July 29, 2003

Psalm 110 and the “Adonai” Argument Against Christ’s Deity

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 973 4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James White. There I am. Hello. Well, let's see.

How many how many channels have we fried on that board now? We did it and we did a test. Did we not you you said you heard me and we did a test and and. Is that just a whole nother thing or is that thing overheating or something?

Is that the issue over there? Betcha, it's overheating because it's right next to the wall. Well, hey, here we go again. Demonstrating that we have other jobs during the day this particular one. Welcome to the dividing line.

It's always good to start that way when you open your mouth and it's the sounds of silence. Many people wish that that was a common thing with me and. So. Yes, well we get started on the right foot 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 live on a Tuesday morning.

It's I don't have any major developments. Yes, you have no words and neither neither did I. Well, you know, what can I say I Could say a lot, but I think I'll just leave it at that. That would probably be the best thing to do.

No major reports of really strange weather experiences out here in Phoenix, it's only 94 degrees outside. That's good for us at 11 o 'clock in the morning for some of you. You still roll your eyes, but for us, that's.

It was downright cool last night. I think got down like 88 or something like that and for us that's almost sweater weather so Nothing major along those lines. You're certainly invited to join us today at 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 just got back.

From being out in Illinois actually saw a little rainfall not a whole lot. I guess few weeks earlier They had gotten three inches in half an hour and I told them that all of last year We got two point five four inches in the Phoenix area.

And they just thought that was really strange and they weren't sure how anybody lived out here. And actually when you think about it, that is an unusual thing. But anyway, I Had a good time back there with the folks and a lot more traveling Coming up, but you're familiar with most of those things.

So we'll take your phone calls today at 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. Just had one interesting Text I was going to share with you today. I do have Some more clips to play if we don't have the phone calls coming in on a regular basis this morning.

We did last Tuesday. I don't know, you know why it's You know different one day from another but was looking into some Arguments put forward against the deity of Christ by Unitarians and Some responses offered by Christians and ran across an interesting Shall we call it a factoid or something like that that you might find interesting because now run into this argument being presented from two Completely different perspectives and and I have noticed and and this is something that is interesting I've I've noticed the the enemy of my enemy is my friend and so Different groups do not have any difficulty whatsoever basically stealing Arguments from others Even if they didn't derive these arguments themselves as long as they communicate what they want to communicate a number of years ago I Corresponded with a well-known opponent of the deity of Christ and I don't remember who contacted who to be perfectly honest with you in fact, I Understand that's a last Well a couple months ago.

I don't know who it was. There was a debate with I believe his name's Anthony buzzard from Atlanta Bible College, at least he was at Atlanta Bible College when I was there and This is the gentleman that I corresponded with in in some context and one of the arguments that he had presented was That psalm the the constant citation of psalm 110 verse 1 in the New Testament Is evidence against the deity of Christ.

Now if you're not familiar with psalm 110 one the Lord says to my Lord sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet and That of course is cited a number of times in New Testament the Lord Jesus used it himself in Arguing with the Pharisees sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

He asks, you know, who is the Messiah? If he is the son of David, how does David called him Lord and any quotes in this passage and Buzzard raised this issue and What he pointed out Was that in the Hebrew This is Yahweh the Lord and you can see that in psalm 110 l-o-r-d is all in caps.

Even though the O the R and the D depending on what you're looking at I noticed looking here in Bible works at the New American Standard update that the O and the R and the D are the same font size as The L in most printed editions while they'll still be in capital forms.

They'll be in a smaller font size but those capitalized forms of the O the R and the D is what indicates to you that the underlying Hebrew word is Yahweh or as we managed to slaughter it in English Jehovah Jehovah says to my Adonai however in the Hebrew, it's Adonai with here at Yod at the end of Adon and And What he pointed out was at the knee is never used of God.

It's never used of a divine being Adonai is used of God all the time the normal phrase Jehovah Adonai Lord God. Sometimes you'll see that put in with God in the capital form. Because it's not Jehovah Elohim, that's the normal phrase for Lord God, but sometimes you'll see Lord God and that's actually rendering Yahweh Adonai and The argument being that he was presenting to me was that This demonstrates Jesus cannot be God because Adonai Is always the term that is used for human beings and not for God.

