Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by Eusebius The same way this one is:
Psa 110:1 A Davidic Psalm
The averring of Yahweh to my Lord:
Sit at My right
Until I should set Your enemies as a stool for Your feet.
Quote:
"The averring"? Good grief, who is translating this?
Dear young mocker, Young's Literal has it this way:
(YLT) A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: `Sit at My right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.'
Literal Translation of the Holy Bible has it thus:
(LITV) A Psalm of David. A declaration of Jehovah to my Lord: Sit at My right hand, until I place Your enemies as Your footstool.
a·ver (-vûr)tr.v.a·verred, a·ver·ring, a·vers1. To affirm positively; declare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius Sit at My right Until I should set Your enemies as a stool for Your feet.
In the above verse there are three:
Yahweh
The Lord, Jesus
David
Quote:
No, Jesus has nothing to do with this psalm. "My Lord" is David. The psalm is not written by David, but about David.
That is patently wrong.
David was not his own Lord. David, the author of this psalm said "my Lord" therefore his Lord is superior to the author of this psalm.
Likewise, at the time the psalm was written there wasn't anyone on earth that was David's Lord.
David could only be writing through the spirit of Christ concerning his (David's) superior which was Christ.
Here is the N.T. concerning this verse:
Mat 22:41-46 Now, the Pharisees being gathered, Jesus inquires of them,
(42) saying, "What are you supposing concerning the Christ? Whose Son is
He? (43) He is saying to them, "How, then, is David, in spirit, calling Him
Lord, saying, (44) Said the Lord to my Lord, 'Sit at My right, Till I should
be placing Thine enemies underneath "Thy feet!"'? (45) If, then, David is
calling Him Lord, how is He his Son? (46) And no one was able to answer
Him a word, neither dares anyone, from that day, inquire of Him any
longer."
David called Christ His Lord.
I hope you can swallow your pride and say you were wrong.
Dear young mocker, Young's Literal has it this way:
(YLT) A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: `Sit at My right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.'
Literal Translation of the Holy Bible has it thus:
(LITV) A Psalm of David. A declaration of Jehovah to my Lord: Sit at My right hand, until I place Your enemies as Your footstool.
a·ver (-vûr)tr.v.a·verred, a·ver·ring, a·vers1. To affirm positively; declare.
That is patently wrong.
David was not his own Lord. David, the author of this psalm said "my Lord" therefore his Lord is superior to the author of this psalm.
Likewise, at the time the psalm was written there wasn't anyone on earth that was David's Lord.
David could only be writing through the spirit of Christ concerning his (David's) superior which was Christ.
Here is the N.T. concerning this verse:
Mat 22:41-46 Now, the Pharisees being gathered, Jesus inquires of them,
(42) saying, "What are you supposing concerning the Christ? Whose Son is
He? (43) He is saying to them, "How, then, is David, in spirit, calling Him
Lord, saying, (44) Said the Lord to my Lord, 'Sit at My right, Till I should
be placing Thine enemies underneath "Thy feet!"'? (45) If, then, David is
calling Him Lord, how is He his Son? (46) And no one was able to answer
Him a word, neither dares anyone, from that day, inquire of Him any
longer."
David called Christ His Lord.
I hope you can swallow your pride and say you were wrong.
This, again, is another example of NT writers (with their own agenda) writing Jesus BACK INTO the Old Testament.
This, again, is another example of NT writers (with their own agenda) writing Jesus BACK INTO the Old Testament.
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth.
Acts 2:23-37 This One, given up in the specific counsel and
foreknowledge of God, you, gibbeting by the hand of the lawless,
assassinate, (24) Whom God raises, loosing the pangs of death,
forasmuch as it was not possible for Him to be held by it." (25) For David
is saying to Him, I saw the Lord before me continually, Seeing that He is at
my right hand, that I may not be shaken." (26) Therefore gladdened was
my heart, And exultant my tongue. Now, still my flesh also shall be tenting
in expectation, (27) For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen,
Nor wilt Thou be giving Thy Benign One to be acquainted with decay."
(28) Thou makest known to me the paths of life. Thou wilt be filling me
with gladness with Thy face.' (29) Men! Brethren! Allow me to say to you
with boldness concerning the patriarch David, that he deceases also and
was entombed, and his tomb is among us until this day." (30) Being, then,
inherently, a prophet, and having perceived that God swears to him with
an oath, out of the fruit of his loin to seat One on his throne, (31)
perceiving this before, he speaks concerning the resurrection of the Christ,
that He was neither forsaken in the unseen, nor was His flesh acquainted
with decay." (32) This Jesus God raises, of Whom we all are witnesses."
