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

Please read previous posts, as this ground has been thoroughly covered. Thanks

 

Again, reading previous posts in the thread might have made it clear to you that it is not at all a "faulty" translation but merely a different choice betwen two legitimate possible renderings. I would refer you to posts #25, 26 & 29 on Page 3, and also posts #40, 45, 55, 56, and 67 of this topic.

 

In a court of law, a witness' statement cannot be actually proven truthful if that witness is the only one allowed to testify, and no other evidence is admissable.

Extreme 'Only-Versionism' illogically attempts to prove the version is authoritave by unquestionably citing the version as authoritative (all outside sources are summarily dismissed as being corrupt or inferior). This position is tantamount to being one's "own final authority".

 

So the "case" needs to be tried over and over and over and over...? In my opinion the case has already been tried, and the KJV has been proven more than reliable. I would not consider myself to be "extreme KJVO". Maybe it would be more accurate to call me extreme KJVP.

 

Buddy, your use of the term "diaper-heads" is bigoted. We aren't talking about being politically correct. You are way off the chart with that one. And don't give the lame excuse that you were "only talking about the bombers." [Please ask the moderator to delete your comment. He can delete my response to it too.]

Your reading of the scripture here is shallow. You are trying to make a case that money isn't the direct cause of evil. That isn't what it says in any version that I have seen. That certainly isn't the reading of the KJV.

The fact that you don't see all ends doesn't prove you correct. I know people who think the whole Bible is a bunch of nonsense because "common sense" tells them so.

A.F.

 

No, the case is not tried over and over. The point is that the testimony cannot really be proven one way or the other without outside evidence. That's OK; it does not need to be proven as long as it is recognized and acknowledge that this is a priori; that is, a presupposition that cannot be proven. It is illogical to attempt to prove a premise, an assumption, or theory by itself.

Thanks for clarifing your postion. Please notice that I was careful not to accuse anyone in particular of anything specific, or "extreme" anything.

 

The Bible isn't at all nonesense. However, there are questionable renderings in the various translations of God's original word, including but not limited to the KJV.

If the love of money is the root of all evil, then where did the money to pay Eve come from? And did she share some of her ill-gotten wealth with Adam? Where did Cain get the money that caused him to slay his brother Abel? The Bible tells us that Cain killed his brother due to anger. (Gen 4) Since the original Greek does not specify "the" or "a" then the article was selected by the translators of the various Bible versions. Since the Bible itself demonstrates that there are other roots of evil, then "the" is obviously not the correct choice and "a" is much more appropriate.

 

I think that the root of the problem is a lack of understanding of roots.


Several folks here appear to understand root to mean cause or source. That may well be what is often intended in literature. In this case, however, I think that is the wrong understanding.

The word root (Gk: rhiza) as used in 1 Timothy 6:10 is literally that, a root that grows in the ground and/or the associated stem. It is used as a metaphor. But the root doesn't come first. Consider Luke 8:13:

They on the rock [are they], which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.




​

Here the seed was sown and it started to grow but couldn't continue as it lacked a root. The order is first the seed and then the root. The seed here was good. Can we also have bad seed? Consider Matthew 13:38, 39:

The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one]; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.



​

Here we have the tares being sown in the field by the devil. It seems that the tares start from seed in the metaphor.

My point is this: I think that the metaphor is used the same way both for the wheat, the tares and the evil. The cause is the seed being sown. The root, however, is that which nourishes and supports the growing plant. If there is no root then the plant can not continue to grow. Likewise, the cause of evil in this world is the seed of sin being sown in the heart of man. That seed was sown long ago. Without the love of money, however, the evil can not flourish.

We should try to understand the use of words in the Bible by using the Bible as the context. We should also bear in mind that those who penned the bible had a closer connection to the soil than we do. Agrarian and pastoral metaphors should first be considered in that light.

If we consider 1 Timothy 6:10 in that light then the usual (so called common sense) objections to the KJV reading collapse.

A.F.

 

God bless and Merry Christmas to all!

A.F.

p.s.: my post #200. I have a long way to go to catch up with some of you folks!

 

Robycop3: It is hard for us to harmonize as we aren't even on the same page.

I have tried hard to avoid impressing my ideas onto the Scripture. I have more respect for the abilities of the KJV translators than my own abilities. So when I come to a difficult passage I don't automatically assume them to be wrong.

I think that is the root of your opinions.

Since it is time to prepare for a long drive that is my last word for a few days. Bye.


A.F.

 

Oh, but you do impress your ideas onto the Scriptures, A.F. Onlyism impresses an idea onto Scripture that isn't there - the idea that the KJV cannot possiblly be wrong and the idea that all other translations then must be wrong.

Yet apparently you have no respect for the abilities of the translators of any other Bible version - their abilities, in your opinion, are far from the abilities of the KJV translators.

I don't think anyone here automatically assumes that the KJV is wrong in all cases. There are many passages where the rendering of the KJV is weak, such as saying that the love of money is the one single root cause of all evil. There are also many instances where the KJV gives a better rendering than the renderings found in many of the modern versions. While "freedom readers" don't automatically assume the KJV to be wrong, onlyists automatically assume the KJV cannot possibly be wrong. No, the assuming is done by onlyists, and not by those who accept legitimate modern versions as also being the word of God.

 

May God grant you travelling mercies in direct proportion to the
depth of the snow/ice at the side of the road!

Here is the basic assumption (or if that is 'too weak', then Axiom):
of the Freedom Reader:

God has, in His Devine Providence, preserved His Written
Word (the Holy Bible) in all (all collectively, each individuall)
valid English versions.

And the first statement then proven is:

God honors the stludy of multiple versions.

 

Actually, a case could be made that Arab hatred is based upon money; more precisely the blessing and inheritance that Ishmael lost to Issac.

 

I realize A.F. is away and will not be able to respond for a while... but I do not find this a compelling arguement at all.

First, each author uses their own vocabulary and it is not always possible to define what is meant in one book by what is written in another part of the Bible. Second, while what A.F. stated is generally true, Paul was not a farmer or a shepherd.

 

So you are granting that we do not have the "word of God" today like the folks who had the original autographs had - that is without error. Then anyone who belives this might want to come up with some better terminology and not call that which has error the "word of God".

The KJB is accurate. "All" does not have to mean every single instance without exception regardless of the world or age you live in. This is not a "stretch" or "adding to the scriptures". It is simply reading with understanding.

Let' s apply this interpretation just a few verses down:

I Timothy 6:17Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;

Applying the reasoning I have been hearing to the above passge would go something like this: "You see, God giving us richly all things to enjoy is such a poor translation. It defies common sense. It should say all kinds of things to enjoy. Pornography is certainly a part of "all" things and we aren't supposed to enjoy pornography. So the "word of God" is not accurate here."

So is I Timothy 6:17 also a poor translation, or is it possible that "all" does not require the narrow meaning you place upon it?

If I provided 50 more examples where the word "all" is used like this in the bible, would you attempt to correct them all, or would you admit that you have not proven the rendering inaccurate?

And incidentally, does anyone believe that any translation of I Timothy 6 reads as majestically as the King James Bible? If so, which one(s)?