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

[robycop3]

Actually Robycop3, you haven't made your point. You have only asserted it loudly and repeatedly.

A.F.

ON THE CONTRARY...

I have pointed out many evils that were not done for love of money or anything used as a form of money. Cain didn't kill Abel for love of anything of value; he killed outta pure JEALOUSY.

Jeffrey Dahmer? Wayne Gacy? Boston Strangler Di Salvo? All killed becausa some sexual aberration. Nothing to do with money. I cannot make the point any more succintly. And of course I've hadta make it loudly and repeatedly because some people cannot accept undeniable empirical evidence.

 

[robycop3]

A common problem.
Here is the Prime Directive of Bulletin Boards (bb):

Read before you post.

There are some who cannot see, but there some here who WILL NOT see.

 

[franklinmonroe]

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

I do not recognize the term "KJB", but I agree that the differences between KJVs and other 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.

Again, I cannot know what is meant by "KJB". I can appreciate the desire that any translation bearing the honor of being called the 'word of God' would be errorless from cover-to-cover. However, I think that is an unattainable goal. For example, the AV in 1611 included some apocryphal books, which I hope we can agree, contain errors of historical fact and orthodox doctrine. It is universally accepted that the AV contained many printer's errors. Therefore, for this two reasons alone the AV was not the 'word of God' by this standard for about two hundred years of its early existence.

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.

All humans do make mistakes, but the scripture clearly indicates that the original writers were divinely "inspired"; conversely, there are no passages that directly state that any copyists have been supernaturally directed (and the overwhelming evidence displays that copyists not only erred, but purposely made changes, inserted, or deleted text).

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.

To intentionally change the content (even it is a 'recognized error') of a foreign language document while transferring the text into a different language is not translating! It could be called a paraphrase, or a commentary. If Hebrew scriptures and those regarded first century Greek manuscripts were to be manipulated then it should not be called a 'bible'. Personally, I want as literal a translation in English as is humanly possible from the found ancient language manuscripts; I want to read what it says, before attempting to determine what it means. I prefer to have presumed errors mentioned in footnotes or margins.

 

[Ed Edwards]

There are some who cannot see, but there some here who WILL NOT see.

Say, Brother Robocop3, wouldn't big huge letters make
what you say sound lots more important?

 

[robycop3]

Thanx for pointing out those things, Franklin.

Not only has it been amply demonstrated that many evils are NOT done for the love of money, & that there are other roots of evil; it's been pointed out that "*A* root of *all sorts* of evil" is a perfectly-valid rendering of the Greek, and, given the reality of what has occurred in the history of mankind, that this English rendering better reflects what Paul meant in the Greek.

 

[franklinmonroe]

As I see it, I Timothy 6:10 can be received one of two ways. If it is a literal spiritual revelation, then it can be satisfactorily rendered as "all kinds of evil". If it is not meant as a declaration of absolute truth, but rather an exaggeration to emphasize the writer's message, then "all evil" is an acceptable translation.

1Cr 13:2-3
And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

When these verses are read with ordinary understanding, we recognize that the "all" is part of the exaggeration here. (This is just a proof that Paul knew how to use hyperbole as a rhetorical devise.)

It is probable that translators rendering I Timothy 6:10 as "the root of all evil" understand the phrase to be hyperbole. Therefore, it is a proper translation of the Greek into English. It may not be the best way to communicate Paul's original thought, however, it should not be outright dismissed. Neither should this expression be defended in a literal sense: just because it is constructed as "all evil", it doesn't necessarily include "all" evil roots, or mean that there is the only one evil root.

 

[robycop3]

With all due respect, Franklin, I MUST go with "literal" here, by the context. In 1 Cor. Paul is CLEARLY using hype. He is explaining that without love("Charity" is no longer proper here.) nothing else matters.

But 1 Tim. 6:10 stands alone. The context goes on about covetousness, of which love of money as a part. Had paul gone on to speak of other evils in this discourse, there would be a better case for *THE* root, or "all evil".

I agree that 'the root of all evil' is ONE valid rendering of the Greek...but, facing reality, I believe this equally-valid rendering, 'A root of ALL KINDS of evil' is what Paul meant.

(A little aside...In reference to the 'charity' thingie, the Greek word here is "agape", which I believe every Bible reader here knows means, "love, to the strongest degree". And 'charity' indeed useta mean strong love, not as between spouses, but between brothers, siblings & parents, etc. That usage was correct in 1611, but not now, in a modern work.)

 

[AVBunyan]

Why in the world would anyone with any common sense use an English dictionary to try to define what was originally written in Greek or Hebrew?

Keith, let’s be practical for a moment. Come, let us reason together.

