Has anyone gotten the book Mark recommended Silva’s “Biblical Words and Their Meaning”? 27:09 An Excellent book! I was most impressed by the appendix examining the Greek words for “Worship”. He distinguishes the nuances of those Greek words. He shows “proskuneo” shouldn’t always be translated “worship.” He gives an example found in Matthew 2:11. He says most English versions translate “proskuneo” as worship as far as the wise men ‘worship’ the baby Jesus and explains that it shouldn’t be (as in other cases too). The NWT is in full harmony with his scholarly recommendation. Also, he shows how in Romans 1:25 and Matthew 4:10 the two Greek phrases for “worship and serve” are “indistinguishable when translated into English, but a sematic distinction is clearly perceived in the original.” Once again the NWT makes that distinction clear. The way that the NWT translates "proskuneo” is a point of contention for some folks I've been discussing for 50 years now, yet it is in full accord with what Moises Silva writes here and with other things throughout his book. I will be referencing his book regularly.
The anonymous inventors of the NWT inserted the name "Jehovah" instead of translating the text numerous times, and they did it with not a single manuscript to support it.... It's not a translation, rather it's an invention.
@@hayfieldhermit9657 Actually the divine name does appear in the LXX and there is most sound evidence it was in the Apostles original writings... ua-cam.com/video/mqBEqLaYaQs/v-deo.htmlsi=nqroISJBujFCKkXB
@@JehovahsWitnessHistoryOnFilm If there, it would AT MOST be in quotes from the LXX, not in all the locations JWs have inserted it. And, there’s no excuse for the insertion of “other” in Colossians chapter 1.
What just floors me is the arrogance of some people that believe that only the English is God's chosen language....I've traveled internationally, and the KJVO issue is not a "thing" to people (and most missionaries) in those countries. I have had missionaries tell me that they wish some American had not come to their land and told the Christian people in their country they needed to use the KJV or have a translation that was translated from the KJV to really have God's word.
I paused this video 12:56. What word keeps coming to mind is context. For example the word "spring." The word spring can mean to jump or swift action (my definition on these words) but the word spring can mean also spring can mean a season, a piece of metal in the bed, and small body of water. I believe context will determine its usage.
I appreciate the distinction that you made between right/wrong and respectful/disrespectful. Descriptive linguistics, in my opinion, is so much more interesting than prescriptive linguistics. Of course I recognize and embrace prescriptive linguistics in formal academic language. But in less formal language, it really seems as though cultural consensus regulates linguistics enough that we don't have to teach it. For example, I can't simply make a word have a new meaning. To do so requires consensus, and that consensus is usually organic rather than planned. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who have coined words (I've coined a few myself), but their words never caught on. But others had no intention of coining words or making new definitions yet accomplished language changes without even trying. Language change simply happens, and it's so fascinating! Thanks for another great video!
After KJVO discussions, the nature of language is probably one of the most frequently brought up issues I've run into. Great stuff, as always. Thanks for putting it on the bottom shelf where everyone can reach it.
One of my primary complaints about communications is how the dictionaries will add and even change definitions based on how people use and misuse them. This is why we have such a hard time understanding historical text. So many of the words and the ideas behind them have changed so much that we have lost the wisdom of our ancestors. A good example of this would be the old herbal books from the 18th and 19th century. The words have changed so mush that they are almost worthless to us today. Most dictionaries don't have any of them anymore. But what would be really wonderful is to have a set of dictionaries that included all the different historical definitions within a given time periods. This way if your are reading a book from the 1400's you could look up what the word actually meant in the 1400's.
The problem is that such a book--namely, the Oxford English Dictionary--ends up being too big to be useful for easy reference. For older definitions, you might consider Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary.
I totally agree. In the past 100-200 years, even scholars have created meanings and definitions to biblical words that are completely foreign to those in bible times! And there are people today that aren't aware that some of these present definitions are new and weren't even used during biblical times. Word usage, in general, as they were used in biblical times should get first and prioritized use over anything "refined" within the past century or two. And the changes are mostly influenced by personal religious beliefs, including those of some scholars. We live with too much "new age" thinking rather than letting the biblical Kione - common words stand as they were used for hundreds or even thousands of years. Sadly, there are many people that are quick to conclude the definitions used by some have always been those definitions without looking back to verify.
@@19king14 Sounds like a great idea. We should start a process of worldwide Hellenization as soon as possible. Then maybe Christians can all get along again. At the very least we will understand what it is that we are arguing about. :)
Hi Mark. I'm working on a translation project with some people. My native language isn't English. I have noticed that KJV onlyists say that English is the international language and the English is the best language. But that's changing. Thousand years ago, in the Roman Empire, Greek and Latin was "international language." But that changed. English doesn't have every word. What I mean is that when you translate the Bible from Greek and Hebrew, there are words that don't have exact matching English words. In English, the word "Lord" means Master, Prince, Noble person, king, ruler, Official, God, Deity. In Malayalam, we have different words for the Lord. Each word is used for God, deity, Master, and prince, king, ruler and official. I emphasis things I wrote. In conclusion, we need multiple translations and languages. In order to have better understanding of things, we need multiple languages and translations. We can use multiple languages to express ourselves. I'm not KJV onlyists. I will stick to my native language, Malayalam, and my Malayalam Bible.
Your "snafu" example reminds me of a different discussion people sometimes get into about whether using corruptions of swear words as minced oaths is sinful. I don't because I don't think etymology matters, and you seem to agree somewhat to this type of reasoning. That being said I still don't use that type of language online, and I still believe it is sinful to use such language against people. I have an question though: How does a word become less offensive over time? I assume it happens because people use it and the connotations start shifting, but does that mean that this type of language evolution happens through sin?
Great video, as always, and really pulled together a lot of disjointed ideas I had floating around as someone so lightly interested in language that to even call myself an amateur feels disrespectful to those in the field 😂 I'm already going through Exegetical Fallacies per your suggestion in your beginners guide to Greek, can't wait to get into Silva's book next!
Thank you so much man. Thank you for putting incredible videos like this together and allowing laymen like me to listen to it for free - it sharpens my understanding and enables me to lead my family better in our study of Scripture.
I appreciate the intent of this video. I gained some valuable insight from it. But… at 76 years old, and someone who cares about language, I don’t think it is this simple “today.” There are forces afoot that depend upon distortion of language, and capturing language and word meaning, to consciously accomplish both distortion and suppression of simple truths of human existence. These forces seem to be exceedingly clever in this effort, and I am afraid they capitalize on exactly what you’re talking about in this video for destructive ends.
I’m going to be honest, this is hard for me to accept. I believe it is right because I know language changes but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. 😂
Ha! I'll give you that. I'll tell you, though-I've come to like it! Not every individual change. Some are annoying. But overall, I find the topic endlessly fascinating!
@@markwardonwords there is definitely something about relief from acknowledging it, but I want the rigidity. It’s like the safety that I felt in the KJVO position. That rigidity was a source of comfort and pride, even to the point of removing the need for faith. Every time something that I put absolute faith in is stripped away, it leaves me feeling so vulnerable. Ultimately it leads me to trust more fully in Christ instead of these crutches that I have learned to rely upon.
