Book of Mormon Borrowings from the New Testament

[_Tobin]

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 - as this celestial environment would involve the style.

I am still waiting for you to cite a credible source for your assertions. Simply repeating the same nonsense over and over again does not help you and neither does calling people names.

[_ludwigm]

... cite a credible source ...

I don't know, how many of JS' contemporaries used the word Lucifer as Venus and how many used it as the name of a fallen angel.

And I don't care, as well.

In our case the D&C 76 and 2 Ne. 24 are good enough. These chapters are unambiguously not about Venus or whatever planet/star.
Is D&C credible source for You? Or Book of Mormon?

How many of JS' contemporaries (apostles, counselors, scribes, secretaries, other obsesseds) would use the word Lucifer to describe the Venus planet? We don't know any such person, and You can't name one.

We can leave out the official explanations today, which are similarly, unambiguously don't describe the Venus.

We can leave out 99 of 100 church member today, who know only the first line of definition of Merriam-Webster:
Definition of LUCIFER
1 —used as a name of the devil
(or something a little below :
Synonyms: archfiend, Beelzebub, fiend, devil, Old Nick, Satan, serpent)

OK, You are the exception, who knows it better. Lucifer is Venus, the Morning Star, according to You.
Then:
- 2 Nephi 24:25-27 is wrong
- its introduction is wrong ("Lucifer was cast out of heaven for rebellion")
- D&C 76:25-29 is wrong
- its introduction is wrong ("An angel of God fell and became the devil")
- The Guide to the Scriptures -> Lucifer entry is wrong
- Bible Dictionary -> Lucifer entry is wrong ("Apparently Lucifer is the name of the devil before his rebellion and fall. Latter-day revelation clarifies the fall of Lucifer and equates him with Satan")

[_ludwigm]

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.

I don't want to be The upright judge.
For me, one thing is clear.
The verses at the beginning of Isaiah 14 talk about Babylon and a babylonian king.
The verses at the end do the same.
In the middle, in verse 12 it leaves the metals, and tell a tale about satan or an angel or whoever?
No, thank you. This makes no sense.
Bible books and chapters have a narration, a course, a continuous motion - Blixa could tell us the correct expression. No need of jumping out and in again.



One other thought.
Many times the words don't have exact equivalents in different languages of different cultures. Morning star, Morgenstern (and Hajnalcsillag in Hungarian) have very similar - I can say the same - meaning, because the cultures using them are very similar.
Helel, Heosphoros and Lucifer? They may are more divergent.

[_Tobin]

... cite a credible source ...

I don't know, how many of JS' contemporaries used the word Lucifer as Venus and how many used it as the name of a fallen angel.

And I don't care, as well.

Well, I think you should care. You were the one making claims that Lucifer did not refer to the morning star and never meant that when Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon or even when the KJB was translated. I think it perfectly clear that it does mean that and is just as good a translation of the hebrew noun heylel as "morning star".

And don't go off making more assertions that other Bibles do not use the term lucifer. The Latin Vulgate surely does for example and was widely used for centuries.

[_vessr]

I'm confused about the apparent stalemate between our two contestants, Tobin and Ludwigm. The personal attacks need to end too. 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??

[_Quasimodo]

I'm confused about the apparent stalemate between our two contestants, Tobin and Ludwigm. The personal attacks need to end too. 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??

You are asking a lot. If it's the topic of their contention you seek clarity on, I believe that the etymology of "Lucifer" is very easy to look up and I don't think it's seriously debated by scholars. It's a misunderstanding of the original text by later Christians (I think there are a few of those) and ended up mistakenly inferring that Lucifer was a fallen angle in the KJB. I'm guessing that you already know this.

I think Ludwigm was using that as an example of Joseph Smith making it up as he went along. I've always had trouble understanding what any of Tobin's post's actually support. They seem to change in mid paragraph.

I'm declaring for Ludwigm, two falls out of three.

