Dr. Ward, I noticed while watching another one of your videos that KJV onlyists have an interesting inconsistency in their arguments where, on the one hand, they refuse to dumb down the Bible to the lowest common denominator style of English, but on the other hand, they worry that informing congregations of alternate translation options will cause them too much confusion. I would think a congregant sophisticated enough to understand the English of the KJV would also be capable of understanding that it is possible to translate a text in more than one way. It's actually impossible to reach a very high level of understanding of the text without learning this, so in this case it is actually the KJV onlyists who are appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Good point, I also suspect that “reading round” verse-by-verse in a family Bible study (where multiple translations were used) actually greatly contributed to my own reading comprehension skills.
They totally ignore differing dialects and the curse of babel affecting every living individual trying to communicate with every other living individual. So they clearly didn't learn anything about that curse, don't understand that the new testament was always in multiple languages and orally transmitted for a couple generations too.... and that reading the bible is not a litmus test for scholastic excellence. How they decided an English version 1.5 millennia removed from the source material could ever become a sacred format confounds me. Reading comprehension, KJVonlyists don't have it🤦♂️
The interaction between spoken and written language is profound. Historians remind us that Luther's Bible, and Caxton's publishing company, and the Bibles from Tyndale through the KJV helped to standardize their respective languages.🙏📖
Strictly, "data" should always be plural (the singular is "datum"). Some scientists and others (supported by the style guides of some/many learned publications) hold out for this, but I think that battle is lost.
@@markwardonwords you might enjoy reading A Cote of Many Colors by Janette Oke with your kids. It’s one of the few from her I enjoyed enough to reread with my youngest kids. It’s about a flock of homing pigeons
I want to thank you for helping me with your videos and was able to get my church away from kjv only. Appreciate you my brother in Christ. God bless you
Very good information. In Canada, we use British rules of language for legal and formal documents, but most I know tend to use American type language in everyday speech and writing. This is probably due to the amount of American content we digest daily. I’m so glad the Oxford comma is being retained by both countries because as you say, it does avoid confusion.
Thanks again for another wonderful video. It made me think about the fact that the English language, like any other language, is a means of communication at its core. The Merriam Webster dictionary has the following as a definition for the word communication: “a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior” Surely prescriptive usage and descriptive usage both lend themselves to the “common” component of communication through language. Without a “common” understanding, language does not communicate. I find that when I communicate through written English, I do try to stick more to the prescriptive usage, as my communication may be widespread to many people, whereas when I communicate through verbal English, I tend to speak more in the vernacular of the American Southeast, so to be understood by those who are my direct audience. Sometimes though, difficulty does arise when I seek to place something on paper that is intended to be used as a speech or spoken lesson. I then find myself having to blend both prescriptive usage and descriptive usage. In the end, clarity of message to the intended audience is the most important thing. Sam (Kathy being my better half)
1. Well, if it was good enough for the King James Only pastor that you purchased a Kindle scribe and Garner's Modern English Usage, paid in part through the use of his hefty gift card, then that's good enough for me. 2. Besides paying only $10 for the chair, you received the added benefit of its upholstery color matching your mustache so as to enhance the video presentation. Was that part of the criteria for its purchase? Or was it merely a criterion purchase?
Mark, the word "shall" is heavily used in both technical and legal writing. While it may not be used much in informal American English, it certainly is not rare or uncommon. I took a look at the HCSB's Exodus 20 and I have to say, the Ten Commandments do not read well, in my opinion, without the "shall" statements. "Shall" refers to a certain requirement to do or not do something. "Must" implies an imperative. I admit that I have heard "must" used in place of "shall" before, but I think it is too commonly used to show an imperative rather than a requirement. I tend to agree with you concerning these things, but I disagree with dropping "shall" in the bible, at least as far as legal mandates.
That's helpful. I wonder, though, how many people understand this distinction, even subconsciously? I'm not saying I know the answer to that question; I don't.
@@markwardonwords I don't know how many understand the distinction. I would offer to ask around at work but that wouldn't help. I am at war with myself on this because language is inherently intuitive, but I may not have the same intuition as everyone else. I am all for contemporary English bible translation, but I felt the HCSB's Ten Commandments felt less like law and more like suggestion.
I used to write feature requirements on a product development team. We used "shall" just like you describe to mean a hard requirement that must be met. "Will" described something that would happen naturally or as a necessary result. Simplified example: - The device shall have a battery capacity of 10kWh. - The device shall have a maximum energy consumption of 1kWh - The device will have a minimum battery discharge time of 10 hours from 100% state of charge to 0% state of charge That's something I had to be taught and to consciously remember when writing requirements, and it's an area where I often found mistakes in others' writing. The "Do not..." language from the CSB reads more like a set of operating instructions from a user manual or job handbook than legal code or a requirements document. I wonder how it sounded to Moses and the Israelites at Sinai.
Fascinating. Reminds me of encountering CS Lewis's use of the word "datum" (don't recall the context unfortunately...), but that got me to pondering how first-hand experience/knowledge has become seemingly universally discredited under the pretense that "anecdotes aren't evidence" hence the infrequency of its occurrence in comparison to its plural tense. However, that's precisely what a datum is.
"Self-depreciating" is fairly common in Australia. I had always assumed it was an error! In fact l have been secretly cringing every time my wife says it! Ooops! Thanks for that!
Thank you Mark for sharing your thoughts and observations on attempting to give insights into language usage based on prescriptive versus descriptive language.
After viewing this video, I am most certain my use of our language must baffle you... Thank you for continuing to elevate my thoughts to a higher understanding.
Hi Mark! Another nerd treat on the Internet. I grabbed this video at the snack bar during halftime of the big KJVHS game. Thanks! I hope to someday have a copy of Garner’s book. On another topic, will you please make a video about the last line of Hebrews 11:34?! It came up in a church meeting last week and made everyone laugh. It is not fully archaic, but you could make an awesome AI video thumbnail.