@@MAMoreno Comparing: spiritual with spiritual... The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. ... And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.
@@markwardonwords I’ll watch it again ! You have become quite famous hear at home . Just a side question , could you give any guidance in the interpretation of 1cor 11 (head coverings) ? I I do not as of now have a position but would joyfully accept any thoughts or recommendations. I ask because of the specific background that you came from .
This was fabulous! Thank you. It will be interesting to see how the world of "texting" changes language use in days to come. In a recent text exchange with my son he responded to something I said with "LMFAO". I figured he either forgot what that stood for, or forgot that he was speaking with his mother. Of course the former was the case.
Hi there: For Christian writing, sometimes we want to use a word, but the thesaurus and dictionary show it has both good and bad meanings. An example would be the word "gay". It means, "cheerful, bright, and happy". As in, "gay bannerole". But it also has another meaning. I do not believe in yielding high ground, ceding good words, to Satan. However, it might not be "wise as serpents, innocent as doves", one could fail to be perspicacious, to suggest Christians should be gay; even though Proverbs says, "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine." :--}>
Great video. John McWhorter's podcast, Moises Silva's Biblical Words and Their Meaning, and Don Carson's Exegetical Fallacies are excellent recommendations for further reading. Also, for what it's worth, if anything, I found some (not all) of the essays in the book The Challenge of Bible Translation (Glen Scorgie, Mark Strauss, and Steven Voth, eds.) worthwhile reading. Especially "Are Translators Traitors? Some Personal Reflections" (Silva) and "The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation - and Other Limits, Too" (Carson). I also appreciate that there is some limited interaction with other godly scholars whom I respect on "the other side" the Bible translation debates, so to speak (in truth it's far more nuanced of course), at least within the conservative evangelical and Reformed world (e.g. Wayne Grudem, Vern Poythress).
Context, context, context! The joys of language theory! I am always reminded of the "homoousios" controversy in the 4th century and how an underlying problem was the difference in the way the eastern Greek speaking side of church understood the word vs the way the western latin speaking side of the church understood the word. I find in the church today the biggest challenge isn't over the meaning of words but getting egotistical hot headed people to LISTEN to each other and charitably ask for clarification when a controversy arises as Robert J. McCloskey said, "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure that you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Another excellent video, Mark! (I know, I repeat commendations a lot here!) Being well meaning and respectful... Excellent! As far as “usage determines meaning” the earliest “usage” of monogenes (only begotten) is found in many early Greek writings around the time of Christ and shortly thereafter. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, about 1700 years ago, the common “usage” of “only-begotten” was [example 1] in comparing lighting a flame from a flame already lit. That flame was in essence a flame BEGOTTEN, BORN FROM the flame already burning. They also [example 2] illustrated “only-begotten with rays being emitted or"begotten” from the sun.They had many other such ‘usages’ as well. Additionally, Jesus is called an “only-begotten Son.” In contrast God is called an “unbegotten God”. Does that mean God is ‘un-unique’ or that God isn’t one of a kind (the modern “usage” of monogenes since 1886 and rarely, if ever prior)? Yet many modern bible translations remove “only-begotten” from the centuries-old "usage" and replace it with a definition rarely if ever in "usage" that way in biblical times. Fortunately, not all bible translations remove “only-begotten” from John 3:16 and other places.
Actually the controversy with that term is its usage for Isaac in Hebrews 11, and similar passages where it cannot mean "only begotten." Please note I'm not speaking to its translation in John 3:16, or any other individual passage, I'm only noting where the conflict really lies.
That is a valid point. "only" and "unique" is PART of the definition, but it still holds true that Isaac and in other similar passages, they were ones that were "begotten" with that 'uniqueness' and 'oneness' and makes it clear that their being "one" and/or "unique" wasn't due to a later event in life, say, education, a noble deed, or any other cause. They were born; begotten with such attributes. And, as was mentioned, if God is "un-begotten" does that make Him 'not' or "un-unique? Thus there certainly is much more to monogenes than merely "unique" or "only".
Perhaps, but some believe that mongenes implies beloved instead, additionally the Latin version of the apostles creed treats uion ton monogene as filium eius unicum, (his only son). I do not know if this is in the earliest version of the creed (I assume, based on the Latin word order there is a Greek original, but I could be wrong here as well). Additionally, the fathers are working in a different approach to Semantics than Mark is, (they are operating within Platonism, which treated words as forms, and therefore unchanging). Again, I am only noting the controversy, I'm still out on this one.
@@kevinshort2230 Thanks, I appreciate your respectful approach. Hopefully, I come across that respectful as well. I try and go back as far as possible for the "usage" as Mark says, and have been doing that for quite a few decades now. A lot is said in the inspired scriptures as far as usage, and "begotten" seems to always be part of the usage of monogenes/only-begotten. It's the Ante-Nicene fathers that wrote almost endlessly about monogenes and they are among the closest time-wise as far as using and discussing monogenes. Showing with usage illustrations such as a flame being begotten from a flame or a ray of sun emitting from the sun does clearly indicate something begetting something else and not just strictly "unique" or "one" since flames and sun rays, in themselves aren't really all that unique. There are other examples used in those times too, such as streams that beget water that flows into rivers. All of these were illustrations used to explain Jesus as being the "monogenes" or only-begotten. No matter how we look at it, this all clearly shows much more to monogenes than exclusively "unique" or "one" which is a definition that came into use in 1886. Grudem's "Systematic Theology" discusses the very recent change and history of monogenes, now in modern times being explained in a way that was never understood for nearly 2000 years or so. They're coming awfully close to "new age" thinkers in these days - another reason to check the usage of Greek words from biblical times rather than modern times.
I already noted an issue here with Patristics (they are working with a platonisms tendency to treat words as metaphysical constants--additionally many tended to use Attic Greek as their grammatical lense rather than koine), I think the other problem is that the illustrations you use are closer to tritheism or modalist conceptions rather than trinitarian ones. That, I think is an issue with this term in English, it's not a lexical issue, it's a theoligical one--but begotten to many English speakers requires Jesus have a seperate essence from the Father. No worries on tone. My approach is only to note where the issues occur, not to provide an answer, I do not consider this a major controversy, either way.
This was such an interesting+entertaining look at language. I love googling the etymology of words and seeing how they came down through the ages to mean what they do today. Thank you for the great work.
Well let's consider your comments overall here. The ESV translation is a Beautiful translation. However the bond servant is NOT and transliterated word. They should have left the word slave. Oh but this could offend people, so what. We are not to change by adding or subtracting anything from scriptures. Another example is the word Faith. It's not anywhere in scriptures. The actual word is Emuna( actually I think I spelled it wrong) however we have as a whole failed to explain and show that Yeshua was a Jew. Embedded in a hebraic understanding, not a western view. So scriptures command us to study the scriptures and to rightly divide it's meaning. Thank you for your hard work and information.