Ludgwigm doesn't need my help. He is Hungarian and translates these posts into his native language to read and translates his responses into English to post. He holds his own more than well despite the difficulty.

As both you and Ludwigm have found out, Tobin can bring out the worst in the most angelic board member. I think it's something he enjoys.

[_Tobin]

I'm confused about the apparent stalemate between our two contestants, Tobin and Ludwigm. The personal attacks need to end too. 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??

You are asking a lot. If it's the topic of their contention you seek clarity on, I believe that the etymology of "Lucifer" is very easy to look up and I don't think it's seriously debated by scholars. It's a misunderstanding of the original text by later Christians (I think there are a few of those) and ended up mistakenly inferring that Lucifer was a fallen angle in the KJB. I'm guessing that you already know this.

I think Ludwigm was using that as an example of Joseph Smith making it up as he went along. I've always had trouble understanding what any of Tobin's post's actually support. They seem to change in mid paragraph.

I'm declaring for Ludwigm, two falls out of three.

Ludgwigm doesn't need my help. He is Hungarian and translates these posts into his native language to read and translates his responses into English to post. He holds his own more than well despite the difficulty.

As both you and Ludwigm have found out, Tobin can bring out the worst in the most angelic board member. I think it's something he enjoys.

Uh huh. How about we deal with the facts and the claims here instead? ludwigm claims to be an expert translator and yet is completely unable to back up his claims. I think I have quite adequately shown that he not only did not know how the translations were derived and that he was unaware of the underlying hebrew and what it meant as well. His reponses have simply just escalated with yet other claims that the usage of the name St Jerome in English is wrong or that the term lucifer never meant the same thing as "morning star". While these are just more examples of his humorous and bizarre assertions, one has to wonder about the credentials of such a noted authority that would make them? And I think he is fully aware of how bad this looks for him and that is exactly why he resorted to name calling in the end.

[_Quasimodo]

Uh huh. How about we deal with the facts and the claims here instead? ludwigm claims to be an expert translator and yet is completely unable to back up his claims. I think I have quite adequately shown that he not only did not know how the translations were derived and that he was unaware of the underlying hebrew and what it meant as well. His reponses have simply just escalated with yet other claims that the usage of the name St Jerome in English is wrong or that the term lucifer never meant the same thing as "morning star". While these are just more examples of his humorous and bizarre assertions, one has to wonder about the credentials of such a noted authority that would make them? And I think he is fully aware of how bad this looks for him and that is exactly why he resorted to name calling in the end.

This is what I meant when I said to vessr "You are asking a lot." I knew you couldn't resist a reactive reply.

I really don't want to go down your rabbit hole, Tobin. I'll just say that all of what Ludwigm posted is correct. Your responses were typically obfuscatory and intentionally missed the point.

Have a nice day!

[_vessr]

Uh huh. How about we deal with the facts and the claims here instead? ludwigm claims to be an expert translator and yet is completely unable to back up his claims. I think I have quite adequately shown that he not only did not know how the translations were derived and that he was unaware of the underlying hebrew and what it meant as well. His reponses have simply just escalated with yet other claims that the usage of the name St Jerome in English is wrong or that the term lucifer never meant the same thing as "morning star". While these are just more examples of his humorous and bizarre assertions, one has to wonder about the credentials of such a noted authority that would make them? And I think he is fully aware of how bad this looks for him and that is exactly why he resorted to name calling in the end.

This is what I meant when I said to vessr "You are asking a lot." I knew you couldn't resist a reactive reply.

I really don't want to go down your rabbit hole, Tobin. I'll just say that all of what Ludwigm posted is correct. Your responses were typically obfuscatory and intentionally missed the point.

Have a nice day!

Tobin, I will go down the rabbit hole with you. Yes, that is what I’d like to do, as you have suggested … deal with the facts and the claims.

You have made the following assertions:

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

[_Tobin]

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.