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

[AVBunyan]

And making false accusations (that I went on about how ignorant you are) is very typical of you folks.

I'll respond here to clear the air before I leave.

This was a slight misrepresentation here on my part for you did not call me outright ignorant nor use the word ignorant - For this I apologize - this was done rather hastily. But I took your post that was directed to me as though you assumed I'm ignorant of these basic truths. If I assumed wrong then I apologize but you post was rather unflattering towards me, to say the least. I assume that since I believe in the "all dreaded KJO myth" that I'm so bad off that you would have to pray for me.

With that being said - continue on.

 

[Salamander]

Oh, and actually, the article "a" does have something to say about the root of all evil. Since the article "a" is often used to denote the first of all to be introduced, or the one and only: "a root" would mean the same thing as "the root".
But in lour present day comprehension concerning the word "a", it would leave open the idea that there are other roots to bring forth evil.

This idea, though well thought out, would not be altogether true. The KJB just makes perfect sense again.

It would be redundent to use the term "sorts of" though, because all evil would include all sorts of evil.

BTW, Stevie Wonder is a god, to some, but really not "God" to anyone.:1_grouphug: The Rainbow Coalition will be well satisfied with this colorful group hug icon.

I wonder what the version zealots will make of this ?:tongue3:

 

[AVBunyan]

1. AV Bunyun has made the best sense out of the whole issue you people have with being able to understand the meaning of money.

2. Eve saw the fruit as something to make thee wise/ money, advantage, elevation in society, etc. ....Cain slew Able due to his vehement jealousy because God didn't honour his sacrifice....Hitler's desire very well could be described as world dominance, which very easily, no matter what language, is defined as "money".

1. Thanks Sal - I thought it was clear and simple.

2. Nice work Sal - you covered the issue well.

Thanks again Sal - God bless

 

[Salamander]

Sorry, Brother Bunyun for not responding to your PM to me, I failed to see it until yesterday and realising how old it was I thought it might be unnecessary.

I do appreciate your ability to articulate perfect reason amongst the inmates of this asylum. They may not, but this " Ol' Farmer Jones" does!:thumbs:

 

[robycop3]

Salamander:AV Bunyun has made the best sense out of the whole issue you people have with being able to understand the meaning of money.

Not really...he's simply taken the same incorrect view YOU have. Wrong + wrong =2 wrongs.

His report on the matter is as clear as crystal, same thinking on my behalf, but you will have to forgive ol' farmer salamander here. I am not as educated as you scholars are, I just learn to make horse sense out of cow manure. ( or is that bull manure?)

Since you've stepped in it, it'll take the same effort to clean it off yer boot, be it cow, bull, or horse. However, the KJVO take on this matter is horse.....FEATHERS.

Eve saw the fruit as something to make thee wise/ money, advantage, elevation in society, etc. IOW, she loved something truly evil and the tree that bare the fruit had, uh, ROOTS!

Actually, Eve believed ole Sneaky Snake. It had nothing to do with money...Satan beguiled her into not believing God. Nothing to do with money, as it didn't then exist. The only physical things of value to A&E were each other.

Cain slew Able due to his vehement jealousy because God didn't honour his sacrifice. Cain's advantage had been denied him in what he thought was his birthright in being the elder brother. His love of the elevated state which he thought was rightfully his, no matter what anyone else thought, caused his anger. That anger became the sin which led him to murder Able. Remember two things, "be angry and sin not", and Able's sacrifice didn't, uh, have ROOTS!

What a stretch!

there was no birthright in that day. Cain was jealous, plain and simple.

Hitler's desire very well could be described as world dominance, which very easily, no matter what language, is defined as "money". Power is a very desirable thing to attain. Money is power in our world. No, money cannot buy true happiness which is ONLY found in Christ, but money does buy things that satisfy the palate of lust. Lust when it hath conceived bringeth forth sin, and sin when it has finished bringeth forth death. If Hitler wasn't controlled by his deep rooted lusts, then what did actually contri=ol him? I suppose some calvinist will come along and say, "God in His foreknowledge ordained Hitler to be what he was, inspite of the grace of God offered to all men."

I stand corrected by you over Hitler. I have more than ordinary knowledge of the 3rd Reich for someone not born till it was over. And you're right. I believe that if the Axis had won, it wouldn'ta taken him long to turn upon Japan, and & maybe even Italy, although he had a strange fascination for Mussolini.

