- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
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 Havoc
Posted on 5/10/25 at 4:39 am to Havoc
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 on 5/10/25 at 6:08 am to Mike da Tigah
I don't like using "concerning" as an adjective.
Posted on 5/10/25 at 6:45 am to Havoc
quote:maybe you meant contractions? do you know what a conjunction is? your correct words should have been possessive pronouns.
Why should we listen to you when you don’t know simple conjunctions
Posted on 5/10/25 at 7:22 am to Mike da Tigah
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 on 5/10/25 at 7:31 am to Mike da Tigah
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 on 5/10/25 at 7:37 am to Mike da Tigah
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 on 5/10/25 at 8:07 am to Havoc
It’s. A contraction for it is.
Its. A possessive for it.
Its. A possessive for it.
Posted on 5/10/25 at 8:32 am to Revelator
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 on 5/10/25 at 8:42 am to Mike da Tigah
"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.
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 on 5/10/25 at 8:56 am to Mike da Tigah
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
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 on 5/10/25 at 8:59 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
The most misunderstood, and misapplied word in the English language
I think it’s “affect”.
Posted on 5/10/25 at 9:04 am to Delacroix22
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.
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 on 5/10/25 at 9:08 am to Delacroix22
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.
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 on 5/10/25 at 9:20 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:That’s irrelevant.
How’s that working out for you?
quote:Why would I, or why should I, acknowledge your private interpretation of Scripture?
You missed the second part “lest a worst thing come unto thee.” Not salvation, but the effects from sinning
Posted on 5/10/25 at 9:30 am to Mike da Tigah
quote: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.
Mike da Tigah
Posted on 5/10/25 at 9:39 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:Sounds like we have different interpretations of pistis.
Immediately, an it’s to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ for your salvation according to scripture.
What does it mean to believe?
Posted on 5/10/25 at 9:39 am to bayoubengals88
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 on 5/10/25 at 9:42 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:I believe in grace too. We differ on “belief”
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.
…or more accurately, what it means to believe.
This post was edited on 5/10/25 at 9:43 am
Posted on 5/10/25 at 9:50 am to bayoubengals88
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
Popular
Back to top
