Brown.
Thanks for sharing who it is. Since it is Dunn, on this issue, the quote looses credibility, because Dunn has been shown to be inconsistent and IMO, deceptive – for example, giving lots of evidence against the belief in the virgin birth, but not expressly affirming the virgin birth of Christ. Typical of many liberals who if they came out and let it fly about what they really believe, they would lose their jobs.
LikeLike
blah blah blah crap crap crap
LikeLike
No, Dunn is not “my scholar”, neither Brown.
You need to use a believing scholar who affirms the historicity of all of John.
LikeLike
why? I prefer to use a scholar who is honest, objective and goes wherever the evidence leads.
You prefer people who just confirm you in your views. Sad.
LikeLike
Then you have to repent and agree with Dunn on this issue:
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/james-d-g-dunn-should-we-deduce-that-paul-departed-from-or-corrupted-the-good-news-which-jesus-brought-no/
LikeLike
Dunn and Brown are not honest in the way they bring doubts to the text; but also affirm the creeds, etc. – that is dishonest.
If they don’t believe the Scriptures as truthful and historical, then they should go all the way and reject the creeds also and become some kind of Unitarians or agnostics, etc.
LikeLike
Ken – stop judging others. Read the Sermon on the Mount
LikeLike
“you will know them by their fruits” – Matthew 7:15-23 – part of the sermon on the Mount.
Boom!!
LikeLike
but you cherry pick which bits you follow.
LikeLike
No; I believe all of it. It is you and Muslims who cherry pick only some things from the Bible. I believe all of it; and the Qur’an also commands you to believe all of it – Surah 5:47; 10:94; 5:68; etc.
LikeLike
but you do not practice what you preach to others (Pharisees come to mind). You judge other Christians. Your own words condemn you
LikeLike
You prefer people who just confirm you in your views. Sad.
That is what you do with Islam, for it you studied all of it honestly, you would see the problems.
LikeLike
lol just deflecting criticism Ken. Man up and own it.
LikeLike
Man up and own the problems in Islam.
LikeLike
lol deflecting criticism again! how predictable lol
LikeLike
If you prefer honesty, deal with the arguments of this ex-Muslim:
LikeLike
I was looking for honesty in you Ken. You preach one thing and do another. You deflect criticism. Jesus told you not to JUDGE but you do just that condemning fellow Christians who are dead and cannot defend themselves.
LikeLike
We are also commanded to judge with righteous judgment – John 7:24 and discern by the results and fruits – Matthew 7:15-23.
The results and fruits and actions speak for themselves, both from liberal scholarship (leads to agnosticism and atheism – for example – Bart Ehrman, John D. Crossan, Robert Funk, Bultmann, Frederick Schleirmacker, etc.) or it leads to other things like trying to claim one is a Christian yet, deny the virgin birth or Deity of Christ, or deny that homosexuality is sin, etc.
The results and fruits of the violent aspects and sexual sin/ moral aspects of the sources of Islam (especially Hadiths) are fruits of something that is wrong inherently with it.
It does not pass the smell test.
LikeLike
May break fast with a date and shish kabab tonight!☺
LikeLike