Yahweh Says to Adoni
- Thread starter ByGraceThroughFaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Have you noticed by title of the thread? Why do you think the trinitarian who started this thread called it “Yahweh Says to Adoni”?
Yes, and I have promptly corrected you with what I found in the concordance.
However, I assume that you will continue to insist that because I am not looking at the Hebrew word, I cannot possibly get the full understanding.
That is conducive to a cult-like mentality.
And no, I don't have access to a Hebrew Lexicon except what is included in blue letter bible.
English (KJV) [[A Psalm
PHRASE
h4210
מִזְמוֹר מִזְמוֹרmizmôr
HNcmsa
of David.]]
PHRASE
h1732
לְדָוִד דָּוִדdāviḏ
HR/Np
The LORD
PHRASE
h3068
יְהוָה יְהֹוָהYᵊhōvâ
HNp
said
h5002
נְאֻם נְאֻםnᵊ'um
HNcmsc
unto my Lord,
PHRASE
h113
לַֽאדֹנִי אָדוֹן'āḏôn
HR/Ncmsc/Sp1cs
Sit thou
PHRASE
h3427
שֵׁב יָשַׁבyāšaḇ
HVqv2ms
at my right hand,
PHRASE
h3225
לִֽימִינִי יָמִיןyāmîn
HR/Ncfsc/Sp1cs
until
h5704
עַד־ עַדʿaḏ
HR
I make
PHRASE
h7896
אָשִׁית שִׁיתšîṯ
HVqi1cs
thine enemies
PHRASE
h341
אֹיְבֶיךָ אֹיֵב'ōyēḇ
HVqrmpc/Sp2ms
thy footstool.
PHRASE
h1916
הֲדֹם הֲדֹםhăḏōm
HNcmsa
↑
h7272
לְרַגְלֶֽיךָ רֶגֶלreḡel
HR/Ncfdc/Sp2ms
You obviously have an advantage over me in that you can read in Hebrew.
I will only say that this reminds me of a scripture.
Jde 1:16, These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
If the rest of the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
But this scripture speaks of those who oppose the Lord and who have men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
But let's level the playing field;
And realize that understanding Greek and Hebrew isn't necessary in order to get God's unadulterated message.
All one needs is a trusty kjv and the Holy Spirit.
I will only say that this reminds me of a scripture.
Jde 1:16, These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
If the rest of the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
But this scripture speaks of those who oppose the Lord and who have men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
But let's level the playing field;
And realize that understanding Greek and Hebrew isn't necessary in order to get God's unadulterated message.
All one needs is a trusty kjv and the Holy Spirit.
I do. I’ve yet to come across a trinitarian commentary which says about the Trinity what you said you believe about the Trinity. If such a commentary exists I would like to see it. Since you don’t spend much time reading them, maybe someone else who does and has come across your belief discussed in them can provide a reference for me. If not, and if I happen to come across one that does some day, I’ll post the reference.
The stereotype is a man clutching a Concordance in one hand and the KJV in the other.
You’ve already heard me say, “Do whatever you think best.”
What I think is best is not to isolate ourselves from the commentary of “experts in the field”. We may come to conclusions which agree or disagree with them, but to come to a conclusion without the necessary technical knowledge is a recipe for disaster.
I’m not an expert in the Hebrew language. I’ve had some formal training but, as I said and you’re saying now, it isn’t necessary to know how to read the biblical languages in order to understand what is written in scripture. It helps, but the technical experts who translate the Bible can get us there.
None of it fits me.
See above.
Man, did I ever have you pegged with the stereotype.
Last edited:
English (KJV) [[A Psalm
PHRASE
h4210
מִזְמוֹר מִזְמוֹרmizmôr
HNcmsa
of David.]]
PHRASE
h1732
לְדָוִד דָּוִדdāviḏ
HR/Np
The LORD
PHRASE
h3068
יְהוָה יְהֹוָהYᵊhōvâ
HNp
said
h5002
נְאֻם נְאֻםnᵊ'um
HNcmsc
unto my Lord,
PHRASE
h113
לַֽאדֹנִי אָדוֹן'āḏôn
HR/Ncmsc/Sp1cs
Sit thou
PHRASE
h3427
שֵׁב יָשַׁבyāšaḇ
HVqv2ms
at my right hand,
PHRASE
h3225
לִֽימִינִי יָמִיןyāmîn
HR/Ncfsc/Sp1cs
until
h5704
עַד־ עַדʿaḏ
HR
I make
PHRASE
h7896
אָשִׁית שִׁיתšîṯ
HVqi1cs
thine enemies
PHRASE
h341
אֹיְבֶיךָ אֹיֵב'ōyēḇ
HVqrmpc/Sp2ms
thy footstool.
