Spinoff from the "Wilkinson" thread...

bwahahaha. what a gem of doublespeak!

after all's said an done, HG manages to explain the KJB's wording into the MVs' meaning. hilarious ... discomfort being the root of all redefinition.

case rested, i guess.

 

Convulsing again?

Elementary things are considered elements. I didn't mention The Periodic Table, itr was just assumed by roby, and you.

Show me where, just once, that water isn't present in any form of oxidation?

Show me just once where all evil doesn't fit into the catagory of all kinds of evil?

Seems the wannabe's for easier to read versions would rather hold up redundency as some sort of idolistic reasoning verses the KJV just so they can rant and rave about it.

Maybe I'm wrong, NOT, but you people demand easier to read versions and insist on redundent wording.:laugh:

 

- Says the man who cannot spell "redundancy", "redundant" or "idealistic". Oh, yes- or "versus".

 

Thank you Mexdeaf. Aside from myself, EdSutton would probably like to thank you for your service.

 

Aww, shucks, it was nothing- every once in a while I channel Language Cop.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Many scholars insist that the Geneva was better.

Well, it was easier to read than the first Wycliffe Bible. The second one would not have been that hard to understand for a literate 17th century person.

I really think that Tyndale's version sounds more up-to-date in many places than does the KJV.

 

10 For the love of money is a root [e] of all kinds of evil, and by craving it, some have wandered away from the faith (L) and pierced themselves with many pains. (HCSB)

e. 1 Timothy 6:10 Or is the root

OOPS! Did HCSB get it wrong Robycop3?

 

Ah, yes, the old legalism spirit emerges to try and do away with the truth.:laugh:

Cannot refute the redundancy so we have to use other means to try and discredit the TRUTH!:laugh:

Thanks for the speling lesson, but you do know that English makes use of the "e" often times where the "a" is also used as acceptable.

Now, some one tell us all where all evil is not "all kinds of evil" ?

If "the root" somehow separates itsself from "a root of all kinds" where is the correction?

The simpler understanding is far better, unless of course you're on the enemy's side and trying to confuse simple reason.:sleep:

 

yes, and your ideas concerning God are also found contrary due to your thinking also makes God responsible for allowing sin to destroy people and their families.

No one has ever said God retired in 1611. Your obsession has ruled over you for long enough.

You seem to be confused and somewhat behaving as an insane person would with your much speaking. It also appears you to be acting in a convulsive manner.

It is very obvious you place the authority over the word of God into the hands of men, but one problem, when you refer to men and what they say you forget God said things much better.

rant and rave, roby, rant and rave.

 

is this a "codwallop"?

The artical "a" also determines things to be the one and only, or just simply the original, in may instances of English literature as well as the many other languages which incorporate its use in ther similar words.

redundancy never did accomplish anything but bore the fool out of people who want the simple pleasures in life.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntennaFarmer
10 For the love of money is a root [e] of all kinds of evil, and by craving it, some have wandered away from the faith (L) and pierced themselves with many pains. (HCSB)

e. 1 Timothy 6:10 Or is the root

OOPS! Did HCSB get it wrong Robycop3?

Robycop3: "NEWP! Plainly, they used the CORRECT word in the text."


The HCSB endorsed the "the" reading as correct by putting it in the margin.

Again, you are incorrect to say that the KJV reading is wrong.

Since it is clearly demonstrated that you are wrong on this point all of your arguments become suspect.

A.F.

 

Oh, so you're gonna limit the word of God to M-W?:laugh:

Seems the resources you're using limits your intelligence, also you're putting the article found in English into the Greek which does not always demand the use of it.

So tell me, just when did all evil become separate from all kinds of evil and where do you make this distinction?

Even common sense makes relation to getting gain as getting money which is the root of all evil, just ask the king of tyre, he thought he could exalt his throne above God's Throne and that IS gain to the devil! But God is God and the devil aint and Lucifer fell like lightning fall from Heaven and that was because of the root of all evil is the love of getting gain/money.:smilewinkgrin:

Just plain silly YOU are.

 

Thin air?

1. The translation in the KJV is consistent with the Greek.

2. There is no indefinite article "a" in the original language so the translator inserted it. That is a judgment call on the part of the translator. In the original language an article is not required (or even expected) before root. You can't make an argument that "a" should be used instead of "the" just because the article is omitted.

3. The verse in the modern versions doesn’t support your theory because your theory requires the verse to read "For the love of money is a root of some kinds of evil". None of the modern versions support that.

The language "a root of" is inclusive. It does suggest that there may be other roots of evil in addition to the "love of money". It does not suggest, however, that the "love of money" may be excluded as a root of any evil.

4. "all kinds of evil" doesn't substantially change the implications of the verse because every evil is included in "all kinds of evil".

5. Your argument cleverly substitutes a list of sins for "kinds of evil". Evil and sin are related but not quite the same. Clever but false.

6. I presented a recent scholarly reference (in a posting above) that gives an opinion supporting the KJV translation of the verse.

7. I have shown that the HCSB accepts "the love of money" as a possible reading. The RSV also supports "the love of money" as well. Most early versions read the same way.

I don't have to endorse the note in order to point out that they (HCSB translators) accept the reading as possible. I admit that they chose the text (rather than the note) as their preferred reading. (That works because I am saying that the KJV is correct, not that the others are wrong.) Had they rejected the translation "the root" they would not have given it as an alternate reading in the note.

8. There are other theories as to the meaning of the verse that do not follow yours or mine. One of them is that the passage is intended to be hyperbolic. If that is the case then the passage should best be translated in the strong sense (as in the KJV). That is to say: if it is an intentional overstatement in the Greek then the translation should also be an overstatement.

9. The Scripture doesn't have to read like you expect it to. Logic and common sense have been used to "disprove" creation, the virgin birth of Christ and the resurrection of our Lord. Should we tweak the scriptures to eliminate those? I don't think so!

10. Thirty pieces of silver.


........
Robycop3:

I think I should say that I am not trying to stomp you. If you are against Ruckman et al then fine. I don't endorse his ideas so have at it.

If you love your modern versions then that is fine by me too. Feel free to prove them right. I don't appreciate it, though, when you trash my favorite version of the Holy Bible by repeating false ideas. I don't appreciate it that you try to promote your agenda by finding fault with my KJV.

In spite of all that I want to point out that I believe you are my brother in Christ. I love you even though I don't love some of your ideas. Where you are wrong on some points I pray that you be forgiven. Where I am wrong then I hope for the same.

A.F.