The issue with "slave" is not necessarily that it's offensive (though such an argument did arise during the recent revision of the NRSV), but that Americans have a very, very narrow understanding of slavery that is shaped by the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the events leading up to the Civil War. The form(s) of slavery in antiquity were not exactly noble, and some forms could indeed be comparable to the harshest practices of the Antebellum South, but American readers can't read the word "slave" without importing ideas of systemic racism and other anachronistic ideas that don't map neatly onto the Roman system. "Bond-servant" does reek of euphemism, admittedly, and it's hard to find a less racially-charged alternative to "slave" that conveys forced servitude without softening the blow.
Great video Mark, appreciate the lack of space but you didn't touch on one issue (maybe another video lol), that is words with a technical meaning e.g. legal, medical and theological. I dont think words mean what people use them for them really works in that context. One example is people trying to redefine "genocide" to include actions relating to Trans people. I
So the more you use the KJV, the more you will understand it. I find this rather cool, though I also thought it was rad, until rad became bad, even though it was good, so now I am back to cool. Isn't that swell. I mean sweet, but not the candy kind.
There is a debate that rages online about John 3:16, specifically "whosoever/whoever believes". Notable Calvinists, such as James White will argue that the Greek is properly understood as "all the believing" where as the other side argues a more traditional, well, whosoever approach. The futility of using John 3:16 to prove one's soteriology aside, this is the most prominent example I could think of for your take home point at about 23 minutes. Reason being is that all English translations I have checked use whoever language, signaling that is probably the best English understanding of the Greek. Does that sound about right?
One small note, White represents a subschool of Calvinism here, (Dutch neo-calvinism), the trouble is, that subset redefines Calvinism as a tradition and don't fully realize it. Don't confuse the supralaparsian position on freewill with calvinism simpliciter, that is a common, but serious, error. Secondarily, Mark is writing within an analytical philosophical approach to Semantics, but Neo-Calvinism is influenced by German idealism, particularly Kant through Kuyper. Third, White here isn't discussing the lexicography, meaning can be used in more ways than one, his point is the theological meaning as used in the passage, not the meaning of the term. I think he is wrong, but it isn't solvable by a lexical appeal.
Speaking of James White, I often associate his name with the founders of Seventh-day Adventism, which has been the primary usage in materials I have been exposed to over the last 30 years or so. It can be a minor distraction in my understanding of what I have been perusing in the last year or so. 😊 (edited to tidy up repeated words)
My take on John 3:16 is this. There are those who say the believe in Jesus, and or God, but don't really actually believe what he / they said, nor do they obey his/their teachings. A good example would be Jonestown. Do you think Jim Jones and his group were real believers? To some Jesus will be the Rock of their Salvation, but to many others he will be a stone that they will stumble over.
Actually, as Jim Jones was an advocate of treating Christianity as a myth teaching communism, no they didn't, but that doesn't really correlate with White. White appears to be trying to reconcile Jobn 3:16 to incompatiblism. Recent years have seen new discussions of the problem of divine foreknowledge and freewill, which has led many Calvinists to abandon the English/Scottish tradition of infralapsarianism for Supralapsarianism. White is trying to prove why John 3:15-20 is not a problem for the incompatibilist, I don't think he succeeds, but that isn't really the discussion Mark was having on words.
Hi: In Textus Receptus OR Nestle Greek, John 3:16 actually says, literally, "each/every the [one] believing". "Whosoever believeth" (KJV), OR "whoever believes" (NIV), are both ok ways of dealing with a common Greek construction we don't use much in English. :--}>
My favorite example/demonstration of the etymological fallacy is "sincere," whose Latin etymology I learned from the best-selling author who shares my name (though given how far off he is on things like church history, maybe I should be suspicious there too). Nothing about wax in the English meaning of that word.
As someone who loves linguistics, I was with you until you mentioned John McWhorter. Then I was really with you because I've recently listened to a lot of his books and absolutely love them (though I agree with you about giving the evolutionary origins of language a pass; God created some at Babel, probably 70, and they've been evolving since). I don't disagree with anything you said regarding the etymological fallacy, and I think you'd agree that the etymology can have real value, but I think that latter fact is relevant as well. For example, it can help in remembering the meaning of words, especially if it coincides with it. While etymology does not determine meaning, it is no coincidence that it sometimes corresponds with it. I will not give "God be with you" as the meaning of "Goodbye" to an ESL learner, but I will give "un- (=not) happy -ness (=noun)" as the meaning of unhappiness, because it is a useful way to define it in that context. So it's situational in that sense.
We need consistency and correctness in our Bible translations and in our exegesis. We are to have a pattern of sound words 2Tim1:13 and cleave to God's words teems and vocabulary and reject the wisdom and word of man .
Great concept and I absolutely agree. When the Bible translation concept is based on a sectarian theology and/or a denominational posture it is inaccurate and false. Truth is what we seek regardless of the consequences.
Snafu is an interesting one to bring up. I'm Australian. I only heard the word hmm less than 15 years ago, and immediately l asked what that word meant, and the man who spoke it spelled out the acronym. Since then it always jumps out at me when media outlets use it as if it was not a profanity. I tend to use "situation normal" in its place, although l suppose even that is cussing by implication.
@@davidchilds9590 agreed. Where l live, it's a newer word and still carries its original meaning. And, l think, still carries a bit of a laugh about military naming conventions, as in MREs (Meals, Ready-to-Eat).
Thanks for the video! I love referencing Garner’s Modern English Usage to see how words are actually used by English speakers. Really interesting to see the change in certain words.
Your explanation of Christmas as one of those words that might have been used differently in past than the way we mean today is a side of that argument I have never heard before. Brother , you think on a different level.
26:18 agreed McWhorter is brilliant! Related to his work, Mark, I’m curious if you’ve encountered examples of Biblical studies which dip too far into Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis? Personally I’ve been helped a lot by learning about “the worldview” of the Biblical languages (for example “ruahk” being wind/breath/spirit), but I struggle to reconcile this with the convincing arguments from McWhorter. I genuinely wonder if it’s an example of Sapir-Whorf or not, and if not, why not.
I would say McWhorter and Sapir-Whorf, as I understand them, are incompatible. McWhorter, and Mark are working within analytical semantic theory, which is empirical and foundationalist, Sapir-Whorf were working in early continental semantics, and you can not believe both and be coherent, it is one or the other. If there is anworldview connection to language, it is probably in reverse of Sapir-Whorf (worldview impacts structure over time rather than the other way around). The issue with worldview scholarship is that it is often infected by relativism, this sadly includes many Christian worldview scholars, who insist that Christianity is the one truth to be presupposes, but still operate within a coherentist account of justification or truth, which is incompatible with assertions of objective truth. I would say the better answer is to reject all encompassing views of worldview, including Sapir-whorf, treating it as a limited concept. Interestingly enough, Scripture itself better fits a foundationalist epistemology.
@@kevinshort2230 ah interesting, in other words, the refutation argument is not trying to say that *no* relationship exists between worldview and language. It does exist. It’s just that we get into trouble when we imply or claim that language has a *causal* relationship to worldview.
