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

[Mike Berzins]

Where is it written that the Bible must sound majestic?

Why was the NT written in Koine ("common") Greek--the language of the common man?

No doubt...the wisdom and riches of God's word are boundless. But sometimes, God spoke very simply and plainly to His people. Check out some of Jeremiah's and John the Baptist's sayings...they weren't "flowery," but they were pure truth.

IMO it is a very slippery slope to say, "That must be God's word because it sounds majestic. Truth is bigger than splendor, and a bunch more important.

Is God majestic? You bet. Is His Word majestic? Sometimes, it's ornate, beautiful, and pure truth...other times it's just plain spoken, in-your-face pure truth, served cold.

In Psalms 29 it says "the voice of the Lord is full of majesty". Simple and plain spoken truth can still be full of majesty. Majesty does not mean it necessarily has to be flowery or ornate.

I agree it is a slippery slope to simply say that something must be God's word because it sounds majestic. Being full of majesty is only one characteristic of God's word. Truth is another ("Thy word is truth").

And if "truth is more important than splendor", then God's word must "be full of majesty." Because if God's word is not full of majesty, it is not true in its own statement that it is full of majesty. If you have a bible that is not full of majesty in its "voice" you can rule it out as being God's word.

I don't speak in any tongues other than English, but I am sure by the authority of God's word, that if the Lord wrote his word in "koine" or any other Greek tongue, that it sounded majestic to those readers.

Psalms 29: 1Give unto the LORD, O ye mighty, give unto the LORD glory and strength. 2 Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness. 3 The voice of the LORD is upon the waters: the God of glory thundereth: the LORD is upon many waters. 4 The voice of the LORD is powerful; the voice of the LORD is full of majesty. 5 The voice of the LORD breaketh the cedars; yea, the LORD breaketh the cedars of Lebanon. 6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn. 7 The voice of the LORD divideth the flames of fire. 8 The voice of the LORD shaketh the wilderness; the LORD shaketh the wilderness of Kadesh. 9 The voice of the LORD maketh the hinds to calve, and discovereth the forests: and in his temple doth every one speak of his glory. 10 The LORD sitteth upon the flood; yea, the LORD sitteth King for ever. 11 The LORD will give strength unto his people; the LORD will bless his people with peace.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Mike Berzins: //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.//

We did. It was called the New King James Version (nKJV).
Certain parties damned it in mass with other
Modern Versions(MVs) without even looking at it.
So that is a pretty stupid point to try to make. Recommend
you avoid it & avoid looking foolish.

Can you please use the correct plural term 'KJVs'
instead of the incorrect singular 'KJV' unless speaking
of one and only one specific KJV?
All these changes were places where different people
knew 'where there are errors in the bible' and corrected
them. Yet there are parties completely blind to this process
or the necessity of this process claiming they have
one and only one Bible when there are multiple 'KJVs'
nearly as bad as the multiple Bible users who use MVs.

Anyway, any of the 'KJVs' made after 1700 are
considered, at least in my books, a Modern Version (MV).

 

[Ed Edwards]

Here is majesty in God's Written Word
in 20th Century (19021-2000) English:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Psalm 92 (New International Version):
1 Ascribe to the Lord, O mighty ones,
ascribe to the Lord glory and strength.
2 Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name;
worship the Lord in the splendor of his holiness.
3 The voice of the Lord is over the waters;
the God of glory thunders,
the Lord thunders over the mighty waters.
4 The voice of the Lord is powerful;
the voice of the Lord is majestic.
5 The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars;
the Lord breaks in pieces the cedars of Lebanon.
6 He makes Lebanon skip like a calf,
Sirion like a young wild ox.
7 The voice of the Lord strikes with flashes of lightning
8 The voice of the Lord shakes the desert;
the Lord shakes the Desert of Kadesh.
9 The voice of the Lord twists the oaks and strips the forests bare.
And in his temple all cry, "Glory!"
0 The Lord sits enthroned over the flood;
the Lord is enthroned as King forever.
11 The Lord gives strength to his people;
the Lord blesses his people with peace.[/FONT]

 

[Mike Berzins]

Mike Berzins: //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.//

We did. It was called the New King James Version (nKJV).
Certain parties damned it in mass with other
Modern Versions(MVs) without even looking at it.
So that is a pretty stupid point to try to make. Recommend
you avoid it & avoid looking foolish.

