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

I was being sarcastic, but there is something there isn't there?
Hmmm... Thanks... gotta go for now.

 

Well there are no indefinite articles in the Greek so the "a" is not in the text. If an article is present in the text it would be the definite article "the". But I haven't looked to see if the article is there or not.

 

Looking carefully at the OP, the first part is not about "money", nor even "the love of money". Isn't it interesting the way in which folks will turn an OP into anything they want it to be?

The OP presented a contrast between "the" (definite article), or "a" (indefinite article) in a question of translation accuracy. It seems in the Greek there is no word that would be specifically translated as the definite article "the" in connection with rhiza (hrid'-zah). Clearly, Paul uses "root" here not as an actual plant sprout or shoot, but metaphorically meaning offspring or progeny. Greek technically does not have an indefinite article, although it can be appropriate to place "a" in English translations.

This becomes a matter of interpretation, not so much of translation. So, the real question becomes: does the phrase address a singular specific 'evil root', or indiscriminately refer to just one 'evil root' of many?

It depends upon how many 'roots of evil' the translator believes in. Translating with "a" indicates a belief in more than one 'evil root'. Translating with "the" could mean a belief in only one 'evil root', but it could also be merely identifying this particular one in the context (even though there may be several).

 

That can become a very dangerous matter if people can just willy nilly add words that aren't there or change words that are there.

Since the definite article "the" is in the text both from the TR and the NA I don't see how you can replace a definite article with an indefinite article. That is changing the text from what is there to what one wants to be there, as far as I can tell, but I don't claim to be an expert either

EDIT: Well it looks like I got ahead of myself and "the" is not actually in the texts. That's what I get for trying to do too many things at once. I've had to eat crow twice today. And it doesn't taste any better the second time I will have to look more into what the text is trying to say.

 

True and each generation seems to have contraband or societal activities which promote fornication. I went to a museum recently that had a bed and memorabilia of a bachelor room from the '40s. On the bed pole were postcards and there was a caption that said that it was common for people in that time to collect postcards. A couple of the postcards were benign but a couple of the postcards had pictures of women in bikinis. Although modest by contemporary standards I would submit that these postcards served to promote lust and fornication and someone profited in this promotion. A generation or two before that, George Burns is known for describing how he and his pals would go down to the train station to catch a glimpse of the ankles of ladies who were wearing the new fashions that showed just a bit of leg. Someone profited off of the sales of these garments in the same way companies today profit from designing clothes that show young girls midriffs or thighs.

What is money? Is it the 1s and Os that pass around electronically today? Is it that paper that is in our wallets? We see paper and digital "money" today as being an indicator of wealth and a medium of exchange. "Money" today, as always, is used for power. Power to gain things materially, power to change borders, power to control people, power to obtain information, etc. There was a time when men thought gold and silver was money. Since most men today own neither gold nor silver generations of old might say today's generation has no money, though today's generation might disagree as they have 1s and 0s or green paper which they call money.

During the time of Adam and Eve how was wealth measured? There was no medium of exchange between men for there was only man. However, their was an exchange of wealth between God and man. God gave life and a certain amount of knowledge but the serpent deceived Eve into desiring more and thinking that this exchange would benefit her, only in reality it would destroy her (this is the beginning of what today is called "marketing"). The wealth that Eve strove after was knowledge. God had knowledge and she wanted to be like god.

In the time of Cain and Abel they each strove after God's favor. The medium of exchange was for the man to give a sacrifice to God and God would return His blessings. The one who made a good exchange received a good return. Acceptable money in this example, was the firstlings of the flock. This was Abel's wealth given before God as a sacrifice. The same is true today when we use what we call "money". Give enough of the right stuff and you will receive a certain product or a service or political favors. Money is wealth or affluence and how that wealth or affluence is defined (or lack of it) changes from generation to generation.

 

Awesome, sounds like you have a foundation that you desire to take a stand on. Does this make you NIVO?

 

Again, reading the OP carefully, even the second part is not about "money", nor even "the love of money".

