franklinmonroe
Active Member
Please read previous posts, as this ground has been thoroughly covered. ThanksBro. James Reed said:
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Love of money: "THE" root or "A"root?
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
- Status
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Again, reading previous posts in the thread might have made it clear to you that it is not at all a "faulty" translation but merely a different choice betwen two legitimate possible renderings. I would refer you to posts #25, 26 & 29 on Page 3, and also posts #40, 45, 55, 56, and 67 of this topic.Bro. James Reed said:
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
In a court of law, a witness' statement cannot be actually proven truthful if that witness is the only one allowed to testify, and no other evidence is admissable.Blammo said:
Extreme 'Only-Versionism' illogically attempts to prove the version is authoritave by unquestionably citing the version as authoritative (all outside sources are summarily dismissed as being corrupt or inferior). This position is tantamount to being one's "own final authority".
franklinmonroe said:
So the "case" needs to be tried over and over and over and over...? In my opinion the case has already been tried, and the KJV has been proven more than reliable. I would not consider myself to be "extreme KJVO". Maybe it would be more accurate to call me extreme KJVP.
AntennaFarmer
Member
robycop3 said:
Buddy, your use of the term "diaper-heads" is bigoted. We aren't talking about being politically correct. You are way off the chart with that one. And don't give the lame excuse that you were "only talking about the bombers." [Please ask the moderator to delete your comment. He can delete my response to it too.]
Your reading of the scripture here is shallow. You are trying to make a case that money isn't the direct cause of evil. That isn't what it says in any version that I have seen. That certainly isn't the reading of the KJV.
The fact that you don't see all ends doesn't prove you correct. I know people who think the whole Bible is a bunch of nonsense because "common sense" tells them so.
A.F.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
No, the case is not tried over and over. The point is that the testimony cannot really be proven one way or the other without outside evidence. That's OK; it does not need to be proven as long as it is recognized and acknowledge that this is a priori; that is, a presupposition that cannot be proven. It is illogical to attempt to prove a premise, an assumption, or theory by itself.Blammo said:
Thanks for clarifing your postion. Please notice that I was careful not to accuse anyone in particular of anything specific, or "extreme" anything.Blammo said:
Last edited by a moderator:
The Bible isn't at all nonesense. However, there are questionable renderings in the various translations of God's original word, including but not limited to the KJV.
If the love of money is the root of all evil, then where did the money to pay Eve come from? And did she share some of her ill-gotten wealth with Adam? Where did Cain get the money that caused him to slay his brother Abel? The Bible tells us that Cain killed his brother due to anger. (Gen 4) Since the original Greek does not specify "the" or "a" then the article was selected by the translators of the various Bible versions. Since the Bible itself demonstrates that there are other roots of evil, then "the" is obviously not the correct choice and "a" is much more appropriate.
If the love of money is the root of all evil, then where did the money to pay Eve come from? And did she share some of her ill-gotten wealth with Adam? Where did Cain get the money that caused him to slay his brother Abel? The Bible tells us that Cain killed his brother due to anger. (Gen 4) Since the original Greek does not specify "the" or "a" then the article was selected by the translators of the various Bible versions. Since the Bible itself demonstrates that there are other roots of evil, then "the" is obviously not the correct choice and "a" is much more appropriate.
Last edited by a moderator:
AntennaFarmer
Member
I think that the root of the problem is a lack of understanding of roots.
Several folks here appear to understand root to mean cause or source. That may well be what is often intended in literature. In this case, however, I think that is the wrong understanding.
The word root (Gk: rhiza) as used in 1 Timothy 6:10 is literally that, a root that grows in the ground and/or the associated stem. It is used as a metaphor. But the root doesn't come first. Consider Luke 8:13:
My point is this: I think that the metaphor is used the same way both for the wheat, the tares and the evil. The cause is the seed being sown. The root, however, is that which nourishes and supports the growing plant. If there is no root then the plant can not continue to grow. Likewise, the cause of evil in this world is the seed of sin being sown in the heart of man. That seed was sown long ago. Without the love of money, however, the evil can not flourish.