Possibly, though I tend to think worldview and language are often unconnected. I wrote a peice for answers journal when I was a young earther that might help, in regards to tendencies for mythicists tendency to confuse "literal" word meanings with phenomenological usages that might help a bit (it was entitled phenomenological language and semantic naievete). Language may be shaped by worldview, but it can also be shaped by a cultures stock of metaphors (the word heart), genre, common principles of sound, etc. Grammatical gender is more likely a result of suffix terminations held in common than animism, for example. The problem is, deeper, though, Sapir-Whorf seems to require a cohentist epistemology, McWhorter and Mark (in his semantics at least) imply a foundationalist epistemology. One cannot hold to both a foundationalist and a coherentist epistemology, it is one or the other (or neither). What I am suggesting involves a change in the understanding of what a worldview is, which is different from just a semantics discussion. Worldview scholarship usually happens within the same coherentist structure. Worldview in coherentism goes all the way down to the bottom and is all encompassing, that idea I think requires rejection, (if for no other reason than people come to view worldviews as "false.") Instead I would argue that a worldview is abductively developed from what is epistemologically properly basic (and therefore control beliefs are subject to objective analysis in a way that is not consistent with much of worldview scholarship).
Where us the consistency or accuracy in 2Tim1:7 where the word self-control in our modern versions is not ideal or the best choice. It should read a sound mind as in the kjv or sanity as in the Concordant Literal Version. This is not the Greek word for self-control as we find in Gal5,:23. A spirit of sanity or a sound mind does produce self control. Why not translate each Greek word consistently with the proper corresponding English equivalent.? The everlasting hills are not everlasting, they are eonian or agelasting, for every mountain shall be leveled and made straight.
A number of Greek, and Hebrew, words do not have just one proper English equivalent, but several; which is correct in any particular place must be determined by context.
Basically I think this is the descriptivist/prescriptivist debate. (I happen to be a prescriptivist, but I do use some phrasings that would be "technically incorrect" according to such a system.) Some languages actually have regulatory boards that control the official form of the language. English isn't one - but most Romance languages have such boards.
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive, personally, I think the question is when should we prescribe and when should we describe. Descriptive approaches are how we understand what a speaker or writer intends to say. Prescription helps us to understand how we can best communicate the idea we are trying to convey.
You'll find that even in countries with official "language boards" such as France or Israel, these boards are fighting an uphill battle. Simply put descriptivism is how language naturally works and is why we modern English speakers can't read Beowulf, even though it's technically written in a form of English. No amount of "official oversight" is going to cause man to undo what he does by nature. We can't stop the flow and evolution of language, we can't get back to proto-germanic or PIE. Even if there was someone 1000+ years ago telling the Angles not to interact with the Saxons, the Norse, the Franks, and the Gauls, or 800ish years ago saying don't speak with the Normans, we'd still be speaking the "bastard tongue" (not my words, nor intended as foul language) of modern English.
@mikeymcgee1509 true, but that isn't the goal of said boards. I would wager they are not seeking to "fine" people for using language "incorrectly" (at least, I assume they are not) but setting standards for certain formal settings. Such a board is like the style guide of a university or publishing company. It is certainly permissible to work from inductive data and prescribe an ongoing solution to a problem, though it doesn't work to prescribe matters without reference to descriptive induction.
Hi Mark! Are you aware of the supernatural Bible changes occurring in all Bible translations but more in the KJV! EYA Censored UA-cam channel has more info! It’s a Hot Mess!! Hope to hear from you soon!!
Don't buy into the Mandela Effect nonsense. Here is a scan of the 1611 text. See the original wording for yourself rather than relying on your faulty memory: archive.org/details/kjvkingjamesbibl1611lman/mode/2up
I think it might help the critics mentioned in this video if they understood or better understood what the genetic fallacy is all about. From Wikipedia: "The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content. In other words, a claim is ignored or given credibility based on its source rather than the claim itself." The Wikipedia entry goes on to cite an example of the genetic fallacy from the book Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer (3rd ed., p. 36): "You're not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice."
atheist viewer here. a few notes. 1) we definitely don't need to appeal to a god to ensure that language continues to have meaning. even as a pure social construct, private language is a nonsense concept. 2) i generally agree with the statement that you should dig a bit deeper on pseudo-linguistic arguments. people will appeal to etymologies etc and you can really abuse meaning easily this way. most translations are pretty good, and there usually aren't secret meanings you need to consult the dictionary to decipher. THAT SAID, there are features like implication, word play, grammatical structure, etc that sometimes don't totally translate. you can indeed get more out of the text by studying the linguistics.
To push back on the first point, I would say we would likely need God for much of language to have meaning. If there is no God (conceived monotheistically, since a polytheistic Deity differs significantly in terms of its metaphysics), then much of our language, such as our ethical language cannot have meaning, because they lack a truthmaker; ethically normative concepts, including utilitarianism, or aesthetic statements in such a world could only be a noble lie, a socially created fiction. The word ball might have meaning in such circumstances, but words "wrong" or "beautiful" could not mean anything outside of a private note of approval (as Moore pointed out in Principia Ethica) but as MacIntyre pointed out, Moore's conclusions demonstrate a rational breakdown in ethics (and by analogy aesthetics).
Has anyone gotten the book Mark recommended Silva’s “Biblical Words and Their Meaning”? 27:09 An Excellent book! I was most impressed by the appendix examining the Greek words for “Worship”. He distinguishes the nuances of those Greek words. He shows “proskuneo” shouldn’t always be translated “worship.” He gives an example found in Matthew 2:11. He says most English versions translate “proskuneo” as worship as far as the wise men ‘worship’ the baby Jesus and explains that it shouldn’t be (as in other cases too). The NWT is in full harmony with his scholarly recommendation. Also, he shows how in Romans 1:25 and Matthew 4:10 the two Greek phrases for “worship and serve” are “indistinguishable when translated into English, but a sematic distinction is clearly perceived in the original.” Once again the NWT makes that distinction clear. The way that the NWT translates "proskuneo” is a point of contention for some folks I've been discussing for 50 years now, yet it is in full accord with what Moises Silva writes here and with other things throughout his book. I will be referencing his book regularly.
The anonymous inventors of the NWT inserted the name "Jehovah" instead of translating the text numerous times, and they did it with not a single manuscript to support it.... It's not a translation, rather it's an invention.
@@hayfieldhermit9657 Actually the divine name does appear in the LXX and there is most sound evidence it was in the Apostles original writings...
ua-cam.com/video/mqBEqLaYaQs/v-deo.htmlsi=nqroISJBujFCKkXB
@@JehovahsWitnessHistoryOnFilm If there, it would AT MOST be in quotes from the LXX, not in all the locations JWs have inserted it. And, there’s no excuse for the insertion of “other” in Colossians chapter 1.
@@user-bv4sj2gq7g "No excuse," but good reason. ;) Even KJV inserted "other." ua-cam.com/video/gWt04tmvuik/v-deo.htmlsi=wDZLQ9s5phaaG70f
Another gem. I wonder if adding the word, "Ultimately" to the beginning of the maxim might soften yet strengthen its truthfulness.
A good suggestion. Thank you for this!
What just floors me is the arrogance of some people that believe that only the English is God's chosen language....I've traveled internationally, and the KJVO issue is not a "thing" to people (and most missionaries) in those countries. I have had missionaries tell me that they wish some American had not come to their land and told the Christian people in their country they needed to use the KJV or have a translation that was translated from the KJV to really have God's word.
Yes, it is a theological error to speak this way.
I paused this video 12:56. What word keeps coming to mind is context. For example the word "spring." The word spring can mean to jump or swift action (my definition on these words) but the word spring can mean also spring can mean a season, a piece of metal in the bed, and small body of water. I believe context will determine its usage.
Amen to that.
I appreciate the distinction that you made between right/wrong and respectful/disrespectful. Descriptive linguistics, in my opinion, is so much more interesting than prescriptive linguistics. Of course I recognize and embrace prescriptive linguistics in formal academic language. But in less formal language, it really seems as though cultural consensus regulates linguistics enough that we don't have to teach it. For example, I can't simply make a word have a new meaning. To do so requires consensus, and that consensus is usually organic rather than planned. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who have coined words (I've coined a few myself), but their words never caught on. But others had no intention of coining words or making new definitions yet accomplished language changes without even trying. Language change simply happens, and it's so fascinating! Thanks for another great video!
After KJVO discussions, the nature of language is probably one of the most frequently brought up issues I've run into. Great stuff, as always. Thanks for putting it on the bottom shelf where everyone can reach it.
Yes! Thank you!
One of my primary complaints about communications is how the dictionaries will add and even change definitions based on how people use and misuse them. This is why we have such a hard time understanding historical text. So many of the words and the ideas behind them have changed so much that we have lost the wisdom of our ancestors. A good example of this would be the old herbal books from the 18th and 19th century. The words have changed so mush that they are almost worthless to us today. Most dictionaries don't have any of them anymore. But what would be really wonderful is to have a set of dictionaries that included all the different historical definitions within a given time periods. This way if your are reading a book from the 1400's you could look up what the word actually meant in the 1400's.
The problem is that such a book--namely, the Oxford English Dictionary--ends up being too big to be useful for easy reference. For older definitions, you might consider Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary.
I totally agree. In the past 100-200 years, even scholars have created meanings and definitions to biblical words that are completely foreign to those in bible times! And there are people today that aren't aware that some of these present definitions are new and weren't even used during biblical times. Word usage, in general, as they were used in biblical times should get first and prioritized use over anything "refined" within the past century or two. And the changes are mostly influenced by personal religious beliefs, including those of some scholars. We live with too much "new age" thinking rather than letting the biblical Kione - common words stand as they were used for hundreds or even thousands of years. Sadly, there are many people that are quick to conclude the definitions used by some have always been those definitions without looking back to verify.
@@19king14
Sounds like a great idea. We should start a process of worldwide Hellenization as soon as possible. Then maybe Christians can all get along again. At the very least we will understand what it is that we are arguing about. :)
@@MAMoreno
Thank you for the resource. That will come in handy sometimes.
Excellent! Thank you.
You are welcome!
This video was great. What is the best way to go about asking you a question if it doesn't have to do with this video?
Byfaithweunderstand.Com/contact Can’t promise a quick answer!
Hi Mark. I'm working on a translation project with some people. My native language isn't English. I have noticed that KJV onlyists say that English is the international language and the English is the best language. But that's changing. Thousand years ago, in the Roman Empire, Greek and Latin was "international language." But that changed. English doesn't have every word. What I mean is that when you translate the Bible from Greek and Hebrew, there are words that don't have exact matching English words. In English, the word "Lord" means Master, Prince, Noble person, king, ruler, Official, God, Deity. In Malayalam, we have different words for the Lord. Each word is used for God, deity, Master, and prince, king, ruler and official. I emphasis things I wrote. In conclusion, we need multiple translations and languages. In order to have better understanding of things, we need multiple languages and translations. We can use multiple languages to express ourselves. I'm not KJV onlyists. I will stick to my native language, Malayalam, and my Malayalam Bible.
Your "snafu" example reminds me of a different discussion people sometimes get into about whether using corruptions of swear words as minced oaths is sinful. I don't because I don't think etymology matters, and you seem to agree somewhat to this type of reasoning. That being said I still don't use that type of language online, and I still believe it is sinful to use such language against people.
I have an question though: How does a word become less offensive over time? I assume it happens because people use it and the connotations start shifting, but does that mean that this type of language evolution happens through sin?
Awesome awesome video - love what you do my friend 🙂
Thank you! Cheers!
Great video, as always, and really pulled together a lot of disjointed ideas I had floating around as someone so lightly interested in language that to even call myself an amateur feels disrespectful to those in the field 😂 I'm already going through Exegetical Fallacies per your suggestion in your beginners guide to Greek, can't wait to get into Silva's book next!
Glad you enjoyed it! Let me know how it goes!
Thank you so much man. Thank you for putting incredible videos like this together and allowing laymen like me to listen to it for free - it sharpens my understanding and enables me to lead my family better in our study of Scripture.
My pleasure!
I appreciate the intent of this video. I gained some valuable insight from it. But… at 76 years old, and someone who cares about language, I don’t think it is this simple “today.” There are forces afoot that depend upon distortion of language, and capturing language and word meaning, to consciously accomplish both distortion and suppression of simple truths of human existence. These forces seem to be exceedingly clever in this effort, and I am afraid they capitalize on exactly what you’re talking about in this video for destructive ends.
I wonder if this has ever not been true!
Absolutely. Just look what’s happening with simple definitions like “gender” and “woman”.
As a Indian, I love your videos. Words will have a semantic range of meanings.
I am looking forward to hearing Dr. Ward's views on this interesting topic. Presuppositions about language underlie much of the KJV debate
Agreed!
I’m going to be honest, this is hard for me to accept. I believe it is right because I know language changes but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. 😂
Ha! I'll give you that.
I'll tell you, though-I've come to like it! Not every individual change. Some are annoying. But overall, I find the topic endlessly fascinating!
@@markwardonwords there is definitely something about relief from acknowledging it, but I want the rigidity. It’s like the safety that I felt in the KJVO position. That rigidity was a source of comfort and pride, even to the point of removing the need for faith.
Every time something that I put absolute faith in is stripped away, it leaves me feeling so vulnerable. Ultimately it leads me to trust more fully in Christ instead of these crutches that I have learned to rely upon.
Very good work, my friend.
Thank you very much!
The bible is the dictionary. The refined sense of a word is gained by reading. Definitions are, by definition, not pure.
That's really convenient if you want to add your own cultish interpretations to any word you want. But it reeks of Gnosticism, not Christianity.
@@MAMoreno Comparing: spiritual with spiritual...
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
...
And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.
I never cared about any of this before learning Spanish. Now I really love this kind of stuff. Good job brother!
Yes, it’s so amazing how your perspective changes when you really study another language - enough to understand it and even speak it.
So if usage determines meaning than to me that could explain the push for language change regarding gender?
Some of it. See my NIV Is the Best Bible video.
@@markwardonwords I’ll watch it again !
You have become quite famous hear at home .
Just a side question , could you give any guidance in the interpretation of 1cor 11 (head coverings) ? I I do not as of now have a position but would joyfully accept any thoughts or recommendations. I ask because of the specific background that you came from .
This was fabulous! Thank you. It will be interesting to see how the world of "texting" changes language use in days to come. In a recent text exchange with my son he responded to something I said with "LMFAO". I figured he either forgot what that stood for, or forgot that he was speaking with his mother. Of course the former was the case.
Hi there:
For Christian writing, sometimes we want to use a word, but the thesaurus and dictionary show it has both good and bad meanings.
An example would be the word "gay". It means, "cheerful, bright, and happy". As in, "gay bannerole".
But it also has another meaning.
I do not believe in yielding high ground, ceding good words, to Satan.
However, it might not be "wise as serpents, innocent as doves", one could fail to be perspicacious, to suggest Christians should be gay; even though Proverbs says, "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine."
:--}>
Great video. John McWhorter's podcast, Moises Silva's Biblical Words and Their Meaning, and Don Carson's Exegetical Fallacies are excellent recommendations for further reading.
Also, for what it's worth, if anything, I found some (not all) of the essays in the book The Challenge of Bible Translation (Glen Scorgie, Mark Strauss, and Steven Voth, eds.) worthwhile reading. Especially "Are Translators Traitors? Some Personal Reflections" (Silva) and "The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation - and Other Limits, Too" (Carson). I also appreciate that there is some limited interaction with other godly scholars whom I respect on "the other side" the Bible translation debates, so to speak (in truth it's far more nuanced of course), at least within the conservative evangelical and Reformed world (e.g. Wayne Grudem, Vern Poythress).
Totally with you. Loved multiple essays in that Challenge of BT volume.
Context, context, context! The joys of language theory! I am always reminded of the "homoousios" controversy in the 4th century and how an underlying problem was the difference in the way the eastern Greek speaking side of church understood the word vs the way the western latin speaking side of the church understood the word. I find in the church today the biggest challenge isn't over the meaning of words but getting egotistical hot headed people to LISTEN to each other and charitably ask for clarification when a controversy arises as Robert J. McCloskey said, "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure that you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Humpty Dumpty
Another excellent video, Mark! (I know, I repeat commendations a lot here!) Being well meaning and respectful... Excellent! As far as “usage determines meaning” the earliest “usage” of monogenes (only begotten) is found in many early Greek writings around the time of Christ and shortly thereafter. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, about 1700 years ago, the common “usage” of “only-begotten” was [example 1] in comparing lighting a flame from a flame already lit. That flame was in essence a flame BEGOTTEN, BORN FROM the flame already burning. They also [example 2] illustrated “only-begotten with rays being emitted or"begotten” from the sun.They had many other such ‘usages’ as well. Additionally, Jesus is called an “only-begotten Son.” In contrast God is called an “unbegotten God”. Does that mean God is ‘un-unique’ or that God isn’t one of a kind (the modern “usage” of monogenes since 1886 and rarely, if ever prior)? Yet many modern bible translations remove “only-begotten” from the centuries-old "usage" and replace it with a definition rarely if ever in "usage" that way in biblical times. Fortunately, not all bible translations remove “only-begotten” from John 3:16 and other places.
Actually the controversy with that term is its usage for Isaac in Hebrews 11, and similar passages where it cannot mean "only begotten."
Please note I'm not speaking to its translation in John 3:16, or any other individual passage, I'm only noting where the conflict really lies.
That is a valid point. "only" and "unique" is PART of the definition, but it still holds true that Isaac and in other similar passages, they were ones that were "begotten" with that 'uniqueness' and 'oneness' and makes it clear that their being "one" and/or "unique" wasn't due to a later event in life, say, education, a noble deed, or any other cause. They were born; begotten with such attributes. And, as was mentioned, if God is "un-begotten" does that make Him 'not' or "un-unique? Thus there certainly is much more to monogenes than merely "unique" or "only".
Perhaps, but some believe that mongenes implies beloved instead, additionally the Latin version of the apostles creed treats uion ton monogene as filium eius unicum, (his only son). I do not know if this is in the earliest version of the creed (I assume, based on the Latin word order there is a Greek original, but I could be wrong here as well).
Additionally, the fathers are working in a different approach to Semantics than Mark is, (they are operating within Platonism, which treated words as forms, and therefore unchanging).
Again, I am only noting the controversy, I'm still out on this one.
@@kevinshort2230 Thanks, I appreciate your respectful approach. Hopefully, I come across that respectful as well. I try and go back as far as possible for the "usage" as Mark says, and have been doing that for quite a few decades now. A lot is said in the inspired scriptures as far as usage, and "begotten" seems to always be part of the usage of monogenes/only-begotten. It's the Ante-Nicene fathers that wrote almost endlessly about monogenes and they are among the closest time-wise as far as using and discussing monogenes. Showing with usage illustrations such as a flame being begotten from a flame or a ray of sun emitting from the sun does clearly indicate something begetting something else and not just strictly "unique" or "one" since flames and sun rays, in themselves aren't really all that unique. There are other examples used in those times too, such as streams that beget water that flows into rivers. All of these were illustrations used to explain Jesus as being the "monogenes" or only-begotten. No matter how we look at it, this all clearly shows much more to monogenes than exclusively "unique" or "one" which is a definition that came into use in 1886. Grudem's "Systematic Theology" discusses the very recent change and history of monogenes, now in modern times being explained in a way that was never understood for nearly 2000 years or so. They're coming awfully close to "new age" thinkers in these days - another reason to check the usage of Greek words from biblical times rather than modern times.
I already noted an issue here with Patristics (they are working with a platonisms tendency to treat words as metaphysical constants--additionally many tended to use Attic Greek as their grammatical lense rather than koine), I think the other problem is that the illustrations you use are closer to tritheism or modalist conceptions rather than trinitarian ones. That, I think is an issue with this term in English, it's not a lexical issue, it's a theoligical one--but begotten to many English speakers requires Jesus have a seperate essence from the Father.
No worries on tone. My approach is only to note where the issues occur, not to provide an answer, I do not consider this a major controversy, either way.
Ever do anything on the Latin Vulgate?
This was such an interesting+entertaining look at language. I love googling the etymology of words and seeing how they came down through the ages to mean what they do today.
Thank you for the great work.
My great pleasure!
I'm looking forward to this video, and it's funny because it falls on my birthday, the 24th.
✔
Happy birthday
Well let's consider your comments overall here. The ESV translation is a Beautiful translation. However the bond servant is NOT and transliterated word. They should have left the word slave. Oh but this could offend people, so what. We are not to change by adding or subtracting anything from scriptures. Another example is the word Faith. It's not anywhere in scriptures. The actual word is Emuna( actually I think I spelled it wrong) however we have as a whole failed to explain and show that Yeshua was a Jew. Embedded in a hebraic understanding, not a western view. So scriptures command us to study the scriptures and to rightly divide it's meaning. Thank you for your hard work and information.
The issue with "slave" is not necessarily that it's offensive (though such an argument did arise during the recent revision of the NRSV), but that Americans have a very, very narrow understanding of slavery that is shaped by the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the events leading up to the Civil War. The form(s) of slavery in antiquity were not exactly noble, and some forms could indeed be comparable to the harshest practices of the Antebellum South, but American readers can't read the word "slave" without importing ideas of systemic racism and other anachronistic ideas that don't map neatly onto the Roman system. "Bond-servant" does reek of euphemism, admittedly, and it's hard to find a less racially-charged alternative to "slave" that conveys forced servitude without softening the blow.
Noooo... For once we disagree. Or maybe I'm showing my age and origins. "Peruse" as careful reading! Surely not. :-)
Ha! Look it up! I’m with you, actually. To me it means to skim.
Great video Mark, appreciate the lack of space but you didn't touch on one issue (maybe another video lol), that is words with a technical meaning e.g. legal, medical and theological. I dont think words mean what people use them for them really works in that context. One example is people trying to redefine "genocide" to include actions relating to Trans people. I
Technical meaning is something I should definitely do a video on…
You said ending sentences with a preposition is okay??? Sorry. I can’t abide “where’s it AT”!!! 🙄
Ha! ;) It's true!
So the more you use the KJV, the more you will understand it. I find this rather cool, though I also thought it was rad, until rad became bad, even though it was good, so now I am back to cool. Isn't that swell. I mean sweet, but not the candy kind.
I agree with your first line!
Truly enjoy listening to you and John McWhorter's "Lexicon Valley" podcast.
Thanks for that!
There is a debate that rages online about John 3:16, specifically "whosoever/whoever believes". Notable Calvinists, such as James White will argue that the Greek is properly understood as "all the believing" where as the other side argues a more traditional, well, whosoever approach.
The futility of using John 3:16 to prove one's soteriology aside, this is the most prominent example I could think of for your take home point at about 23 minutes. Reason being is that all English translations I have checked use whoever language, signaling that is probably the best English understanding of the Greek. Does that sound about right?
One small note, White represents a subschool of Calvinism here, (Dutch neo-calvinism), the trouble is, that subset redefines Calvinism as a tradition and don't fully realize it. Don't confuse the supralaparsian position on freewill with calvinism simpliciter, that is a common, but serious, error.
Secondarily, Mark is writing within an analytical philosophical approach to Semantics, but Neo-Calvinism is influenced by German idealism, particularly Kant through Kuyper. Third, White here isn't discussing the lexicography, meaning can be used in more ways than one, his point is the theological meaning as used in the passage, not the meaning of the term.
I think he is wrong, but it isn't solvable by a lexical appeal.
Speaking of James White, I often associate his name with the founders of Seventh-day Adventism, which has been the primary usage in materials I have been exposed to over the last 30 years or so. It can be a minor distraction in my understanding of what I have been perusing in the last year or so. 😊 (edited to tidy up repeated words)
My take on John 3:16 is this. There are those who say the believe in Jesus, and or God, but don't really actually believe what he / they said, nor do they obey his/their teachings. A good example would be Jonestown. Do you think Jim Jones and his group were real believers? To some Jesus will be the Rock of their Salvation, but to many others he will be a stone that they will stumble over.
Actually, as Jim Jones was an advocate of treating Christianity as a myth teaching communism, no they didn't, but that doesn't really correlate with White. White appears to be trying to reconcile Jobn 3:16 to incompatiblism. Recent years have seen new discussions of the problem of divine foreknowledge and freewill, which has led many Calvinists to abandon the English/Scottish tradition of infralapsarianism for Supralapsarianism. White is trying to prove why John 3:15-20 is not a problem for the incompatibilist, I don't think he succeeds, but that isn't really the discussion Mark was having on words.
Hi:
In Textus Receptus OR Nestle Greek, John 3:16 actually says, literally, "each/every the [one] believing".
"Whosoever believeth" (KJV), OR "whoever believes" (NIV), are both ok ways of dealing with a common Greek construction we don't use much in English.
:--}>
Yikes. That “perused” discussion made me displeased. Perused should not mean a careful reading! 😂
My English brain says it means "skim."
My favorite example/demonstration of the etymological fallacy is "sincere," whose Latin etymology I learned from the best-selling author who shares my name (though given how far off he is on things like church history, maybe I should be suspicious there too). Nothing about wax in the English meaning of that word.
Right!
As someone who loves linguistics, I was with you until you mentioned John McWhorter. Then I was really with you because I've recently listened to a lot of his books and absolutely love them (though I agree with you about giving the evolutionary origins of language a pass; God created some at Babel, probably 70, and they've been evolving since).
I don't disagree with anything you said regarding the etymological fallacy, and I think you'd agree that the etymology can have real value, but I think that latter fact is relevant as well. For example, it can help in remembering the meaning of words, especially if it coincides with it. While etymology does not determine meaning, it is no coincidence that it sometimes corresponds with it. I will not give "God be with you" as the meaning of "Goodbye" to an ESL learner, but I will give "un- (=not) happy -ness (=noun)" as the meaning of unhappiness, because it is a useful way to define it in that context. So it's situational in that sense.
Of course, "unhappiness" does not precisely mean "not-happy noun", but that's what seeing the word used in context is for.
I agree with all you say!
We need consistency and correctness in our Bible translations and in our exegesis. We are to have a pattern of sound words 2Tim1:13 and cleave to God's words teems and vocabulary and reject the wisdom and word of man .
Great concept and I absolutely agree. When the Bible translation concept is based on a sectarian theology and/or a denominational posture it is inaccurate and false. Truth is what we seek regardless of the consequences.
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made... still at it today.
Agreed.
Snafu is an interesting one to bring up. I'm Australian. I only heard the word hmm less than 15 years ago, and immediately l asked what that word meant, and the man who spoke it spelled out the acronym. Since then it always jumps out at me when media outlets use it as if it was not a profanity. I tend to use "situation normal" in its place, although l suppose even that is cussing by implication.
What's 'profane' about "Situation Normal All Fouled Up"?
@@davidchilds9590 that's a bowdlerism.
@@russell13904 But that's how I use the term. For me (and everyone I know), that is what it means. That's how English works!
@@davidchilds9590 agreed. Where l live, it's a newer word and still carries its original meaning. And, l think, still carries a bit of a laugh about military naming conventions, as in MREs (Meals, Ready-to-Eat).
I heard in a movie the word stromash to indicate that same sense of snafu .
Thanks for the video! I love referencing Garner’s Modern English Usage to see how words are actually used by English speakers. Really interesting to see the change in certain words.
You're very welcome!
Your explanation of Christmas as one of those words that might have been used differently in past than the way we mean today is a side of that argument I have never heard before. Brother , you think on a different level.
I wasn't speaking of "Christmas" the word but Christmas the thing, the celebration and the set of cultural practices that accompany it.
