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

[underscoretim]

Greek/Hebrew "pros" go to the Greek/Hebrew all the time to "redefine" the words iin a King James Bible

what a novel idea to go to the original language.

i believe "the' and "a" are a root to all kinds of illogical statements

 

[AVBunyan]

what a novel idea to go to the original language.

OK then throw out all language versions and make people learn Greek and Hebrew - no more English, German, French, etc. I bet that would solve everything and make it much easier for the common saint

Then bible studies would be, "What does your Greek say for mine says..."

Mercy raying:

 

[Mike Berzins]

Versions with "the":

KJV - 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.

Versions with "a":

NIV - For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

NWT - For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains.

NASB - For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Amplified - For the love of money is a root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have been led astray and have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves through with many [a]acute [mental] pangs.

ESV - For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

NKJV - For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

ASV - For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

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?

This phenomenon of a united opposition occurs not only with the written word of God, but also with Jesus, the Word of God.

The Muhammedan says Jesus, the Word of God, is a good man, but not God manifest in the flesh.

The Hindu says Jesus, the Word of God, is a good man, but not God manifest in the flesh.

The Russellite says Jesus, the Word of God, is a good man, but not God manifest in the flesh.

Many different voices uniting against who the Word of God is, and what the word of God says.

Many also say that the King James Bible is a good book (or even "the word of God"), but that it is also not without error.

My bible says God was manifest in the flesh. Does yours? If not, which one of them errs from the words God wants us to have? Or are they somehow both true at the same time?

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.

P.S. The footnotes might be interesting to some people, but they are not scripture. Unless of course, one believes that the original autograph had a footnote at the bottom from the apostle that said "In an earlier draft, I had included this word, but on second thought I decided to remove it. I trust that this footnote will be preserved from this generation for ever."

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

My bible says God was manifest in the flesh. Does yours? If not, which one of them errs from the words God wants us to have?

I believe 1st John 4:3 will clear that up....

 

[robycop3]

Come on, money means money...
From dictionary.com:
mon·ey

/ˈmʌn

i/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muhn-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural mon·eys, mon·ies, adjective

–noun 1.any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money, and demand deposits. 2.paper money. 3.gold, silver, or other metal in pieces of convenient form stamped by public authority and issued as a medium of exchange and measure of value. 4.any article or substance used as a medium of exchange, measure of wealth, or means of payment, as checks on demand deposit or cowrie. 5.a particular form or denomination of currency. 6.money of account. 7.capital to be borrowed, loaned, or invested: mortgage money. 8.an amount or sum of money: Did you bring some money? 9.wealth considered in terms of money: She was brought up with money. 10.moneys or monies, Chiefly Law. pecuniary sums. 11.property considered with reference to its pecuniary value. 12.pecuniary profit: not for love or money.



Nowhere in the Bible can you show where Cain slew Abel for money...
He was jealous! It was based in his pride.

And redefining "money" will never do.
If you have to redefine the words in the KJV, then the KJV is useless.
Ask the average person on the street what money is, and you will get one of the above definitions...not yours. You redefined it to make it seem like the KJV is right.

The KJV was written to be understood by normal people.
It says "money", surely it must mean "money" Unless that is a mistake in the KJV...

The Greek here is 'philarguria' , from 'phileo', love & 'argurion', silver or silver money, hence, "love of money". No mention of anything else but money.

 

[robycop3]

Looking carefully at the OP, the first part is not about "money", nor even "the love of money". Isn't it interesting the way in which folks will turn an OP into anything they want it to be?

The OP presented a contrast between "the" (definite article), or "a" (indefinite article) in a question of translation accuracy. It seems in the Greek there is no word that would be specifically translated as the definite article "the" in connection with rhiza (hrid'-zah). Clearly, Paul uses "root" here not as an actual plant sprout or shoot, but metaphorically meaning offspring or progeny. Greek technically does not have an indefinite article, although it can be appropriate to place "a" in English translations.

This becomes a matter of interpretation, not so much of translation. So, the real question becomes: does the phrase address a singular specific 'evil root', or indiscriminately refer to just one 'evil root' of many?

