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

[franklinmonroe]

1 Timothy 6:10 (The Douay-Rheims Bible):
For the desire of money is the root of all evils;
which some coveting have erred from the faith
and have entangled themselves in many sorrows.

This is clearly from a different (later?) version of Rheims. I think that this is an mistranslation since it makes the Greek adjective kakos (describing "root") into a noun "evils". "Evil" cannot be made plural.

BTW, the word "root" (Greek rhiza) is in the femine singular nominative (subject) case. It is the first word of this verse in the Greek (Stephen's Textus Receptus 1550 and Nestle-Aland 26th) which is typically a position of emphasis.

 

[franklinmonroe]

It is amazing that all of the "valid" versions and the NWT agree against the reading of the KJB. This phenomenon seems to occur quite frequently when one compares other verses as well. If the various "valid" versions agree with the NWT very frequently against the KJB, then shouldn't the NWT be considered a valid version? Perhaps it should be considered a "valid" version that just happens to have an error at John 1:1. And how many times do the "valid" versions and the KJB have to disagree with one another, before one would believe that that KJB is not a "valid" version?

My opinion may be unpopular on this forum, but...

I think that NWT is only invalid in passages where it is intentionally mistranslated. There may be many passages that are well translated in the NWT. I have only read a few of the most 'notorious' passages of the NWT. I would not endorse it based upon reputation, but what portions are true remain true even in a overall mean(poor) and/or dangerous(heretical) translation.

 

[Mike Berzins]

Mike Berzins:
I Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.[/i]

There is only ONE possible antecedent for 'He' in Timothy. That's an old and incorrect argument.

Here's the passage from the NASB. Can you highlight the antecedent for me?

12Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.
13For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
14I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long;
15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
16By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.

Try as you might, you simply CANNOT succeed in limiting God to one version. you simply cannot succeed in proving love of money is "THE" root of ALL evil. serial killers & serial rapists don't do their evil for love of money. And every valid BV I ever saw says "love of money"....not pride, not lust, but M-O-N-E-Y ! You dudes have failed miserably to foil case...all the evidence is AGAINST you.

Since I brought the subject up, the "burden of proof" falls upon me to make the case...& I believe I've done so by presenting the simple, clear fact that mucho evil is done for other reasons besides love of money.

[/quote]

The fact that much evil is done for reasons besides the love of money proves nothing. The verse does not say that the love of money is the "reason" of all evil, or the cause of all evil. It says that it is the "root". A root is not a "cause". It is something that feeds and nourishes the evil. The evil results caused by pride, lust, etc. are all fed by the root, which is the love of money. The serial killers and rapists lusts are inflamed by the vile culture; their lack of morality is shaped by the bankrupt educational system; and their minds are warped by the legalized dope of the modern day witch doctors. All of these factors have impacted the killers and rapists, because some man loves money.

I Timothy 6:7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. 8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. 9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. 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.

And as far as the love of money being the root that fed the evil in the garden of Eden, these verses are not strictly teaching this. The word "all" in the bible is often limited by context. Here, it can be limited by verse 7, that is talking about "this world". The garden of eden was clearly a different "world" (see II Peter 2:5 for the definition of "world" I am referring to).

I appreciate the brother's usage of the scriptures to explain how, in a broad (Psalms 119:96) sense, the love of money is even the root of these other evils. I agree this is true, in a broad sense. But in a more narrow, direct application, the love of money is not said to be the root of all evil in absolutely all places at absolutely all times.

 

[robycop3]

Mike Berzins:Here's the passage from the NASB. Can you highlight the antecedent for me?

12Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.
13For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
14I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long;
15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
16By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.

Very simple...it's CHRIST JESUS in V13. The NASB consistently capitalizes every pronoun that refers to any of the Holy Trinity. Besices that, the description which follows "He" is that of Jesus, as set forth in many other Scriptures. Now, while it's not the best rendering of the facts, it certainly isn't wrong. Remember, there are instances where several other versions use one of the names of the Holy Trinity & the KJV does not. EVERY version has different translators using different mss.



The fact that much evil is done for reasons besides the love of money proves nothing.

Yes, it DOES. It shows that "the" root is incorrect. There are many roots for evil.


The verse does not say that the love of money is the "reason" of all evil, or the cause of all evil. It says that it is the "root". A root is not a "cause". It is something that feeds and nourishes the evil.

That's why the love of money as "a" root & not "the" root.




