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

Now that's majestic! I think.:confused:

 

It's all Greek (or Latin) to me! :laugh:

 

Mike Berzins: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".

No, I'm granting that every MAN-MADE TRANSLATION has some kinda imperfection within its pages.



The KJB is accurate. "All" does not have to mean every single instance without exception regardless of the world or age you live in.

The phrase 'every sort' appears twice in the KJV, and the phrast 'every kind' appears three times. It's not as if those phrases weren't in use in AV times. There IS a difference in "all" and "all kinds", remember.

This is not a "stretch" or "adding to the scriptures". It is simply reading with understanding.

I understand that the KJV says "*THE* root of *all* evil, which simply isn't correct. That's the end of understanding for this phrase. Any further "understanding" is IMAGINATION.

And I see you haven't mentioned "THE" root vs "A" root, because, I believe, you have no valid argument there.

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?

Apples and oranges. V17 says God gives. This means God gives us all that we enjoy. He does NOT give us porn. Do you enjoy anything God has NOT given you since you were saved?

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?

No, because each one would hafta be examined on a case-by-case basis.

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)?

"Majestic" is no substiture for ACCURACY.

 

We do not have inspired "words" as in individual units of speech like the writers of scripture received by a direct act of the Holy Spirit. Those men were specially qualified by scripture to receive direct inspiration. The KJV translators were not.

I could listen to a speech you made and accurately reflect what you said without using your exact words. If your speech began to be passed on by handwritten copy, there would inevitably be human mistakes that crept in. However, if those mistakes did not change the substance of your speech then we would call them reliable copies of your "word".

But the most important aspect to this conversation is the fact that 8 or 10 or 100 or 500 people could translate your speech into English without using the same words or even phrases. These might not be of equal quality or accuracy at every point but it would be altogether accurate to call all of them YOUR speech or "word".

The fundamental problem with KJVO seems to be a misunderstanding of the meaning of "word". With respect to scripture, it does not mean the individual units of speech. The words are important only in the respect that they accurately transmit the meanings of the original words.

 

Oh, but we do have the word of God today. It is in the form of the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the HCSB, the ESV and various other legitimate English Bible translations. If you want ot disqualify a Bible version from being the word of God because it has some minor human errors, then you must also disqualify the KJV from being the word of God, for it too has errors. No translation of God's word into any modern language is going to be perfect, for humans have done the translationg and, as humans, all make errors. Such was the truth with the translators of the KJV - they also made errors.

Yes, the KJV is accurate. So are the MVs. They all convey to us what God intended to convey to us. But since when doesn't "all" mean "all?" I was not aware the meaning of "all" had been changed to mean "some of" or "part of." This is nothing more than using a falsehood to try to defend a false idea.

 

Two questions were raised in the OP: 1) is the "love of money" properly in English THE "root" or A "root"? and 2) is this "root" properly in English of ALL "evil" or ALL SORTS OF "evil"?

Addressing #1: Previously, it was found that neither the definite (explicit, unambiguous, or specific) article nor an indefinite (general, uncertain, or vague) article comes from the Greek. However, the word translated here as "root" can be determined from Greek to be singular. Any article akin to "the" or "a" may be appropriately provided by the translators based upon their understanding of the context and English grammatical style.

"A" would be somewhat indicative that other objects of the same kind exist; "the" identifies a particular item apart a group or "the" may indicate that the subject stands alone in some characteristic.

For example, in the phrase 'the match fell out of the box', grammatically it is left uncommunicated whether "the" is identified this match as a falling one in contrast to all the other matches still in the box or that "the" means this match is theonly one and the box is now empty! Further context might determine the correct interpretation or the reader may be forced to make an assumption.

Addressing #2: Previously, it was found that the Greek word was rendered by one of its definitions in the KJV as "all"(any, each, and every individually); this "all" essentially means 'absolutely comprehensive, completely, and without excluding a single one'. The HCSB translates it in the other sense of the same Greek word as "all kinds" (some of all types collectively); this "all kinds" basically means 'inclusive aggregate composition'. When there are two or more possible shades of meaning for a single Greek word, even though both are permissible, often only one is proper for the context. Again, the definition chosen by the translator may depend upon their understanding of the passage.

The word(s) "all/all kind" is performing the function of an adverb by modifying "evil"; and "evil" (perhaps more literally 'evils') is an adjective describing the word "root". It seems that the Greek words for "all/all kinds", and "evil" with its article, are all three in genitive plural agreement. A rendering of 'evils' in the conventional word order would only escalate erroneous interpretations that presume that it is a noun.

The genitive case is what allows the English translators to include our word "of" (no actual word 'of' in the Greek verse here). This "of" in English needs to be understood as a description of the composition of "evil", and not a description of possession. Translators also drop out the articles frequently when they are unnecessary or clumsy in English.