Ha! Yes! KJV High School! "Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens." (Heb 11:34 KJV) Love it. This is a good one. Since I still owe you an email response, I will put it off further by making this video… ;)
@@markwardonwords The phrase "armies of the aliens" is still in the NKJV. It's one thing to see it in something made before the 1950s, but by 1982?! Well, at least we can be sure that it wouldn't show up in The Message -- ". . . won battles, routed alien armies . . ." -- Uh, never mind, then. I guess 1993 was also too early to expect anything different!
Sounds like a very interesting book. One of my ancestors, Thomas Wyatt, was an English poet, and I chuckle at “therewithall” and “fain know” among other expressions in his poems. I still try to avoid ending sentences with a preposition, but it’s good to know I would get a pass. 🤭
The discussion on "criteria/criterion" brings to mind similar common examples where the plural is also used for the singular: "data/datum" and "media/medium". The first sentence following is less grammatically correct but seems more natural than the second: "The data shows that the media is biased." "The data show that the media are biased." The whole of this video demonstrates how difficult the task is of Bible translation and the importance of a committee-based approach, i.e. the necessity of both experts in the source language as.well as stylists in the receptor language. Thanks for the analysis.
@@markwardonwordsI appreciate the ESV, but I get annoyed at its frequent "Yoda-isms", particularly in light of Leland Ryken's book emphasizing how much attention was paid to English style. A simple but familiar verse: "...he will make straight your paths" (Prov 3:6). Almost all other translations render it "make your paths straight", and even the KJV is less awkward: "direct thy paths". Maybe a minor thing, but my wife and I are reading through the Bible chronologically this year and got tongue-tied enough using the ESV that we switched to the excellent Berean Standard Bible. This from one who errs on the side of formal equivalence. I'll have to read the book you referred to about the HCSB.
@sbs8331 I get it. But I also see a place for honoring the KJV tradition and aiming at being an ecclesiastical translation. I see value in both approaches that you describe!
@@rosslewchuk9286 I agree. Mark is way too smart to say that. I appreciate the subtle humor that isn’t explained explicitly. Makes me appreciate it all the more.
What do you think about Matthew 5:48 how the word "perfect" is used. I have heard the Greek work means spiritually mature. That seems very different from Jesus telling us to "be perfect". I know I don't have the background to fully understand it. Thank you.
Check the United Bible Societies Semantic Dictionary website. The entry for _teleios_ holds to the position that the word does indeed mean "perfect in the sense of not lacking any moral quality" in this verse, but it concedes the possibility that it could instead mean "maturity of behavior" (while still holding this definition as less likely in context "since the comparison is made with God"). Link: semanticdictionary.org/semdic.php?databaseType=SDGNT&language=en For a second opinion, check Thayer's lexicon. Thayer holds that _teleioi_ in the first half of this verse means "of mind and character, one who has reached the proper height of virtue and integrity" (whereas he regards the perfection to be intended "in an absolute sense" when said in reference to God). Link: biblehub.com/thayers/5046.htm
You might also want to consider the verse in light of three parallel verses: 1. Leviticus 19.2: Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy. 2. Deuteronomy 18.13: You must be blameless before the LORD your God. 3. Luke 6.36: Be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful. (All quotations are from the CSB.) Deuteronomy 18.13 is especially of interest because the Septuagint uses the word _teleios,_ much like Matthew 5.48. It's therefore possible that the Sermon on the Mount is alluding to this verse. Most versions agree with the CSB's use of "blameless" to translate the Hebrew word _tamim,_ but the KJV, ASV, and CEB use "perfect." Since the context is the Israelites' need to avoid "the detestable customs" (Deuteronomy 18.9 CSB) of the surrounding nations, it's fair to say that being "blameless" or "perfect" would be akin to being "holy" (Leviticus 19.2). Luke 6.36 is also interesting since it's part of the Lukan version of the sermon. Luke's decision to use _oiktirmones_ instead of _teleios_ could possibly reflect a different nuance of Christ's point (especially if the sermon was originally delivered in Aramaic rather than Greek). Both Matthew and Luke quote this statement at the close of a declaration on loving one's enemies, so perhaps the context of the statement restricts the meaning of "perfect" to "perfectly merciful" in this case.
It's s blinkered mentality where there's evidently only one "right" way to translate a text and all other ways are "wrong" or "corrupt" or worse. Even though English is itself a highly versatile and immensely flexible language that can equally or equivalently accommodate significant differences from a plethora of other languages and say the same thing in extraordinarily diverse ways. It's one of the many strengths of the English language and part of what has made English the de facto lingua franca for like a century or longer. However KJV Only people can't seem to think beyond the simplistic strictures to value the true range and thus strength and beauty of the English language. Alas, such an irony, given the widely touted literary beauty of the KJV itself. 😮
In all fairness, it can be disconcerting at first that different translations may offer different interpretations and different base texts, not just different word choices. But it's not a sensible solution to plug your ears and insist that the version you're using is always right.
Mark I would like to know your opinion on John1:18. As a layman it is truly a mystery to me. I would appreciate any clarification you could give on the different interpretations of this verse. Mainly the way some say Son and some say God. Thank you so much. I really enjoy your content.
This is a textual difference. There is no way around needing to do some study to understand. Here's where I suggest people start: www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20 Dirk Jongkind is a godly man, and this is a great introduction to the issues.