We should try to understand the use of words in the Bible by using the Bible as the context. We should also bear in mind that those who penned the bible had a closer connection to the soil than we do. Agrarian and pastoral metaphors should first be considered in that light.
If we consider 1 Timothy 6:10 in that light then the usual (so called common sense) objections to the KJV reading collapse.
A.F.
Several folks here appear to understand root to mean cause or source. That may well be what is often intended in literature. In this case, however, I think that is the wrong understanding.
The word root (Gk: rhiza) as used in 1 Timothy 6:10 is literally that, a root that grows in the ground and/or the associated stem. It is used as a metaphor. But the root doesn't come first. Consider Luke 8:13:
They on the rock [are they], which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
Here the seed was sown and it started to grow but couldn't continue as it lacked a root. The order is first the seed and then the root. The seed here was good. Can we also have bad seed? Consider Matthew 13:38, 39:
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one]; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
Here we have the tares being sown in the field by the devil. It seems that the tares start from seed in the metaphor.
My point is this: I think that the metaphor is used the same way both for the wheat, the tares and the evil. The cause is the seed being sown. The root, however, is that which nourishes and supports the growing plant. If there is no root then the plant can not continue to grow. Likewise, the cause of evil in this world is the seed of sin being sown in the heart of man. That seed was sown long ago. Without the love of money, however, the evil can not flourish.
We should try to understand the use of words in the Bible by using the Bible as the context. We should also bear in mind that those who penned the bible had a closer connection to the soil than we do. Agrarian and pastoral metaphors should first be considered in that light.
If we consider 1 Timothy 6:10 in that light then the usual (so called common sense) objections to the KJV reading collapse.
A.F.
AntennaFarmer:Buddy, your use of the term "diaper-heads" is bigoted.
Yes, it is. I MEANT it to be.
We aren't talking about being politically correct. You are way off the chart with that one.
Wrong.
And don't give the lame excuse that you were "only talking about the bombers." [Please ask the moderator to delete your comment. He can delete my response to it too.]
I will NOT make nice comments about those who blow themselves up, not knowing or caring who else they take with them....nor about those who operate in that same spirit, aiding and abetting murderers. There's NOTHING nice to say about those people, and considering their acts & those of many of their fellows who don't blow themselves up, 'diaper-head' is a MILD name for them. if it offends you, that's just tuff. We're not speaking of CHRISTIANS when speaking of bombers & their religion, including non-bombers who follow that same religion.. JESUS didn't mince words and neither do I.
If any mod chooses to delete it, I shall simply accept it, smile, & go on.
While I don't believe YOU condone their acts either, the fact is that their acts are EVIL, and they do NOT originate from love of money.
Your reading of the scripture here is shallow.
No, it ISN'T. I have quoted what the Scripture actually SAYS, in several different versions. All YOU'VE done is try to make excuses for what the KJV men wrote.
You are trying to make a case that money isn't the direct cause of evil. That isn't what it says in any version that I have seen. That certainly isn't the reading of the KJV.
Yes, it IS. How much plainer does "the root of all evil" hafta be? "The" root means there's only that one root. "All" evil means every evil. You simply cannot make anything else outta that terse statement.
The fact that you don't see all ends doesn't prove you correct. I know people who think the whole Bible is a bunch of nonsense because "common sense" tells them so.
That's because they're giving an unfounded opinion. OTOH, it appears YOU wanna add OPINION to scripture insteada just 'taking' it at face value. "THE root of ALL EVIL" means the exact same thing now as it meant 400 years ago. And that's what's plainly written in the KJV. There's simply no other valid way to 'take' it besides WHAT'S WRITTEN. No amount of spin or excuses will make 'correct' outta 'incorrect'.
