Started By
Message

re: The most misunderstood, and misapplied word in the English language is “repent”

Posted on 5/10/25 at 4:39 am to
Posted by gungho
Member since Jun 2016
164 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 4:39 am to
quote:

quote:
of it’s original intended meaning

“of it is intended meaning”
Why should we listen to you when you don’t know simple conjunctions?


Repentance from incorrect grammar may be in order. I believe that's (that is) what's (what is) known as a "contraction".
Posted by RohanGonzales
Member since Apr 2024
4795 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 6:08 am to
I don't like using "concerning" as an adjective.
Posted by faraway
Member since Nov 2022
3235 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 6:45 am to
quote:

Why should we listen to you when you don’t know simple conjunctions
maybe you meant contractions? do you know what a conjunction is? your correct words should have been possessive pronouns.
Posted by GeauxTigers0107
South Louisiana
Member since Oct 2009
10310 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 6:53 am to
Posted by RobbBobb
Matt Flynn, BCS MVP
Member since Feb 2007
31142 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 7:22 am to
quote:

The English word “repent” comes from the Greek word (metanoia)

Actually
quote:

from Old French repentir, from re-, here used as an intensive prefix, "very much", + Vulgar Latin *penitire "to regret," from Latin poenitire "make sorry".

Repent is also a military command. It means to literally turn on a dime, and walk in the opposite direction. Thats what repentance is. And it does mean to be penitent, and sorrowful, along with changing your ways. The very first Biblical usage comes from the Hebrew 'nâcham', not 'metanoe' (by implication to be sorry, i.e. to pity, console or (reflexively) rue)
quote:

Genesis, KJV

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Next came the flood. The Lord very clearly demonstrated a change in his ways, and he stopped everything he had done involving the creation of man at that point. And started over
Posted by Revelator
Member since Nov 2008
60917 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 7:31 am to
quote:

It does not mean to be penitent, or to change your ways, or stop an action you’re doing as it is often used by people, but rather to change your mind about something.



Once your mind is changed about something, it’s followed up by actions. Surely you can understand this right?
Posted by Philzilla
Member since Nov 2011
2042 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 7:37 am to
quote:

The English word “repent” comes from the Greek word (metanoia) which literally means “a change of mind” or “after-thought”. It comes from: • (meta) = after, beyond, or change •. (nous) ? ???a (noia) = mind, thought

No.
quote:

The word "repent" has a complex etymology, tracing back to Old French and ultimately to Latin. The verb "repent" originates from the Old French "repentir," which combines the prefix "re-" (meaning "again" or "back") with "pentir," meaning "to be sorry" or "to feel sorrow". This "pentir" comes from the Latin "paenitere," which means "to regret" or "to be sorry," and is related to the Latin word "poena," meaning "penal" or "punishment,"
Posted by threeputt23
Hammond la
Member since Dec 2021
122 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 8:07 am to
It’s. A contraction for it is.
Its. A possessive for it.
Posted by Mike da Tigah
Bravo Romeo Lima Alpha
Member since Feb 2005
60804 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 8:32 am to
quote:


Once your mind is changed about something, it’s followed up by actions. Surely you can understand this right?


Immediately, an it’s to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ for your salvation according to scripture.
Posted by M. A. Ryland
silver spring, MD
Member since Dec 2005
2114 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 8:42 am to
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

You shouldn't confuse the etymology of a word with its actual meaning.
This post was edited on 5/10/25 at 8:45 am
Posted by Delacroix22
Member since Aug 2013
4418 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 8:56 am to
I love etymology

So this is very interesting OP thank you

Another word that its usage bothers me is "curious"

- I always assumed curious meant that you are interested in something, want to explore it further, and understand more, like you are curious about the origin of the word 'repent' - for instance

- However now it seems "curious" and "peculiar" are interchangeable. Where peculiar means to rouse suspicion, or inspire further looking into as it seems strange or out of place. 'The gentlemen's use of the incorrect hand sign for 3 seemed peculiar to the German captain in Inglorious Basterds'

However in Harry Potter there is a scene where Harry and Dumbledore are talking and it's something like "Yes, that man's behavior is very curious".... when peculiar should have been the correct word.

I'm sure something that is peculiar will inspire curiosity as a secondary effect, as in "Hm that seems suspicious, now I am curious and I would like to know more about this..." but to use the words as synonyms seems wrong.

Always bothered me even though Webster says that curious can be used in such a way, just seems off to me
This post was edited on 5/10/25 at 8:57 am
Posted by thetruthisnotkind
Houston
Member since Nov 2022
278 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 8:59 am to
quote:

The most misunderstood, and misapplied word in the English language


I think it’s “affect”.
Posted by wm72
Brooklyn
Member since Mar 2010
8729 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 9:04 am to
Language is in flux and changes with use. Etymology is fascinating and necessary to understand any historical text. But, words shift over time. Language is alive. That's not wrong.