Here is a very quick rundown while you wait for it to arrive: Most manuscripts say ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς, which traditionally comes into English as "the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father" (ASV). However, some of the most ancient evidence supports an alternative reading: Θεὸς instead of υἱὸς, and most translations from the last forty years have followed this reading. If we simply plug Θεὸς into the ASV's translation, we end up with "the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father." However, scholars have recently argued that μονογενὴς ("only begotten") may be acting as a noun here (as it does in verse 14) despite technically being an adjective. If so, then it is not modifying Θεὸς, but instead is acting as the first in a list of three titles for the Word: "the Only Begotten, God, the One who is in the bosom of the Father." (Some translations treat the word "Son" as implied by "Only Begotten" and translate μονογενὴς itself as "Only Begotten Son" for clarity; they are not trying to conflate the two variant readings of this verse, though they are sometimes accused of doing so.) This approach raises the question: would we ever translate ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς as "the only begotten [Son], the Son" rather than "the only begotten Son"? Isn't it more natural to treat μονογενὴς as a modifier for whichever noun that follows it? However, since ὁ μονογενὴς Θεὸς is such a bizarre expression otherwise, especially coming from a (presumably monotheistic) First Century Jewish author, the translation "the Only Begotten, [himself] God" has gained traction as the most coherent interpretation of these words. Hence, it has been adopted by a number of recent English Bibles. Now, you may notice that some Bibles translate μονογενὴς not as "only begotten" but as "one and only." That's because there's a bit of debate over whether the -γενὴς part of the word means "begotten" or "of a kind." Every instance of its usage in the New Testament is in reference to a parent-child relationship, so there is some support of "begotten," but since it sometimes refers to a special child rather than the only biological descendant (as in Hebrews 11.17, regarding Isaac as Abraham's μονογενὴς), there's also some justification for the "one of a kind" interpretation. So here's how ὁ μονογενὴς Θεὸς appears in some of the most recent translations-- NAB 2010: The only Son, God NIV 2011: the one and only Son, who is himself God CEB 2011: God the only Son CSB 2020: The one and only Son, who is himself God NASB 2020: God the only _Son_ LSB 2021: the only begotten God NRSV 2021: the only Son, himself God
But Mark, what do you make of the fact that people who use "criteria" (or "phenomena") as a singular tend not to be highly literate, avid readers? If the fruits of poor literacy get written into the rules of the language by usage, then surely that weighs against the assertion in the title of this video. What about constructions like "should of"? Should usage rule there, too?
Ultimately, usage should rule-but we're not talking about usage by anyone and everyone when it comes to formal writing. We're talking about usage by the educated, by the elite. In my judgment, "should of" is still considered a solecism among them-as is "criteria" when used as a singular. I think the former is unlikely ever to be used by educated people; the latter I could see happening.
While I appreciate greatly the underlying thesis here, may I offer a slightly different perspective? Language is directly tied to intelligence; there is a reason why IQ tests have almost always had a "verbal" component. The ability to discriminate between the nuances of meaning of words, allows both a precision of thinking, as well as of communication. Hence usage alone cannot determine what is "correct" in language without risking the blurring of those fine discriminations. Case in point; the popular usage of "decimate" to mean "devastate." I am not sure when this confusion began but we lost a perfectly good term that referred to losing one in ten of something, by allowing it to be confused with a word that means the total destruction of something. In the "old days" teachers would correct such misusage - and for those of us who write professionally, a good editor was and is worth their weight in Little Debbie's cupcakes for making sure we didn't inadvertently sound like an idiot! And if you want to chalk this rant up to another old geezer waving his cane at the kids using malapropisms on his front lawn so be it - but dag nab, words matter! 🙂
Interesting you'd bring up "decimate"! I talk about it a bit in the intro to my new book. Is "killing one in ten of something" really useful? How often do you need to say that? ;)
@@markwardonwords Colloquially, one could use the term to refer to something that caused a significant but not overwhelming number of casualties; e.g., "The publishing industry saw their annual sales decimated with more than 10% loss from the previous year." However, with the confusion of terms, we can no longer use that perfectly good word anymore.
Seems to me that Jesus himself is the best example here. In the worst moment in all of human history, when Jesus cried out to God on the cross he didn’t (oops - did not) use Hebrew. He cried out to his own father using Aramaic, the simple language that any uneducated peasant would have understood.
Hebrew scholar Roy Blizzard says that in the book of Matthew it proves that Jesus (and everyone in Israel) spoke Hebrew. In that gospel, Jesus is recorded as saying "Eli Eli" which is why the people thought he might be calling for Elijah. Had he said Eloi which only means My God (and is not also a short form of a person's name), there would have been no confusion.
@@salvadaXgracia Both Matthew and Mark references to God are found in both Hebrew and Aramaic but the verb for “has forsaken me” is only found in Aramaic which is why most scholars attribute the phrase to Aramaic.
We deal with stuff like this. In a translation project, we have someone who prefers using old words in the language that nobody uses because they are the “real” words, these words have typically been replaced in common useage by loan words from a nearby language. This man and others on our team will then say that “people today dont know how to speak their language the right way” and I always face palm. Ive had to ask then many times who exactly is the authority on what is the “real” word. And I then remind them that the language itself came into being due to many languages melding together originally.
@@markwardonwords The new ownership, primarily, but more directly, the loss of a significant investment to a subscription model. I don't subscribe any more (subscription-fatigue). I read their permanent-ownership-promise language between the lines as, "yes, you'll have permanent ownership of your resources..........if you subscribe."
I wonder what you think about the modern pronoun debates especially in regards to the descriptivism vs prescriptivism issue? As in the whole "what is your pronoun" thing, as well as the tendency for people to use "they" for the fear of misgendering a person that they know the name/appearance of. Are both sides being prescriptivist in some sense?
RANDOM QUESTION - could you or could you recommend someone who could speak on the letter j and how we came to call Jesus, Jesus instead of something like Yesus? Just seems interesting that His name is translated with a different letter that makes a different sound from the original language, and if so is that significant at all? In the sense that Peter declares that there is only one name under which man can be saved, contextually one would assume that he’s speaking more so of the person and work of Christ than His actual name, so would you just throw that up to the changing nature of language and perhaps a translation issue? Again when it comes to our belief it is not necessarily in a name but in a person, but I have come across someone who is so obsessed with the “name” of Jesus being correct that he feels no one can be saved unless they believe in the correct “name”. Obviously anyone from the comments is more than welcome to comment if they have useful information or someone to recommend.
The translation is by someone who identifies himself simply as "Michael, humble servant of Christ Jesus" (no identified credentials) on the copyright page, and he calls a divine curse on anyone who damages the book or tries to prevent it from being distributed. He also opts to list the Epistle of Barnabas alongside the New Testament. In his introduction, he dedicates some space to criticizing Augustine for conflating unintentional sins with intentional ones, which he believes has resulted in a lack of distinction on this matter when translators handled these words. He also laments the incomplete translation of Greek compound words (e.g. "saved"), the reversal of Greek phrases (thereby altering the meaning), and general denominational bias. The following section, "The authentic doctrine of Jesus Christ," might get him a high-five from Pelagius, though I imagine Jacob Arminius and John Wesley would wince at the degree to which he argues for free will. The natural consequence of this is that he doesn't see much room for forgiveness if a true Christian sins after conversion. He then discusses the necessity of salvation and . . . Amazon's preview ends, so the rest will remain a mystery.