The evil results caused by pride, lust, etc. are all fed by the root, which is the love of money. The serial killers and rapists lusts are inflamed by the vile culture; their lack of morality is shaped by the bankrupt educational system; and their minds are warped by the legalized dope of the modern day witch doctors. All of these factors have impacted the killers and rapists, because some man loves money.

Even rubber will stretch only so far, and you've stretched the excuses supporting "the" root well past their bursting point. Again, you cannot cover Eve & Adam's eating of the forbidden fruit, Cain's slaying Abel, nor the mad acts of those such as Tim Mc Veigh with love of money.

I Timothy 6:7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. 8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. 9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. 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.

And as far as the love of money being the root that fed the evil in the garden of Eden, these verses are not strictly teaching this. The word "all" in the bible is often limited by context. Here, it can be limited by verse 7, that is talking about "this world". The garden of eden was clearly a different "world" (see II Peter 2:5 for the definition of "world" I am referring to).


I appreciate the brother's usage of the scriptures to explain how, in a broad (Psalms 119:96) sense, the love of money is even the root of these other evils. I agree this is true, in a broad sense. But in a more narrow, direct application, the love of money is not said to be the root of all evil in absolutely all places at absolutely all times.

I know exactly to what you're referring. You see you cannot defend "the" root of all evil, so you're taking a different tack. You cannot even begin to show "a" root is incorrect. Again, you're 'WAY more intelligent than to REALLY believe this. Seems you're sometimes putting that intelligence on standby for the sake of defending an incorrect doctrine.

 

[franklinmonroe]

That's why the love of money as "a" root & not "the" root.

I would again like to point out that "the" does not necessarily preclude the existence of others. "The" could be just specifying this particular "root", of which there are others. "The" would simply indicate any preeminent singular "root" in the context.

 

[Rufus_1611]

And as far as the love of money being the root that fed the evil in the garden of Eden, these verses are not strictly teaching this. The word "all" in the bible is often limited by context. Here, it can be limited by verse 7, that is talking about "this world". The garden of eden was clearly a different "world" (see II Peter 2:5 for the definition of "world" I am referring to).

I appreciate the brother's usage of the scriptures to explain how, in a broad (Psalms 119:96) sense, the love of money is even the root of these other evils. I agree this is true, in a broad sense. But in a more narrow, direct application, the love of money is not said to be the root of all evil in absolutely all places at absolutely all times.

Excellent argument.

 

[franklinmonroe]

On another thread, this question was raised: Is the love of money "THE" root or "A" root? And is a or the root of all evil or all sorts of evil?

All well informed people know that it is not as simple as just reading a verse and then drawing a conclusion. For examples: the context should be understood; English words may need to be defined by a dictionary; historical background may be pertinent; scripture must be interpreted in the light of other applicable scripture; and perhaps the original language could be consulted to gain insight that may have been left behind during the translation process.

Throughout the many posts in this thread, little hermeneutic or elucidative information has been presented concerning what the verse actually states. In haste to explain what it means, much has been posted without really establishing what the Word of God says (at least to the best of our abilities).

First, as has been shown previously, a grammatical article such as "the" or "a" is not in the Greek text in this phrase, but is supplied by every translator. Second, the Greek word translated as "all"/"all sorts" in English does have duel meanings, and has been properly rendered in the KJV (and a few others) with one meaning, while most modern versions have properly rendered the other meaning. These explanations essentially answer the OP.

The definition of "all" selected by the translator demonstrates their interpretation of "root" (with its adjective "evil" becomes equivalent to 'evil root'). The question is not: are there many 'evils'? The question is: are there many 'roots'?

Because "evil" is an adjective, the word "of" needs to be understood as a description of its 'composition', not a description of 'ownership'. The phrase 'ball of rubberbands' does not mean that the rubberbands belong to the ball; it means that it is a ball characteristically made by rubberbands. Conversely, the phrase 'rubberbands of Bill' means that the rubberbands belongs to Bill; it would not ordinarily mean rubberbands composed of Bill's human flesh.

In fact, these translations are also possible--

For the love of money is a root of all evil...
The phrasing here seems to imply that this 'evil root' (a.k.a. "the love of money") is comprehensive, but does not preclude the existence of other 'evil roots'. It does not even prevent the 'evil root' from being formed by composite means.

For the love of money is the root of all kinds evil...
The phrasing here seems to imply that this 'evil root' (a.k.a. "the love of money") has a varied composition, but does not preclude the existence of other 'evil roots'. And it does not prevent the 'evil root' from being totally comprehensive.

