Anyone want to discuss KJVO ?

[John Helpher]

Not trying to be smart-aleck, but your rebuttals are opinion vs. fact.

You think it is fact that Paul used the word "root" to mean many of something? Even IF your interpretation of the translation into English is accurate, it makes the resulting spirit (or lesson) nonsensical. It is more likely that either you have misunderstood the translation, or somewhere along the line a translator mistranslated for whatever reason. Being a teaching about the root of all evil, it would not be surprising if some unscrupulous scribe along the way decided that Paul surely could not have meant the root of all evil; surely he must have meant a root of all kinds of evil, though that does make one wonder why the KJV translators still, to this day, consistently get it presumably so wrong. Hmmm...

Just as you are so ready to accept a nonsensical result regarding what you believe to be the use of the word root to describe many of something, when the only logical reason to use "root" is describe one, singular source of something, so too would others around the world and throughout history be willing to change or distort the message to suit their personal biases regarding their relationship to money.

This is the spirit of legalism; you believe the word "a" is correct in this context, thus dramatically changing the meaning of using "the". The changed meaning diminishes the importance of our relationship to money; it obscures the need to verrrry carefully consider whether we love money because hey, it's not like the love of money is the only problem Paul is referring to, right? There are many roots of all kinds of evil. In fact, the love of money is really quite insignificant compared to something like Isis, right?

This very argument in itself, your willingness to so easily accept a nonsense explanation like "root" being using to describe many of something, itself demonstrates that Paul knew exactly what he was doing when he described the love of money as being the root of all evil. Put away these contrivances about translations and just look at the spirit of the verse and the fruit of your argument.

 

[Dansiph]

Not all KJVO folk are alike.

There are different types of KJVO folk:

Some KJVO folk believe that the KJV is not without some minor flaws but it is the only best Bible to use. The creator of the Defined King James Bible believes this way.

Some KJVO folks believe the KJV is without flaw and it is divine and perfect. They believe it is a preservation of God's Word (Although they do believe the early copies of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were also perfect and divine, too; They believe that the original languages can in some cases offer a deeper meaning).

Other KJVO folk believe it is wrong to read Modern Translations, and that it is not difficult to read. This appears to be the popular KJVO view that I do not hold to. I believe we can use Modern Translations sometimes as long we are making the KJV our final word of authority. I also think the KJV can be difficult to read, as well. But that is why we are to study to shew (show) ourselves approved unto God.

Some KJVO folk believe reading the KJV alone is a salvation issue. I also do not believe this way, either.

Other KJVO folk believe in defining words using the English dictionary AND by defining words using Lexicons (Dictionaries for the original languages). They hold an equal value to using both.

Other KJVO folk believe that any kind of original language study is bad or wrong. I don't believe this way.

Some KJVO folk believe that we should primarily look to using English dictionaries and that we should only rarely look to the Original Languages when absolutely needed or necessary. I believe this way. The reason for this is because the original languages are dead languages that are entirely foreign whereby we would have to rely 100% upon what some scholar says these words mean. If I were to read to someone the original languages to your average person, they would not understand me. If I were to ask your average person to read the Bible in the original languages and tell me what it means, they could not do so. Nobody has grown up in these cultures to truly know the nuances of these languages with 100% certainty. But seeing that some words in the KJV can only be defined best by looking to the original languages to get an actual understanding on that word (When the situation calls for it).

Side Note:

For other posters here who are Anti-KJVO:

My reply here is to Aspzan and to inform other readers (Who pass on by). If you want to debate with me, please don't. I am not interested in debating something that folks do not want to see.

So please do not reply to this post if you are Anti-KJVO.

I agree with most of this btw except I believe modern Greek speakers can easily understand the Koine Greek NT TR. What I'm saying is it's not technically a "dead" language in my eyes.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I agree with most of this btw except I believe modern Greek speakers can easily understand the Koine Greek NT TR. What I'm saying is it's not technically a "dead" language in my eyes.

I have no problem with that as long as a person believes the KJV does not say anything different than the original languages.

I do believe that a Modern Greek speaker could have a better chance at understanding Koine Greek, as long as they are guided by the Spirit and they do not contradict what the KJV says.