It depends upon how many 'roots of evil' the translator believes in. Translating with "a" indicates a belief in more than one 'evil root'. Translating with "the" could mean a belief in only one 'evil root', but it could also be merely identifying this particular one in the context (even though there may be several).

Good thoughts, Franklin, especially in the light that there are forms of evil that do NOT spring from love of money.

 

[robycop3]

Rufus_1611:Dahmer's motive was not money. Parents are responsible for the roots and upbringing of a child. However, he was not trained up in the way he should go and the element that website cited as a contributing factor were his parents fighting. I am not confiming that I've made a strong case on this issue. However, I am suggesting that the Bible could be right.

And the Bible IS right when it says "A" root.

Well thank you. I'm pretty good looking for a fat person too

I'll take yer word for it. I'm good-looking also, for a feller that shaves his head & wears thick specs.

All of these head meds are causing people problems to various degrees and big pharma folks are profiting huge.

But mosta the time, they HELP people. The pharmaceuticals cannot be responsible for the misuse of their products any more than Smith & Wesson can be held responsible for misuse of THEIRS.

Agree. Thus, only one of them can be the Word of God.

Wrong. They can only be differing TRANSLATIONS of the WOG.

I disagree that it is. If it was translated using the same manuscripts as the KJV then why does it disagree with the KJV and agree with the MVs just like it does on so many other verses?

Because it's made by a different team of translators, using the discoveries of the last 400 years.

Versions with "the":

KJV - 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.

Versions with "a":

NIV - For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

NWT - For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains.

NASB - For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Amplified - For the love of money is a root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have been led astray and have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves through with many [a]acute [mental] pangs.

ESV - For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

NKJV - For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

ASV - For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Looks as if the KJV is outvoted. However, ya COULD add the Bishop's & the geneva to your "the" section...and subtract the NWT from the "A" section, you're still outvoted 6-3. However, that's not the actual criterion...ACCURACY is! And it's common sense that not ALL evil comes from a love of money. Therefore, "A" is the more accurate.

 

[robycop3]

AVBunyan:Amen Rufus - This is the point of what I've been trying to say. Oftentimes we wrongly assume a word means what we think it means.

Money is right and "the" is right.

No, "the" is less correct.

Just figure that evey evil a person does at the root of that evil is the love of money - folks just don't like this a bit.

I don't like it because it's just plain INCORRECT.

Maybe people don't want to admit that we love more than we want to admit. The old nature is still the old nature - corrupt.

Ya got ONE right.

BTW -
You seem to think it is ok for you to go to the Gree/Hebrew to define and English word don't you?

Yes...if the English word isn't a TRUE rendering of a Greek or hebrew word, it's an incorrect translation. Common sense.

So, then do you folks think I'm wrong to defiine an English word with an English dictionary so as to make the word more clear if need be?

It doesn't matter if the Greek word means 'horse' in English and you use the English word 'cat'....it's WRONG.

 

[Keith M]

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?

This phenomenon of a united opposition occurs not only with the written word of God, but also with Jesus, the Word of God.

The Muhammedan says Jesus, the Word of God, is a good man, but not God manifest in the flesh.

The Hindu says Jesus, the Word of God, is a good man, but not God manifest in the flesh.

The Russellite says Jesus, the Word of God, is a good man, but not God manifest in the flesh.

Many different voices uniting against who the Word of God is, and what the word of God says.

Many also say that the King James Bible is a good book (or even "the word of God"), but that it is also not without error.

My bible says God was manifest in the flesh. Does yours? If not, which one of them errs from the words God wants us to have? Or are they somehow both true at the same time?

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.

P.S. The footnotes might be interesting to some people, but they are not scripture. Unless of course, one believes that the original autograph had a footnote at the bottom from the apostle that said "In an earlier draft, I had included this word, but on second thought I decided to remove it. I trust that this footnote will be preserved from this generation for ever."