So, is money "a root of all sorts of evil" ? Yes. Most explicitly, money is THE root of ALL evil.

No, it is NOT. It's A root of ALL SORTSA EVIL.

If anything, "KJB" , the term that some refuse to accept :laugh: , defines the whole truth of the matter much better and alot further than can be accepted in what I have seen offered in any of this thread.:tonofbricks:

Any way ya cut it, the KJB/KJV is only one of many valid Bible versions. And in the verse under discussion, it's clearly WRONG.


:godisgood:

While man is only TRYING to be.

 

[robycop3]

I'll respond here to clear the air before I leave.

This was a slight misrepresentation here on my part for you did not call me outright ignorant nor use the word ignorant - For this I apologize - this was done rather hastily. But I took your post that was directed to me as though you assumed I'm ignorant of these basic truths. If I assumed wrong then I apologize but you post was rather unflattering towards me, to say the least. I assume that since I believe in the "all dreaded KJO myth" that I'm so bad off that you would have to pray for me.

With that being said - continue on.

Mr. Bunyan, you leave every time ya git yer nose busted, & then come back, try again, git whupped again, & make another excuse to leave. If you had any defense for your KJVO doctrine, whyncha stay around & battle in its behalf?

You DO have some things of value to offer in these discussions, but long as you're trying to defend KJVO, you're gonna hafta learn to accept defeat gracefully.

 

[robycop3]

SalamanderOh, and actually, the article "a" does have something to say about the root of all evil. Since the article "a" is often used to denote the first of all to be introduced, or the one and only: "a root" would mean the same thing as "the root".

I reckon Bill Clinton gave you that definition, along with his definition of "is".


But in lour present day comprehension concerning the word "a", it would leave open the idea that there are other roots to bring forth evil.

Why? Because that's TRUE. There ARE other roots of evil besides LOM.

This idea, though well thought out, would not be altogether true. The KJB just makes perfect sense again.

No, it DOESN'T. it's simply INCORRECT here.

It would be redundent to use the term "sorts of" though, because all evil would include all sorts of evil.

Including the sorts NOT from the LOM root. So 'all sorts' is more correct.

BTW, Stevie Wonder is a god, to some, but really not "God" to anyone.:1_grouphug: The Rainbow Coalition will be well satisfied with this colorful group hug icon.

Actually, as he's said himself many times, he's just a musician who happens to be blind. But there are physically blind people who 'see' a lot more than the deliberately- blind who continue to support a debunked doctrine.

I wonder what the version zealots will make of this ?:tongue3:

The usual...showing it to be wrong, as we've done from the gitgo.

 

[robycop3]

AVBunyan:1. Thanks Sal - I thought it was clear and simple.

Clearly and simply WRONG.

2. Nice work Sal - you covered the issue well.

Covered with road apples insteada the truth.

Thanks again Sal - God bless

Now that yer attaboys are outta the way, please convince the peanut gallery that Jess Dahmer was a big cutup for the love of money. please convince us that certain diaper-heads blow up innocent people, along with themselves, for the LOM.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

I don't think "a root" and ""all kinds of" solves Robycop3's problem. "A root" says one particular root in addition to others. And "all" still means "all" even when you attach it to "kinds of." I don't see that the modern reading allows us to ignore the love of money as a root in some cases. I think Robycop3 needs to change his bible to read: "For the love of money may be the root of some evil..." in order to get the meaning he wants.

I am unable to argue with Franklynmonroe's analysis of the Greek and English text. And his conclusion (that the passage is hyperbolic) is shared by some well known folks (Calvin for example). I don't agree, however, that hyperbole is the best way to understand the passage. I think we have failed to fully appreciate the "root" metaphor (as I explained in an earlier post).

If the King James Bible is wrong, as Robycop3 insists, it seems funny to me that it took about 300 years for any one to notice and correct it. In fact it makes no sense at all to me for Robycop3 to reject, as "wrong," a quite literal translation of the Greek text. There are a lot of places in the Scriptures where there is some apparent conflict with "common sense." Should we doctor all of troublesome passages to make them conform? I don't think so.

I also think it is funny that I am attacked as a bad guy for defending this reading in the KJV as an accurate translation of the Greek. I am KJVO because I only use the KJV - simple as that. Some of you folks paint with an excessively broad brush.

A.F.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

This entire discussion is misdirected. The problem isn't with the translation. Neither is the problem with the Greek text. The problem is to determine the intended meaning of the passage.