Curious, I agree, is a fantastic word. It derives from the root cura which meant "to care", to show care in the sense of paying attention.
Posted by Delacroix22
Member since Aug 2013
4418 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 9:08 am to
Another fascinating etymological rabbit hole is dog and hound

If you've seen the Patriot perhaps you notice Cornwallis refers to his dogs as "beautiful hounds", yet they are Great Danes, and not "hounds" as we view in the modern sense which typically refers to dogs bred for hunting like "blood hounds" or "basset hounds".

So what gives? It's very interesting and probably the only instance I know of where there seems to be a legitimately spontaneous creation of an Old English Word that is still in usage today.

Hound used to be THE term for all dogs. From proto-Germanic "hund" which means hunt... and this term traces all the way back to Indo-European roots. So all dogs were called hounds.

Then suddenly for some reason this term started to become narrowed down to hunting canines, as we know it today. This started to happen around 1100. Why? No idea.

So then Old English was like "well, ok, now we narrowed down the term Hound, but we screwed ourselves because now we need a more general term for all canines, not just ones used for hunting?"

English borrows many words fom French... so you would think we would adopt chien from French (their word for dog), which is based of the Latin canis which gives us canine.... or maybe use the Latin term itself?

But no!

We didn't borrow a French word like what was somewhat the norm after the Norman conquest in 1066.

The word dog comes from the Old English word docga which appears so rarely before its seemingly out of nowhere usage in the Old to Middle Ages where it fills in the role for all canines that the specification of hound left needing to be filled.

Dog literally has no cognate in Proto-Germanic nor Proto-Indo-European that some scholars just settle on the most likely explaination that the English just..... made it up!

So hound used to mean ALL dogs, then became specific to hunting dogs, and Dog was invented to fill in the gap. Not the other way around where Dog meant all Dogs initially and Hound was invented to specify hunting dogs only.

This is probably one of my favorite word histories.

And a testament to how English is such a bastard child of a Language. German? French? Latin? Indo European? Made up words? They're all in there.
This post was edited on 5/10/25 at 9:11 am
Posted by bayoubengals88
LA
Member since Sep 2007
21171 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 9:20 am to
quote:

How’s that working out for you?
That’s irrelevant.

quote:

You missed the second part “lest a worst thing come unto thee.” Not salvation, but the effects from sinning
Why would I, or why should I, acknowledge your private interpretation of Scripture?
Posted by bayoubengals88
LA
Member since Sep 2007
21171 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 9:30 am to
quote:

Mike da Tigah
I’ve been discussing religion on this board for 18 years. I used to think like you (when I was 18). Your system of doctrine is easy. It keeps you comfortable and helps you sleep at night. One day, though not likely, I hope you’ll see that it’s largely an invention to help people make sense of more difficult things.
Posted by bayoubengals88
LA
Member since Sep 2007
21171 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 9:39 am to
quote:

Immediately, an it’s to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ for your salvation according to scripture.
Sounds like we have different interpretations of pistis.
What does it mean to believe?
Posted by Mike da Tigah
Bravo Romeo Lima Alpha
Member since Feb 2005
60804 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 9:39 am to
quote:

That’s irrelevant.


It’s the most relevant because it points to your need for a savior to impart His righteousness unto you through your faith in Him as indicated throughout scripture as the only hope for salvation. You doing better or being a better person simply does not meet the mark of perfection that Christ does who paid the price for your sins.



This post was edited on 5/10/25 at 9:40 am
Posted by bayoubengals88
LA
Member since Sep 2007
21171 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 9:42 am to
quote:

It’s the most relevant because it points to your need for a savior to impart His righteousness unto you through your faith in Him as indicated throughout scripture as the only hope for salvation. You doing better or being a better person simply does not meet the mark of perfection that Christ does who paid the price for your sins.
I believe in grace too. We differ on “belief”
…or more accurately, what it means to believe.
This post was edited on 5/10/25 at 9:43 am
Posted by Mike da Tigah
Bravo Romeo Lima Alpha
Member since Feb 2005
60804 posts
Posted on 5/10/25 at 9:50 am to
quote:

I believe in grace too. We differ on “belief”
…or more accurately, what it means to believe.


You either believe upon Christ for your salvation or you don’t, or you mix it with yourself. There’s a very real difference in between salvation and sanctification, and there is never an assurance of salvation when you’re in the mix, because it is now contingent upon your performance and not the finished work of Christ. Give me a metric for that performance in scripture besides perfection.

This post was edited on 5/10/25 at 9:55 am
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram