Book of Mormon Borrowings from the New Testament

[_vessr]

1. Ludwigm “is completely unable to back up his claims.” Can you concede that he is not COMPLETELY unable to back up his claims?. Will you concede he has backed up at least some of his claims?

I think his claims are at best derivative or trivial and at worst blatantly false. For someone that is supposedly an expert in this area, I do not believe this is the kind of thing they would present.

2. He did not know how “the translations were derived.” Will you concede that Ludwigm is ABLE (knows how) “the translations were derived”? Or are you holding out that he doesn’t know how?

Despite numerous posts by him, he was never forthcoming with the information I came across in a matter of minutes. I would think any analysis by an expert would have contained all the information in their opening post (or at least subsequent posts). Instead what we see are more bizarre and irrelevant assertions.

3. He was “unaware of the underlying hebrew and what it meant as well.” Do you agree that Ludwigm has enough understanding about Hebrew to know what underlies it; or will you stick to the assertion that he is “unaware”? Do you concede that he is capable of knowing what the underlying Hebrew meant?

I don't believe he has any degrees in or any substantial understanding (outside of what a search of the internet might yield) of hebrew, latin or greek. I believe he really has no qualifications in this area at all.

4. [O]ne has to wonder about the credentials of such a noted authority that would make” the claims he has made.
Do you dismiss Ludwigm’s credentials as being enough to discuss your argument intelligently? Do you hold Quasimodo to the same standard of lacking credentials to back up Ludgwigm?

As I said, as far as I'm aware he has no credentials in this area. And I do not believe Quasimodo has made such a claim.

5. He “is fully aware of how bad this looks for him and that is exactly why he resorted to name calling in the end.” Are you convinced this discussion has made him look bad? Do you truly believe that he called you names because he was fully aware of how bad it looks for him?

I believe his reaction is very telling in this matter.

I appreciate your specific responses,Tobin. I’d like to go down the rabbit hole with you a few more steps, if I may. It helps me sort things out.

You have called Ludwigm’s claims either "derivative" or "trivial" or "blatantly false". You acknowledge (apparently) that he may be an expert in this area (at least, you call him one who supposedly is an expert in this area); but you think he failed in his efforts. So:

Which of Ludgwigm’s claims do you suspect might be "derivative"?

Which of his claims would you call "trivial"?

Which specific claims do you suspect may be “blantantly false"?

Which of his claims were "bizarre"?

You alleged that Ludgwig was not "forthcoming." In what way was he not forthcoming?

You say that you came across information in a matter of minutes. Which of your claims are derivative?

Back to Ludwigm: Which of his assertions are “bizarre”?

Which of his claims are “irrelevant” (which I believe is a step above "trivial," which we've already covered above?

You claim that Ludwigm has no “substantial understanding (outside of what a search of the internet might yield) of hebrew, latin or greek. I believe he really has no qualifications in this area at all." So:

What are your qualifications regarding Hebrew, Latin, or Greek?

If Ludwigm has any “credentials” in this area of subject matter you are covering, would it help if he provided them to you?

You said you believe Ludwigm’s “reaction is very telling” regarding how bad this looks for him and that he called you names because he knew how bad it looked.

What specific evidence do you have of this? I.e., what is "very telling"? What makes him look especially "bad"?

Thanks, Tobin, for continuing to address my questions with specifics.

[_Tobin]

Which of Ludgwigm’s claims do you suspect might be "derivative"?
Which of his claims would you call "trivial"?

For example, the assertion that using lucifer instead of "morning star" is a mistake in the KJB, given the facts that KJB is a translation of the Bible into English and the Book of Mormon is a translation of the plates into English is derivative or trivial. It only takes moments to find the defition of lucifer online which includes one that is equivalent to "morning star".

Which specific claims do you suspect may be “blantantly false"?

ludwigm claims that lucifer did not have the definition of "morning star" either in Joseph Smith's era or at the time the KJB was translated. He has failed repeatedly to demonstrate any credible source that agrees with his assertion. I would say that is blatantly false unless and until he can provide such a source.

Which of his claims were "bizarre"?

For example, his claim about about the usage of the name St Jerome in English and how the D&C or Book of Mormon would some how impact the KJB translation is simply bizarre.

You alleged that Ludgwig was not "forthcoming." In what way was he not forthcoming?

He was not forthcoming in stating that the term lucifer does have a meaning "morning star". He was not forthcoming about the hebrew root noun (something an expert would have been aware of). He was not forthcoming about greek translation of his hebrew root noun into heōsphoros in greek is the main reason that many bibles translate this hebrew noun this way (though given the information I've presented, it could be argued that even that is inaccurate) and a few bibles attempt to more accurately represent the hebrew noun as "the shining one" for example.

You say that you came across information in a matter of minutes. Which of your claims are derivative? Back to Ludwigm: Which of his assertions are “bizarre”? Which of his claims are “irrelevant” (which I believe is a step above "trivial," which we've already covered above?

See above.

You claim that Ludwigm has no “substantial understanding (outside of what a search of the internet might yield) of hebrew, latin or greek. I believe he really has no qualifications in this area at all." So:
What are your qualifications regarding Hebrew, Latin, or Greek?

I have not made any claims to have credentials in this area.

If Ludwigm has any “credentials” in this area of subject matter you are covering, would it help if he provided them to you?

I don't think he has any, so I would welcome any evidence that he has that shows I'm mistaken.

What specific evidence do you have of this? I.e., what is "very telling"? What makes him look especially "bad"?

I don't think it is ever necessary to resort to personal attacks or other derogatory remarks. Do you?

[_ludwigm]

I'm confused about the apparent stalemate between our two contestants, Tobin and Ludwigm.
...
Is there anyone else with a level, cool head and good reasoning skills who can break down the two sides into their basic elements and declare a winner??

Pardon me...

I don't contest here, and don't want to be a winner. I have an opinion and I presented it.

In two sentence:
Two authority, Nephi (in 2 Ne. 24) and Joseph Smith himself (in D&C 76) used the word in the sense of satan, fallen angel. Today's authorities second them (in Study Helps and in introductions of that scripture chapters, and in countless - OK, only in 624 - sermon, article and explanation on the official site.)
That is all.

Helel? Heosphoros? Lucifer? The etymology is well written in thousands of sources - I or any of us have not reinvent the Morning Star vs Satan dichotomy.

Prophet Nephi and Prophet Joseph spoke, the debate is over. Lucifer is Satan.
Son of God, brother of Jesus.
But that is a story for grown-ups - said Kipling. ("the Jungle is full of such tales. If I made a beginning there would never be an end to them. Let go my ear, Little Brother")


_______________________

The personal attacks need to end too.

You are rambling.

FYI

The Celestial Forum
The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only.

Please check that words in Merriam-Webster.

ludwigm,

All I've seen you do is make baseless, false assertions without any evidence. I have repeatedly asked you for any evidence
... So far you have provided nothing to back up your claim. All you do is cite unrelated Mormon scriptures which has nothing to do with your claim. I personally don't think you have a leg to stand on, but let's see if you ever produce anything of substance here.

You are an asinine, stupid troll.
After Your comments, I earned to call You anything not polite, and not respectful.

At this point, I put an end to Lucifer thing.

The KJV uses this word, the modern English translations don't. KJV advocates have canonized the translation as though it were the only holy Bible.
In Mormonism, that version is the only Bible - because Joseph Smith knew only this, and has built many of the words of KJV into his "theology".

I don't care if the English speaking world is divided in this topic. In nonenglish bibles no Lucifer exists. Period.

Baloo had right - but it is hard to follow...

"Listen, man-cub," said the Bear, and his voice rumbled like thunder on a hot night. "I have taught thee all the Law of the Jungle for all the peoples of the jungle—except the Monkey-Folk who live in the trees. They have no law. They are outcasts. They have no speech of their own, but use the stolen words which they overhear when they listen, and peep, and wait up above in the branches. Their way is not our way. They are without leaders. They have no remembrance. They boast and chatter and pretend that they are a great people about to do great affairs in the jungle, but the falling of a nut turns their minds to laughter and all is forgotten. We of the jungle have no dealings with them. We do not drink where the monkeys drink; we do not go where the monkeys go; we do not hunt where they hunt; we do not die where they die. Hast thou ever heard me speak of the Bandar-log till today?"

"No," said Mowgli in a whisper, for the forest was very still now Baloo had finished.

"The Jungle-People put them out of their mouths and out of their minds. They are very many, evil, dirty, shameless, and they desire, if they have any fixed desire, to be noticed by the Jungle People. But we do not notice them even when they throw nuts and filth on our heads."

At the end of the story, Mowgli learned the lesson.

[_Bhodi]

In nonenglish bibles no Lucifer exists. Period.

This is completely untrue. I have noticed that when in a bind you jump to literary commentary. Just an FYI

[_Molok]

So, is Tobin claiming that Joseph Smith didn't call Satan Lucifer? If not, what is his explanation for that?

[_Molok]

In nonenglish bibles no Lucifer exists. Period.

This is completely untrue. I have noticed that when in a bind you jump to literary commentary. Just an FYI

What is ludwigm's bind, exactly?

[_Bhodi]

This is completely untrue. I have noticed that when in a bind you jump to literary commentary. Just an FYI

What is ludwigm's bind, exactly?

He does not seem that familiar with the subject matter and the statement "In nonenglish bibles no Lucifer exists. Period." is untrue.

[_Molok]

He does not seem that familiar with the subject matter and the statement "In nonenglish bibles no Lucifer exists. Period." is untrue.

I disagree with you on your first point. Which nonenglish Bibles use the word Lucifer? Please don't say the Latin Vulgate.

[_Bhodi]

He does not seem that familiar with the subject matter and the statement "In nonenglish bibles no Lucifer exists. Period." is untrue.

I disagree with you on your first point. Which nonenglish Bibles use the word Lucifer? Please don't say the Latin Vulgate.

Why? The Latin Vulgate is not in English. It is in Latin.
But there is this...

http://studybible.information/Albanian/Isaiah%2014:12

Albanian, is not English either.

[_Tobin]

I don't know why people make blatantly untrue assertions in a forum like this and have the audacity to stand by them when the are completely absurd. Examples of nonenglish bibles (other than the Latin Vulgate, which also happens to be a nonenglish Bible by the way) that use lucifer or some derivative:

http://bibliaparalela.com/isaiah/14-12.htm
La Biblia de las Américas (© 1997 Lockman)

¡Cómo has caído del cielo, oh lucero de la mañana, hijo de la aurora! Has sido derribado por tierra, tú que debilitabas a las naciones.

La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos (© 2005 Lockman)

¡Cómo has caído del cielo, Oh lucero de la mañana, hijo de la aurora! Has sido derribado por tierra, Tú que debilitabas a las naciones.

Reina Valera Gómez (© 2010)

¡Cómo caíste del cielo, oh Lucifer, hijo de la mañana! Cortado fuiste por tierra, tú que debilitabas las naciones.

Reina Valera (1909)

Cómo caiste del cielo, oh Lucero, hijo de la mañana! Cortado fuiste por tierra, tú que debilitabas las gentes.

Sagradas Escrituras (1569)

¡Cómo caíste del cielo, oh Lucifer, hijo de la mañana! Cortado fuiste por tierra, el que echabas suerte sobre los gentiles.

That took me a few moments to find. Can we put this nonsense to bed now?