Yes, it is. I MEANT it to be.
We aren't talking about being politically correct. You are way off the chart with that one.
Wrong.
And don't give the lame excuse that you were "only talking about the bombers." [Please ask the moderator to delete your comment. He can delete my response to it too.]
I will NOT make nice comments about those who blow themselves up, not knowing or caring who else they take with them....nor about those who operate in that same spirit, aiding and abetting murderers. There's NOTHING nice to say about those people, and considering their acts & those of many of their fellows who don't blow themselves up, 'diaper-head' is a MILD name for them. if it offends you, that's just tuff. We're not speaking of CHRISTIANS when speaking of bombers & their religion, including non-bombers who follow that same religion.. JESUS didn't mince words and neither do I.
If any mod chooses to delete it, I shall simply accept it, smile, & go on.
While I don't believe YOU condone their acts either, the fact is that their acts are EVIL, and they do NOT originate from love of money.
Your reading of the scripture here is shallow.
No, it ISN'T. I have quoted what the Scripture actually SAYS, in several different versions. All YOU'VE done is try to make excuses for what the KJV men wrote.
You are trying to make a case that money isn't the direct cause of evil. That isn't what it says in any version that I have seen. That certainly isn't the reading of the KJV.
Yes, it IS. How much plainer does "the root of all evil" hafta be? "The" root means there's only that one root. "All" evil means every evil. You simply cannot make anything else outta that terse statement.
The fact that you don't see all ends doesn't prove you correct. I know people who think the whole Bible is a bunch of nonsense because "common sense" tells them so.
That's because they're giving an unfounded opinion. OTOH, it appears YOU wanna add OPINION to scripture insteada just 'taking' it at face value. "THE root of ALL EVIL" means the exact same thing now as it meant 400 years ago. And that's what's plainly written in the KJV. There's simply no other valid way to 'take' it besides WHAT'S WRITTEN. No amount of spin or excuses will make 'correct' outta 'incorrect'.
Last edited by a moderator:
AntennaFarmer:I think that the root of the problem is a lack of understanding of roots.
Several folks here appear to understand root to mean cause or source. That may well be what is often intended in literature. In this case, however, I think that is the wrong understanding.
Why should it be? The same Greek word (rhiza) is used for 'root' every time in the NT, and isn't rendered anything else but 'root'.
The word root (Gk: rhiza) as used in 1 Timothy 6:10 is literally that, a root that grows in the ground and/or the associated stem. It is used as a metaphor. But the root doesn't come first. Consider Luke 8:13:
WHICH CAME FIRST...THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG? THE ROOT, OR THE SEED?
My point is this: I think that the metaphor is used the same way both for the wheat, the tares and the evil. The cause is the seed being sown. The root, however, is that which nourishes and supports the growing plant. If there is no root then the plant can not continue to grow. Likewise, the cause of evil in this world is the seed of sin being sown in the heart of man. That seed was sown long ago. Without the love of money, however, the evil can not flourish.
It appears it flourished in Cain, Eve, and Adam before money was even thought of by man.
We should try to understand the use of words in the Bible by using the Bible as the context. We should also bear in mind that those who penned the bible had a closer connection to the soil than we do. Agrarian and pastoral metaphors should first be considered in that light.
Then it should be clear that the root supports & sustains the whole plant. Therefore, according to the KJV's wording, the love of money supports & sustains all evil. I believe it's been successfully demonstrated that just isn't so.
If we consider 1 Timothy 6:10 in that light then the usual (so called common sense) objections to the KJV reading collapse.
No, it DOESN'T.
To bring about that 'collapse', one must ADD to the Scripture as written in the KJV. And this adding can be thoughts/writings outside Scripture without attempting to alter the actual wording. The face value of the actual wording in the KJV does NOT match reality, while a perfectly-acceptable translation of the same Greek words found in later versions DOES match reality.
