Love of money: "THE" root or "A"root?

This is clearly from a different (later?) version of Rheims. I think that this is an mistranslation since it makes the Greek adjective kakos (describing "root") into a noun "evils". "Evil" cannot be made plural.

BTW, the word "root" (Greek rhiza) is in the femine singular nominative (subject) case. It is the first word of this verse in the Greek (Stephen's Textus Receptus 1550 and Nestle-Aland 26th) which is typically a position of emphasis.

 

My opinion may be unpopular on this forum, but...

I think that NWT is only invalid in passages where it is intentionally mistranslated. There may be many passages that are well translated in the NWT. I have only read a few of the most 'notorious' passages of the NWT. I would not endorse it based upon reputation, but what portions are true remain true even in a overall mean(poor) and/or dangerous(heretical) translation.

 

Here's the passage from the NASB. Can you highlight the antecedent for me?

12Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.
13For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
14I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long;
15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
16By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.

[/quote]

The fact that much evil is done for reasons besides the love of money proves nothing. The verse does not say that the love of money is the "reason" of all evil, or the cause of all evil. It says that it is the "root". A root is not a "cause". It is something that feeds and nourishes the evil. The evil results caused by pride, lust, etc. are all fed by the root, which is the love of money. The serial killers and rapists lusts are inflamed by the vile culture; their lack of morality is shaped by the bankrupt educational system; and their minds are warped by the legalized dope of the modern day witch doctors. All of these factors have impacted the killers and rapists, because some man loves money.

I Timothy 6:7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. 8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. 9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

And as far as the love of money being the root that fed the evil in the garden of Eden, these verses are not strictly teaching this. The word "all" in the bible is often limited by context. Here, it can be limited by verse 7, that is talking about "this world". The garden of eden was clearly a different "world" (see II Peter 2:5 for the definition of "world" I am referring to).

I appreciate the brother's usage of the scriptures to explain how, in a broad (Psalms 119:96) sense, the love of money is even the root of these other evils. I agree this is true, in a broad sense. But in a more narrow, direct application, the love of money is not said to be the root of all evil in absolutely all places at absolutely all times.

 

I would again like to point out that "the" does not necessarily preclude the existence of others. "The" could be just specifying this particular "root", of which there are others. "The" would simply indicate any preeminent singular "root" in the context.

 

Excellent argument.

 

All well informed people know that it is not as simple as just reading a verse and then drawing a conclusion. For examples: the context should be understood; English words may need to be defined by a dictionary; historical background may be pertinent; scripture must be interpreted in the light of other applicable scripture; and perhaps the original language could be consulted to gain insight that may have been left behind during the translation process.

Throughout the many posts in this thread, little hermeneutic or elucidative information has been presented concerning what the verse actually states. In haste to explain what it means, much has been posted without really establishing what the Word of God says (at least to the best of our abilities).

First, as has been shown previously, a grammatical article such as "the" or "a" is not in the Greek text in this phrase, but is supplied by every translator. Second, the Greek word translated as "all"/"all sorts" in English does have duel meanings, and has been properly rendered in the KJV (and a few others) with one meaning, while most modern versions have properly rendered the other meaning. These explanations essentially answer the OP.

The definition of "all" selected by the translator demonstrates their interpretation of "root" (with its adjective "evil" becomes equivalent to 'evil root'). The question is not: are there many 'evils'? The question is: are there many 'roots'?

Because "evil" is an adjective, the word "of" needs to be understood as a description of its 'composition', not a description of 'ownership'. The phrase 'ball of rubberbands' does not mean that the rubberbands belong to the ball; it means that it is a ball characteristically made by rubberbands. Conversely, the phrase 'rubberbands of Bill' means that the rubberbands belongs to Bill; it would not ordinarily mean rubberbands composed of Bill's human flesh.

In fact, these translations are also possible--

For the love of money is a root of all evil...
The phrasing here seems to imply that this 'evil root' (a.k.a. "the love of money") is comprehensive, but does not preclude the existence of other 'evil roots'. It does not even prevent the 'evil root' from being formed by composite means.

For the love of money is the root of all kinds evil...
The phrasing here seems to imply that this 'evil root' (a.k.a. "the love of money") has a varied composition, but does not preclude the existence of other 'evil roots'. And it does not prevent the 'evil root' from being totally comprehensive.

Whether there is one 'evil root', or several, cannot be determined from this passage alone. Whether any 'evil root' is completely comprehensive, or not, cannot be determined from this passage alone. Whether an 'evil root' is of composite makeup, or pure, cannot be determined from this passage alone. These would be entirely different topics than the OP.

 

Not much has been said about the word "evil" in this verse. It is kokos in Greek, and has three shades of meaning in Thayer's: 1) of a bad nature 2) of a mode of thinking, feeling, acting; 3) troublesome, injurious, pernicious, destructive, baneful.