I think that the interpretation of this phrase hinges upon the Greek word pas, rendered in the KJV as "all", and other versions as "all sorts" or something similar. Thayer's lexicon defines this word two ways: 1) individually= each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything; and 2) collectively= some of all types.

BTW, "evil" (Greek kakos) here is an adjective, and not a nominative (noun subject).

The KJV could be understood to mean that the love of money is each and every individual evil root.

The MVs could be understood to mean that the love of money is a root made of some of every kind of evil; that is, a composite of all types of evil roots.

Two different definitions, two different interpretations, two different translations, and two different meanings that cannot be reconciled.

 

Call it pride, covetousness, selfishness, it is a love of wealth or power that a man will rebel against God to get it and rebel against God to keep it.

 

Not what we call "money" but there was wealth to be had. If He loved God and was obedient to God then God would have rewarded Adam in abundance and it would have profited Adam much. Instead, Adam loved the wealth of knowledge and pleasing of his wife more than the love of God and it cost him his life. One might even say this was a horrible business decision.

 

We'll always take you back. We won't even ask you for your back dues as we do not promote the love of money.

 

Dahmer's motive was not money. Parents are responsible for the roots and upbringing of a child. However, he was not trained up in the way he should go and the element that website cited as a contributing factor were his parents fighting. I am not confiming that I've made a strong case on this issue. However, I am suggesting that the Bible could be right.

Well thank you. I'm pretty good looking for a fat person too

All of these head meds are causing people problems to various degrees and big pharma folks are profiting huge.

Agree. Thus, only one of them can be the Word of God.

I disagree that it is. If it was translated using the same manuscripts as the KJV then why does it disagree with the KJV and agree with the MVs just like it does on so many other verses?

Versions with "the":

KJV - 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.

Versions with "a":

NIV - For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

NWT - For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains.

NASB - For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Amplified - For the love of money is a root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have been led astray and have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves through with many [a]acute [mental] pangs.

ESV - For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

NKJV - For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

ASV - For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

 

Thanks Rufus... I needed to laugh today!!:laugh:
It is nice to be wanted!!!

Most people want to do this to me... :tonofbricks:

 

If you change to KJVO you can expect that stack of bricks to be twice as high.

 

I'll join in on "the love of money"... why should you guys have all the fun?

The 'love of anything' above God is idolatry. I think that is what Paul is writing here.

Sin is breaking God's commandments. God has commanded us to love Him, and have no other 'gods' before Him. Not following God's commandments is to think of one's self first and foremost ('I know what is better for me than God does').

Others have called this 'pride' or 'greed'... I happen to call it 'selfishness'. When some one steals, they clearly are thinking of themself before others. All the commandments work this way. Satan was selfish. Adam was selfish. Cain was selfish.

The idolatrous love of money is also selfish. It is a statement that your faith is in money, and not upon God.

 

Amen Rufus - This is the point of what I've been trying to say. Oftentimes we wrongly assume a word means what we think it means.

Money is right and "the" is right.

Just figure that evey evil a person does at the root of that evil is the love of money - folks just don't like this a bit.

Maybe people don't want to admit that we love more than we want to admit. The old nature is still the old nature - corrupt.

BTW -
You seem to think it is ok for you to go to the Gree/Hebrew to define and English word don't you?

So, then do you folks think I'm wrong to defiine an English word with an English dictionary so as to make the word more clear if need be?

God bless

 

I'll agree that the love of money is evil,
But how was money, or anything like money, involved in Cain killing Abel.

Does the phrase, "love of money" actually mean pride?
If so, then we agree that the KJV is right.

 

The thing that was like money was the firstlings of the flock versus the fruit of the ground. One had acceptable value, the other did not.

 

I usually don't jump into these kinds of threads, and I neither want nor am prepared to get into a translation theory battle right now.

Nevertheless, while the definite article for "root" is truly absent in the Greek of 1 Ti 6:10, such does not necessarily mean that "root" is not definite here. It may be definite, or it may not be. The definite article in Greek sayings and certain formulas may be left out without taking away from the "definiteness", if you will, of the construction. See, e.g., Ro 1:16, where I hope no one would translate ". . . for it is a power of God for salvation . . .", etc.