if one studies the bible and approach the subject objectively will be surprised to know that the established truths of the churches since centuries are preposterous, absurd and puerile false. for, which they are used. they must stand by their meaning direct and plain to be understood. that the original words in the bible need not be rephrased, or hidden in group of words that convey different meaning. remember that almighty god (allah), the creator, is the ultimate truth: he is not the author of confusion.
one of the most striking prophecies in the bible for the advent of muhammad (pbuh) is found in the book of psalm (110:1)
"the lord says to my lord: 'sit at my right hand, till i make your enemies your footstool.'"
it is quoted in the gospels of matthew (22:44), mark (12:36) and luke (20:42). in most translated versions of the bible in different languages, two name (lords) are preceded by a capital letter "l" which implies that both were the same in all respects. thus, "the lord says to my lord." according to this, if the first 'lord' is god, then the second 'lord' is also god. nothing is more convenient as an argument for the christian missionaries than to say: the speaker and the spoken to, are gods. therefore, according to it, david (pbuh) knew two gods! but nothing is more illogical than this reasoning! had prophet david (pbuh) written, "the lord said to my lord", he would have made himself ridiculous, for then he would have admitted himself to be a slave of two lords (gods), without even mentioning their proper names. further it would mean that david's second lord had taken refuge with his first lord. now, you would understand how different writers manipulated the words in the bible to convey different message to suit their beliefs.
prophet david (pbuh), being the king was never a servant of any human being whatsoever during his time. it is unthinkable abraham, isaac or jacob (pbuh) for whom the usual and reasonable term was
"father" or "father abraham". equally inconceivable is that david (pbuh) would use the appellation "my lord" for any of his descendants, for whom, too, the usual term would be "son" and "my son". thus, if it was jesus (pbuh) who was referred to as "my lord", clearly prophet david (pbuh) should have said: "the lord said to”my son”", because prophet jesus (pbuh) was his descendant, he could not say that he was his son.
of course, the pharisees (jewish rabbins) and commentators of the old testament understood "my lord" to be the messiah (jesus) who would descend from david (pbuh) himself. hence, they replied to the question put to them by jesus (pbuh) as quoted in mathew (22:41 and 42) and from the other gospels. but, prophet jesus (pbuh) flatly repudiated the jews when he asked them a second question in mathew (22:43 – 45): he said to them, ”how is it then david, speaking by the spirit, calls him "lord"? if then david calls him "lord", how he can be his son?”