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

Mike Berzins: // ... how can the readings conflict with one another and still be the word of God in this passage?//

By God's power to preserve His Written Word,
I believe that any so called 'conflict' was designed
by God (Master Designer & Creator) to
ENHANSE our understanding of what God
has to say to us.

Needless to say, people who do nothing
but yell 'you're wrong'
don't seem to add directly to the discussion
we need to understand the deeper truths that
God has hidden in the seeming 'conflict'.

 

Since the original is long gone, there is no amount of rummaging through manuscript fragments which one could do and be absolutely certain that any of the given readings are true to the original. But we can examine a book we have today, and ascertain if it is the word of God. If one were to find this book, then one could make some inferences about what the original said.

We account for the variations the same as we account for the extra books of the canon or other so-called scriptures from other religions - they are not of God.

True for various languages, false for someone with a "limited vocabulary". The word of God can not be dumbed down, and still remain the word of God.

Regardless of the way the translation was done, if the original showed forth the deity of Christ in this passage, and a translation does not, then the translation must be wrong. Even if it used different manuscripts, that would just mean it used faulty manuscripts, since I think we agree it wasn't originally written both ways. Unless one holds to the view that God is "newly revealing" something to us about the deity of Christ with the various differing translations.

I agree that a verse is only God's word if it is properly rendered. That to me would then indicate that any bible that had incorrect renderings should not be called God's word. So anyone who belives there are errors in the bible he holds in his hand should stop calling it God's word. How could anyone call a bible that has errors God's word? Wouldn't that be attributing errors to God?

 

I agree that God does act in this fashion. One gospel writer says that the cock crowed after Peter's denial of the Lord. Another gospel writer says the cock crowed twice. Presumably, the gospel writers did not finish their written accounts at the exact same time. So the book that was written later, was new revelation of what happened regarding Peter's denial of the Lord. It enhances our understanding of what God has to say. This seeming "conflict" can be amazingly reconciled in a King James Bible without having to appeal to any errors in translation or any errors in the original accounts, but rather by simply studying what the accounts say. (I don't have time to provide this reconcilliation now.)

So if Paul wrote I Timothy 3:16 in Greek, and in his original auotgraph he showed forth the deity of Christ in the passage, then if someone else later penned a copy of this scripture in Greek, and it no longer showed forth the deity of Christ in this passage, then would this be a "conflict" which God was using to "enhance our understanding"? If so, it would be an example of "new revelation" occuring after the so-called "God breathed autographs" were finished. If not, then the difference must be an error. The same logic would apply to a translation in this case as well.
Either the differing translations reveal new light from God (advanced revelations) or they must simply be in error.

 

So, if I believe that the Bible I hold in my hand (you do not know which one) has no error, then I can properly call it the "Word of God". It does not matter what others believe about it, and any evidence that they could bring against it could be summarily dismissed.

I understand from your perspective that any error would have to be attributed to God (because He promised to preserve it perfectly forever). But not from my perspective; no, it would not be attributing errors to God any more so than evil, destruction, death, or illness should be attributed to God.

 

Then by your own reasoning, Mike, no English Bible version can be called the word of God. They all have errors because they are nothing more than the work of mankind striving to translate God's original words.

 

Yes, if they are nothing more than the work of mankind striving to translate God's original words, and are therefore subject to man's error, then no bible should honestly be referred to as the word of God. But this is not my reasoning. I don't believe my bible has any errors; if I did I wouldn't call it the word of God.

 

Yes, if you sincerely believed it had no errors, then you could properly say it was the word of God. You might be wrong, but if you believed the bible had no errors, you would be consistent in calling it the word of God.

In regards to summarily dismissing evidence against the position, that would depend on the nature of the evidence.

It is not simply a question of his promise to preserve it perfectly forever. I assume you believe the original autographs were the word of God. And I assume you believe that they were without error. If the original autographs had error, then they were not the word of God. One of the characteristics that makes something “the word of God”, is that it has no error it. So, one could say that the bible he holds in his hand is a translation of the word of God, with errors, and would be consistent. But to call the bible that you hold in your hands the word of God, when you believe that it has errors, is ludicrous. If it has errors, call it what it is, the word of man.

An example might help in understanding this. What follows is Franklin’s Monroe’s word:

This is Franklin Monroe’s word. Wait, you say Franklin Monroe didn’t say that! That’s okay, don’t attribute any error to what Franklin Monroe said. The error was is the transmission by Mike Berzins. But I am going to continue to call it the word of Franklin Monroe, and leave the quote marks showing Franklin Monroe said it. If you have a problem with me doing this, why don’t you have a problem with someone saying something is the word of God when it errs from what God said? Please explain the difference to me.

 

If you want to attribute an error to someone other than God, than don't call the book which has the error in it, the "word of God". See previous post.

"Yo yo, what up, dog, loving moolah is the root of all bummers."

"You know, like, God, was, like, he, in the, well you know, he appeared in, like, a body"

Just because a translation of a verse is denotively correct does not mean it is the word of God. Translations of the bible, if they are still to be the word of God, are limited by many things that God gives as being charateristics of his word. Like being "powerful" and "full of majesty", for example.

 

According to your own reasoning and logic, right? Are you your own final authority?

 

Bingo!

Obviously, the phrase, "root of ALL evil" is a mistake. Just one of many in the KJV.

 

In other words, "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts." Of course this is the stand one has to take if they hold to the false belief that the KJV is superior to other translations.

 

1 Timothy 6:10

translated as "love of 'money'"

Greek word is philarguria (using English letters)

From Strong's, meaning is avarice; coveteous.

This is the only use of this word in the entire Bible.

To covet that which we do not have, or want to keep above all else, is indeed the root of all evil, which is what the text is conveying when studied with the original language.

The text is not telling us that a particular love of money is a root of some kinds of evil. It is using money in the context of coveteousness being the root of all evil. Eve coveted knowledge above the Garden. Adam coveted Eve above the Garden. A homosexual, or fornicator, covets sex over chastity/godliness/marriage.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the KJV has the better translation of the original tongues, even if you don't think it's the best possible translation of this text.

If folks would rightly divide the word of truth, we wouldn't have near as many arguments.

 

1 Timothy 6:10 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.

Looks like it to me.

Are you saying that, if something in the Bible does not fit with my idea of reality and common sense, I should disregard it?

 

Actually, my case is simply that the text, in the original tongues, does not say that the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. That is a faulty translation. Whether the KJV had it exactly right is not entirely my point. The KJV is, however, the more accurate translation of the two from the original Greek.

I don't know why they chose to translate it as money, except that money is the most commonly used example of this term, which conveys an idea of coveteousness, greed, and avarice.

What does strike me is that, of all the uses of the word "money" in the Bible, this is the only example translated from this particular Greek word. Therefore, to me, there must be something different or significant about this one use of the word other than simply cash, as we would think of it.