PHRASE
h1916
הֲדֹם הֲדֹםhăḏōm
HNcmsa
↑
h7272
לְרַגְלֶֽיךָ רֶגֶלreḡel
HR/Ncfdc/Sp2ms
Do you think that’s why he chose the title that he did?
I was thinking about the letter I wrote to the publisher of NASB. I still have it in my files somewhere. If what I sent them was incorrect then there would be no reason for them to respond in writing, as they did, acknowledging the mistake in their translation and committing to correcting it in future editions. If I was wrong I think they either would have ignored my letter or replied that they received it, reviewed it, and determined that their translation was correct and I was the one in error.
I’m not the only person who wrote to them about it. I was actually aware at the time of several others who had already written to the publisher and received a written response from them. I saw and read one of those letters before I wrote mine. It’s not that I didn’t trust the people who had already written to the publisher. I did, and still do. It’s that I wanted a written response from the publisher, addressed to me personally, for my files. That way I wouldn’t ever have to depend on referring to documents which weren’t in my possession and weren’t written to me.
To the interested reader, here’s a suggestion. Locate a translation which renders the Hebrew word in Psalm 110:1 incorrectly (there are many to choose from) and write a letter to the publisher. Politely tell the publisher that you noticed an error when reading the passage in their translation, tell them precisely what the error is, and ask them for confirmation. That way you won’t need to take my word for it or anyone else’s. You’ll have it straight from the desk of the publisher.
I’m not the only person who wrote to them about it. I was actually aware at the time of several others who had already written to the publisher and received a written response from them. I saw and read one of those letters before I wrote mine. It’s not that I didn’t trust the people who had already written to the publisher. I did, and still do. It’s that I wanted a written response from the publisher, addressed to me personally, for my files. That way I wouldn’t ever have to depend on referring to documents which weren’t in my possession and weren’t written to me.
To the interested reader, here’s a suggestion. Locate a translation which renders the Hebrew word in Psalm 110:1 incorrectly (there are many to choose from) and write a letter to the publisher. Politely tell the publisher that you noticed an error when reading the passage in their translation, tell them precisely what the error is, and ask them for confirmation. That way you won’t need to take my word for it or anyone else’s. You’ll have it straight from the desk of the publisher.
Adon, the root word, can be translated as either “Lord” or “lord”. It’s not translated “lord” when the subject is YHWH. (See the 195 occurrences.)
The vowelled Hebrew, the Masoretic Text, is as clear as clear can be. So why do some translations, like NASB, get it wrong in only that 1 occurrence out of 195 occurrences? That’s an interesting question. Sometimes it’s just carelessness. Sometimes it’s translator bias, which was the case with NASB. (The publisher, The Lockman Foundation, wrote a paragraph in their letter to me explaining that, even after they made the correction, they were still fully committed to the doctrine of the deity of Christ.)
What about the LXX? How does it render Psalm 110:1? Does it support the MT or does it contradict it?
Spoiler alert.
.
.
.
It supports it.
The biblical language (Hebrew and / or Greek) isn’t the problem in Psalm 110:1. It’s the theological interpretation of the biblical language that’s the battleground.
First render the Hebrew in the passage correctly, translators. Then we can bring in the dancing bears.
Except in Psalms 110:1, if your translation of the verse is correct.
By whose criterium is it not translated as "Lord" in that verse; since the subject is YHWH?
Because you have contended that "lord" is the correct translation in that verse.
By whose criterium?
You have entered into the translation process as an amateur and have decided that "Lord" in Psalms 110:1 is not referring to YHWH; and that therefore it must be translated as "lord".
I will say also, that the team behind the translation of the NASB is a group of human beings who are fallible; and that therefore they may be making a mistake in accepting the criticism of their translation of Psalms 110:1 as valid.
The trinitarian commentary in the NET is instructive.
“Here is the LORD’s proclamation to my lord: …”
(Psalm 110:1, NET)
Notice that the trinitarian translators correctly rendered the Hebrew word adoni (lower case “l”).
The commentary, explaining why the translator’s rendered the Hebrew word with the lower case, is contained in side note (sn) 3. I’m providing a link for the convenience of any one who would like to read it.