As for an English speaker going straight to the Koine Greek (without intimately knowing Modern Greek and living in that culture):
Well, I am not so sure about that. Most fall into this category.

Now, I believe that an English speaking Christian can in certain instances understand a Greek word here or there when they have no other choice and if they were to pray about it, but to go from 0 to 60 miles per hour in 2.5 seconds seems a little too much to take on in my view. Studying the words in English (in the KJV) is a difficult task to begin with.

 

[Dansiph]

As for an English speaker going straight to the Koine Greek (without intimately knowing Modern Greek and living in that culture): Well, I am not so sure about that.

I don't think there's anything special in the Greek. However it doesn't match it word for word as far as I know. This does not impact the accuracy though.

I agree as well modern Greek is a minimum. I'm trying to learn modern Greek but I'm having a short break. Probably not the best idea? I'm using duolingo and Pimsleur which is a good combination for beginners in my opinion.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't think there's anything special in the Greek. However it doesn't match it word for word as far as I know. This does not impact the accuracy though.

I believe they both say the same thing even if the words do not match up perfectly. I also believe the original languages can offer a deeper meaning, but the English and the original languages should not conflict with each other.

I agree as well modern Greek is a minimum. I'm trying to learn modern Greek but I'm having a short break. Probably not the best idea? I'm using duolingo and Pimsleur which is a good combination for beginners in my opinion.

Talking with a Greek person everyday online, and or living in that culture is probably the best way to know Modern Greek - IMO.
I remember when I wanted to impress my fiance before we were married; I thought I could show her that I know her language (Brazilian Portuguese) by reading a book.

Oh man. She was correcting me. She was saying things like,

“Well, in this other region you would not say it like that,” etc., etc.

These were the nuances of the language that are lost when talking with real people vs. just a book or non human course.

 

[Dansiph]

Talking with a Greek person everyday online, and or living in that culture is probably the best way to know that language

I agree again but I'm just trying to build a foundation of some sort before I start talking to Greek people. As for being in the culture that's a long way off. Pimsleur is surprisingly good for me, it puts me on the spot. Duolingo is more laid back. It's a good combo, for now.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I agree again but I'm just trying to build a foundation of some sort before I start talking to Greek people. As for being in the culture that's a long way off. Pimsleur is surprisingly good for me, it puts me on the spot. Duolingo is more laid back. It's a good combo, for now.

I understand. My you blessed in your studies for the glory of God.

 

[robycop3]

You think it is fact that Paul used the word "root" to mean many of something? Even IF your interpretation of the translation into English is accurate, it makes the resulting spirit (or lesson) nonsensical. It is more likely that either you have misunderstood the translation, or somewhere along the line a translator mistranslated for whatever reason. Being a teaching about the root of all evil, it would not be surprising if some unscrupulous scribe along the way decided that Paul surely could not have meant the root of all evil; surely he must have meant a root of all kinds of evil, though that does make one wonder why the KJV translators still, to this day, consistently get it presumably so wrong. Hmmm...

Just as you are so ready to accept a nonsensical result regarding what you believe to be the use of the word root to describe many of something, when the only logical reason to use "root" is describe one, singular source of something, so too would others around the world and throughout history be willing to change or distort the message to suit their personal biases regarding their relationship to money.

This is the spirit of legalism; you believe the word "a" is correct in this context, thus dramatically changing the meaning of using "the". The changed meaning diminishes the importance of our relationship to money; it obscures the need to verrrry carefully consider whether we love money because hey, it's not like the love of money is the only problem Paul is referring to, right? There are many roots of all kinds of evil. In fact, the love of money is really quite insignificant compared to something like Isis, right?

This very argument in itself, your willingness to so easily accept a nonsense explanation like "root" being using to describe many of something, itself demonstrates that Paul knew exactly what he was doing when he described the love of money as being the root of all evil. Put away these contrivances about translations and just look at the spirit of the verse and the fruit of your argument.

With all due respect, if Paul woulda meant "the" root, that's what he would've written ! Why doesn't that simple fact sink in ?