1. Do you really think God would expect the average saint should to have to go to the Greek\Hebrew to define an English word? Is this not severely limiting the saint here? Surely you cannot be serious. Does this sound consistent with the simplicity that is in Christ?

2. Ok then let’s go with Greek definitions then – I’ll play along. Which Greek/Hebrew Keith? We all know there are many lexicons, manuscripts, etc. available. Which ones should farmer Jones use? I mean the ole’ boy has got to learn the languages first and then figure out which ones are “reliable”!

3. Again, which family of manuscripts Keith? Which ones is farmer Jones to use - the ones which are the basis for of the King James (95%) or the ones from Egypt (the other 5%)? Isn’t this what the real issue is? Are the ones from Asia Minor right or the ones from Egypt right?

Folks – I don’t panic when folks go to the Greek – many a great saint has to get more clarification but now you have taught the average saint to start poking around in the Greek when he doesn’t even know what the simple English says first!?!?!?!

I don’t blow a gasket when people think there are a few errors in an AV – I understand there are some tough passages and words. I can see how folks could have issues but...but what throws me is that folks cannot see the modern versions for what they are. If a person cannot see the omissions, changes, etc. especially when they surround the blood atonement, second coming, ascension, and the deity of Christ then it is no longer an intellectual issue – the facts are there – it has now become a heart issue.

Again with feeling…

Money –
1. Coin; stamped metal; any piece of metal, usually gold, silver or copper, stamped by public authority, and used as the medium of commerce.
2. Wealth; affluence

Wealth -
Prosperity; external happiness.

Prosperity -
Advance or gain in any thing good or desirable; successful progress in any business or enterprise; success; attainment of the object desired; as the prosperity of arts; agricultural or commercial prosperity; national prosperity.

The above definitions if run through the scriptures give you a commentary on what money is.

The above definitions fit your Hitler, Cain and Able, and any other example or illustration.

Just as a Greek word has different meanings so does the English have different “slants”.
I firmly believe God had the AV translators put down what they put down for the love of money (coin, wealth, prosperity, external happiness) is the root of all evil. I believe if it is evil it is because someone loves coin, wealth, prosperity and external happiness. What else are people pursuing today? And if they love these more than God it is evil.

God bless

 

[robycop3]

Say, Brother Robocop3, wouldn't big huge letters make
what you say sound lots more important?

Nah, Salamander said I wuz yellin'...wouldn't wanna strain muh "vocal cords".

 

[robycop3]

Mr. Bunyan, you're really making a stretch this time...but you're stretching skin insteada rubber. your stretch is as saying,
God is love.
Love is blind.
Stevie Wonder is blind.
God is Stevie Wonder.

Paul clearly said "the love of money". There's no arguing that rendering of the Greek. But the resta the Gerrk in that sentence could be rendered "the root of all evil" OR "a root of all sortsa evil. A REALITY CHECK shows the latter to be correct, of the possible renderings.

I firmly believe God had the AV translators put down what they put down for the love of money (coin, wealth, prosperity, external happiness) is the root of all evil.

Your "firm belief" is just a guess, not supported by any evidence, spawned only by your incorrect belief in KJVO. It's WRONG.

 

[Keith M]

Keith, let’s be practical for a moment. Come, let us reason together.

We have been reasoning with you, we have shown you truth over and over and over again, we have shown the error that is the basis if the KJVO thought, and yet you refuse to accept one iota of it. You prefer to remain in error, accepting nothing that is in disagreement with your errant thinking. And then you want to reason????? C'mon, who do you think you're kidding? Do you think we are naivde and gullible enough to fall for that dodge? You don't want to reason - you merely want to promote more of the KJVO error. No one can reason with anyone who believes the KJVO myth and has come to the erroneous conclusion that they are right and that anyone who disagrees with them cannot possibly be right. When and if you truly want to reason, then you will admit that the KJVO myth has been shown to be exactly what it is - error based on a man-made "doctrine." Until that time comes it is doubtful anyone here will believe for one second that you want to reason together. Your call for reasoning together is merely a guise designed to bait others into your own particular brand of deceitfulness. I am praying for you and for the others around this world who have fallen prey to the KJVO myth.

 

[Keith M]

Sorry, folks, sokme kind of system glitch which seems to be happening more and more frequently here would not allow the correction of the typo "naivde" in the last post. Wonder what's up with that???

 

[Ed Edwards]

probably just a 'feature' from the last upgrade???

remember: (to coin a phrase):

The love of features is the root of all computer problems

 

[webdog]

God is love.
Love is blind.
Stevie Wonder is blind.
God is Stevie Wonder.