Going by this argument, then that means that the Inspired Version or the Joseph Smith Translation (Mormon) must be a valid version, for it agrees with the reading of the KJV

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. 1 Timothy 6:10 Inspired Version

Before you make such false sweeping generalities and say "all" you really need to check the facts. A simpole check can prevent lots of embarassment when you are proven wrong. Some other versions that agree with the KJV are the Catholic Rheims-Douay Version, The RSV, Lamsa, God's Word, Darby, and Webster. Early Bible versions that agree with the KJV reading include Wesley, Geneva, Bishops', Coverdale, Tyndale and Wycliffe. Since there is no article in the Greek it is impossible, and quite erroneous, to say that "the" can be the only valid reading.

As for the KJV being God's word, it is. But it does contain errors, several of which have been discussed in various threads in these forums. To say the KJV is absolutely perfect and without any kind of eror is to totally ignore the facts of the matter.

The legitimate English Bible versions all are perfectly preserved in that they convey to us the things God revealed in Scripture. Can you show one legitimate English Bible version that does not present the plan of salvation, the history of the Church, the poetry, the prophets and the other things God revealed in Scripture? Of course you can't for they are the word of God and they preserve the things God revealed in Scripture. When one places more importance on the specific words that are used as opposed to the meaning of the Scriptures, then one has lost sight of the true purpose of the Bible - to convey what God chose to convey to us as humans.

 

[robycop3]

I usually don't jump into these kinds of threads, and I neither want nor am prepared to get into a translation theory battle right now.

Nevertheless, while the definite article for "root" is truly absent in the Greek of 1 Ti 6:10, such does not necessarily mean that "root" is not definite here. It may be definite, or it may not be. The definite article in Greek sayings and certain formulas may be left out without taking away from the "definiteness", if you will, of the construction. See, e.g., Ro 1:16, where I hope no one would translate ". . . for it is a power of God for salvation . . .", etc.

Thank you, BF. There are very definitely types of evil which have nothing to do with love of money. Therefore, the proper English article is "A".

 

[robycop3]

OK then throw out all language versions and make people learn Greek and Hebrew - no more English, German, French, etc. I bet that would solve everything and make it much easier for the common saint

Then bible studies would be, "What does your Greek say for mine says..."

Mercy raying:

Since the Greek in 1 Tim. 6:10 did not supply an article between "is" & "root", it's left to the English to supply one for clarity in our translations. The correct article is supplied by the FACT that there are many evils not arising from love of money. That article is "a".

 

[robycop3]

Mike Berzins:It is amazing that all of the "valid" versions and the NWT agree against the reading of the KJB.

When it's wrong, it's WRONG.

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?

There are many more places where the NWT doesn't follow any known manuscripts, as I'm sure you already know. And there are even MORE places where it agrees with the KJV. Whaddya say about THAT?

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?

Depends upon how many times each departs from the source from which it was made. In this case before us, "A" & "THE" are each possible correct translations. I favor "A" becausa the clear fact that many evils are NOT from love of money.

This phenomenon of a united opposition occurs not only with the written word of God, but also with Jesus, the Word of God.

The Muhammedan says Jesus, the Word of God, is a good man, but not God manifest in the flesh.

The Hindu says Jesus, the Word of God, is a good man, but not God manifest in the flesh.

The Russellite says Jesus, the Word of God, is a good man, but not God manifest in the flesh.

Many different voices uniting against who the Word of God is, and what the word of God says.

Many also say that the King James Bible is a good book (or even "the word of God"), but that it is also not without error.

My bible says God was manifest in the flesh. Does yours? If not, which one of them errs from the words God wants us to have? Or are they somehow both true at the same time?

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.

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

P.S. The footnotes might be interesting to some people, but they are not scripture. Unless of course, one believes that the original autograph had a footnote at the bottom from the apostle that said "In an earlier draft, I had included this word, but on second thought I decided to remove it. I trust that this footnote will be preserved from this generation for ever."

The footnotes will be preserved long as a the translation containing them is. That's why the commonly-used KJV is different from the original KJVs...the newer ones generally leave out all the translators' commentary and notes.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH:

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.

