The Narrow Path Ministries

Hi Homer,
I believe the word you're referring to is Adonai. I have read that the word in Psalm 110:1 is not Adonai, but adoni. I don't believe adoni was used as a substitute for YHWH, but instead seems to refer to a human lord or king, but not to God.

Here's just one place talks about that:
http://claudemariottini.com/2012/08/21/ ... o-my-lord/

Pretty sure it's just a form of adonai used for both people and for God as well, exactly equivalent to the Koine word kurios.

Jose wrote:The point is that this verse should not be used as a proof text for the Trinity in the Old Testament. The phrase "the Lord said to my Lord", is not saying that Yahweh spoke to Yahweh as many people presume. The Hebrew behind the first LORD is YHWH (God), and the Hebrew for the second Lord is adoni (usually a human master/lord).

The Trinity is never proved by a single proof-text but taking everything together in conjunction. Under the inspiration of the Spirit the writer of Acts interprets this verse to mean an ascension to heaven, yet I doubt a single Jew ever took it that way.

34 "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand" (Act 2:34 NAS)

dizerner wrote:The Trinity is never proved by a single proof-text but taking everything together in conjunction.

Yes, I realize the trinity doctrine needs to be assembled, but I believe this verse should not be included among those to be considered. Even if it is referring to Christ's ascension, it still does not teach or even imply anything about the trinity.

Needless to say it supports rather than contradicts the Trinity. For us there is one Lord, and David calls him my Lord.

dizerner wrote:Needless to say it supports rather than contradicts the Trinity. For us there is one Lord, and David calls him my Lord.

Abigail called David "my lord." Sarah also called Abraham "my lord" - "my adoni." Aren't you seeing that your argument is not sound?

Also, as Jose pointed out, the one "lord" is Yahweh. The Hebrew people wouldn't pronounce the sacred name "Yahweh" for fear that they might accidentally take that name in vain and so they substituted "the lord" for it. This doesn't work in some places. For example God says, "My name is Yahweh." It won't work to translate it as "My name is the lord" for "the lord" is not a name. In spite of the fact that it doesn't make sense, a considerable number of translators rendered the sentence exactly that way.

Jose wrote:

dizerner wrote:Needless to say it supports rather than contradicts the Trinity. For us there is one Lord, and David calls him my Lord.

Abigail called David "my lord." Sarah also called Abraham "my lord" - "my adoni." Aren't you seeing that your argument is not sound?

I'm saying it fits the Trinity paradigm not proves it. Otherwise your argument works just as well against Biblical monotheism—God is called lord and Abigail is called lord: checkmate Christians.

dizerner wrote: I'm saying it fits the Trinity paradigm not proves it. Otherwise your argument works just as well against Biblical monotheism—God is called lord and Abigail is called lord: checkmate Christians.

Checkmate? Is this a game to you?

1. You say that Psalm 110:1 supports the trinity because David (prophetically) calls Jesus "adoni" and therefore Jesus must be part of the trinity.

2. I say that your argument is not sound because that would mean that David and Abraham would also part of the trinity since they both are called "adoni" as well.

3. Then you say that my argument works against biblical monotheism. Why exactly? Because God is called lord and Abigail is called lord?

Perhaps you should take some of your own advice about putting some thought into an argument.

The point was not to express that it's a game to me, but to illustrate the absurdity of that particular logical argument. I guess you're missing my point. In debate, you can't make a logical argument that also works against your own position. But realize too, I never claimed the words "my lord" alone prove the Trinity, that would be absurd. That should really be obvious...