Can you please use the correct plural term 'KJVs'
instead of the incorrect singular 'KJV' unless speaking
of one and only one specific KJV?
All these changes were places where different people
knew 'where there are errors in the bible' and corrected
them. Yet there are parties completely blind to this process
or the necessity of this process claiming they have
one and only one Bible when there are multiple 'KJVs'
nearly as bad as the multiple Bible users who use MVs.

Anyway, any of the 'KJVs' made after 1700 are
considered, at least in my books, a Modern Version (MV).

Who is the we? You personally were on the translating committee of the NKJV? Did anyone else who posts on this board have a part in translating any bible versions?

 

[Keith M]

Isn't that just a little too sarcastic, Mike? Lighten up, man!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Mike Berzins: //Who is the we?//

The Fundamental Baptists had input into the New King James
Version (nKJV). The Fundamental Baptists were lead
(in so far as 'leading Fundamental Baptists' is very much
like hearding cats) then by Jerry Falwell. (BTW, when I was
Brother Mike's age, this was news, not History.) Anyway, the
Fundamental Baptists said it would be alright to make a
new Translation, if the Translators used the Textus Receptus
and the Majority Text (the 'right' source'). That is exactly
what was done by the translators of the nKJV.

However, after about 10 years after the release of the nKJV
some Fundamental Baptist noticed that the printer (Nelson) used
a symbol on the Name Page called the Triquetra.
The Triqueta has been used by Christians for over 1800 years
as a symbol of the Trinity and for 200 years as a Pagon
symbol of I don't know what.
The Triqueta is no more part of the translation called the
nKJV than the Title Page of the original KJV1611 Editions
which show Lord Sol (The Sun) a Pagan (at least for 3,000
years prior to 1611) god. Can you spell GRASPING AT STRAWS?

 

[robycop3]

Mike Berzins:Actually, just a little ways down, you say that the KJB is not correct. I think that must mean that the "imperfection" is an error. Since the KJV was made by men, same as every other translation was, it's obviously a man-made goof.

The original letter Paul sent to Timothy did not have an error in it, did it?

I don't have it. Do YOU?


Do you have a Greek copy somewhere today that is without error? Or is the word of God Timothy had different in nature than the word of God we have today? (The difference being the original was without error, but all copies, even in the original languages, do have errors)

Without the originals to compare with, you don't know and I don't know. But Paul was no more man than we are. But I do believe we have God's word as HE chose to present it to us.



Yes, but if you change it from "all" to another reading, you lose the other wonderful indirect application made earlier in the post about how the love of money is the root of all evil in one sense, even in the garden of eden, etc.

It's not the 'all' that's wrong. It's "THE" root, and "all evil". "All KINDS(or sorts) of evil" is correct.


No, just a limited amount of time. I have yet to see one argument that either could not, or in many cases, has not been sufficiently answered by others.

But the "sufficient" answers are usually not CORRECT answers, same as your answers in this thread are not correct.




But God gives me many mushrooms and plants in my backyard, some of which would have very intoxicating effects if they were "enjoyed". But the context of the bible would forbid this "enjoyment" (like the command to "Be sober", for example.) Similarly, the context of the bible shows that the word "all" in the verse at hand does not have to always mean "all kinds in every circumstance in all ages without exception".

However, the phrase in question here is quite terse, and the CORRECT meaning is a correct way of rendering the Greek. So is the incorrect rendering in the KJV, this rendering being bade incorrect by FACT.


And eventually then, you would use the context to justify the reading, just like you attempted in v17 and was also adequately done with the earlier verse in Timothy in a previous post.

No, nothing will make correct outta incorrect, just as cucumbers cannot be used to make omelets.



That is right. It must be both majestic and accurate to be the "word of God," as defined by the scriptures themselves.

Not really. If it's not accurate, nothing else matters.

Anything that was not both majestic and accurate, would be, at best, an imperfect book with errors made by man.

A CORRECT statement is that if it's not ACCURATE, no matter how majestic, a given statement is not God's word.

"Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18, KJV)

Now, what's so "majestic" about this verse?

 

[robycop3]

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

depends upon your view. For one who says "My KJV right or wrong" the slightest difference is major. Some stand out more than others, I. E. "Easter" in Acts 12:4, while others are less noticeable, but often another version has the better rendering, such as "Passover" at Acts 12:4.



2) If I thought the KJB had errors, I would not call it the word of God.

It has errors; you just don't wanna admit it. This very thread is discussing a very obvious one.


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.

While I simply accept God's will & the fact that it's HIS word, & that HE can present/provide it in any way and any diction HE jolly well chooses.

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.

Again, we are discussing an obvious goof right here. I allow for my fellow humans to have made a few goofs same as I do. God allows for this also. Need proof? OK, was Jehoiachin age eight(2 Chron.36) or eighteen (2 Kings 24) when he began to reign? This is not a KJVO issue...this goof is in the Hebrew texts, and has been known since before the time of Christ. The Jews simply accepted as a copyist error from an earlier time & continued to leave it in when they copied the texts themselves.

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.

If I were qualified to make another translation, I would correct the goofs I now know about...but, being human, would almost certainly make some of my own. Instead, I stick to pointing out those I know about. Unlike some people, I do NOT turn a blind eye toward them.



"All have sinned..." If you could not read beyond the three words "all have sinned" you might insist that Jesus Christ, being a man, sinned also. But he did not. I guess according to your logic, "all" doesn't mean "all" in that verse either. Or do you doubt that Jesus Christ was fullly man? The question is rhetorical. I am just trying to show that "all" can still mean "all" but does not neccesarily have to mean "all in every case without exception in all ages and circumstances." This is true in both everyday speech and the bible itself. For more elaboration, read the earlier posts.

Your logic has a few flaws. First, while Jesus was fully man while on earth, at the same time He was fully GOD. This applies to no one else. And if "all have sinned" stood alone, it would beg the question, "all WHAT?".

However, it does NOT stand alone, and the context shows it refers to all ordinary people.

But "the root of all evil" DOES stand alone. The resta the verse speaks only of the result of this form of covetousness. This is simply a poor and incorrect rendering of the Greek, and there's no way around it.

 

[Jon-Marc]

My Bible says it is THE root of all evil because man will do ANYTHING to get it. People will even kill to get money.

 

[robycop3]

My Bible says it is THE root of all evil because man will do ANYTHING to get it. People will even kill to get money.

Have you read this whole thread? I believe we've shown otherwise many times.

 

[Salamander]

All you've done is shown how corrupt MSS shows any different.

A plain statement about how vile men can be to do anything to make a financial gain is enough to reprove any suggestion that money isn't THE root of all evil.

Of course there are other things that will incite man to sin, but money takes the ,uh,er, BAG!:tongue3:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Have you read this whole thread? I believe we've shown otherwise many times.

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

Read before you post.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Have you read this whole thread? I believe we've shown otherwise many times.

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

A.F.

 

[Salamander]

Good point A.F.

 

[Blammo]

Here is one of the "many times" is has been supposedly shown otherwise.

"And what about HITLER, arguably the greatest sinner who ever lived? His personal finances were very modest. He left very few personal effects. He was never wealthy. And none of his many sins were for love of money."

Watch Band of Brothers, particularly the last episode, and tell me the love of money did not feed the evil of Nazi Germany.

 

[Salamander]

Nah, Hitler just wanted to conquor the world and be in control of all the money, he never said he loved money!:tonofbricks:

 

[Keith M]

It HAS been shown repeatedly that the love of money is not the root of all evil. Yet you guys of the KJVO sect cannot accept truth. Anything that diasgrees with your false KJVO doctrine, by your erroneous beliefs, cannot possibly be true. Of course, it has never crossed your minds that you just might be wrong. After all, the total of all evidence stands against the KJVO myth, but you just refuse to see the truth. Your own "truth" is founded on nothing but your confusion. I pray that God will show you the truth and that the KJVO myth is nothing but error. I pray that He will overcome your confusion as He is not the author of confusion.