I think the genera public's ignorance of the definition and etymology of the word hone is every bit as prevalent as the ignorance of the word home (homing).
Home pigeons aren’t extinct; they are simply no longer a major method of communication! Hobbyist, and some other folks still raise them: see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homing_pigeon The pigeon species that went extinct (that you’re thinking of) was a cousin of the homing pigeon, called the passenger pigeon: see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon
I actually do consider Holy Writ to be formal enough that I refused to use contractions in my own translation and try to avoid even the Germanic possessive (preferring "the X of Y" rather than "Y's X" in almost all cases). (As in my usage, contractions are for casual use only.)
Mark Ward im interested in seeing you respond to the Guy on RUclips who is a King James Onliest and he talks about how other modern translation have errors and speaks about numeric miracles. Its From the channel "Truth is Christ". I began as a KJVO when i was born again by a brother in Christ who preached twoard from the Bible while i was attaking its so called perfection. This was before i saw its true perfection i was hoping youll look into that whenever you can.
I've had a few requests-and a few challenges-regarding this guy. I started to put together some thoughts. I'm not sure I'll follow through, because I have tended to avoid fringe figures. I regard numerology arguments as fringe. =( Anyone with sufficient cleverness can come up with such arguments for any version. God does not communicate messages in secret code that contradict what he said in sentences, namely this one: "So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air" (1 Cor 14:9). I'm praying and thinking about doing a video, but I'm not sure! Pray for me!
@@markwardonwords But it is a known toung as God said he gave us the sky for seasons and signs and he himself speaks of numbers mainly how that his number is 7 and when he speaks to Peter Matthew 18:21-22 21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. God knows and says what he desires and if he said his word is perfect then that's what it is. Now if we find errors then it's not from God
@@JoseLuisGutierrez-m6h At least recognize, brother, that this viewpoint is not held by the vast, vast majority of evangelical, Bible-believing, gospel-preaching Christians who can read Hebrew and/or Greek. It was definitely NOT the viewpoint of the KJV translators, who said specifically that their work was not perfect.
@@markwardonwords your right it was meant to be revised and made better to be more accurate but now these modern Bibles are heading towards the opposite instead of making it better they find ways to mess it up. I get it is hard to translate but there are parts where they straight up take out words and change it. With the more knowledge we gain we can see the errors in translation even in the Alexandrian manuscripts we can find mistakes. Because of the vast texts that we have.
At 30:40, it's even worse (or better?) than you say. You used, "...will you not" in place of the HCSB contraction "won't," and exclaim, "who says that?" But "won't" is not the contraction for "will you not," but for "would you not." That's an even more extreme example of, "who says that." (This gets even deeper...the contraction for "will you not" has fallen out of usage (apparently around 1580), making "won't" the contemporary contraction in its place. Thus, usage... .)
The Bible’s role in society is didactic by nature, both concerning its morality and concerning its language. Perhaps it should represent a level of grammar that is more formal by one or two steps than that with which the reader is accustomed. Yet this goal is a moving target… and contractions make me cringe.
I get this. This is reasonable to me. And one day the target may move in such a way that people with your same opinion will not cringe at contractions!
@@markwardonwords It was not so long ago that I cringed at the use of one space instead of two spaces between sentences. I now have no problem using one space.
I don’t know. When the term “more formal” is used in terms of grammar, I almost immediately think of legal documents, “the fine print,” as they say. Who can understand them - even attorneys have trouble!
The NRSV, which is intended for high church settings and academia, does seek to be very formal with its language usage. (Even the 2021 update followed the shall/will and who/whom distinctions.) The CSB, which was created in part to provide Lifeway with a translation for its Sunday School materials, has less reason to do so. The more relaxed classroom setting doesn't call for as high a register as the lectern.
"We're not conserving a given Bible translation. We're conserving the principle of vernacular Bible translation."
YES! 🎤 ⬇️
Dr. Ward, I noticed while watching another one of your videos that KJV onlyists have an interesting inconsistency in their arguments where, on the one hand, they refuse to dumb down the Bible to the lowest common denominator style of English, but on the other hand, they worry that informing congregations of alternate translation options will cause them too much confusion. I would think a congregant sophisticated enough to understand the English of the KJV would also be capable of understanding that it is possible to translate a text in more than one way. It's actually impossible to reach a very high level of understanding of the text without learning this, so in this case it is actually the KJV onlyists who are appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Yes, this is an excellent point.
Good point, I also suspect that “reading round” verse-by-verse in a family Bible study (where multiple translations were used) actually greatly contributed to my own reading comprehension skills.
They totally ignore differing dialects and the curse of babel affecting every living individual trying to communicate with every other living individual.
So they clearly didn't learn anything about that curse, don't understand that the new testament was always in multiple languages and orally transmitted for a couple generations too.... and that reading the bible is not a litmus test for scholastic excellence. How they decided an English version 1.5 millennia removed from the source material could ever become a sacred format confounds me. Reading comprehension, KJVonlyists don't have it🤦♂️
"He knows how to write good." LOL
That was a [good / well] one.
I came here to say that! 😂
The interaction between spoken and written language is profound. Historians remind us that Luther's Bible, and Caxton's publishing company, and the Bibles from Tyndale through the KJV helped to standardize their respective languages.🙏📖
✔
I believe "To Whom It May Concern" will survive due to the terminal consonant m before the initial vowel I.
Agreed. Good point!
Strictly, "data" should always be plural (the singular is "datum"). Some scientists and others (supported by the style guides of some/many learned publications) hold out for this, but I think that battle is lost.
Agreed. Good example.
Homing pigeons are doing fine. It's the passenger pigeon that went extinct.
Ah! Thank you!
@@markwardonwords you might enjoy reading A Cote of Many Colors by Janette Oke with your kids. It’s one of the few from her I enjoyed enough to reread with my youngest kids. It’s about a flock of homing pigeons
This was excellent, Mark. I love your work, attitude, and humor. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I want to thank you for helping me with your videos and was able to get my church away from kjv only. Appreciate you my brother in Christ. God bless you
May God help you, brother. Thank you!