Whether there is one 'evil root', or several, cannot be determined from this passage alone. Whether any 'evil root' is completely comprehensive, or not, cannot be determined from this passage alone. Whether an 'evil root' is of composite makeup, or pure, cannot be determined from this passage alone. These would be entirely different topics than the OP.

 

[robycop3]

Good eludidation, Franklin...and the simple truth is that "the love of money is THE root of ALL EVIL" is not correct. "A" root of all evil is correct, as is "the" root of all kinds or sorts of evil".

Mr. Berzins admits that the murder of Abel, etc. weren't done for love of money, and THEN explains the limitations of "all". When the legalistic jews exclaimed "All the world has gone after Him"(Jesus), it was just that...an exclamation, used as we use it in English today, I.E. "The whole world mourns the death of Steve Irwin, the 'Crocodile Hunter' ". However, the context of the Timothy verses shows specifics, and to apply the limitations of "all" is to incorrectly apply it in the manner the Calvinists do when they say 'all' is limited to 'the elect'.

First, "the love of money" is a specific thing. "Root" is a specific thing, but we know there are many kinds of roots, both physical and abstract. Here, it means "origin or source". And we know there are many origins/sources.

Second, Paul goes on to speak of those who've been corrupted by love of money. Here, he doesn't speak of other kinds of evil, so this limits the scope of application somewhat.

Bottom line: "The love of money is THE root of ALL EVIL" IS NOT CORRECT.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Not much has been said about the word "evil" in this verse. It is kokos in Greek, and has three shades of meaning in Thayer's: 1) of a bad nature 2) of a mode of thinking, feeling, acting; 3) troublesome, injurious, pernicious, destructive, baneful.

It is only one of several NT words translated in the KJV as "evil". One example, the Greek word poneros is the most common word translated "evil", and possibly has a stronger connotation towards the way in which most think of the "evil" today.

I am attempting to show that this verse may not be describing the 'evil root' in a spiritual sense... as some comprehesive basis of every kind of sin (evil, unrighteousness, wickedness, etc). It may be that Paul is simply admonishing the believer in a more earthly sense... that there will surely be various damage and enveloping consequences from becoming too passionate about monetary gain.

 

[robycop3]

Not much has been said about the word "evil" in this verse. It is kokos in Greek, and has three shades of meaning in Thayer's: 1) of a bad nature 2) of a mode of thinking, feeling, acting; 3) troublesome, injurious, pernicious, destructive, baneful.

It is only one of several NT words translated in the KJV as "evil". One example, the Greek word poneros is the most common word translated "evil", and possibly has a stronger connotation towards the way in which most think of the "evil" today.

I am attempting to show that this verse may not be describing the 'evil root' in a spiritual sense... as some comprehesive basis of every kind of sin (evil, unrighteousness, wickedness, etc). It may be that Paul is simply admonishing the believer in a more earthly sense... that there will surely be various damage and enveloping consequences from becoming too passionate about monetary gain.

Ah, but the prob's not the Greek; it's the poor translation of it to English.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Ah, but the prob's not the Greek; it's the poor translation of it to English.

Sorry robycop3, I don't think you understand this properly. The KJV renders it correctly. Compare the RSV if you will.

The biggest problem I have is your assertion that we may modify the meaning of the scripture based our own wisdom. The scripture stands alone. An honest translator must translate his understanding of what the scripture says rather than what he thinks it should say.

My bottom line: The King James Holy Bible is correct. If you wish to continue in your opinion then you may do so.

A.F.

 

[Ed Edwards]

AntennaFarmer: //The scripture stands alone.//

Yet there are those who say that the KJV is standing alone scripture.
Your statement contradicts the KJVO guess.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

If you wish to continue in your opinion then you may do so.

RIGHT!!!!!! Every person has the right to be WRONG!Case in point.

Not to mention NO scriptural support for Alexandrianism!

 

[Ed Edwards]

...

Not to mention NO scriptural support for Alexandrianism!

There is four times as much Bible support for Alexandrianism
as for KJVO-ism (4 times zero = zero)

 

[rsr]

There seem to be two ways out of this.

One is to translate it in such a way as to limit the scope of the evil derived from the root, which most MVs have done by translating it as "all kinds of evil."

The second, taken by the NET, is to translate it as the KJV does and assume that "all evil(s)" is hyperbole - certainly not an unheard of device.

Adam Clarke, who preferred the route taken by most of the MVs, also insisted that the "evil" was circumscribed by the context, which is clearly about the dangers of the lure of money and of using religion for profit.
"[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] ... [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Perhaps it would be better to translate ... of all these evils; i.e. the evils enumerated above; for it cannot be true that the love of money is the root of all evil, it certainly was not the root whence the transgression of Adam sprang, but it is the root whence all the evils mentioned in the preceding verse spring."

I also think it is not a particularly big step to expand the meaning to general "covetousness," but that's really beside the point. The KJV translators rendered a similar word as "covetous" in Luke 16:14 and II Timothy 3:2-3 and Hebrews 13:5, yet chose "love of money" in this verse. It's really disprespectful to the KJV translators to assume they didn't really mean "love of money" when they had every opportunity to make an alternate translation.

With all that said, I think either of the renderings makes sense and can be defended. What one cannot do, I think, is use the verse, jerked out of context, to flatly assert that love of money literally is the root of all evil, which is contradicted throughout the scriptures. (Although the scriptures do have a lot more to say about avarice than many comfortable American Christians are comfortable with.)
[/FONT]

 

[Mike Berzins]

Mike Berzins:Here's the passage from the NASB. Can you highlight the antecedent for me?

12Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.
13For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
14I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long;
15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
16By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.

Very simple...it's CHRIST JESUS in V13. The NASB consistently capitalizes every pronoun that refers to any of the Holy Trinity. Besices that, the description which follows "He" is that of Jesus, as set forth in many other Scriptures. Now, while it's not the best rendering of the facts, it certainly isn't wrong. Remember, there are instances where several other versions use one of the names of the Holy Trinity & the KJV does not. EVERY version has different translators using different mss.

Christ Jesus is the antecedent. So "He who is revealed in the flesh" means Christ Jesus who is revealed in the flesh. Or as the NIV puts it "He appeared in a body." The NWT says "He was made manifest in the flesh". Both again referring to Jesus. And all three saying pretty much the same thing. The fact that Christ Jesus appeared in a body says NOTHING about his deity. It just establishes that he was not a spirit.

The KJB says "God was manifest in the flesh." Since it is plain the passage is talking about Jesus, this establishes the deity of Christ. The KJB and the versions above differ drastically here.

Presumably, the original autograph did not read both ways. So both readings can not be true to the original autographs. I have heard it said in this forum that the different bible translations are the word of God to each intended audience. Is anyone contending that the various multitude of translations can conflict with one another, and still be the word of God, because they are perhaps "new revelations" of things that did not appear in the original autographs? If not, how can the readings conflict with one another and still be the word of God in this passage? Is the KJB the word of God in this verse? Or are the others, including the NWT? How can you have it both ways (and have the NWT not be the word of God here)?

Unlike the gnat straining about spelling changes, or minor changes in pronouns or prepositions among editions of the KJB that folks use to try to show that KJO can not be true, this difference between the versions is enormous. There are many verses that indicate the deity of Christ, but without key verses such as I Timothy 3:16, many of them can be explained away in a fashion that sounds somewhat plausible. (For example, "I and my father are one", can be likened unto a man and his wife being one)

If the KJB translation is correct, and the others are incorrect, how many such significant doctrinal differences must one see before one will open his mind to the possibility that perhaps the devil is actively involved in translating committees, and seeks to pervert and corrupt the translations that are produced?

 

[robycop3]

Christ Jesus is the antecedent. So "He who is revealed in the flesh" means Christ Jesus who is revealed in the flesh. Or as the NIV puts it "He appeared in a body." The NWT says "He was made manifest in the flesh". Both again referring to Jesus. And all three saying pretty much the same thing. The fact that Christ Jesus appeared in a body says NOTHING about his deity. It just establishes that he was not a spirit.

The KJB says "God was manifest in the flesh." Since it is plain the passage is talking about Jesus, this establishes the deity of Christ. The KJB and the versions above differ drastically here.

Presumably, the original autograph did not read both ways. So both readings can not be true to the original autographs. I have heard it said in this forum that the different bible translations are the word of God to each intended audience. Is anyone contending that the various multitude of translations can conflict with one another, and still be the word of God, because they are perhaps "new revelations" of things that did not appear in the original autographs? If not, how can the readings conflict with one another and still be the word of God in this passage? Is the KJB the word of God in this verse? Or are the others, including the NWT? How can you have it both ways (and have the NWT not be the word of God here)?