Literally (by changing the word order slightly to eliminate a second "of") the phrase might be constructed "all/all kinds of evils root". Clearly, a plural adjective sounds wrong in English. Remember that "evil(s)" is the adjective and does not possess "root" which is the emphasized nominative... so, it should never be construed as "evil's root". These are two possible reasons why we do not see many versions with the plural form of "evil" (but there are some: Weymouth, for one).

Finally, the word "evil" at this verse in Greek has three possible meanings: 1) of a bad nature 2) of a mode of thinking, feeling, acting; 3) troublesome, injurious, destructive. I think that the translation of "evil" can throw the reader into immediately over spiritualizing the meaning. Given these options, the context becomes key. What if another word was applied, rather than "evil"?

Here are two other ways to construct this phrase using basically the same English words. It is difficult to express without becoming 'wordy'. I challenge others to attempt it.
For an all-destructive root, is the love of money...
For the destructive root of all kinds, is the love of money...

I have not impressed upon the scripture what I think it means, until I think I know what it says (first, deconstructing the Greek; next, studying the context).

 

There is no doubt that the the word in Greek is plural. In the course of examining the context, I have read many more versions with the rendering "evils". Besides Weymouth, some other familiar versions that have the plural form are: ESV, NET, MLB (Berkley), and the AMP.

Many translations considered 'literal' have "evils": Berry's interlinear Literal Translation, Marshall's Literal English Version, Young's, ALT, the English Majority Text Version, and Green's Modern KJV.

Many translations considered 'Catholic' have "evils": Kleist-Lily, The Jerusalem Bible, Rheims, NAB, and RSV (Knox has "evil things").

Some other translators that have used "evils" here: Beck, Litrell (English Study Bible), Gaus, Stern, Goodspeed, Wade, and Barclay.

The word "evil" can serve the grammatical function of either an adjective (as in this verse) or a noun. Unfortunately, the familar English construction can allow the reader to understand the word "evil" as a noun, and the plural only exacerbates this error.

 

It is possible that Paul could have been simply quoting a common proverb of the times.

"The love of money is the center of all evil" (or something very similar), could be attributed to one of a group of professional fifth-century B.C. Greek philosophers and teachers who speculated on theology, metaphysics, and the sciences, and who were later characterized by Plato as superficial manipulators of rhetoric and dialectic known as sophists. The sophist named Bion could have said it first.

Democritus was a Greek philosopher (around 460 BC). Democritus was a student of Leucippus and probable co-originator of the belief that all matter is made up of indivisible elements which he called "atomos" (atoms). He said things like, "Fame and wealth without intelligence are dangerous possessions" and "To make money is not without use, but if it comes from wrong-doing, nothing is worse."

Diogenes 'the Cynic', another Greek philosopher, was born in Sinope (about 412 BC). Some information is know about him in form of his anecdotes (chreia). He lived a beggar's existance, denying himself worldly goods, money, and other social effects. But it is impossible to definatively identify the originator of the phrase.

Just as the phrase continues to be oft-quoted (incorrectly) today as "Money is the root of all evil".

 

Strong's indicates that this Greek word modifies its noun indicates intrinsic worthlessness as to its essential character.

The word "evil" in English also has several meanings: 1) Morally objectionable - bad, immoral, reprobate, sinful, vicious, wicked, wrong; 2) Causing harm or injury - detrimental, harmful, hurtful, ill, injurious, mischievous; 3) Bringing, predicting, or characterized by misfortune - inauspicious, unfavorable, unpropitious; 4) Characterized by intense ill will or spite - hateful, malevolent, malicious, malign, mean, nasty, poisonous, spiteful, vicious. (from American Heritage Dictionary)

I believe that some folks receive the expression "all evil" in the moral (spiritual) sense, while it is also possible to understand it as another of the more material (earthly) senses. The phrase "all kinds of evils" is less likely to be construed as referring to supernatural or metaphysical terminology.

 

And no matter how the KJVO faction tries to bend the truth, the better translation is "a" rather than "the."

 

Well put!

Ed

 

After 13 pages, uh, I ain't 'zackly real sure what is going on here, but seem have noticed a couple of things, I thinks.

First, how much of that money was spent to buy all them rabbits that have been running across these pages, such as, 'homosexuality', Hitler (WWII had a cost of billions), George Burns (them seegars cost a bunch, I'd guess), Cain, the 'RCC', (they do got a bunch of it, I think), over thirty versions of the Bible including some ancient versions that, no doubt, are pretty pricey in hard copy, KJVO, and on and on I could go. These sound to me more like the love of what money can buy, frankly. :rolleyes:

Second, with all these rabbits running around, not one person has mentioned that God never said you had to have a dime in your pocket, in order to love money!

Ed

 

Well Ed, that is true. The other part of the phrase ("love of money") doesn't apply only to the wealthy; whether that "love" is a passion to aquire money, or the neglect of generosity with money already obtained.