It is only one of several NT words translated in the KJV as "evil". One example, the Greek word poneros is the most common word translated "evil", and possibly has a stronger connotation towards the way in which most think of the "evil" today.

I am attempting to show that this verse may not be describing the 'evil root' in a spiritual sense... as some comprehesive basis of every kind of sin (evil, unrighteousness, wickedness, etc). It may be that Paul is simply admonishing the believer in a more earthly sense... that there will surely be various damage and enveloping consequences from becoming too passionate about monetary gain.

 

Sorry robycop3, I don't think you understand this properly. The KJV renders it correctly. Compare the RSV if you will.

The biggest problem I have is your assertion that we may modify the meaning of the scripture based our own wisdom. The scripture stands alone. An honest translator must translate his understanding of what the scripture says rather than what he thinks it should say.

My bottom line: The King James Holy Bible is correct. If you wish to continue in your opinion then you may do so.

A.F.

 

AntennaFarmer: //The scripture stands alone.//

Yet there are those who say that the KJV is standing alone scripture.
Your statement contradicts the KJVO guess.

 

RIGHT!!!!!! Every person has the right to be WRONG!Case in point.

Not to mention NO scriptural support for Alexandrianism!

 

There is four times as much Bible support for Alexandrianism
as for KJVO-ism (4 times zero = zero)

 

Christ Jesus is the antecedent. So "He who is revealed in the flesh" means Christ Jesus who is revealed in the flesh. Or as the NIV puts it "He appeared in a body." The NWT says "He was made manifest in the flesh". Both again referring to Jesus. And all three saying pretty much the same thing. The fact that Christ Jesus appeared in a body says NOTHING about his deity. It just establishes that he was not a spirit.

The KJB says "God was manifest in the flesh." Since it is plain the passage is talking about Jesus, this establishes the deity of Christ. The KJB and the versions above differ drastically here.

Presumably, the original autograph did not read both ways. So both readings can not be true to the original autographs. I have heard it said in this forum that the different bible translations are the word of God to each intended audience. Is anyone contending that the various multitude of translations can conflict with one another, and still be the word of God, because they are perhaps "new revelations" of things that did not appear in the original autographs? If not, how can the readings conflict with one another and still be the word of God in this passage? Is the KJB the word of God in this verse? Or are the others, including the NWT? How can you have it both ways (and have the NWT not be the word of God here)?

Unlike the gnat straining about spelling changes, or minor changes in pronouns or prepositions among editions of the KJB that folks use to try to show that KJO can not be true, this difference between the versions is enormous. There are many verses that indicate the deity of Christ, but without key verses such as I Timothy 3:16, many of them can be explained away in a fashion that sounds somewhat plausible. (For example, "I and my father are one", can be likened unto a man and his wife being one)

If the KJB translation is correct, and the others are incorrect, how many such significant doctrinal differences must one see before one will open his mind to the possibility that perhaps the devil is actively involved in translating committees, and seeks to pervert and corrupt the translations that are produced?

 

Amen and amen! The case against the KJV's reading being entirely correct has been very well-established. The case for the KJV's reading being entirely correct hasn't even gotten off the ground. The case for the KJV's reading is based purely on conjecture while the case against the KJV's reading has been based on fact. Hmmm - fact or conjecture? Which is the believable case? Certainly not the opinion that the KJV is right in this case because that opinion is based entirely on conjecture! And since the original Greek supplies absolutely no article to declare that the KJV's reading is absolutely correct and that there is no other possibility is utterly absurd...

 

I want to supply an answer to these questions, but I will try to be brief (since it is off-topic)--

True, the original autograph would likely not have been written both ways. However, we do not have the original autograph. What we do have are at least three Greek manuscript variations for a word here: "He", "God", or "Which". Which one is the original? How do we account for the other two variations we do not choose to use?

Yes, that would be especially true of the various translations intended for foreign languages around the world (Spanish, French, Russian, Japanese, etc), and the blind or any group with limited vocabulary.

Yes, different translations can differ with one another and still be the Word of God, but not because they are "new revelations". Only a few versions have been promoted as being a wholly new revelation of God (i.e. Vulgate, KJV). Translations will differ for at least four reasons: 1) differences in underlying texts/variants; 2) differences in translation philosophy/method; 3) differences in interpretation/theology; 4) differences in language style: grammar, syntax, and vocabulary.

"Conflict" implies irreconcilable contradictions which is rarely the actual situation. It must be recognized that we are reading a translation of fragmented handwritten copies from other older copies. God breathed His Word only once to the original authors. If the NWT is faithful to the Greek text and rendered properly in English then it is God's Word at this verse. Truth is still truth, where ever it is found.