Unlike the gnat straining about spelling changes, or minor changes in pronouns or prepositions among editions of the KJB that folks use to try to show that KJO can not be true, this difference between the versions is enormous. There are many verses that indicate the deity of Christ, but without key verses such as I Timothy 3:16, many of them can be explained away in a fashion that sounds somewhat plausible. (For example, "I and my father are one", can be likened unto a man and his wife being one)

If the KJB translation is correct, and the others are incorrect, how many such significant doctrinal differences must one see before one will open his mind to the possibility that perhaps the devil is actively involved in translating committees, and seeks to pervert and corrupt the translations that are produced?

With all due respect, Mike, the Deity of Jesus should be a gimme for the first-time Bible reader by the time he/she gets that far, assuming that person is reading from the beginning onward.

 

[robycop3]

AntennaFarmer:Sorry robycop3, I don't think you understand this properly. The KJV renders it correctly. Compare the RSV if you will.

I understand it just fine. And the RSV says "the" root of "all evilS". That's not correct, either.

The biggest problem I have is your assertion that we may modify the meaning of the scripture based our own wisdom.

That's what just about every translator ot translation team has done. Another KJV example: phileo/agape "love". Far as I know, such uses of opinion are found in EVERY English translation. And if WE know love of money is NOT "the" root of all evil, surely PAUL knew it also, and that's what he wrote. Since it's left up to the translator to supply the articles, etc. what's wrong with being correct?


The scripture stands alone. An honest translator must translate his understanding of what the scripture says rather than what he thinks it should say.

To do that, a translator must:

1.)Be equal to God. Since that's out, he must then...

2.) Make a raw translation, free of any English modifying words & let the reader guess at what they should be. Otherwise, SOME translators' "educated guesses" or opinions are gonna be there, regardless of how unbiased he may tryta be.

My bottom line: The King James Holy Bible is correct. If you wish to continue in your opinion then you may do so.

My bottom line: The KJV is correct except where it isn't. And we've been discussing a case where it isn't. And I shall continue in that opinion unless/until it's proven wrong. So I reckon we'll agree to disagree, even though I believe the case against the KJV's reading being entirely correct is well-established.

 

[Keith M]

My bottom line: The KJV is correct except where it isn't. And we've been discussing a case where it isn't. And I shall continue in that opinion unless/until it's proven wrong. So I reckon we'll agree to disagree, even though I believe the case against the KJV's reading being entirely correct is well-established.

Amen and amen! The case against the KJV's reading being entirely correct has been very well-established. The case for the KJV's reading being entirely correct hasn't even gotten off the ground. The case for the KJV's reading is based purely on conjecture while the case against the KJV's reading has been based on fact. Hmmm - fact or conjecture? Which is the believable case? Certainly not the opinion that the KJV is right in this case because that opinion is based entirely on conjecture! And since the original Greek supplies absolutely no article to declare that the KJV's reading is absolutely correct and that there is no other possibility is utterly absurd...

 

[franklinmonroe]

I want to supply an answer to these questions, but I will try to be brief (since it is off-topic)--

Presumably, the original autograph did not read both ways. So both readings can not be true to the original autographs.

True, the original autograph would likely not have been written both ways. However, we do not have the original autograph. What we do have are at least three Greek manuscript variations for a word here: "He", "God", or "Which". Which one is the original? How do we account for the other two variations we do not choose to use?

I have heard it said in this forum that the different bible translations are the word of God to each intended audience.

Yes, that would be especially true of the various translations intended for foreign languages around the world (Spanish, French, Russian, Japanese, etc), and the blind or any group with limited vocabulary.

Is anyone contending that the various multitude of translations can conflict with one another, and still be the word of God, because they are perhaps "new revelations" of things that did not appear in the original autographs?

Yes, different translations can differ with one another and still be the Word of God, but not because they are "new revelations". Only a few versions have been promoted as being a wholly new revelation of God (i.e. Vulgate, KJV). Translations will differ for at least four reasons: 1) differences in underlying texts/variants; 2) differences in translation philosophy/method; 3) differences in interpretation/theology; 4) differences in language style: grammar, syntax, and vocabulary.

If not, how can the readings conflict with one another and still be the word of God in this passage? Is the KJB the word of God in this verse? Or are the others, including the NWT? How can you have it both ways (and have the NWT not be the word of God here)?

"Conflict" implies irreconcilable contradictions which is rarely the actual situation. It must be recognized that we are reading a translation of fragmented handwritten copies from other older copies. God breathed His Word only once to the original authors. If the NWT is faithful to the Greek text and rendered properly in English then it is God's Word at this verse. Truth is still truth, where ever it is found.