These people would agree...

http://www.steviewonder.org.uk/

 

[AVBunyan]

We have been reasoning with you, we have shown you truth over and over and over again, we have shown the error that is the basis if the KJVO thought, and yet you refuse to accept one iota of it. You prefer to remain in error, accepting nothing that is in disagreement with your errant thinking. And then you want to reason?????

You said absolutely nothing in your post - you never addressed any of my post - you never answered the questions - just a blank - You just went on and on about how the dreaded KJO myth and how ignorant I am. Your response was as weak as they come - very typical of you folks.

Keith - don't bother responding - I won't bother to read it. I just came back and responded once and for all my final thoughts on this love of money subject.

Thank you for your desire ito pray for me but I am faily confident that God will not honor that type of prayer for me.

Prov 8:8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
Prov 8:9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

Good bye

 

[franklinmonroe]

1. Do you really think God would expect the average saint should to have to go to the Greek\Hebrew to define an English word? Is this not severely limiting the saint here? Surely you cannot be serious. Does this sound consistent with the simplicity that is in Christ?

Yes, I do think that God expects the "average" saint in each age to make the necessary effort to know His words. In the first few centuries following Christ's death and resurrection there were only a very few scattered copies of the apostle's writings; the "average" saint would not have read them all, in fact, he/she would probably have only heard a few of them read in an assembly. After Greek ceased to be a relatively common second language, Latin dominated the collected scriptures; the "average" saint would not have been able to afford a Latin Bible and would not have been educated enough to read it anyway (and those Latin versions were very corrupt with translation errors). "Average" Englishmen paid huge sums of 'money' for the priveledge of having small portions of Wycliff's translation. It is not until the invention of moveable type for printing in the 1550s that Bibles begin to become affordable for "average" folks. It was illegal at times to even posses a 'flawed' English Bible, and believers lost their lives to translate, print, distribute, and read it. Historically, the "average" saint has been "severly limited", and they have had to exert tremendous energy and resources just to obtain God's words.

I do not think it is asking too much to have the "average" saint today refer to dictionaries, lexicons, and other resources... but most do not. We are blessed to live in an age when many ancient manuscripts have been found. Remember, those were once somebody's Bible! Yes, that right... every one of the thousands of documents discovered, that do not agree with each other, were some saint's trusted words of God! How could God have allowed all those believers to have 'flawed' scriptures all those years?

2. Ok then let’s go with Greek definitions then – I’ll play along. Which Greek/Hebrew Keith? We all know there are many lexicons, manuscripts, etc. available. Which ones should farmer Jones use? I mean the ole’ boy has got to learn the languages first and then figure out which ones are “reliable”!

Just as there are many dictionaries, which one(s) are the right one(s)? Every individual must deside what sources they will trust. To whom much is given, much will be required.

3. Again, which family of manuscripts Keith? Which ones is farmer Jones to use - the ones which are the basis for of the King James (95%) or the ones from Egypt (the other 5%)? Isn’t this what the real issue is? Are the ones from Asia Minor right or the ones from Egypt right?

Yes, this is the big question for our age, and it is not as simple as just counting the manuscripts.

 

[AVBunyan]

Yes, I do think that God expects the "average" saint in each age to make the necessary effort to know His words.

Thanks Frank - though we do not see eye-to-eye here at least you responded to my issues.

God bless

 

[Keith M]

You just went on and on about how the dreaded KJO myth and how ignorant I am. Your response was as weak as they come - very typical of you folks.

And making false accusations (that I went on about how ignorant you are) is very typical of you folks. Neither the word ignorant nor the implication that you are ignorant can be found anywhere in my post. I said you choose to follow error, and that is exactly what you do. You choose to believe the KJVO myth. It is your choice if you choose to follow a myth rather than the truth.

Prov 8:8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
Prov 8:9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

Isn't that more than just a little self-righteous? And what knowledge have you found? The "knowledge" that is the KJVO myth is anything but knowledge. And your words are perverse, as they support the KJVO myth. One cannot promote error and myth without being perverse. I pray that you find real knowledge regarding this myth you so erroneously follow before you can convince others to follow your errors.

 

[Keith M]

Franklin you should have felt no need to respond to AVBunyan's questions. When he suggested reasoning together even though he has no intention of listening to anything that doesn't support the KJVO myth, that made his entire post invalid. "Reasoning" to KJVO supporters is merely repeating their errors over and over again while trying to convince others to follow those same errors. Anyone not willing to accept the KJVO myth then becomes unreasonable in the KJVO supporters' errant thinking.

:BangHead: :tonofbricks: :sleeping_2:

 

[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.

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?)

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!

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!

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."

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


:godisgood: