Book of Mormon Borrowings from the New Testament

[_Tobin]

As most people who study English know, it is a fluid language and has brought in many foreign words over time. What Roger (and others like him) do not realize is that when many words are initially brought into English from foreign sources and anglicized, the reader does not know if these anglicized words are plural or singular or what the appropriate plural form of these words would be in their respective language (unless there has been a long history of usage of these terms). So to make the reader aware, English grammar rules for pluralization are used.

Now as I've already pointed out how anglicized latin word factum is made plural by adding 's' into factums. What Roger responds with is an idiotic diversion that to be equivalent here, the anglicized form should have been facta and the pluralization should have been factas. That is ridiculous. Let's consider another word that ends in ' im '. Pilgrim is such a word and just like cherubim. The same rules apply here. There is no reason an English speaker should know that Cherubim is the anglicized derivation of the latin plural word Cherubi, just like the native English speaker would not know that the pilgrim is the anglicized derivation of the PLURAL indefinite danish word pilgrimme (the latin root is peregrinus). The natural and grammatical way to let the English reader know it is meant as a plural would be to add 's', and that is exactly what we see in BOTH instances (pilgrim -> pilgrims, cherubim -> cherubims).

[_Themis]

As you typically do, that is a misrepresentation. The reason I don't ignore Mittens and LittleNipper is they don't know any better. You and Roger are intelligent enough in my estimation to know what the facts are and come to reasonable conclusions. The reason you do not is because you choose not to. You instead choose to misrepresent the facts and deceitfully discuss and evaluate topics. I find people like you and Roger intellectually bankrupt and thoroughly uninteresting. So I would rather not discuss anything with you at all.

It's my viewpoint, and I think I am not the only one. To bad you cannot provide any examples of misrepresenting the facts.

[_LittleNipper]

You mix things up. When God wants something done right, it's done right. Sin is something that men commit when they are not doing God's will and God does allow this in his permissive will. I do believe God allows men to hang themselves ---- remember Judas. So, there is a BIG difference in God's permissive will (what He allows) and what God wills to have happen... God used man as the pen to write His STORY. The Bible is what He wanted and as HE wanted it.

So God doesn't want things done right all the time?

God wants His eternal purpose to be fulfilled for His elects sake, and if that involves the allowance of evil then that becomes part of his eternal purpose.

[_Albion]

For Tobin misrepresenting facts means you are presenting facts he chooses not to accept or has no answer for.

[_jo1952]

Hello All,

Just some thoughts to share.....

In my experiencing of having Truth revealed to me, each part of Truth takes more than the original revelation. Each part of Truth evolves in clarification as my understanding of it progresses over time. Just as we cannot know or understand any other subject when we are introduced to it, so it is the same with getting to know and understand spiritual Truth. In fact, I would offer that mankind does not know everything there is to know about ANY single subject; let alone be able to claim that they know and understand God or His instructions. Let us not forget that God DOES know everything there is to know about the sum total of ALL subjects. He has/is all knowledge. It is ludicrous, therefore, for man to think that he is capable of having a handle on scripture. It is more realistic for me to recognize that our understanding should be continually expanding and growing. Otherwise, the Holy Ghost will not be able to actively lead us anywhere.

As a result, I have discovered that scripture can become a stumbling block unless we keep our minds open and do not subject scripture to any fixed understanding or to scholarly standards of efficiency or correctness.

Shalom,

jo

[_jo1952]

To Vessr,

I would like to share with you my belief that each and every spirit goes through the processes described in the Book of Revelation. The Revelation of the end times is not just something the physical earth will experience during its age of temporal existence; rather, we each spiritually experience the same things.

Just as Jesus Christ overcame, we each must also overcome; thus ending the cycle of the death of flesh bodies which our spirit indwells as our spirit awakens and is reborn, a.k.a., born of the Spirit.

I believe that wherein you describe that God is not answering your prayers, that you are going through a part of your journey which can be likened to Jesus Christ's lamentation: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?". I, too, have experienced this feeling of dreadful aloneness and being abandoned by God....more than once in this lifetime. Looking back at those circumstances, I see that it took great faith mingled with humility, anger, desperation, agony, un-numbered tears, etc., to survive them. Ultimately, each instance...painful as it was...brought understanding and insight and learning; progressing me in my own personal journey. There were even times my faith failed me and intellectually and somewhat spiritually, I gave up hope...though, apparently, not totally; as the Divine part of me...my spirit self...still sought for God. But God never gave up on me. Now, I view those trials as the blessings God intended them to be. They are no longer the "hell" I originally imagined. It was a big spiritual step to recognize these as blessings. They became important aspects of my spiritual growth and are aiding in my spirit's awakening.

God loves you. Please know that others love you as well.

Shalom,

jo

[_ludwigm]

As most people who study English know, it is a fluid language and has brought in many foreign words over time. What Roger (and others like him) do not realize is that when many words are initially brought into English from foreign sources and anglicized, the reader does not know if these anglicized words are plural or singular or what the appropriate plural form of these words would be in their respective language (unless there has been a long history of usage of these terms). So to make the reader aware, English grammar rules for pluralization are used.

Now as I've already pointed out how anglicized latin word factum is made plural by adding 's' into factums. What Roger responds with is an idiotic diversion that to be equivalent here, the anglicized form should have been facta and the pluralization should have been factas. That is ridiculous. Let's consider another word that ends in ' I'm '. Pilgrim is such a word and just like cherubim. The same rules apply here. There is no reason an English speaker should know that Cherubim is the anglicized derivation of the latin plural word Cherubi, just like the native English speaker would not know that the pilgrim is the anglicized derivation of the PLURAL indefinite danish word pilgrimme (the latin root is peregrinus). The natural and grammatical way to let the English reader know it is meant as a plural would be to add 's', and that is exactly what we see in BOTH instances (pilgrim -> pilgrims, cherubim -> cherubims).

Ensign - May 1989 - Alternate Voices
Elder Dallin H. Oaks - Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

The Church has magazines and other official publications, a newspaper supplement, letters from Church leaders, general conferences, and regular meetings and conferences in local units. Similarly, alternate voices are heard in magazines, journals, and newspapers and at lectures, symposia, and conferences.

What? Symposia? Symposia?

An unnatural and ungrammatical way to let the English reader know it is meant as a plural?
Do You cricitize the Lord's anointed? It is a class by itself...



Ensign - Feb. 1987 - Criticism
By Elder Dallin H. Oaks - Of the Quorum of the Twelve
(This is an edited version of a talk delivered at a Latter-day Saint Student Association fireside in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on 4 May 1986.)

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true.

[_Tobin]

ludwigm,

You need to pay attention to what I actually stated instead of ignoring it. Let me underline what you clearly failed to read.

As most people who study English know, it is a fluid language and has brought in many foreign words over time. What Roger (and others like him) do not realize is that when many words are initially brought into English from foreign sources and anglicized, the reader does not know if these anglicized words are plural or singular or what the appropriate plural form of these words would be in their respective language (unless there has been a long history of usage of these terms). So to make the reader aware, English grammar rules for pluralization are used.

[_Tobin]

For Tobin misrepresenting facts means you are presenting facts he chooses not to accept or has no answer for.

So do you believe that the Bible was translated in error in these instances Albion?

[_Tobin]

So God doesn't want things done right all the time?

God wants His eternal purpose to be fulfilled for His elects sake, and if that involves the allowance of evil then that becomes part of his eternal purpose.

So doing evil is God's eternal purpose? Doesn't that make God evil?