Now Let's let's see. Well, I'm gonna invite your phone calls. Jeff in New Jersey already wants to talk about another song Psalm 22. But I Was thinking let's see if if you all can come up with the the proper response to this because There is a rabbi rabbi singer who I believe has a radio program in New York.

He's a very virulent anti-christian and Is very outspoken in his attacks upon the deity of Christ and things like that and He uses this same argument. And in fact, he says that any that that the record in Matthew of Jesus's use of this particular Argument.

That the gospel writers say no one dared ask him any question after this the Pharisees had no response and he says this is absolutely Ridiculous any Jewish person who knows anything about the Bible knows why this argument is false and He raises the exact same argument that buzzer did he's goes back to Adonai and says everybody knows that Adonai is never used of God.

It is only used of men. Now, how would you respond to this? There is a there's a glaring what seems to me just Flashing red light obvious. Oops in all of this. That that is really really clear, but I'd like to see hey, mr. Super Duper board operating Web mastering plug the microphone into a different channel before it explodes.

Person. Well, you don't get anything. Do we have something like we could give to somebody if they get the right answer on this. Do you think we do you think there's something over there on the shelf that they'd actually like to get?

That that maybe they could you know, if we if they get the right answer they call in today I think I have a pen a pen. Did you chew on it? Nobody get the dog to chew on it. Well that that that would make it completely indistinguishable from.

Well from lots of stuff you that we find laying around especially if we threw it in the garbage can and Zeke finds it but You don't have any more than a pen like maybe You know an audio. Well, actually this is a pretty tough question, so I I think it deserves a Fairly decent prize reward reward reward reward.

Yes. This is not by grace. This is by works. I'm thinking I'm taking a copy of the Potter's freedom might be in oh, oh, yes. Yes. That's very good. So the Potter's freedom lines light up, yeah the Potter's freedom for.

For anyone who can explain to me now, it's got to be the right answer. I mean there may be other ways of arguing it, but there's one very Obvious, especially with singers argument. It's that same argument.

But when singer says the the Jews would have never found this to be an even compelling or meaningful argument there's a real Mack truck size hole here and. So the the first person now you have to keep in a track of of who's yeah.

You need to put a caveat on this and that is no one who was in the Hebrew class when you discuss this. Oh, I'd like there's someone in the Hebrew class listening to the door. What do you think this is a radio show.

All right, eight seven seven seven five three three three four one there it is folks. Why is that argument completely utterly and grossly fallacious so join us if you would like to. Some people are saying we're skipping so let me try it one more time.

Why is the argument offered by a rabbi singer and by Anthony buzzard that? Adani at Psalm 110 which is used only of men in the Old Testament. Not of God at an eye is used of God. Why is that not an argument?

Against the deity of Christ. What is the the glowing Big Mac Big Mac? That's that's a big Mac Mac truck sized error in this particular Argument especially and here's the hint hint hint hint. What. When the singer says that any Jew of the day of Jesus who heard that argument would have not have found it compelling.

Why is that wrong? Oops mice my. My computer I guess isn't potted up because I played something there to get you in the mood for calling in at eight seven seven. Seven five three three three four one if you would like to join us today.

Yes I'll Stop that. Now then here's the question. I'm a little worried that Jeff might know and Jeff was already online when I threw this out there. So I'm not not really sure that it's fair if if Jeff wants to guess at this but but.

Maybe we'll go ahead and and well, let's just go ahead and take Jeff's phone call and see what happens. Let's talk with Jeff back in in the garden state. I think that's a term that that should only be allowed to be used for the southern half of New Jersey.

But the garden then I'm so that part is about that the part you're in. I'm in the good part of you're in the good part of New Jersey. It's part you make fun of well. But you see the problem is it's still difficult for me to differentiate between, New Jersey Massachusetts and California when it comes to governmental policies and socialism.

So, you know, are you guys planning on on maybe seceding from that part of New Jersey sometime? Well.