The question about the meaning of "the root of all evil " preceded the KJVO debate by a long time. It also exists apart from the English translation. To try and assert that the KJV is mistranslated (in this passage) because it does not conform to a particular theory ignores that fact.

A.F.

 

[Ed Edwards]

...
Now that yer attaboys are outta the way, please convince the peanut gallery that Jess Dahmer was a big cutup for the love of money. please convince us that certain diaper-heads blow up innocent people, along with themselves, for the LOM.

The Pun Police Patrol of Homeland Defense, has been notified :tear:

For the Love of Money, Ed -- can't you be serious for one evening?

 

[robycop3]

AntennaFarmer:I don't think "a root" and ""all kinds of" solves Robycop3's problem.

It's not MY prob-it's that of the KJVOs who insist that every word of the KJV is absitively, posolutely, unerringly correct.


"A root" says one particular root in addition to others.

EXACTLY! And "the" root refers to one root exclusively. You see the difference but don't wanna acknowledge it. Truth is more important than an incorrect man-made doctrine.


And "all" still means "all" even when you attach it to "kinds of."

Not exactly. "ALL" here would cover every possibility or act, while "all SORTS" covers all TYPES, but not EVERY INDIVIDUAL ACT.


I don't see that the modern reading allows us to ignore the love of money as a root in some cases.

Never said it did. LOM is a major-league root of a huge amount of evil...but it's not the ONLY root of evil.


I think Robycop3 needs to change his bible to read: "For the love of money may be the root of some evil..." in order to get the meaning he wants.

Already been done, in just about every version made after the KJV.

I am unable to argue with Franklynmonroe's analysis of the Greek and English text. And his conclusion (that the passage is hyperbolic) is shared by some well known folks (Calvin for example). I don't agree, however, that hyperbole is the best way to understand the passage. I think we have failed to fully appreciate the "root" metaphor (as I explained in an earlier post).

No metaphor here at all...just an incorrect statement.

If the King James Bible is wrong, as Robycop3 insists, it seems funny to me that it took about 300 years for any one to notice and correct it.

No one paid a lotta attention till the KJVOs started their "perfect" codwallop.


In fact it makes no sense at all to me for Robycop3 to reject, as "wrong," a quite literal translation of the Greek text. There are a lot of places in the Scriptures where there is some apparent conflict with "common sense." Should we doctor all of troublesome passages to make them conform? I don't think so.

If I wrote "hippos petomai", the correct rendering would be "Horses fly". Now, while the TRANSLATION would be correct, would the CONTENT be? Of course not. Thus, while "the LOM is the root of all evil" is one of the correct rendering oth the Greek, the CONTENT is incorrect. "The LOM is A root of ALL SORTS of evil" is also a perfectly-valid rendering of the same Greek, and in the face of reality, its CONTENT and MESSAGE is correct.

I also think it is funny that I am attacked as a bad guy for defending this reading in the KJV as an accurate translation of the Greek.

TRANSLATION, one of several possible ones correct; the message in that translation is INcorrect. I don't call you a bad guy for defending the KJV rendering; I call you INCORRECT in this instance.


I am KJVO because I only use the KJV - simple as that. Some of you folks paint with an excessively broad brush.

A.F.[/i]

That's your privilege...but when ya try to defend one of its MISTAKES.....

 

[Keith M]

Oh, and actually, the article "a" does have something to say about the root of all evil. Since the article "a" is often used to denote the first of all to be introduced, or the one and only: "a root" would mean the same thing as "the root".
But in lour present day comprehension concerning the word "a", it would leave open the idea that there are other roots to bring forth evil.

Strange opinion since a is an indefinite article. Please cite the source of your statement.

An adjective, commonly called the indefinite article, and signifying one or any, but less emphatically. At a birth"; In a word"; At a blow". Shak. It is placed before nouns of the singular number denoting an individual object, or a quality individualized, before collective nouns, and also before plural nouns when the adjective few or the phrase great many or good many is interposed; as, a dog, a house, a man; a color; a sweetness; a hundred, a fleet, a regiment; a few persons, a great many days. It is used for an, for the sake of euphony, before words beginning with a consonant sound [for exception of certain words beginning with h, see An]; as, a table, a woman, a year, a unit, a eulogy, a ewe, a oneness, such a one, etc. Formally an was used both before vowels and consonants.
- from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

An indefinite article (a) is not at all the same as a definite article (the).

This idea, though well thought out, would not be altogether true. The KJB just makes perfect sense again.