Psalms 110
Those who read it will find that the trinitarian translators are, nevertheless, still fully committed to the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the deity of Christ; just like The Lockman Foundation, publisher of the NASB is.
Shall we argue over the correct way to render adoni? If we must, but I suggest that 195 out of 195 cuts through a lot of unnecessary conversation. If it’s just a matter of education, let’s do it. Trinitarian and non-trinitarian alike should be able to easily do that uncomplicated task, each to the satisfaction of the other.
Yahweh speaks to an unnamed man. There’s no reason to dispute that. The trinitarian nods his or her head approvingly. The non-trinitarian nods his or her head approvingly.
Who is this man? This gets a little more complicated but trinitarian and non-trinitarian Christians should be able to quickly agree that the man is Jesus of Nazareth. (A Jew who doesn’t believe Psalm 110:1 is an oracle about Jesus wouldn’t agree.) With acknowledgement that the NT writers identify Jesus as the unnamed person, trinitarian and non-trinitarian should quickly find themselves nodding approvingly.
Where, then, is the issue?
The problem is where it always is: trinitarian theology vs. non-trinitarian theology.
Trinitarian theology. The man is the God-man, second person of the Trinity.
Unitarian theology varies. For brevity, I’ll use my Jewish monotheism theology and leave it to other unitarians to insert theirs, if they would like to.
Jewish monotheism theology. The man is a human person, a Jew, Jesus of Nazareth.
The respective theologies being incompatible, the inevitable clash is now only a post away.
“Here is the LORD’s proclamation to my lord: …”
(Psalm 110:1, NET)
Notice that the trinitarian translators correctly rendered the Hebrew word adoni (lower case “l”).
The commentary, explaining why the translator’s rendered the Hebrew word with the lower case, is contained in side note (sn) 3. I’m providing a link for the convenience of any one who would like to read it.
Psalms 110
Those who read it will find that the trinitarian translators are, nevertheless, still fully committed to the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the deity of Christ; just like The Lockman Foundation, publisher of the NASB is.
Shall we argue over the correct way to render adoni? If we must, but I suggest that 195 out of 195 cuts through a lot of unnecessary conversation. If it’s just a matter of education, let’s do it. Trinitarian and non-trinitarian alike should be able to easily do that uncomplicated task, each to the satisfaction of the other.
Yahweh speaks to an unnamed man. There’s no reason to dispute that. The trinitarian nods his or her head approvingly. The non-trinitarian nods his or her head approvingly.
Who is this man? This gets a little more complicated but trinitarian and non-trinitarian Christians should be able to quickly agree that the man is Jesus of Nazareth. (A Jew who doesn’t believe Psalm 110:1 is an oracle about Jesus wouldn’t agree.) With acknowledgement that the NT writers identify Jesus as the unnamed person, trinitarian and non-trinitarian should quickly find themselves nodding approvingly.
Where, then, is the issue?
The problem is where it always is: trinitarian theology vs. non-trinitarian theology.
Trinitarian theology. The man is the God-man, second person of the Trinity.
Unitarian theology varies. For brevity, I’ll use my Jewish monotheism theology and leave it to other unitarians to insert theirs, if they would like to.
Jewish monotheism theology. The man is a human person, a Jew, Jesus of Nazareth.
The respective theologies being incompatible, the inevitable clash is now only a post away.
I count the NET as being strictly non-Trinitarian;
Because of its rendering of Acts 20:28 (as opposed to what is written in the kjv).
Because of its rendering of Acts 20:28 (as opposed to what is written in the kjv).
That’s right.
The subject isn’t YHWH. YHWH speaks to the subject, an unidentified man. It’s only in the NT that we find out that it’s referring, ultimately, to the Messiah. As trinitarian commentaries point out, in it’s historical context, it could be applied to any of the royals. The NT writers make much use of the passage to argue that the man in question is the Messiah.
The same criteria used by trinitarian scholars.
Meaning no disrespect, that’s what you’ve done. I’ve had some formal training in biblical languages and I call upon experts in the field for support. Because I’m speaking with a trinitarian, the experts I call on for support are trinitarian scholars. I could use unitarian scholars but would you take them seriously? At this level of conversation, trinitarians typically reject unitarian scholarship out of hand. My best option in this environment is to appeal to the scholarship of trinitarian theologians.
I really don’t know what else I can say that I haven’t already said that would reassure that that’s not, and never will be, the case.
A person who has little or no knowledge of the Hebrew language simply is not going to convince trinitarian scholars who are highly trained in the Hebrew language that they’ve made a mistake if they haven’t.