 

[Ed Edwards]

The Catholic Bible agrees with the KJV:

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.

The revised KJV agrees with the KJV:

1 Timothy 6:10 (TMB = Third Millennium Bible):
For the love of money is the root of all evil;
and while some have coveted after it,
they have erred from the faith
and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.


Mike Berzins: //It is amazing that all of the "valid" versions
and the NWT agree against the reading of the KJB.//

Your statement is in error.
The TMB is a valid version.
The The Douay-Rheims Bible is a valid version.

How many exceptions does it take to disprove your
generality? Only one should do, and I have two.

 

[Bluefalcon]

I personally don't see much difference between "the root of all kinds of evil" and "a root of all kinds of evil," because the expression 'all kinds of' is self-limiting per se. It is when 'all' is chosen in place of 'all kinds of' that the argumentio ad absurdum, frequently used on this board, comes into play.

 

[Jerome]

The Greek here is 'philarguria' , from 'phileo', love & 'argurion', silver or silver money, hence, "love of money". No mention of anything else but money.

But it is interesting to note that elsewhere the KJV translates philarguros not as loving money, but as covetous.
Luke 16:4
11 Tim. 3:2

The 1582 Rheims NT likewise in I Tim 6:10:
"For the roote of al euils is couetousnes"

 

[franklinmonroe]

But it is interesting to note that elsewhere the KJV translates philarguros not as loving money, but as covetous.
Luke 16:4
11 Tim. 3:2

The 1582 Rheims NT likewise in I Tim 6:10:
"For the roote of al euils is couetousnes"

A couple of clarifications: The Luke reference should be 16:14.

The word philarguros is an adjective used twice in the NT (as shown above); while similar, philarguria is a femine noun used only once in the NT (at the verse being discussed). The Greek philos means friend (from which we get words like 'phil-anthropy'). It may literally mean 'a friend to silver'.

 

[Blammo]

And the Bible IS right when it says "A" root.

Um... don't you mean A Bible is right when it says "A" root? :laugh:
Or are you saying there is only one valid version worthy of being called THE Bible? :tongue3:
Or are you saying the versions with "a root", when grouped together, make up the Bible? :smilewinkgrin:
The statement certainly seems to exclude the AV1611 1613 1629 1769 Cambridge KJVsB as the Bible.

(I'm just kidding. It's the whole "the"/"a" controversy thing. Get it... ? Oh well)

 

[franklinmonroe]

5. Greek/Hebrew "pros" go to the Greek/Hebrew all the time to "redefine" the words iin a King James Bible.

I think I understand your point, however "redefine" is not an appropriate description.

The Hebrew and Greek came before English. Therefore, if any language is guilty of redefining (a.k.a. 'translating') any of God's words, it is the English. It is impossible for the translated document to become more accurate than the original document, or even a faithful copy (100% accuracy is all that is possible).

Just last night on TV I heard a statement about the tea industry: the quality is grown in the field, and manufacturing can only maintain or reduce the quality. The same is true in translation: the best that be hoped for is a very literal translation; the original cannot be improved upon (or it ceases to be strictly a translation by becoming a wholly new work).

Let's be completely honest, what KJV-Onlyism advocates is a wholly new revelation in 1611 from God. That is the explanation for nearly a total disregard for Greek or Hebrew evidence.

 

[franklinmonroe]

OK then throw out all language versions and make people learn Greek and Hebrew - no more English, German, French, etc. I bet that would solve everything and make it much easier for the common saint

I have heard the argument/complaint made on this forum that many problems with our understanding of the English KJV Bible could be solved through better education, using a dictionary, etc. Why couldn't children be taught Greek and Hebrew from an early age? How is that substantially different from what has been proposed here in the past?

 

[robycop3]

I have heard the argument/complaint made on this forum that many problems with our understanding of the English KJV Bible could be solved through better education, using a dictionary, etc. Why couldn't children be taught Greek and Hebrew from an early age? How is that substantially different from what has been proposed here in the past?

It would be better than teaching them an incorrect translation.