 

[AVBunyan]

Problem here is that many cannot or never have learned how to simply define English words using an English dictionary and study key definitions within the definition. You go to the Greek to define English words, you go to marginal notes, you assume but very little actual bible study goes on anymore where:

1. One first defines the word (without theh Greek/Hebrew)
2. One then studies the context
3. One runs the references
4. One prays about it

Many study sources, history, writings, manuscripts, lexicons, different versions but again, the scriptures themselves are not studied much anymore - as I see it. As soon as you find something you do not understand or a "suspect word" then out come the Greek/Hebrew, marginal notes, versions, etc.

If many would study the simple scriptures as much as their sources then they might get something. As long as one has 50 or more sources which are you authrority without ever having a final authority then this chaos and confusion will continue.

A lot that is being hashed out here and on other forums should not even be going on.

BTW - Where did you get the idea that the word money only refers to "coin" or "cash" etc.?

Many make bible study so difficult. Much learning doth make thee mad.

That's all I have to say. I told myself I was finished posting here but came back to look for a quote and saw this thread still going on and on.

 

[robycop3]

AVBunyan:Problem here is that many cannot or never have learned how to simply define English words using an English dictionary and study key definitions within the definition. You go to the Greek to define English words, you go to marginal notes, you assume but very little actual bible study goes on anymore where:

1. One first defines the word (without theh Greek/Hebrew)
2. One then studies the context
3. One runs the references
4. One prays about it

But, if one blindly accepts what another man translated, while rejecting what someone else translated from the same source, or accepts one source while rejecting another, with no good reason for either choice, then we're practicing BLIND faith insteada BIBLICAL faith, which is SUBSTANCE AND EVIDENCE.(Hebrews 11:1)

Many study sources, history, writings, manuscripts, lexicons, different versions but again, the scriptures themselves are not studied much anymore - as I see it. As soon as you find something you do not understand or a "suspect word" then out come the Greek/Hebrew, marginal notes, versions, etc.

As well they SHOULD. After all, an English Bible is but a TRANSLATION, made by MEN, of a source closer to the original than any translation could be.

If many would study the simple scriptures as much as their sources then they might get something. As long as one has 50 or more sources which are you authrority without ever having a final authority then this chaos and confusion will continue.

The FINAL authority should be as close to the originals as possible, therefore removing as much of the watering-down by men as possible.

A lot that is being hashed out here and on other forums should not even be going on.

And why DOES it go on? Because of the KJVOs' insistence that if anyone is using another version or versions, "Youse don't got no BIBUL thar, Sunny!"

BTW - Where did you get the idea that the word money only refers to "coin" or "cash" etc.?

From the Greek, same place the various Bible translators got it.

Many make bible study so difficult. Much learning doth make thee mad.

Yes, those 'many' are called "KJVOs".

That's all I have to say. I told myself I was finished posting here but came back to look for a quote and saw this thread still going on and on.

Feel free to contribute. That's what these forums are for. If ya kin prove me wrong, then by all means, have at it.

 

[Keith M]

Problem here is that many cannot or never have learned how to simply define English words using an English dictionary and study key definitions within the definition. You go to the Greek to define English words, you go to marginal notes, you assume but very little actual bible study goes on anymore where:

1. One first defines the word (without theh Greek/Hebrew)
2. One then studies the context
3. One runs the references
4. One prays about it

Many study sources, history, writings, manuscripts, lexicons, different versions but again, the scriptures themselves are not studied much anymore - as I see it. As soon as you find something you do not understand or a "suspect word" then out come the Greek/Hebrew, marginal notes, versions, etc.

If many would study the simple scriptures as much as their sources then they might get something. As long as one has 50 or more sources which are you authrority without ever having a final authority then this chaos and confusion will continue.

A lot that is being hashed out here and on other forums should not even be going on.

BTW - Where did you get the idea that the word money only refers to "coin" or "cash" etc.?

Many make bible study so difficult. Much learning doth make thee mad.

That's all I have to say. I told myself I was finished posting here but came back to look for a quote and saw this thread still going on and on.

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? That would be like going to a French dictionary to try to define something written in Arabic. It just doesn't work that way. So while you're depending on the wrong languae dictionary to tell you about something written in another language, those who refer to the Greek at least know where they should look for truth. Why do you have such a problem understanding that the original languages are much more exact and reliable than any other language?