Thank you, Mark. Excellent, as always! I assumed it meant 'one passing' as in 'one passing through' or 'making passage' in the context of Proverbs 9.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Excellent!

Yes you are a word nerd and that is why we keep coming back 😄

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Ha! Yes! I love having this job.

Thank you, Mark. I enjoy your "nerdines" with language because it helps me combat my failure to recall words, having past 70 years of age, on a daily bases. ✝GOD bless you, the family, and all the brothers and sisters everywhere in the name of ✝Jesus Christ/Yeshua Ha Mashiach✝

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Many thanks! I'm about to talk about Yeshua Ha Mashiach in an upcoming video!

@DocLarsen44

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords I'll be watching for it.

Thank you so much for your videos! I was raised KJVO and your videos have helped me so much! I am now wading out deeper into the other translations! Thank you!!

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Wonderful! That's why I'm here!

Great job, Mark. FWIW, 14:12 has a passenger flexing in the background of your video. . .

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Yes, I took a clip of that and shared it with my frisbee buddies. Oh Brandon… We've played together for years. Good guy to play with.

You are quickly becoming the Moisés Silva of our generation (Well your generation... I am part of Moises SIlva's generation, but I try and keep up) This is another example of two layers of exegesis we often have to perform on texts whose English is no longer our "used language."

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Your second sentence I'm down with. Your first I must object to! I'm really just still popularizing a lot of his insights (which stem, in turn, in part from James Barr, I believe). I love Silva!

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords You are quite humble my friend - I appreciate it ;-)

Fascinating! I remember reading this for a bible study group and brought it up to he group. The word "passengers" was pretty much dismissed as people riding by on animals (???) and the focus became foolishness and then starting devolving into "dumb blond" jokes. If it hadn't been for the homemade pastries I would have excused myself with the worried look at my cell phone. Thanks for this.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Wow! Can you tell me more? Fill out what exactly they took this to mean? I'm not sure I'm following!

@Old52Guy

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords This was a while ago but I'll try to give this some flesh. The discussion began to focus on the opening of the verse and a comparison between the silly women of the past and the soap opera crowd of today. And then the next part of waving at "passengers" seemed to have expanded to focus on flirtation but ignored what passengers meant, which I took to be a kind of important euphemism but no dictionary was available. The injunction of not being like this kind of woman became the springboard for the rest of the evening. At this point everyone seemed to have their own story of a silly woman, hence some of the dumb blond jokes and, while thinly veiled, examples of this kind of woman from members of the congregation. Basically, the figure of the silly woman was characterized as a flirty, brainless and irresponsible woman who did not attend to her duties and was an example of several women in the congregation who were not present at this study group. All of this within the first 20 minutes. The evening's discussion leader (a very nice grandmotherly sort who still wore white gloves) never had control of the discussion but did have the most salacious stories. But the pastries were amazing. The more I ate the less I said and the happier my wife was with me. Hope this helps. Feel free to use it if you want. By the way, I really admire your knowledge and ability to present the material in a calm and rational manner. You take a lot of prickly topics full on and I greatly appreciate it

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

@@Old52Guy Thank you for this! Helpful.

Thanks brother Ward. I personally trust only one English Dictionary, and it is the British Oxford Dictionary, not an American or an Australian Dictionary. Great video, thanks. Blessings from Australia.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Got an ISBN?

@robertrodrigues7319

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords unfortunately no I do not brother Ward.. I am living on a invalid pension, in Sydney..cannot afford one. That's another reason I use free esword for my Sunday School Lessons and church teaching.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

@@robertrodrigues7319 Aha! I'm sorry to hear that! What I mean by ISBN is the unique book number that every book has. I'd like to see the particular dictionary you mentioned!

@russell13904

Жыл бұрын

@markwardonwords I assume our brother is referring to the OED. But if you're wondering about Australian English dictionaries, the generally recognised authority is the Macquarie Dictionary. It's grouse mate; the duck's guts!

Thank you,Brother Mark. Always interesting.🌹🌹🌹🌹

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

You are very welcome!

You are a word nerd Mark, and we are all thankful for it and blessed by it. Another helpful video, thank you.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Thank you so much-my pleasure!

Insightful and more importantly very entertaining thank you❤🎉

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

I just came across this when using the Blue Letter Bible looking up the name of the city of Bethany "Bethany = "house of dates" or, "house of misery"" it's from the outline of biblical usage. I'm like "Okay, those aren't even close"

I had never deeply considered the difference in dictionaries. This reminds me of the scientific/analytical issue called a confounding variable. Confounding variable: A variable that is not included in an experiment, yet affects the relationship between the two variables in an experiment. It seems lady wisdom is often highlighting something we don't even consider. I will now more carefully consider what context dictionaries are covering.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Right! Excellent!

“Fellow travelers” is what came to my mind so it wasn’t exactly right lol

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

But very close!

Mark, Merriam-Webster puts definitions in order of age...oldest usage first. Great video!

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Are you sure? I tried and failed to find MW’s explanation.

@billyrevman

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords I took a screenshot, but I guess I can't post it here

Passers-by? Edited to add: I only guessed this because your video clued me in to the fact that there was something odd about the use of "passengers" in that sentence: otherwise, I probably would've just read over it.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Yes! And you put your finger on a big problem I have: how can I get people's honest opinion as to the meaning of a false friend? The proper way really is to mislead them a bit, to make them think you're asking for something else. That's what they do in studies. But I don't tend to like to do it for videos.

I always assumed "passengers" meant "passersby" in this passage.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Then why does it say “passengers”?

@nerdyyouthpastor8368

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords I'm assuming it's due to language change, but that's my answer without actually looking into the matter.

Thank you for the video. Commenting for the Algorithm.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Ha! Thank you!

Learned something about ballerinas and librarians today, thank you!

@markwardonwords

10 ай бұрын

You're so welcome!

So, im a dumb person but the immediate thought was a passenger on a airplane.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Right! My thought too. Or a cart. Back in ancient times.

I did know what "passenger" meant, not only by context, but also because (reprobate that I am) I read ungodly modern translations and remembered how they rendered the passage.

@markwardonwords

9 ай бұрын

Ha! Excellent!

Like several of these so-called “false friends”, that one’s perfectly clear from the context. It’s certainly not one worth getting exercised about.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Not exercised here. Just explaining.

@glenn1611

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords You got what I meant by “exercised” from the context. You didn’t get on your treadmill. 😉

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Let’s reimagine your original comment to make this parallel: “Akin to manifold of thy ‘friends of falsity,’ that one is perfectly clear from the context thereof. It certainly doth not merit excertation.” I can probably figure out from context what you mean, but it’s a needless bump on the readability road. But as you’ll see in this video, the bigger point is actually about how to process it when dictionaries disagree.

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

Personal evaluations of the clarity of certain words (even in context) can vary. For instance, in his most recent video on Luke 8.19-20, Mark deemed "brethren" a false friend while giving "for the press" a pass. I would flip those opinions: "brethren" is clear if archaic, while "for the press" almost certainly means "because of the news reporters" in modern English idiom, especially when a speaker is addressing a large crowd in public. Mary and the siblings of Jesus are clearly interrupting an important press conference on seed distribution techniques in Luke 8, and those troublesome yellow journalists won't let them through! ("Fun Fact": Some scholars have speculated that some Herodians were among the reporters at this event, which could explain why Antipas was posing a threat to Jesus in Luke 13.31-32. These devious reporters apparently went under the name Fox News. More objective coverage of the speech was offered by the GBC Nine O'Clock News.)

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

I don’t disagree with M.A.! The only way to judge our respective assessments is to do a survey.

For me, whenever there’s a need to “go deep” on a specific word, I pull out my old (1948) two-volume set “The New Century Dictionary.” (For some reason, it seems, I have little need to look up newer words.) They have over 4000 pages of mini to longer “essays” to define the majority of the words. They typically define the words, site a few ‘authoritative’ examples (which I’m glad to see) provide the etymologies (most often the reason I look up the words) even list and define variables of the words. (Not to mention the usual breakdown of syl*la*bles, accent mark, etc) That said, the opening definition on “passenger” is; “One who passes along on his way, or a wayfarer (as, “the passengers that pass through the land,” Ezek. xxxix. 15: ...[...note a quote from the KJV bible!...].... now chiefly in foot-passenger); also, one who has passage or is carried in traveling by some form of conveyance (as passengers by ship, coach, or train;..... it goes on and explains about the passenger falcon, the peregrine falcon..." (with artwork of the bird)... and so forth..... Anyway, I guess it’s no surprise “One who passes along his way..” are the opening words to define ‘passenger’ in this 75 year old dictionary. Proverbs 9:15 NWT (older 'wooden version'); "to call out to those passing along the way" or the 2013 edition; "calling out to those passing by."

Allow me to respectfully suggest that you add the Random House Unabridged (last fully updated in 1991) to your collection. In terms of sheer scope it sits somewhere between the American Heritage and Webster's Third New International. As an Australian, I cannot refrain from also recommending the Macquarie Dictionary, the ninth edition of which was released in the past 2 weeks (I have six of the nine). If nothing else, the Macquarie will inform you of how we downunder use the English language. Thank you for your very interesting videos.

@markwardonwords

9 ай бұрын

Two excellent ideas. Will have to check for online access.

I will give this some ponderance during my uhtceare.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Good one! Definitely had to look that up!

@larrycdalton

11 ай бұрын

Thought you might smile at that one; Found that gem in Mark Forsyth's Horologicon (or was it Etymologicon). PSA: very addictive reading.

@markwardonwords

11 ай бұрын

Love that book!!!!

Great video, nice details! Thanks for another well researched presentation! 😊🙏🙋🏼‍♂️⛪📖 !SPOILER ALERT! Wyclife 1382: 9:15 to clepe men passinge bi the weie, and men goynge in her iournei. Coverdale 1535: 9:15 to call soch as go by and walke straight in their wayes. Matthew 1537: 9:15 to cal such as go by, & walke streght in their waies, Great Bible 1539: 9:15 to call soch as go by, and that walke streyght in theyr wayes. Geneva Bible 1560/1599 9:15 To call them that passe by the way, that go right on their way, saying, Bishops Bible 1568: 9:15 To call such as go by, and that walke straight in their wayes

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Nice! Thank you for this! I actually don't have all these in Logos (not all are digitized, I believe). Where are you getting this? If you share a link, KZread might flag it. So tell me what the site title is.

@rosslewchuk9286

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords It is called TR Bibles. Sort of like a Bible Hub for TR people. I do not know if it is acceptable by academia.

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

@@rosslewchuk9286 Is it this Textus Receptus Bibles? Link: www.textusreceptusbibles.com/ It's a pretty good website compared to other TR-biased sources, but you're correct that it's not "acceptable by academia." You certainly wouldn't want to site the articles on there. For general usage, it and its sister websites are extremely helpful to me for quick comparisons between the classic Reformation translations. However, I've found some shortcomings in the site, especially with its edition of the Great Bible. I've thought about contacting the site owner and requesting that all of the parenthetical Vulgate readings be restored to the 1539 version, but I haven't done so yet.

@rosslewchuk9286

Жыл бұрын

@@MAMoreno Very helpful! Thank you! For this sort of interaction, it served the purpose. (It works as a quick go-to to direct me to "official" resources.) I usually try to find facsimiles of manuscripts and original print editions for my own personal study, from Internet Archive, e-rara, Google Books, CSNTM, and the museums that are the holders of the ancient manuscripts.

PS. I'm Australian. The Macquarie Concise Dictionary (of Australian English) 2nd ed. has a single sense listed, "one who who travels by some form of conveyance." No mention of whether or not they're driving! Odd.

Dictionaries need to include some Archaic or Obsolete terms. I looked up the word "passenger" in my Logos edition of The Complete Shakespeare, and Shakespeare uses the word "passenger" in both senses. Sometimes it's as we would use it, but sometimes it's to refer to a passerby, and therefore, the definition needs to be available to High School and College students of Shakespeare, as well as teachers and professors. I think this may be the reason that most college English professors require Merriam-Webster rather than American Heritage.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

I think you're right in all you say.

Passenger - either a person who rides with someone, maybe even someone who is walking by... I'm thinking maybe something connected to pedestrian? That's my guess as i paused before hearing your answer

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for this!

without looking it up, I will guess that the KJV word, passenger refers to passersby.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

You're correct! This one is pretty easy from context.

Hi Mark. You never used a stongs, vines. Youngs. ???

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

I've used Strong's and Vine's. Maybe Young's? But I wrote some thoughts on Strong's here: www.logos.com/grow/min-strongs-concordance-and-what-to-use-instead/

I am not sure if you saw the debate about the meaning of ברא i.e. are there two unrelated homophones (HALOT) or are all instances from the same shared root (NIDOTTE)?

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

I confess I do not know enough to step into a dispute between those two worthy contenders!

People passing by?

@markwardonwords

3 ай бұрын

Good guess! What do you think now that you’ve watched the video?

At times even lexicons can vary on some words eg: the word Tachash. It has various definitions. It has so many that more recent translations say that the true definition is unknown. Rabbinic commentaries say that Tachash existed only at the time of Moses then it vanished. So what English dictionary takes precedence if the dictionaries disagree? Take for an example the word flagon, it means a bottle of wine. Contemporary dictionaries say that the Hebrew word underlying it means raisin or raisin cakes. Well thank God for computers and libraries to help us out in cases of linguistic uncertainty in order look up these definitions.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Got a Bible reference for that first word?

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Got a Bible reference for that first word?

@Descoob

Жыл бұрын

Exodus 25:5. The second is Song of Songs 2:5 .

First impression is passersby.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Right! So why does it say "passenger"?

14:13 guy in the back lol

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Brandon!!! ;)

Save the ink . . . save the tree . . . save the small bug(s) in the tree - totally made my day 🙂 (just aroun 10 min or so) Thoroughly loved your video - would LOVE to see one on what to do when your GREEK and/or HEBREW/ARAMAIC dictionaries disagree - I think a more clear rubric or framework is needed to help adjudicate these things Check out (for reference) some of the following blogs on the topic BDAG vs. BrillDAG: Battle of the Greek Lexicons by Brent Niedergall | Jul 20, 2020 | Battle of the Lexicons Battle of the Lexicons: Septuagint Edition by Brent Niedergall | Aug 21, 2020 | Battle of the Lexicons HALOT vs. DCH: Battle of the Hebrew Lexicons-The Final Fight by Brent Niedergall | Jun 15, 2020 | Battle of the Lexicons etc.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Brent is a great friend of mine! I host his blog! I can't believe I missed these posts. Thank you for pointing them out!

I sense some correct guesses aren't American viewers. When you ask viewers to pause and wager a guess, ask them (us) to specify which country's English they speak and from which generation they have time-travelled from. (US/ c. 1960s)

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

An excellent idea!

🤔Passersby?

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

You got it!

Many contemporary dictionaries are giving corrupt definitions for words related to controversial topics like marriage and gender. Do you know of any contemporary dictionaries that could compare to the amazing work Noah Webster did in his original 1828 publication, which grounded its definitions in a Biblical worldview?

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

I just looked up "marriage," "gender," and "sex" in Merriam-Webster, and it looks like they accurately described the way those words are used. Of course I don't agree that a same-sex union constitutes a "marriage," but I can't deny that people use the word that way all the time. A dictionary's job is to describe what English speakers do. I wish they wouldn't do it, but that is what English speakers do. Do you have a specific charge to make against modern dictionaries? Also, the word I'm talking about in this video has nothing to do with the tiny number of hot-button words you're concerned about.

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

Modern dictionaries take one of two approaches. The first is seen in Webster's Third International Dictionary. It examines how people use words and then provides those usages as definitions. The second is seen in the American Heritage Dictionary. It determines the most appropriate uses of words and then discourages any usage that falls outside of the usage panel's preferences (which are determined through a majority vote). Contemporary dictionaries that follow modern usage of words like "marriage" and "gender" are embracing the descriptivist approach of Merriam-Webster. Dictionaries that seek to guard the English language from adopting novel definitions for these words are employing the prescriptivist approach of the American Heritage Dictionary. Let's compare the first definition for "marriage" on both dictionaries' websites: MW: the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law AHD: A legal union between two persons that confers certain privileges and entails certain obligations of each person to the other, formerly restricted in the United States to a union between a woman and a man. Note that the AHD acknowledges that the definition has expanded, but it emphasizes that this change is a recent occurrence that goes against historical norms in the nation. Let's now look at how Merriam-Webster's usage note explores this issue further... MW: The definition of the word marriage-or, more accurately, the understanding of what the institution of marriage properly consists of-continues to be highly controversial. This is not an issue to be resolved by dictionaries. Ultimately, the controversy involves cultural traditions, religious beliefs, legal rulings, and ideas about fairness and basic human rights. The principal point of dispute has to do with marriage between two people of the same sex, often referred to as same-sex marriage or gay marriage. Same-sex marriages are now recognized by law in a growing number of countries and were legally validated throughout the U.S. by the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. In many other parts of the world, marriage continues to be allowed only between men and women. The definition of marriage shown here is intentionally broad enough to encompass the different types of marriage that are currently recognized in varying cultures, places, religions, and systems of law.