A person - trinitarian or non-trinitarian - who is highly trained in the Hebrew language is not going to convince trinitarian scholars who are highly trained in the Hebrew language that they’ve made a mistake if they haven’t.
The trinitarian scholars you’re concerned about aren’t going to be bamboozled.
Trinitarian scholars who argue in favor and in defense of the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the deity of Christ are strictly non-trinitarian?
I’m not convinced.
A Hebrew - English translation of Psalm 110 from a Jewish source in Israel. If you won’t be persuaded by trinitarian scholars @heartwashed then I hold out little to no hope or expectation that you’ll be persuaded by observant Jewish scholars who do not believe Jesus is the Messiah. I’m providing a link to it for the edification of interested readers.
Psalms 110 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
The Hebrew word in verse 1 is adoni. It’s the same text which trinitarian scholars use.
The word is rendered “lord” in English by the Jewish source; just like it is in the Catholic NABRE.
Roman Catholic scholars and Jewish scholars looking at the same text anywhere in the world can smile, nod their heads, and shake hands. Easy agreement on what the Hebrew word is. How long will it take? A couple of seconds. They’ll all know at a glance.
Translation of adoni in the Hebrew Bible.
Final score
Roman Catholic scholars - 195 / 195. Perfect.
Jewish scholars - 195 / 195. Perfect.
There is peace in the valley. But it won’t last long after they start talking about the man who is called “my lord”.
Cozy up to the mixed group before they start talking about who the man is and whisper in their ears, or shout it as loud as you can, that the Hebrew word isn’t adoni and there won’t be a person among them who will take you seriously.
Link to NABRE with trinitarian commentary in the footnotes.
Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 110:1 - New American Bible (Revised Edition)
Psalms 110 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
The Hebrew word in verse 1 is adoni. It’s the same text which trinitarian scholars use.
The word is rendered “lord” in English by the Jewish source; just like it is in the Catholic NABRE.
Roman Catholic scholars and Jewish scholars looking at the same text anywhere in the world can smile, nod their heads, and shake hands. Easy agreement on what the Hebrew word is. How long will it take? A couple of seconds. They’ll all know at a glance.
Translation of adoni in the Hebrew Bible.
Final score
Roman Catholic scholars - 195 / 195. Perfect.
Jewish scholars - 195 / 195. Perfect.
There is peace in the valley. But it won’t last long after they start talking about the man who is called “my lord”.
Cozy up to the mixed group before they start talking about who the man is and whisper in their ears, or shout it as loud as you can, that the Hebrew word isn’t adoni and there won’t be a person among them who will take you seriously.
Link to NABRE with trinitarian commentary in the footnotes.
Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 110:1 - New American Bible (Revised Edition)
“The Lord says to my lord:
’Sit at my right hand,
till I make your enemies your footstool.’
… the double use of kyrios. The one is clearly Yahweh, but who is the other? Clearly not Yahweh, but an exalted being whom the psalmist calls kyrios.”
(James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry Into the Character of Earliest Christianity, p. 53)
An exalted being who clearly isn’t Yahweh.
’Sit at my right hand,
till I make your enemies your footstool.’
… the double use of kyrios. The one is clearly Yahweh, but who is the other? Clearly not Yahweh, but an exalted being whom the psalmist calls kyrios.”
(James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry Into the Character of Earliest Christianity, p. 53)
An exalted being who clearly isn’t Yahweh.
“(2) ‘Paul calls Jesus kyrios, but he seems to have marked reservations about actually calling Jesus ‘God’ (Rom. 9.5 is the only real candidate within the main Pauline corpus, and even there the text is unclear). Similarly he refrains from praying to Jesus. More typical of his attitude is that he prays to God through Christ (Rom. 1.8; 7:25; II Cor. 1.20; Col. 3.17), (3) ‘Jesus is Lord’ is only part of a fuller confession for Paul. For at the same time that he affirms ‘Jesus is Lord’ he also affirms ‘God is one’ (I Cor. 8.5-6; Eph. 4.5-6) ). … The point for us to note is that Paul can hail Jesus as Lord not in order to identify him with God, but rather, if anything, to distinguish him from the one God (cf. particularly I Cor. 15.24-28 …)”
(James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity In The New Testament: An Inquiry Into the Character of Earliest Christianity, p. 53)
Bold is mine.
(James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity In The New Testament: An Inquiry Into the Character of Earliest Christianity, p. 53)
Bold is mine.
Similar threads