@@markwardonwords He does everyday. He also uses good brothers like you to help us down that a lot times bumpy road. You are in my prayers
Bless you for preserving the Oxford comma...it's just so helpful!
Whereas I regard it as redundant, however this is "adiaphora". 😊
Very good information. In Canada, we use British rules of language for legal and formal documents, but most I know tend to use American type language in everyday speech and writing. This is probably due to the amount of American content we digest daily. I’m so glad the Oxford comma is being retained by both countries because as you say, it does avoid confusion.
David Foster Wallace wrote an essay on Garner and his book that I found very enjoyable. Great video!
It was one of the greatest and most unexpected honors if my life.
Thank you, Brother Mark. Blessings on your ministry.🌹⭐🌹
You are very welcome!
Thanks again for another wonderful video. It made me think about the fact that the English language, like any other language, is a means of communication at its core. The Merriam Webster dictionary has the following as a definition for the word communication:
“a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior”
Surely prescriptive usage and descriptive usage both lend themselves to the “common” component of communication through language. Without a “common” understanding, language does not communicate.
I find that when I communicate through written English, I do try to stick more to the prescriptive usage, as my communication may be widespread to many people, whereas when I communicate through verbal English, I tend to speak more in the vernacular of the American Southeast, so to be understood by those who are my direct audience.
Sometimes though, difficulty does arise when I seek to place something on paper that is intended to be used as a speech or spoken lesson. I then find myself having to blend both prescriptive usage and descriptive usage.
In the end, clarity of message to the intended audience is the most important thing.
Sam (Kathy being my better half)
1. Well, if it was good enough for the King James Only pastor that you purchased a Kindle scribe and Garner's Modern English Usage, paid in part through the use of his hefty gift card, then that's good enough for me.
2. Besides paying only $10 for the chair, you received the added benefit of its upholstery color matching your mustache so as to enhance the video presentation. Was that part of the criteria for its purchase? Or was it merely a criterion purchase?
Yes, there were multiple chairs, and we went with the mustache-matching option!
I loved this. Thanks Mark! 😊
Glad you enjoyed it! Asking honestly: was it too long and rambly?
Mark, the word "shall" is heavily used in both technical and legal writing. While it may not be used much in informal American English, it certainly is not rare or uncommon. I took a look at the HCSB's Exodus 20 and I have to say, the Ten Commandments do not read well, in my opinion, without the "shall" statements. "Shall" refers to a certain requirement to do or not do something. "Must" implies an imperative. I admit that I have heard "must" used in place of "shall" before, but I think it is too commonly used to show an imperative rather than a requirement. I tend to agree with you concerning these things, but I disagree with dropping "shall" in the bible, at least as far as legal mandates.
That's helpful. I wonder, though, how many people understand this distinction, even subconsciously? I'm not saying I know the answer to that question; I don't.
@@markwardonwords I don't know how many understand the distinction. I would offer to ask around at work but that wouldn't help. I am at war with myself on this because language is inherently intuitive, but I may not have the same intuition as everyone else.
I am all for contemporary English bible translation, but I felt the HCSB's Ten Commandments felt less like law and more like suggestion.
It hit me: the HCSB's Ten Commandments feel more like "rules" than "laws".
I used to write feature requirements on a product development team. We used "shall" just like you describe to mean a hard requirement that must be met. "Will" described something that would happen naturally or as a necessary result.
Simplified example:
- The device shall have a battery capacity of 10kWh.
- The device shall have a maximum energy consumption of 1kWh
- The device will have a minimum battery discharge time of 10 hours from 100% state of charge to 0% state of charge
That's something I had to be taught and to consciously remember when writing requirements, and it's an area where I often found mistakes in others' writing.
The "Do not..." language from the CSB reads more like a set of operating instructions from a user manual or job handbook than legal code or a requirements document. I wonder how it sounded to Moses and the Israelites at Sinai.
Fascinating. Reminds me of encountering CS Lewis's use of the word "datum" (don't recall the context unfortunately...), but that got me to pondering how first-hand experience/knowledge has become seemingly universally discredited under the pretense that "anecdotes aren't evidence" hence the infrequency of its occurrence in comparison to its plural tense. However, that's precisely what a datum is.
"Self-depreciating" is fairly common in Australia. I had always assumed it was an error! In fact l have been secretly cringing every time my wife says it! Ooops! Thanks for that!
BOBBSEY TWINS used "shan't" for shall not profusely
Ha! Love it!
"I want to end this somewhat rambling video..."
We're only at 17 minutes out of 40!
EDIT: And it wasn't until 25 that the addendum started!
I know, I know!! This is what happens when I don't script! Only one out of like 30 videos is unscripted.
@@markwardonwords we come here for the unscripted stuff, that's when it gets good :)
BTW, homing pigeons aren't extinct...they just all flew back to where they started from (wherever that is). 🙂
DUH! It was Passenger pigeons! My error!
Thank you Mark for sharing your thoughts and observations on attempting to give insights into language usage based on prescriptive versus descriptive language.
After viewing this video, I am most certain my use of our language must baffle you... Thank you for continuing to elevate my thoughts to a higher understanding.
Hi Mark! Another nerd treat on the Internet. I grabbed this video at the snack bar during halftime of the big KJVHS game. Thanks! I hope to someday have a copy of Garner’s book.
On another topic, will you please make a video about the last line of Hebrews 11:34?! It came up in a church meeting last week and made everyone laugh. It is not fully archaic, but you could make an awesome AI video thumbnail.
Ha! Yes! KJV High School!
"Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens." (Heb 11:34 KJV)
Love it. This is a good one. Since I still owe you an email response, I will put it off further by making this video… ;)
@@markwardonwords The phrase "armies of the aliens" is still in the NKJV. It's one thing to see it in something made before the 1950s, but by 1982?!
Well, at least we can be sure that it wouldn't show up in The Message --
". . . won battles, routed alien armies . . ."
-- Uh, never mind, then. I guess 1993 was also too early to expect anything different!