Several folks here appear to understand root to mean cause or source. That may well be what is often intended in literature. In this case, however, I think that is the wrong understanding.
Why should it be? The same Greek word (rhiza) is used for 'root' every time in the NT, and isn't rendered anything else but 'root'.
The word root (Gk: rhiza) as used in 1 Timothy 6:10 is literally that, a root that grows in the ground and/or the associated stem. It is used as a metaphor. But the root doesn't come first. Consider Luke 8:13:
They on the rock [are they], which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
Here the seed was sown and it started to grow but couldn't continue as it lacked a root. The order is first the seed and then the root. The seed here was good. Can we also have bad seed? Consider Matthew 13:38, 39:
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one]; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
Here we have the tares being sown in the field by the devil. It seems that the tares start from seed in the metaphor.
WHICH CAME FIRST...THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG? THE ROOT, OR THE SEED?
My point is this: I think that the metaphor is used the same way both for the wheat, the tares and the evil. The cause is the seed being sown. The root, however, is that which nourishes and supports the growing plant. If there is no root then the plant can not continue to grow. Likewise, the cause of evil in this world is the seed of sin being sown in the heart of man. That seed was sown long ago. Without the love of money, however, the evil can not flourish.
It appears it flourished in Cain, Eve, and Adam before money was even thought of by man.
We should try to understand the use of words in the Bible by using the Bible as the context. We should also bear in mind that those who penned the bible had a closer connection to the soil than we do. Agrarian and pastoral metaphors should first be considered in that light.
Then it should be clear that the root supports & sustains the whole plant. Therefore, according to the KJV's wording, the love of money supports & sustains all evil. I believe it's been successfully demonstrated that just isn't so.
If we consider 1 Timothy 6:10 in that light then the usual (so called common sense) objections to the KJV reading collapse.
No, it DOESN'T.
To bring about that 'collapse', one must ADD to the Scripture as written in the KJV. And this adding can be thoughts/writings outside Scripture without attempting to alter the actual wording. The face value of the actual wording in the KJV does NOT match reality, while a perfectly-acceptable translation of the same Greek words found in later versions DOES match reality.
AntennaFarmer
Member
God bless and Merry Christmas to all!
A.F.
p.s.: my post #200. I have a long way to go to catch up with some of you folks!
A.F.
p.s.: my post #200. I have a long way to go to catch up with some of you folks!
Last edited by a moderator:
AntennaFarmer
Member
Robycop3: It is hard for us to harmonize as we aren't even on the same page.
I have tried hard to avoid impressing my ideas onto the Scripture. I have more respect for the abilities of the KJV translators than my own abilities. So when I come to a difficult passage I don't automatically assume them to be wrong.
I think that is the root of your opinions.
Since it is time to prepare for a long drive that is my last word for a few days. Bye.
A.F.
I have tried hard to avoid impressing my ideas onto the Scripture. I have more respect for the abilities of the KJV translators than my own abilities. So when I come to a difficult passage I don't automatically assume them to be wrong.
I think that is the root of your opinions.
Since it is time to prepare for a long drive that is my last word for a few days. Bye.
A.F.
AntennaFarmer: Robycop3: It is hard for us to harmonize as we aren't even on the same page.
First, MAY GOD PROTECT YOU & YOURS on your drive.
Second, we may not even be in the same BOOK. There's nothing ...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...else that you can make outta **THE** root of **ALL**evil except exactly what it says. (However, we WAR on the same page in JESUS' book...the only one that really matters.
I have tried hard to avoid impressing my ideas onto the Scripture. I have more respect for the abilities of the KJV translators than my own abilities. So when I come to a difficult passage I don't automatically assume them to be wrong.
Not even when they're PLAINLY wrong, as seen here?
I think that is the root of your opinions.
Actually, the root of my opinions is that KJVO is incorrect, and that we've been discussing a poor rendering by the AV men from Greek to English. (
Since it is time to prepare for a long drive that is my last word for a few days. Bye.