(33) Being, then, to the right hand of God exalted, besides obtaining the
promise of the holy spirit from the Father, He pours out this which you are
observing and hearing." (34) For David did not ascend into the heavens,
yet he is saying, 'Said the Lord to my Lord, "Sit at My right" (35) Till I
should be placing Thine enemies for a footstool for Thy feet."'" (36) Let
all the house of Israel know certainly, then, that God makes Him Lord as
well as Christ - this Jesus Whom you crucify!" (37) Now, hearing this,
their heart was pricked with compunction. Besides, they said to Peter and
the rest of the apostles, "What should we be doing, men, brethren?
It proves Daniel was wrong when he wrote that Psalm 110 wasn't about Christ.
Look at the logic of the passage above. This is an historical account concerning Peter speaking to the Jews about what David wrote but how it
could not be about David not being acquainted with decay since his (David's) tomb was with them and David was decayed in that tomb, but Jesus was not.
The Jews got it. You don't. Only God opens the eye to see.
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth.
Acts 2:23-37 This One, given up in the specific counsel and
foreknowledge of God, you, gibbeting by the hand of the lawless,
assassinate, (24) Whom God raises, loosing the pangs of death,
forasmuch as it was not possible for Him to be held by it." (25) For David
is saying to Him, I saw the Lord before me continually, Seeing that He is at
my right hand, that I may not be shaken." (26) Therefore gladdened was
my heart, And exultant my tongue. Now, still my flesh also shall be tenting
in expectation, (27) For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen,
Nor wilt Thou be giving Thy Benign One to be acquainted with decay."
(28) Thou makest known to me the paths of life. Thou wilt be filling me
with gladness with Thy face.' (29) Men! Brethren! Allow me to say to you
with boldness concerning the patriarch David, that he deceases also and
was entombed, and his tomb is among us until this day." (30) Being, then,
inherently, a prophet, and having perceived that God swears to him with
an oath, out of the fruit of his loin to seat One on his throne, (31)
perceiving this before, he speaks concerning the resurrection of the Christ,
that He was neither forsaken in the unseen, nor was His flesh acquainted
with decay." (32) This Jesus God raises, of Whom we all are witnesses."
(33) Being, then, to the right hand of God exalted, besides obtaining the
promise of the holy spirit from the Father, He pours out this which you are
observing and hearing." (34) For David did not ascend into the heavens,
yet he is saying, 'Said the Lord to my Lord, "Sit at My right" (35) Till I
should be placing Thine enemies for a footstool for Thy feet."'" (36) Let
all the house of Israel know certainly, then, that God makes Him Lord as
well as Christ - this Jesus Whom you crucify!" (37) Now, hearing this,
their heart was pricked with compunction. Besides, they said to Peter and
the rest of the apostles, "What should we be doing, men, brethren?
It proves Daniel was wrong when he wrote that Psalm 110 wasn't about Christ.
Look at the logic of the passage above. This is an historical account concerning Peter speaking to the Jews about what David wrote but how it
could not be about David not being acquainted with decay since his (David's) tomb was with them and David was decayed in that tomb, but Jesus was not.
The Jews got it. You don't. Only God opens the eye to see.
Again, Eusebius. The NT writers were placing THEIR messiah into the Old Testament passages. They could not pass him over to the Jews as the awaited messiah and king of the Jews UNLESS he could be validated by the OT passages. This was their agenda and they viewed the OT through the filter of their bias. We find examples of this in the book of Matthew where all kinds of OT "prophecies" are supposedly fulfilled by Jesus.
We need look no further than the lame attempts by some Muslim apologists, wanting to validate their "prophet" Muhammed, who CLAIM the Old and New Testaments predicted Muhammed.
Eusebius, you're relying on translations, again, that are less than desirable for accuracy. Young's is out of date, and predates many of the advances in our understanding of Hebrew that I spoke about in my posts recently. The LITV from Jay P. Green starts out with a biased principle, as can be seen from his book Unholy Hands on the Bible: An Introduction to Textual Criticism - which is an awful book that lays it's cards on the table with the title. It might as well have been called Biblical Scholars Are All Godless Heathens - Except Me, by Jay P. Green - self-proclaimed "most experienced Bible translator now alive." Seriously. And in case you're wondering: No, he wasn't. Both translations have major flaws - which is why they are not used to do serious study, except by Fundamentalists who need a source which will back up their own claims.
a) One thing that removes the "literal" aspect from both of these translations is the choice to capitalize "lord" as "Lord". On what basis did the translators choose to do this? One answer is, as Insane pointed out, from a tradition of seeing in this verse a reference to Jesus in the Hebrew Bible. When one capitalizes the word in translation, it becomes much easier for would-be exegets to see Jesus Christ, the "Lord" in the verse. Well of course! The translator helped stack the odds in favor of such a reading. Other than that, the word is the same as in other usages of "lord" - there's nothing special about it that wold signify the usage imagined by later readers.
b) Another giveaway that both of these translations are not even entirely "literal" is their usage of "Jehovah", instead of what would most likely be "Yahweh". I won't go into the many, many reasons why this is so (especially as we have done so in the past and nothing has changed since then - "Jehovah" has always been an ignorant way of rendering yhwh and still is). Besides being out-dated and plain wrong, it reveals the fact that the translators are both out of touch with real translational principles and are not actually being very "literal" at all. Even when they began translating, the wrongness of "Jehovah" was already known by those "Unholy Hands", I suppose.