 

Any or all of it, IMO, can be a 'root', but the big thing is the love of it.

I'm reminded of some years ago when the late Sam Walton was reported to have 'lost' a billion dollars in the big drop of the stock market in one day. When asked about it, he replied he was far more concerned with what some of his employees might have lost, as they had shares of stock in Walmart, and might need to sell some of it for something they might have had arise. He said he still had the stock in the stores, his health and his family, and so he was well in all the above, but some might not be doing ok, and they were the ones he was concerned about.

Ed

 

Whether this expression is an accurate citation of well-known proverb, or the words of an original thought by Paul, either could be taken simply as hyperbole. Note the exaggeration for effect by Paul in I Corintians 13:2-3 also using the word "all". We need not contort the scriptures to literally fit any preconceptions if rhetorical devises have been employed by the writer.

 

Actually, just a little ways down, you say that the KJB is not correct. I think that must mean that the "imperfection" is an error. The original letter Paul sent to Timothy did not have an error in it, did it? Do you have a Greek copy somewhere today that is without error? Or is the word of God Timothy had different in nature than the word of God we have today? (The difference being the original was without error, but all copies, even in the original languages, do have errors)

Yes, but if you change it from "all" to another reading, you lose the other wonderful indirect application made earlier in the post about how the love of money is the root of all evil in one sense, even in the garden of eden, etc.

No, just a limited amount of time. I have yet to see one argument that either could not, or in many cases, has not been sufficiently answered by others.

But God gives me many mushrooms and plants in my backyard, some of which would have very intoxicating effects if they were "enjoyed". But the context of the bible would forbid this "enjoyment" (like the command to "Be sober", for example.) Similarly, the context of the bible shows that the word "all" in the verse at hand does not have to always mean "all kinds in every circumstance in all ages without exception".

And eventually then, you would use the context to justify the reading, just like you attempted in v17 and was also adequately done with the earlier verse in Timothy in a previous post.

That is right. It must be both majestic and accurate to be the "word of God," as defined by the scriptures themselves. Anything that was not both majestic and accurate, would be, at best, an imperfect book with errors made by man.

 

Errors could creep in, but if God was doing the preserving himself, the errors would not last, and the (without error) word of God would remain.

Proverbs 25:1 These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.

Do you think there were any errors in the original of Proverbs 25? The "original" was a "copy". Is there a scripture that shows that the men of Hezekiah "were qualified by scripture to receive direct inspiration." How about the book of Esther? Who wrote it, and where are there any scriptures that show that its author was qualified to receive direct inspiration?

How many differences could there be before you could no longer call them all "my word"? The differences in the various versions are not trivial.

Here is just one example of a scripture where every individual word of God is important.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

In one sense, when you say "The words are important only in the respect that they accurately transmit the meanings of the original words," you are correct. The King James Bible accurately transmits that meaning. Meaning is not simply conveyed by the dictionary denotation, but also by the connotation and poetry. The King James Bible is full of power and majesty in its selection of individual words. Do you have a bible (that you read, study, preach and witness to the lost from) that is full of majesty in its word selection?

Do you believe that the united testimony of the scriptures really show forth the principle that the individual words are not important other then that they accurately convey some generic message from God?

 

Where is it written that the Bible must sound majestic?

Why was the NT written in Koine ("common") Greek--the language of the common man?

No doubt...the wisdom and riches of God's word are boundless. But sometimes, God spoke very simply and plainly to His people. Check out some of Jeremiah's and John the Baptist's sayings...they weren't "flowery," but they were pure truth.

IMO it is a very slippery slope to say, "That must be God's word because it sounds majestic. Truth is bigger than splendor, and a bunch more important.

Is God majestic? You bet. Is His Word majestic? Sometimes, it's ornate, beautiful, and pure truth...other times it's just plain spoken, in-your-face pure truth, served cold.

 

1) The differences between the KJB and the otherer translations are not "minor"

2) If I thought the KJB had errors, I would not call it the word of God. I might say it was man's feeble and erring attempt to try to translate the untranslatable perfect word of God from the most wonderful original languages.

3) If simply being human (all humans make errors) disqualifies the KJB translators from writing the words of God without error, then all of the originals are disqualified as well. Unless perhaps your bible was written by angels.

4) If you know where there are errors in the bible, why don't you at least correct the errors you know about and publish a new translation? Then future readers will be less likely to be led astray by those errors.

"All have sinned..." If you could not read beyond the three words "all have sinned" you might insist that Jesus Christ, being a man, sinned also. But he did not. I guess according to your logic, "all" doesn't mean "all" in that verse either. Or do you doubt that Jesus Christ was fullly man? The question is rhetorical. I am just trying to show that "all" can still mean "all" but does not neccesarily have to mean "all in every case without exception in all ages and circumstances." This is true in both everyday speech and the bible itself. For more elaboration, read the earlier posts.