Sounds like a very interesting book. One of my ancestors, Thomas Wyatt, was an English poet, and I chuckle at “therewithall” and “fain know” among other expressions in his poems. I still try to avoid ending sentences with a preposition, but it’s good to know I would get a pass. 🤭
The discussion on "criteria/criterion" brings to mind similar common examples where the plural is also used for the singular: "data/datum" and "media/medium". The first sentence following is less grammatically correct but seems more natural than the second: "The data shows that the media is biased." "The data show that the media are biased."
The whole of this video demonstrates how difficult the task is of Bible translation and the importance of a committee-based approach, i.e. the necessity of both experts in the source language as.well as stylists in the receptor language. Thanks for the analysis.
Right!
@@markwardonwordsI appreciate the ESV, but I get annoyed at its frequent "Yoda-isms", particularly in light of Leland Ryken's book emphasizing how much attention was paid to English style. A simple but familiar verse: "...he will make straight your paths" (Prov 3:6). Almost all other translations render it "make your paths straight", and even the KJV is less awkward: "direct thy paths". Maybe a minor thing, but my wife and I are reading through the Bible chronologically this year and got tongue-tied enough using the ESV that we switched to the excellent Berean Standard Bible. This from one who errs on the side of formal equivalence. I'll have to read the book you referred to about the HCSB.
@sbs8331 I get it. But I also see a place for honoring the KJV tradition and aiming at being an ecclesiastical translation. I see value in both approaches that you describe!
.... aaaand we're back with an update!
Yup! Thanks to you!
“He knows how to write good” 😂😂
🧐I suspect humorous intent!😄
@@rosslewchuk9286 I agree. Mark is way too smart to say that. I appreciate the subtle humor that isn’t explained explicitly. Makes me appreciate it all the more.
@@missinglink_eth Exactly!
He usually talks gooder than that...
I speak very well English!
20:15 I am English and I can't recall having seen anybody write acronyms with lower case letters.
Interesting! It comes straight from Garner…
What do you think about Matthew 5:48 how the word "perfect" is used. I have heard the Greek work means spiritually mature. That seems very different from Jesus telling us to "be perfect". I know I don't have the background to fully understand it. Thank you.
Great question!
Check the United Bible Societies Semantic Dictionary website. The entry for _teleios_ holds to the position that the word does indeed mean "perfect in the sense of not lacking any moral quality" in this verse, but it concedes the possibility that it could instead mean "maturity of behavior" (while still holding this definition as less likely in context "since the comparison is made with God").
Link: semanticdictionary.org/semdic.php?databaseType=SDGNT&language=en
For a second opinion, check Thayer's lexicon. Thayer holds that _teleioi_ in the first half of this verse means "of mind and character, one who has reached the proper height of virtue and integrity" (whereas he regards the perfection to be intended "in an absolute sense" when said in reference to God).
Link: biblehub.com/thayers/5046.htm
I pretty much always amen MAMoreno's comments! I'd also point you to standard commentaries, like Carson on Matthew in the REBC series.
You might also want to consider the verse in light of three parallel verses:
1. Leviticus 19.2: Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.
2. Deuteronomy 18.13: You must be blameless before the LORD your God.
3. Luke 6.36: Be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.
(All quotations are from the CSB.)
Deuteronomy 18.13 is especially of interest because the Septuagint uses the word _teleios,_ much like Matthew 5.48. It's therefore possible that the Sermon on the Mount is alluding to this verse. Most versions agree with the CSB's use of "blameless" to translate the Hebrew word _tamim,_ but the KJV, ASV, and CEB use "perfect." Since the context is the Israelites' need to avoid "the detestable customs" (Deuteronomy 18.9 CSB) of the surrounding nations, it's fair to say that being "blameless" or "perfect" would be akin to being "holy" (Leviticus 19.2).
Luke 6.36 is also interesting since it's part of the Lukan version of the sermon. Luke's decision to use _oiktirmones_ instead of _teleios_ could possibly reflect a different nuance of Christ's point (especially if the sermon was originally delivered in Aramaic rather than Greek). Both Matthew and Luke quote this statement at the close of a declaration on loving one's enemies, so perhaps the context of the statement restricts the meaning of "perfect" to "perfectly merciful" in this case.
It's s blinkered mentality where there's evidently only one "right" way to translate a text and all other ways are "wrong" or "corrupt" or worse. Even though English is itself a highly versatile and immensely flexible language that can equally or equivalently accommodate significant differences from a plethora of other languages and say the same thing in extraordinarily diverse ways. It's one of the many strengths of the English language and part of what has made English the de facto lingua franca for like a century or longer. However KJV Only people can't seem to think beyond the simplistic strictures to value the true range and thus strength and beauty of the English language. Alas, such an irony, given the widely touted literary beauty of the KJV itself. 😮
In all fairness, it can be disconcerting at first that different translations may offer different interpretations and different base texts, not just different word choices. But it's not a sensible solution to plug your ears and insist that the version you're using is always right.
@@MAMoreno Good point!
Mark I would like to know your opinion on John1:18. As a layman it is truly a mystery to me. I would appreciate any clarification you could give on the different interpretations of this verse. Mainly the way some say Son and some say God. Thank you so much. I really enjoy your content.
This is a textual difference. There is no way around needing to do some study to understand. Here's where I suggest people start: www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20
Dirk Jongkind is a godly man, and this is a great introduction to the issues.
@@markwardonwords I just purchased a copy and should receive it tomorrow. Thank you, sir.
Here is a very quick rundown while you wait for it to arrive:
Most manuscripts say ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς, which traditionally comes into English as "the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father" (ASV). However, some of the most ancient evidence supports an alternative reading: Θεὸς instead of υἱὸς, and most translations from the last forty years have followed this reading. If we simply plug Θεὸς into the ASV's translation, we end up with "the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father."
However, scholars have recently argued that μονογενὴς ("only begotten") may be acting as a noun here (as it does in verse 14) despite technically being an adjective. If so, then it is not modifying Θεὸς, but instead is acting as the first in a list of three titles for the Word: "the Only Begotten, God, the One who is in the bosom of the Father." (Some translations treat the word "Son" as implied by "Only Begotten" and translate μονογενὴς itself as "Only Begotten Son" for clarity; they are not trying to conflate the two variant readings of this verse, though they are sometimes accused of doing so.)