@@markwardonwords yes , I got your meaning .
Should have used a word that better communicated what I was trying to convey.
26:18 agreed McWhorter is brilliant!
Related to his work, Mark, I’m curious if you’ve encountered examples of Biblical studies which dip too far into Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis? Personally I’ve been helped a lot by learning about “the worldview” of the Biblical languages (for example “ruahk” being wind/breath/spirit), but I struggle to reconcile this with the convincing arguments from McWhorter. I genuinely wonder if it’s an example of Sapir-Whorf or not, and if not, why not.
I would say McWhorter and Sapir-Whorf, as I understand them, are incompatible. McWhorter, and Mark are working within analytical semantic theory, which is empirical and foundationalist, Sapir-Whorf were working in early continental semantics, and you can not believe both and be coherent, it is one or the other. If there is anworldview connection to language, it is probably in reverse of Sapir-Whorf (worldview impacts structure over time rather than the other way around).
The issue with worldview scholarship is that it is often infected by relativism, this sadly includes many Christian worldview scholars, who insist that Christianity is the one truth to be presupposes, but still operate within a coherentist account of justification or truth, which is incompatible with assertions of objective truth. I would say the better answer is to reject all encompassing views of worldview, including Sapir-whorf, treating it as a limited concept. Interestingly enough, Scripture itself better fits a foundationalist epistemology.
@@kevinshort2230 ah interesting, in other words, the refutation argument is not trying to say that *no* relationship exists between worldview and language. It does exist. It’s just that we get into trouble when we imply or claim that language has a *causal* relationship to worldview.
Possibly, though I tend to think worldview and language are often unconnected. I wrote a peice for answers journal when I was a young earther that might help, in regards to tendencies for mythicists tendency to confuse "literal" word meanings with phenomenological usages that might help a bit (it was entitled phenomenological language and semantic naievete). Language may be shaped by worldview, but it can also be shaped by a cultures stock of metaphors (the word heart), genre, common principles of sound, etc. Grammatical gender is more likely a result of suffix terminations held in common than animism, for example.
The problem is, deeper, though, Sapir-Whorf seems to require a cohentist epistemology, McWhorter and Mark (in his semantics at least) imply a foundationalist epistemology. One cannot hold to both a foundationalist and a coherentist epistemology, it is one or the other (or neither).
What I am suggesting involves a change in the understanding of what a worldview is, which is different from just a semantics discussion. Worldview scholarship usually happens within the same coherentist structure. Worldview in coherentism goes all the way down to the bottom and is all encompassing, that idea I think requires rejection, (if for no other reason than people come to view worldviews as "false.") Instead I would argue that a worldview is abductively developed from what is epistemologically properly basic (and therefore control beliefs are subject to objective analysis in a way that is not consistent with much of worldview scholarship).
Where us the consistency or accuracy in 2Tim1:7 where the word self-control in our modern versions is not ideal or the best choice. It should read a sound mind as in the kjv or sanity as in the Concordant Literal Version. This is not the Greek word for self-control as we find in Gal5,:23. A spirit of sanity or a sound mind does produce self control. Why not translate each Greek word consistently with the proper corresponding English equivalent.? The everlasting hills are not everlasting, they are eonian or agelasting, for every mountain shall be leveled and made straight.
A number of Greek, and Hebrew, words do not have just one proper English equivalent, but several; which is correct in any particular place must be determined by context.
@gregb6469 who determines context.? Why isn't sound mind or sanity superior to self control in 2Tim1:7?
@@keithfuson7694-- My comment was a general one, not specific to II Tim 1:7.
Basically I think this is the descriptivist/prescriptivist debate. (I happen to be a prescriptivist, but I do use some phrasings that would be "technically incorrect" according to such a system.)
Some languages actually have regulatory boards that control the official form of the language. English isn't one - but most Romance languages have such boards.
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive, personally, I think the question is when should we prescribe and when should we describe. Descriptive approaches are how we understand what a speaker or writer intends to say. Prescription helps us to understand how we can best communicate the idea we are trying to convey.
You'll find that even in countries with official "language boards" such as France or Israel, these boards are fighting an uphill battle. Simply put descriptivism is how language naturally works and is why we modern English speakers can't read Beowulf, even though it's technically written in a form of English. No amount of "official oversight" is going to cause man to undo what he does by nature. We can't stop the flow and evolution of language, we can't get back to proto-germanic or PIE. Even if there was someone 1000+ years ago telling the Angles not to interact with the Saxons, the Norse, the Franks, and the Gauls, or 800ish years ago saying don't speak with the Normans, we'd still be speaking the "bastard tongue" (not my words, nor intended as foul language) of modern English.
@mikeymcgee1509 true, but that isn't the goal of said boards. I would wager they are not seeking to "fine" people for using language "incorrectly" (at least, I assume they are not) but setting standards for certain formal settings. Such a board is like the style guide of a university or publishing company. It is certainly permissible to work from inductive data and prescribe an ongoing solution to a problem, though it doesn't work to prescribe matters without reference to descriptive induction.
Hi Mark! Are you aware of the supernatural Bible changes occurring in all Bible translations but more in the KJV! EYA Censored UA-cam channel has more info! It’s a Hot Mess!! Hope to hear from you soon!!
Don't buy into the Mandela Effect nonsense. Here is a scan of the 1611 text. See the original wording for yourself rather than relying on your faulty memory: archive.org/details/kjvkingjamesbibl1611lman/mode/2up
I think it might help the critics mentioned in this video if they understood or better understood what the genetic fallacy is all about. From Wikipedia: "The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content. In other words, a claim is ignored or given credibility based on its source rather than the claim itself."
The Wikipedia entry goes on to cite an example of the genetic fallacy from the book Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer (3rd ed., p. 36): "You're not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice."
Excellent! Love the wedding ring example.
atheist viewer here. a few notes.
1) we definitely don't need to appeal to a god to ensure that language continues to have meaning. even as a pure social construct, private language is a nonsense concept.
2) i generally agree with the statement that you should dig a bit deeper on pseudo-linguistic arguments. people will appeal to etymologies etc and you can really abuse meaning easily this way. most translations are pretty good, and there usually aren't secret meanings you need to consult the dictionary to decipher. THAT SAID, there are features like implication, word play, grammatical structure, etc that sometimes don't totally translate. you can indeed get more out of the text by studying the linguistics.
To push back on the first point, I would say we would likely need God for much of language to have meaning. If there is no God (conceived monotheistically, since a polytheistic Deity differs significantly in terms of its metaphysics), then much of our language, such as our ethical language cannot have meaning, because they lack a truthmaker; ethically normative concepts, including utilitarianism, or aesthetic statements in such a world could only be a noble lie, a socially created fiction. The word ball might have meaning in such circumstances, but words "wrong" or "beautiful" could not mean anything outside of a private note of approval (as Moore pointed out in Principia Ethica) but as MacIntyre pointed out, Moore's conclusions demonstrate a rational breakdown in ethics (and by analogy aesthetics).
Why did nobody tell me about highways?
Yup!