A.F.
Again, MAY GOD PROTECT YOU AND YOURS!
First, MAY GOD PROTECT YOU & YOURS on your drive.
Second, we may not even be in the same BOOK. There's nothing ...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...else that you can make outta **THE** root of **ALL**evil except exactly what it says. (However, we WAR on the same page in JESUS' book...the only one that really matters.
I have tried hard to avoid impressing my ideas onto the Scripture. I have more respect for the abilities of the KJV translators than my own abilities. So when I come to a difficult passage I don't automatically assume them to be wrong.
Not even when they're PLAINLY wrong, as seen here?
I think that is the root of your opinions.
Actually, the root of my opinions is that KJVO is incorrect, and that we've been discussing a poor rendering by the AV men from Greek to English. (
Since it is time to prepare for a long drive that is my last word for a few days. Bye.
A.F.
Again, MAY GOD PROTECT YOU AND YOURS!
AntennaFarmer said:
Oh, but you do impress your ideas onto the Scriptures, A.F. Onlyism impresses an idea onto Scripture that isn't there - the idea that the KJV cannot possiblly be wrong and the idea that all other translations then must be wrong.
AntennaFarmer said:
Yet apparently you have no respect for the abilities of the translators of any other Bible version - their abilities, in your opinion, are far from the abilities of the KJV translators.
AntennaFarmer said:
I don't think anyone here automatically assumes that the KJV is wrong in all cases. There are many passages where the rendering of the KJV is weak, such as saying that the love of money is the one single root cause of all evil. There are also many instances where the KJV gives a better rendering than the renderings found in many of the modern versions. While "freedom readers" don't automatically assume the KJV to be wrong, onlyists automatically assume the KJV cannot possibly be wrong. No, the assuming is done by onlyists, and not by those who accept legitimate modern versions as also being the word of God.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
AntennaFarmer said:
May God grant you travelling mercies in direct proportion to the
depth of the snow/ice at the side of the road!
Here is the basic assumption (or if that is 'too weak', then Axiom):
of the Freedom Reader:
God has, in His Devine Providence, preserved His Written
Word (the Holy Bible) in all (all collectively, each individuall)
valid English versions.
And the first statement then proven is:
God honors the stludy of multiple versions.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Actually, a case could be made that Arab hatred is based upon money; more precisely the blessing and inheritance that Ishmael lost to Issac.robycop3 said:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
AntennaFarmer said:
I realize A.F. is away and will not be able to respond for a while... but I do not find this a compelling arguement at all.
First, each author uses their own vocabulary and it is not always possible to define what is meant in one book by what is written in another part of the Bible. Second, while what A.F. stated is generally true, Paul was not a farmer or a shepherd.
Mike Berzins
New Member
So you are granting that we do not have the "word of God" today like the folks who had the original autographs had - that is without error. Then anyone who belives this might want to come up with some better terminology and not call that which has error the "word of God".robycop3 said:
The KJB is accurate. "All" does not have to mean every single instance without exception regardless of the world or age you live in. This is not a "stretch" or "adding to the scriptures". It is simply reading with understanding.
Let' s apply this interpretation just a few verses down:
I Timothy 6:17Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
Applying the reasoning I have been hearing to the above passge would go something like this: "You see, God giving us richly all things to enjoy is such a poor translation. It defies common sense. It should say all kinds of things to enjoy. Pornography is certainly a part of "all" things and we aren't supposed to enjoy pornography. So the "word of God" is not accurate here."
So is I Timothy 6:17 also a poor translation, or is it possible that "all" does not require the narrow meaning you place upon it?
If I provided 50 more examples where the word "all" is used like this in the bible, would you attempt to correct them all, or would you admit that you have not proven the rendering inaccurate?
And incidentally, does anyone believe that any translation of I Timothy 6 reads as majestically as the King James Bible? If so, which one(s)?
- Status