@casiodorodereina1569

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords No, no more charges. MAMoreno's response helps to clarify my feelings. I suppose I prefer a more prescriptivist approach. And although dictionaries are helpful in describing how words are used, I would argue that sometimes on such topics they end up describing a word's {misuse} rather than its use, if I may be allowed to make a distinction between the two. I realize this question was tangential but thank you for taking it!

@maxxiong

Жыл бұрын

I will add that on controversial topics it is important to note the definitions used by both sides to avoid misunderstandings or equivocation.

Pause comment: The example -- 'passenger' -- is why l don't bother using a dictionary to decipher the KJV. If l don't understand the word or its intended sense, it's usually because it's archaic. In that case, it's not going to be in a contemporary dictionary (OED excepted). Almost always l will just make a guess -- hmm, passenger, passerby? -- or pull up the translation comparison tool in Blue Letter Bible.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Right! And the context practically demands "passersby" here-so why does it say passenger? That's the question that careful students need to be able to answer.

@russell13904

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords presumably it says 'passenger' because the English language has changed since 1611. Why should a careful student of the Bible also need to be a careful student of Elizabethan English? Just to chuck you a Dorothy Dixer. (Go on, you can't resist looking that up.)

verbophile (n.) : a word "nerd"

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

That’s me.

I use also the Smiths , but mostly the StrongestNiv bible dictionary. Have you heard of it ?

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Heard of; not used. Tell me about it! What insights has it helped you find in Scripture?

@tomgreenway2410

Жыл бұрын

Hi Mark, don't use it much now, as i use the Amplified. Strongest users a similar format as the Strongs. But easier to use.

Hi Tom here again. Have you heard of or read Ancient and English Versions of the Bible. By Robinson. H.Wheeler . I love your talks .

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

No! ISBN?

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords It's a book from 1940, so you might be better off checking it out on the Internet Archive: archive.org/details/bibleinitsancien0000robi/mode/2up The book argues for the replacement of the KJV with the 1885 RV, but it adopts a sensible viewpoint on the matter of producing a definitive version: *[T]he general adoption of the Revised Version would be an immense advantage in disseminating a knowledge of the Scriptures in a form at least roughly corresponding to the extent of modern knowledge. Yet, great as this advantage would be, the work that has been done since 1885, is a sufficient proof that, even if the Revised Version were much better than it is, neither this nor any other version can ever be quite permanent and final. Doubtless there is loss here involved, in the unattainability of a universally recognized form of words. But it is a loss that has to be faced, because the only means of avoiding it would be the petrifaction and perpetuation of error* (273).

Ok, Mark, I'll take the bait! :-) Just reading the context I came up with: those who pass by/pass through, tourists or visitors. After looking at Ezekiel 39:15 I came up with pilgrims, someone on a journey, traveler. Can I watch the video now? :-)

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Right! So why does it say “passengers”?

@BrentRiggsPoland

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords Obsolete form of English? From the OED: Passengers 3A person who passes by or through a place; a traveller, esp. a traveller on foot. Also figurative. Chiefly Scottish in later use. Obsolete. I believe our English Bible is correct. I don't believe archaic or obsolete words are proof of error or evidence of imperfection. And to the chagrin of my KJV Only brethren I believe archaism and obsolete words can be updated. Traveling the middle road can be tough! 🙂

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Right! I can agree with almost every word of your comment. It just depends on how you define "correct." I can't say the KJV is perfectly correct. But I can absolutely judge the KJV the way its translators would: by its predominant character. And in that sense it is most definitely correct. The tiny few warts it has are so incredibly minor and do not mar that overall character.

@BrentRiggsPoland

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords Correct - accepted standard, conforming to truth, no doctrinal errors. Archaic or obsolete grammar or syntax does not make our English Bible "incorrect" (not correct as to fact, inaccurate, wrong). Warts on a perfect man doesn't impede his character. We are more in agreement than in disagreement. I suspect it is a matter of degree.

Video paused; I assume it means passerbys?

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Yes! But why does it say "passengers"?

@ianholloway3778

Жыл бұрын

I assumed it was an archaic form derived from German or French.

There actually exist languages where there is a The Dictionary®™© - a regulatory board governs the language and produces the dictionary. English, of course, isn't one of them.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Yes: Academia Real in Spain. France, too, has something like this. I'd love to read more about these academies.

Pass-by-ers?

@markwardonwords

2 ай бұрын

Good!

You need to look “nerd” up in all of those dictionaries. 🙃 I think you might be more of a geek than a nerd.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

I think I was going after the first NOAD sense, though I don't want to repeat it here lest I praise myself!