This approach raises the question: would we ever translate ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς as "the only begotten [Son], the Son" rather than "the only begotten Son"? Isn't it more natural to treat μονογενὴς as a modifier for whichever noun that follows it? However, since ὁ μονογενὴς Θεὸς is such a bizarre expression otherwise, especially coming from a (presumably monotheistic) First Century Jewish author, the translation "the Only Begotten, [himself] God" has gained traction as the most coherent interpretation of these words. Hence, it has been adopted by a number of recent English Bibles.
Now, you may notice that some Bibles translate μονογενὴς not as "only begotten" but as "one and only." That's because there's a bit of debate over whether the -γενὴς part of the word means "begotten" or "of a kind." Every instance of its usage in the New Testament is in reference to a parent-child relationship, so there is some support of "begotten," but since it sometimes refers to a special child rather than the only biological descendant (as in Hebrews 11.17, regarding Isaac as Abraham's μονογενὴς), there's also some justification for the "one of a kind" interpretation.
So here's how ὁ μονογενὴς Θεὸς appears in some of the most recent translations--
NAB 2010: The only Son, God
NIV 2011: the one and only Son, who is himself God
CEB 2011: God the only Son
CSB 2020: The one and only Son, who is himself God
NASB 2020: God the only _Son_
LSB 2021: the only begotten God
NRSV 2021: the only Son, himself God
@@MAMoreno Thank you 👍
How would Tindale and Webster answer the question of language change is a question that comes to mind .
Dr. Mark , loud children are but for a moment gone too soon.
I know, I know!
Thou knave, thou varlet! Can'st thou not perceive the decline of thine own tongue? JK. Grateful for your work, brother!
But Mark, what do you make of the fact that people who use "criteria" (or "phenomena") as a singular tend not to be highly literate, avid readers? If the fruits of poor literacy get written into the rules of the language by usage, then surely that weighs against the assertion in the title of this video. What about constructions like "should of"? Should usage rule there, too?
Ultimately, usage should rule-but we're not talking about usage by anyone and everyone when it comes to formal writing. We're talking about usage by the educated, by the elite. In my judgment, "should of" is still considered a solecism among them-as is "criteria" when used as a singular. I think the former is unlikely ever to be used by educated people; the latter I could see happening.
While I appreciate greatly the underlying thesis here, may I offer a slightly different perspective? Language is directly tied to intelligence; there is a reason why IQ tests have almost always had a "verbal" component. The ability to discriminate between the nuances of meaning of words, allows both a precision of thinking, as well as of communication. Hence usage alone cannot determine what is "correct" in language without risking the blurring of those fine discriminations. Case in point; the popular usage of "decimate" to mean "devastate." I am not sure when this confusion began but we lost a perfectly good term that referred to losing one in ten of something, by allowing it to be confused with a word that means the total destruction of something. In the "old days" teachers would correct such misusage - and for those of us who write professionally, a good editor was and is worth their weight in Little Debbie's cupcakes for making sure we didn't inadvertently sound like an idiot! And if you want to chalk this rant up to another old geezer waving his cane at the kids using malapropisms on his front lawn so be it - but dag nab, words matter! 🙂
Interesting you'd bring up "decimate"! I talk about it a bit in the intro to my new book. Is "killing one in ten of something" really useful? How often do you need to say that? ;)
@@markwardonwords Colloquially, one could use the term to refer to something that caused a significant but not overwhelming number of casualties; e.g., "The publishing industry saw their annual sales decimated with more than 10% loss from the previous year." However, with the confusion of terms, we can no longer use that perfectly good word anymore.
@@didymussumydid9726 If it's egalitarian, then how is it a "brotherhood of mankind"? I'm sending you back to the editor.
Seems to me that Jesus himself is the best example here. In the worst moment in all of human history, when Jesus cried out to God on the cross he didn’t (oops - did not) use Hebrew. He cried out to his own father using Aramaic, the simple language that any uneducated peasant would have understood.
I believe He may have sung Psalm 22 from the cross.
@@msctshrly The only reason I think maybe not is because crucifixion greatly limits lung capacity and I think it would have been recorded if he had.
Hebrew scholar Roy Blizzard says that in the book of Matthew it proves that Jesus (and everyone in Israel) spoke Hebrew. In that gospel, Jesus is recorded as saying "Eli Eli" which is why the people thought he might be calling for Elijah. Had he said Eloi which only means My God (and is not also a short form of a person's name), there would have been no confusion.
@@salvadaXgracia Both Matthew and Mark references to God are found in both Hebrew and Aramaic but the verb for “has forsaken me” is only found in Aramaic which is why most scholars attribute the phrase to Aramaic.
@@carolbarlow8896 ok but that doesn't answer the evidence of saying Eli Eli. Also the New Testament references people speaking Hebrew. 🤷♀️
We deal with stuff like this. In a translation project, we have someone who prefers using old words in the language that nobody uses because they are the “real” words, these words have typically been replaced in common useage by loan words from a nearby language. This man and others on our team will then say that “people today dont know how to speak their language the right way” and I always face palm.
Ive had to ask then many times who exactly is the authority on what is the “real” word. And I then remind them that the language itself came into being due to many languages melding together originally.
Wow. Great story!
This is not Mr. Ward. Who is the imposter in this video? LOL
It's all camera tricks. The whole channel.
I loved this video. You look tired though. Take care!
Are you still with FL/Logos in any capacity? (I sure wish I could figure out what's going on over there...makes me nervous.)
I’m not. But I have great friends there. What concerns you?
@@markwardonwords The new ownership, primarily, but more directly, the loss of a significant investment to a subscription model. I don't subscribe any more (subscription-fatigue). I read their permanent-ownership-promise language between the lines as, "yes, you'll have permanent ownership of your resources..........if you subscribe."
I wonder what you think about the modern pronoun debates especially in regards to the descriptivism vs prescriptivism issue? As in the whole "what is your pronoun" thing, as well as the tendency for people to use "they" for the fear of misgendering a person that they know the name/appearance of. Are both sides being prescriptivist in some sense?