In your own opinion. When looked at with an open mind seeking the truth, the KJV rendering "the" is not l=nearly as accurate as the rendering "a" found in most other versions.

I wonder what the version zealots will make of this ?

A really poor attempt to support an errant opinion, that's what!

 

[AntennaFarmer]

AntennaFarmer:

I think Robycop3 needs to change his bible to read: "For the love of money may be the root of some evil..." in order to get the meaning he wants.

Already been done, in just about every version made after the KJV.

WRONG! No version reads "For the love of money may be the root of some evil..." . If it did it would be a grossly incorrect translation.

This proves that robycop3 fails to read what he responds to.

He needs to actually go back and read the posts by Franklinmonroe.

A.F.

 

[Keith M]

If the King James Bible is wrong, as Robycop3 insists, it seems funny to me that it took about 300 years for any one to notice and correct it.

It didn't take almost 300 years for the error to be corrected, AF.

For coveteousnes is the rote of all evyll which whill some lusted after they erred fro the fayth and tanglyd them selves with many sorowes. 1 Timothy 6:10 Tyndale New Testament (1526)

For Couetousnes is the rote of all euell, which whyle some lusted after, they erred from the faith, and tangled them selues with many sorowes. 1 Timothy 6:10 Myles Coverdale Bible (1535)

Seems the error was "fixed" before it ever happened. For some reason probably based on the Greek text being used the translators of the Bishops' Bible changed "covetousness" to "love of money."

For loue of money, is the roote of all euyll, whiche whyle some lusted after, they erred from the fayth, & pearced the selues through with many sorowes. 1 Timothy 6:10 The Bishops' Bible (1568)

The same reading was carried over into the Geneva Bible (1587) and the King James Version (1611).

Actually, this seems to clear up much of the controversy over this verse. It would be totally proper to say that covetousness is the root of all evil - Cain, Hitler and many other examples that have been cited could fall under the broader term covetousness while not falling under the narrower term the love of money. The love of money is but one form of covetousness, so that term is too specific. But to say that the broader covetousness is the root of all evil makes much more sense.

According to the KJV with Strong's numbers found at http://www.studylight.org the Greek word philarguria is used here. According to Strong's this word is defined as "love of money, avarice."

The word covetousness appears in 9 NT verses in the KJV. In 8 of those 9 appearences of the word, it comes from the Greek pleonexia, defined as "greedy desire to have more, covetousness, avarice." In Hebrews 13:5 we find without covetousness from the Greek aphilarguros, defined as "not loving money, not avaricious." Could it be that the Greek texts used in earlier translations had the Greek word pleonexia while the Greek text used in the later translations had the Greek word philarguria? That would explain a lot. Maybe Dr. Bob or someone else with a working knowledge of the Greek texts can address this question.

 

[franklinmonroe]

A footnote at I Timothy 6:10 from The Source New Testament by Dr. Ann Nyland (on faculty of University of New England, Australia in the Department of Classics & Ancient History, and a published academic in Greek lexicography) cites the word philaguria in a nonsacred writing (Theokritos 10.54) which tells of a steward who is stingy with his drink and lentils. Also, the philaguroi iatroi are criticized as "greedy doctors" (in I.Eph. IV.1386).

According to this scholar it can mean stingy, covetous, or greedy behavior with money. The mention of the word in these secular references is significant because the word only appears once in the entire NT text.

 

[rsr]

There are no textual variants at I Timothy 6:10. The manuscripts read the same.

 

[Keith M]

Then if all the Greek manuscripts are in agreement (thanks, RSR!) it is obvious the definite article the (sole, one and only) is not proper in this passage. The indefinite article a (one among others) is quite obviously the correct choice.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Then if all the Greek manuscripts are in agreement (thanks, RSR!) it is obvious the definite article the (sole, one and only) is not proper in this passage. The indefinite article a (one among others) is quite obviously the correct choice.

As I have posted before, the "a" rendering reveals a belief by the translators in more than one "evil root". But "the" does not necessarily mean that this 'evil root' is the one and only 'evil root'; it could be that "the" specifies this particular 'evil root' from any others.

 

[Keith M]

But that wouldn't make it particularly true that it is the root of all evil. And since the original Greek did not have the article, there is no absolute guarantee that the article that was added by translators is what the writer meant. We need to listen to the Holy Spirit tells us on this one and not just assume that because a particular article is in one translation or another that there can be no other option.