Eusebius, this Psalm (and I refer to the entire Psalm) is not a definite, 100% proven reference to Jesus. You cannot "aver" that for certain, and the odds are highly against it. If given the choice to use Occham's Razor in this instance - I think most would go with the first verse being a reference to David the King, the Psalm being sung by another figure. Nowhere in the Psalm is a reference made to a "messiah", either. The Psalm is typical of God's power as manifested through his earthly king, and the same pattern is found in many other places in the Hebrew Bible. It's one of the major motifs of the relationship between the heavenly ruler and his earthly ruler.
Why not use other translations? Bear in mind that the initial "LORD" is "Yahweh". I list it in the first example only.
The LORD [Yahweh] says to my lord, (NRSV)
The LORD said to my lord, (NJPS)
The LORD said to my lord, (NEB)
Yahweh declared to my lord, (NJB)
I could go on. I showed these to demonstrate that most reliable translations do not render it as "Lord". Update your translations, Eusebius - please, especially if you can only argue FROM how a certain translation renders a verse. You always choose the translation that makes your point - and that is not the way to do things if you want your point to be accepted by others who do not do the same thing. Come on, now.. I had hoped that my recent posts would have demonstrated the value of making sure your translation is at least reliable, if you're unable to read Biblical Hebrew for yourself.
Did the prophet Daniel place Jesus into the NT or OT scriptures when he wrote that from the going forth of the word to rebuild the temple till Messiah would be an exact amount of time, which amount He fulfilled?
Insane, Are the NT writers supposed to write bout Mr. Ed the talking horse? Why wouldn't they write to prove Jesus fulfilled the OT passages? They should. To think they were wrong in doing that is strange.
Whoppers they say the same thing whether Yahweh avers (affirm positively, declare) to my Lord or Yahweh says to my Lord.
Let's not get off track here. Daniel said Psalm 110 is not about Jesus. It most certainly is as proved.
You've proved absolutely nothing - as I just showed in my post, and others have. Just drop it. The only people you're going to "prove" this to is other Fundamentalist Christians - and I think it's fairly obvious that the majority of us in this thread are not those.
From a plain-reading of the text (without the lens of later Christian traditions hazing up the glass), the Psalm in no way refers to anyone named Jesus Christ or any sort of Messiah. Daniel was correct - if this is what he was implying. Don't get yourself into a Fundamentalist hole which you cannot extricate yourself out of. Old translations will not make your case. Sorry. Not trying to be rude - just stating the situation.
Dear young mocker, Young's Literal has it this way:
(YLT) A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: `Sit at My right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.'
Literal Translation of the Holy Bible has it thus:
(LITV) A Psalm of David. A declaration of Jehovah to my Lord: Sit at My right hand, until I place Your enemies as Your footstool.
a·ver (-vûr)tr.v.a·verred, a·ver·ring, a·vers1. To affirm positively; declare.
I know what averration means, it's just a needlessly obscure rendering of a very common Hebrew word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
That is patently wrong.
David was not his own Lord.
As I pointed out, the psalm is written about David, not by David.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
David, the author of this psalm said "my Lord" therefore his Lord is superior to the author of this psalm.
Yes, David is the author's lord. He is addressing his king as "my Lord." Certainly you're aware of this use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Likewise, at the time the psalm was written there wasn't anyone on earth that was David's Lord.
David could only be writing through the spirit of Christ concerning his (David's) superior which was Christ.
You don't have a clue when this psalm was written, and arbitrarily reading Christ into everything in the Old Testament gets us further from the intended meaning, not closer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Here is the N.T. concerning this verse:
Mat 22:41-46 Now, the Pharisees being gathered, Jesus inquires of them,
(42) saying, "What are you supposing concerning the Christ? Whose Son is
He? (43) He is saying to them, "How, then, is David, in spirit, calling Him
Lord, saying, (44) Said the Lord to my Lord, 'Sit at My right, Till I should
be placing Thine enemies underneath "Thy feet!"'? (45) If, then, David is
calling Him Lord, how is He his Son? (46) And no one was able to answer
Him a word, neither dares anyone, from that day, inquire of Him any
longer."
David called Christ His Lord.
The author of Matthew thought so, but that has no bearing whatsoever on what the original author of the psalm meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
I hope you can swallow your pride and say you were wrong.
You'd have to be able to show I was wrong first (which would also necessitate my being wrong).
Thank you Daniel!
Yahweh is thus one of the sons of Elohim!
In the earliest strata of the Old Testament he was.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-vûr
)tr.v. a·verred, a·ver·ring, a·vers 1. To affirm positively; declare.