We don't really get any consideration from Trenton. But if they knew we existed maybe they would. That might happen but Generally, that's the way it is. All the rich people are in North Jersey. Yeah. Yeah, and all the good folks are down south I understand. Yeah.

Alright, what can we do for you today? I was going through. Oh, by the way, do you know the answer to the question?

Um, I think I do. I was it was kind of weird being on hold because I could kind of hear it. Oh, oh, you couldn't hear me. No, I couldn't hear you. Now. That's that's on. Jeopardy music was on. That's probably best that he was shouting something about Hebrew class.

Yes I can only hear one side so I turned on the internet portion. Oh.

Isn't that interesting Richard. I thought they could listen to the program when they are. I just fixed that. Oh great. Okay, well anyways you had a question about Psalm 22. Anyways, yes.

But could I take a stab at the little bit of the question? I know. Oh, man.

Is anybody has anybody called over there rich? Do we have no other brave souls yet? No the race. Oh, okay, then Jeff go for it.

Would it be at O 'Neill? The argument does not apply because there's a distinction within the Trinity and.

Also that he's also the God man. So well, that's very that that's very imaginative. However, I do not have a buzzer sound I can play but no, I'm sorry. That's that's not the very imaginative. That's that's very good.

Very good. In fact, you could actually, you know, probably push at a distance. But there's a that's not the Mack truck sized error in the argument that they've put forward. So over to Psalm 22. All right, I was.

When I lived up in North Jersey, you know, yes a question about from 22 and like a lion. Oh, yeah.

Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, right. I they had the yeah, okay several years ago. I talked to.

My pastor friend who is used to be a North used to be a cantor. Mm-hmm, and He showed me in the task to see. Okay, well, you know I I was heading out of town and let me.

This is this is where you get to hear all the sounds as I reach. And stuff. Oh falls down and things like that. All right. Is it. Let's see. What is it verse 16? There it is. Yeah 22 16. Let's just get out the plain old Paper text that's you know, sometimes you just can't beat the real thing even with computers I have actually written to Bible works.

I said, you know, the one thing that would make this absolutely positively perfect would be if we had the textual variants on the screen and. So here's verse 17 in the text and I'm looking down here.

Okay. Well, I'm not sure if it's listed as a variant, but you're saying it is. If that all right now is as I'm looking at what is on my my screen right now.

My hands and my feet and see it's a band of evildoers have encompassed me and What I am seeing in the version that I have up there and I'm not seeing any difference whatsoever between The text in the written text and what's there?

All right, so there is a variant listed down below and Okay, there is there is one variant. It says a few manuscripts two manuscripts read this way. Okay. There's just a small variation now I don't see the difference between a noon and a yod, which as you know in Hebrew is a very very small difference.

I think he would say Right. Oh, yeah, I understand that. I'm just simply saying I don't even see here in the in the septage ant that I have. Yeah, it's it's got my hands and my feet as well they have they I just I'm.

The only thing I could see is a small variation in in digging As it's spelled in in one of the in some of the variants Down below. I'm just for some reason not seeing this and well, maybe I'll put him in touch with you.

Well, you know that a quote was man I just just completely destroyed all the books over in this one point, you know, a quote was provided from the One Of the study Bibles that that had that, you know that mentioned Hebrew text says such-and-so and I'm just like.

Well, I sure would like to find it because everything I'm seeing, you know, maybe I'm just completely. You know it the difference is in they pierced my hands and my feet is that what they're saying.

Yeah, he was saying that the difference that are in that right could parse them up differently. I understand that I just.

I Just do not see in any of the resources available to me where this where this reading is allegedly coming from. I just. Well, that would be the easiest way of doing it. Yeah, well, you know it definitely would would get rid of a lot of a lot of you know issues for us but It also would lead us to have no idea what the original actually said and things like that.

Let me see. I'm. Okay, here's here it is here and. No, I even in even in the and this isn't an overly critical text of the septa gym. But I'm not seeing any variant there either. So it must be an incredibly minor variant.

Yeah, you know, I just. You know. Obviously it'd be better to look at these things when you're when you're not trying to do a radio program at the same time. I I just do not see where this stuff is coming from and where the.