I think that’s one great way to describe it. They’re being prescriptivists rather than descriptivists.
RANDOM QUESTION - could you or could you recommend someone who could speak on the letter j and how we came to call Jesus, Jesus instead of something like Yesus? Just seems interesting that His name is translated with a different letter that makes a different sound from the original language, and if so is that significant at all? In the sense that Peter declares that there is only one name under which man can be saved, contextually one would assume that he’s speaking more so of the person and work of Christ than His actual name, so would you just throw that up to the changing nature of language and perhaps a translation issue? Again when it comes to our belief it is not necessarily in a name but in a person, but I have come across someone who is so obsessed with the “name” of Jesus being correct that he feels no one can be saved unless they believe in the correct “name”. Obviously anyone from the comments is more than welcome to comment if they have useful information or someone to recommend.
It might help to look at Britannica's article on the letter J: www.britannica.com/topic/J-letter
I have a question? Do you know anything on the "Eternal book of truth 2023" bible translation
I do not!
The translation is by someone who identifies himself simply as "Michael, humble servant of Christ Jesus" (no identified credentials) on the copyright page, and he calls a divine curse on anyone who damages the book or tries to prevent it from being distributed. He also opts to list the Epistle of Barnabas alongside the New Testament.
In his introduction, he dedicates some space to criticizing Augustine for conflating unintentional sins with intentional ones, which he believes has resulted in a lack of distinction on this matter when translators handled these words. He also laments the incomplete translation of Greek compound words (e.g. "saved"), the reversal of Greek phrases (thereby altering the meaning), and general denominational bias.
The following section, "The authentic doctrine of Jesus Christ," might get him a high-five from Pelagius, though I imagine Jacob Arminius and John Wesley would wince at the degree to which he argues for free will. The natural consequence of this is that he doesn't see much room for forgiveness if a true Christian sins after conversion. He then discusses the necessity of salvation and . . . Amazon's preview ends, so the rest will remain a mystery.
I think the genera public's ignorance of the definition and etymology of the word hone is every bit as prevalent as the ignorance of the word home (homing).
0:57 He knows how to write well. Or were you making a joke about formal grammar and common usage?
A joke. ;)
Gasp! You are a Trans-Slayer?! 😧 28:14 Man, you took political conservativism to another level! 😧
Gotta watch my pronunciation around word nerds!
Lol! I love your videos. Too bad you are punishing us with less of them. May God continue to use you, brother.
Home pigeons aren’t extinct; they are simply no longer a major method of communication! Hobbyist, and some other folks still raise them: see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homing_pigeon
The pigeon species that went extinct (that you’re thinking of) was a cousin of the homing pigeon, called the passenger pigeon: see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon
I actually do consider Holy Writ to be formal enough that I refused to use contractions in my own translation and try to avoid even the Germanic possessive (preferring "the X of Y" rather than "Y's X" in almost all cases). (As in my usage, contractions are for casual use only.)
Mark Ward im interested in seeing you respond to the Guy on RUclips who is a King James Onliest and he talks about how other modern translation have errors and speaks about numeric miracles. Its From the channel "Truth is Christ". I began as a KJVO when i was born again by a brother in Christ who preached twoard from the Bible while i was attaking its so called perfection. This was before i saw its true perfection i was hoping youll look into that whenever you can.
I've had a few requests-and a few challenges-regarding this guy. I started to put together some thoughts. I'm not sure I'll follow through, because I have tended to avoid fringe figures. I regard numerology arguments as fringe. =( Anyone with sufficient cleverness can come up with such arguments for any version. God does not communicate messages in secret code that contradict what he said in sentences, namely this one: "So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air" (1 Cor 14:9).
I'm praying and thinking about doing a video, but I'm not sure! Pray for me!
@@markwardonwords But it is a known toung as God said he gave us the sky for seasons and signs and he himself speaks of numbers mainly how that his number is 7 and when he speaks to Peter Matthew 18:21-22
21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
God knows and says what he desires and if he said his word is perfect then that's what it is.
Now if we find errors then it's not from God
@@JoseLuisGutierrez-m6h At least recognize, brother, that this viewpoint is not held by the vast, vast majority of evangelical, Bible-believing, gospel-preaching Christians who can read Hebrew and/or Greek. It was definitely NOT the viewpoint of the KJV translators, who said specifically that their work was not perfect.
@@markwardonwords your right it was meant to be revised and made better to be more accurate but now these modern Bibles are heading towards the opposite instead of making it better they find ways to mess it up. I get it is hard to translate but there are parts where they straight up take out words and change it. With the more knowledge we gain we can see the errors in translation even in the Alexandrian manuscripts we can find mistakes. Because of the vast texts that we have.
At 30:40, it's even worse (or better?) than you say. You used, "...will you not" in place of the HCSB contraction "won't," and exclaim, "who says that?" But "won't" is not the contraction for "will you not," but for "would you not." That's an even more extreme example of, "who says that." (This gets even deeper...the contraction for "will you not" has fallen out of usage (apparently around 1580), making "won't" the contemporary contraction in its place. Thus, usage... .)
Win’t?
The Bible’s role in society is didactic by nature, both concerning its morality and concerning its language. Perhaps it should represent a level of grammar that is more formal by one or two steps than that with which the reader is accustomed. Yet this goal is a moving target… and contractions make me cringe.
I get this. This is reasonable to me.
And one day the target may move in such a way that people with your same opinion will not cringe at contractions!
@@markwardonwords It was not so long ago that I cringed at the use of one space instead of two spaces between sentences. I now have no problem using one space.
I don’t know. When the term “more formal” is used in terms of grammar, I almost immediately think of legal documents, “the fine print,” as they say. Who can understand them - even attorneys have trouble!
The NRSV, which is intended for high church settings and academia, does seek to be very formal with its language usage. (Even the 2021 update followed the shall/will and who/whom distinctions.) The CSB, which was created in part to provide Lifeway with a translation for its Sunday School materials, has less reason to do so. The more relaxed classroom setting doesn't call for as high a register as the lectern.
God is The Absolute. And Gods Word is God.
words and language and meanings of words and translations of words....not so much