You know, it's just very strange. Oh, well Keith Mathis book. Yeah about which. Right, uh-huh.

Well, if it's not derived from Scripture well, what is it? I think what you would say is is that anything that is found in the Bible?

Well, yeah, the problem is though who defines it. Where does it come from? And why is it? Why is it authoritative? Is it is it something that the Apostles passed on outside of Scripture if it's if it's sub biblical.

Then no it. If it came from the Apostles is it or is it not the honest us if it's not the honest us. How do we know it came from the Apostles? The only tradition that I know of in the early in the earliest writings Irenaeus identifies his tradition.

And it's very very very clearly sub biblical in the sense of being derived from and derivative from Scripture. So the you know that that that to me is the issue and once you start saying well You know what what's really going on here is the is the role of the church well, you have to identify it and The the problem that I'm having with in essence the the whole Moscow, Idaho movement.

In its embracing of that perspective the fact that they embrace the ecclesiastical text perspective. The the fact that their view of the Covenant now in essence brings the Borgia Popes Into the Covenant and makes them our fathers in the faith and all the rest of stuff is.

How do you apply this stuff in real life? I mean in the ecclesiastical text area? How do you determine a textual variant? When did the church sit down and work through these things? He was actually. Well that's certainly what is needed because I mean that's you know that the vast majority of the criticisms that I have seen Have been focused on people saying well, that's real nice.

But you know, it's great to talk about quote-unquote the church in this way but how do you identify it and How do you say the church has said X Y Z and when did the church say it and what did the church?

Examine and you know, I I hear a lot of folks talking about what the church has allegedly said. But when you get down to to brass tacks. Is it you know the church quote-unquote spoke at Carthage and Hippo.

But we don't necessarily agree with what was said at Carthage and Hippo. And so once you start utilizing that kind of argumentation where you know in essence word you draw the line. And and what are your standards and are you're consistent in those standards and things like that?

So that that's really one of the issues that I have is is this you know it's it's wonderful and great to to invoke the What seems to me to be a rather nebulous concept of the church. A I have a problem with that on an exegetical ground I think that much of the discussion of the church even even in first Timothy 315 where it says the church is a pillar and ground of the truth that's in the context of the local church and it's very easy for people to to to sort of Turn it into the foggy misty Unidentifiable church and sort of throw it off into the universal aspect and and forget about the fact that it exists as a as a body.

And as a body that is connected through commitment to a particular message. And this is another area where the the Moscow movement? has has begun through the AAPC stuff to to consistently attack the idea that that.

Well if you're going to say for example the Borgia Popes are not our brothers in the faith our fathers in the faith. Then what you've done is you've gotten into this post-enlightenment idea of identifying the gospel as this pure form.

And it's this idea that there's certain elements of it that are that you know. You need to believe this this and this or you're not truly believing the gospel and all the rest of stuff and I say Yeah, that's called Galatians.

That's called. That's called the New Testament where there is an identifiable Truth of the gospel and that there is no church, and there is no fellowship. And there is no brotherhood outside of a common commitment to the truth of that gospel.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. And I don't think that's Enlightenment because that's what Paul believed long before the Enlightenment itself, so I'm I'm really I'm very very Well to my understanding everything's been published by Canon Press which is the publishing arm of New St. Andrews and and Douglas Wilson the folks in Moscow, Idaho, and they've they've produced some great stuff this new emphasis this What we Reform Baptists refer to as hyper covenantalism that that is that is very much a part of things now I'm finding to be extremely problematic.

And I'm seeing it to be very divisive and and it's causing all sorts of problems. And you know I think in in God's providence it causes all of us to work through things and think about things. That's fine.

So I you know I'm not going to throw up my hands in despair and say oh, you know the kingdom is lost. The kingdom is lost, but It is it is very disconcerting to me when when the for out of the same area where you have the ecclesiastical text stuff and and things like that that you have these the uses of the term church in such a way that I just don't think there's going to be any way of of Very clearly Differentiating between what's being said there when you're out in the area of debate itself when you're responding to Rome's claims I mean most people are going to hear one side talking about the church doing this and the other side hearing the church doing that and they're not gonna make much of a differentiation the two sides may Identify what the church is but that again goes back to my original question is how are they going to identify?

What the church is and and it seems in recent things that I've read from Douglas Wilson. That he's promoting an app is not an apostolic succession of ordination. But an apostolic succession of baptism, and I'm sorry at that point I go you're going down a road that is a whole lot different than mine I believe in apostolic tradition too, but it's an apostolic tradition of truth not of baptism and baptism is not what guarantees truth.

Yeah, I found the whole and it's not so much. I think it has a lot of function. You know sometimes you know you're thinking all this good, and then you're like What's going on from the 2002 conference?

There needs to be more glossing like yeah, they're talking this way, and they're they're like more continental reformers than there. Well.

Yeah, certainly it the the the controversy has backgrounds. In some in some senses it is not new. But the the things that really cause confusion are Steve Schlissel and Douglas Wilson are not saying the identical same things the identical same emphases.

But the same time I would have a hard time sitting on a podium with someone saying that Luther's identification of justification by faith as the article standing falling churches who he and hogwash. I I would have to stand up and say no.

That's who he and hogwash and the fact that no one did. Makes me go wait a minute, and then when when Wilson starts talking about an apostolic succession of baptism and Things like that. I just go wow you know this this is starting at least from my perspective to illustrate What happens when you when you?

Become imbalanced in one area and that imbalance begins to affect all sorts of other areas. And I you know I know that these folks are constantly saying well We're the ones that are going to be able to dialogue effectively with Roman Catholicism.

We're going to grab them by their baptism and We're going to steal the ground away from okay. I'm waiting to see this happen. I'm waiting to see someone take on Scott Hahn. When in reality many of the things they're saying are identical to what Scott Hahn says.

I was just listening to Han today. He was on Catholic answers live last week just a few days ago and When he answered a question on New Covenant stuff man bingo bangaboo. It was almost identical to the conversations I've been having with various and sundry folks from the new st.. Andrews perspective, so I Haven't heard of any debates taking place and things like that, so I'd be looking forward to seeing it happen.

Hey, thank you for your call today, sir. We need to take a break take your phone call today. Thank you. God bless eight seven seven seven five three three three four one a copy of the Potter's freedom.

For those of you who can answer that question. I'll repeat it right after this break.

Apologetics, Calvinism, and the Charge of “Pure Christianity”

But your red Today is tough strong and true.

Incorporating the most recent research and solid biblical truth. Letters to a Mormon elder by James White is a series of personal letters written to a fictional Mormon missionary. Examining the teaching and theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style. James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity with well-defined arguments.

James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the Book of Mormon the prophecies visions and teachings of Joseph Smith the Theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the LDS Church.

This marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons and is an ideal book to be read by Mormons. Letters to a Mormon elder. Get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at a omen.

Or more than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder-to-shoulder against social evils they are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and.

Many evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics.

Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book the Roman Catholic controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture the papacy the mass Purgatorian indulgences and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself. They cannot be ignored. Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen org.

What is dr Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free a new cult secularism false prophecy scenarios. No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent. Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant. In his book the potter's freedom. James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate.

James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism. Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture the potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen.

But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen. Org.

Psalm 22, Textual Variants, and the Meaning of “They Pierced My Hands and My Feet”

It's not an easy way. Well, it looks like we're having some problems with the broadcast today as far as.

Everybody's skipping in and out and things like that, so Who knows it looks like we may have to go back to real audio and not worry about the the fancy-dancy mp3 stuff. Which is somewhat disappointing.

It's nice to hear things with a little bit higher quality than real audio offers, but We'll probably need to Go that that direction. I don't know part of it may well be due to our own ISP, which isn't exactly the most consistently stable one on the planet unfortunately, but be that as it may that probably is going to mean that That we don't have anyone calling in live this morning.

Who wants to take a shot at this question? So we'll go ahead and address it, and then I'll probably play some some clips and continue some responses on other issues. Because you know you just don't get a whole lot of phone calls and folks only here you go.

That just doesn't sound really overly good, and that's understandable someday the the Internet will catch up and you know so anyway the the question the argument was in case you Didn't catch the beginning of the program the argument that was presented was Based on psalm 110 and you may recall that we Raised the issue of psalm 110 one a messianic passage that is used over and over again in the New Testament.

And that is the Lord says to my Lord sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. This is the psalm of David the Lord Jesus Quoted that and Applied it to himself. Jehovah said to my Lord add a knee in the Hebrew text sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet and the New Testament quotes this directly from the Greek Septuagint and in fact it's interesting to recognize that in the first few centuries of The Christian Church the Jewish people Abandoned the use of the Septuagint and moved over to Aquinas's Aquinas's Yeah, Aquinas just a little bit like 1 ,200 years later Aquila's version of the Greek Translation of the the Tanakh what we call the Old Testament and one of the reasons was in fact the primary reason was the use of the Greek Septuagint by the by the Christians and so the the argument that was presented by Anthony buzzard and then presented again by Rabbi Singer is That the art that what Jesus said in that passage would never have been Much of an argument for Jews to handle because they wouldn't have found it to be Consistent they wouldn't have found it to be compelling because Adonai is only used of men in the scripture in the Old Testament and Adonai is what is used of God and in fact Rabbi Singer says Adonai is never used of God anywhere in the Old Testament.

Well, how do you respond to that? Well, we were offering a Free book to anyone who would call in and Identify what the glowing error in that argument is. Well, here's the glowing error. Sorry, I guess we don't have anyone Chomping on the bits out there, huh?

Here's the here's the glowing error of the Hebrew text that existed at the time of The dialogue between the Lord Jesus and the Pharisees. The Hebrew text that existed during the time of the writing of the New Testament Was not a pointed text that is the difference between Adonai and Adonai is has to do with vowel pointing not with the form the text itself and the consonants would be identical between the two.

It was the Jewish Masoretic scribes More than 500 years and around right around 900 years after the time of Christ who generalized and established The concept of vowel pointing. It's interesting if you go to Israel today and pick up a newspaper.

It is not a pointed text. They don't use vowel points in in the standard text. It is used even in modern Jewish society and in fact years and years ago, I even had a subscription to the Watchtower in Hebrew and It was not a pointed text.

There was no no text pointing in it whatsoever. And so the difference between Adonai and Adonai is a is a text pointing difference. And it where where did we get the the text pointing it came from the Jews?

500 to a thousand years after Christ. So the argument that they're making is actually when you think about it boils down to just this. That Jews 500 years to a thousand 500 to a thousand years after Christ didn't believe in the deity of Christ.

Well, congratulations. Really didn't know that that was actually an argument. Of course, they didn't the Jewish Masoretes pointed this in full knowledge of The use of Psalm 110 one by the Christians and in response to the Christians.

This is a this is an editorial decision on the part of Jewish people who? Rejected the use of this passage by the New Testament. So what relevance does that have to do? For anything else someone just asked didn't John Owen argue for Inspired vowel pointings.

They probably did he was wrong. You know when when folks and that amazes me when and not I'm not picking on anyone channel. But I do hear people say that Just because someone like John Owen had tremendous insight into the scriptures.

Folks they had almost no background information manuscripts that go back to anywhere near that period of time and. And there are people today who will ignore The modern materials that we have the the fact that we know so much more About the state of the text in that day.

They'll ignore that in favor of people who had no knowledge whatsoever. But they just they just argue, you know. Wow, but they said that once and I like the idea that that's that's uh, you know. That's that was around back then it wasn't this was a later Development by the Jewish Masoretic scribes to to vocalize the text and to establish it and very frequently if you look in the in the footnotes and the Biblia break astute cartencia very frequently you can tell that the the variations in understandings.

That the vowel pointing is in fact an interpretation. It is interpretive some of them there are many times when you have to recognize the possibility that while they Put in a particular You know set of vowel points that actually the the consonants would allow another understanding would have another meaning it is a Editorial act just like punctuation is an editorial act in modern English translations.

And that bothers a lot of folks they they for some reason have a real Problem In regards to you know Allowing for the fact that the text as we have it today came to us over time. And I've got a look at what in the world is this is this question all about.