Most trees have a whole system of roots, not just one.

 

[John Helpher]

Most trees have a whole system of roots, not just one.

No, it's all one root; the root branches out, yes, but they are not different roots for the same tree; it's all the one root, just like you'd not say you have many bodies by including your arms and legs as their own separate bodies.

It's not a case where some of the root feeds the tree while some of the root feeds some other tree or some of the root feeds the tree in one way while some of the root feeds the tree in a different way; all the root system exists for one, singular purpose; to feed the one tree. It is the source of all the branches produced up above the soil. This is why, when we use the expression, "get to the root of the problem" we do not refer to many different kinds of problems; we use the expression to suggest there is one, underlying, singular cause which is more significant than other other cause.

That is clearly the spirit of why Paul uses the word "root" to refer to the love of money; he's saying this issue is the source of all these other problems. It does not make sense to suggest that what he really meant was that there are actually many different roots and you just kinda pick and choose from among them which you think is more significant. His use of the word root is already doing that selection process; he's already singling out some specific problem to say, "This is it; this is the source of all the other problems"; it is the root.

You are using what you perceive to be a translation glitch (which it must be, since the way you describe the translation contradicts the underling concept which the words themselves are clearly being used to describe). I should clarify here that I am not suggesting your interpretation of the translation is correct; as you yourself have said, you are no expert, but even the experts sometimes get it wrong. I am only saying that even if your interpretation of the translation is correct, it still does not make sense and that somewhere along the line an inaccuracy was copied into the chain of translations. We can discern this because it makes no sense to use the word root to describe several of something; they are contradictory concepts.

The love of money is the root of all evil. Using an irrational argument to suggest there are actually many different kinds of roots is exactly evidence that the root of all evil is busily defending itself.

 

[Radagast]

I agree with most of this btw except I believe modern Greek speakers can easily understand the Koine Greek NT TR. What I'm saying is it's not technically a "dead" language in my eyes.

That's right; Greek Christians have been using Koine continuously for 2,000 years.

 

[Radagast]

I agree as well modern Greek is a minimum. I'm trying to learn modern Greek but I'm having a short break.

For understanding the Bible, modern Greek really isn't necessary. I don't think it's even helpful.

More helpful would be Classical Greek.

 

[Radagast]

That is clearly the spirit of why Paul uses the word "root" to refer to the love of money; he's saying this issue is the source of all these other problems.

Once again, slowly, Paul does not use the definite article.

He is saying that money is a root of all kinds of problems.

as you yourself have said, you are no expert, but even the experts sometimes get it wrong

Another root of all kinds of evil is thinking that you're better than the experts.

 

[John Helpher]

He is saying that money is a root of all kinds of problems.

If he really means all kinds of evil, then it would not make sense to suggest it is "a" root. It would be the root. But you're not using all kinds in the literal sense as Paul's writing suggests. You are using "all kinds" in the idiomatic way which does really mean all kinds, but rather just a good many. It definitely sounds like you're trying pretty hard to diminish the importance of Paul's assertion regarding the love of money. I wonder why that could be...

Do you think that's what Paul was doing? Was he using an idiomatic expression? When did "all kinds of" become an expression to mean many rather that literally every kind of?

 

[JIMINZ]

Evidently, you've read some KJVO trash from one, or some, of the disciples of at least one of them.

Not being a follower such as yourself, No I really haven't

 

[JIMINZ]

I live in Southern Ohio near West Virginia & Kentucky. I used to visit nearby churches of various denominations to observe their services, & I've seen at least four area churches with such signs out front.

Go figure.

 

[JIMINZ]

For once, I mostly agree with you, except I would add ALL valid translations in English, as God has caused many more to be made than just the KJV.

I do think, if you would stop being soooo judgmental for a moment, you would find, that is exactly the same thing I said, but you just had to reword it.

 

[JIMINZ]

Why can't you answer my question that you quoted ?

In which post are you referring?

 

[JIMINZ]

You must not get around too much.

Not really, I just don't go out looking for such things, and I guess that is why I have never seen any.

 

[robycop3]

No, it's all one root; the root branches out, yes, but they are not different roots for the same tree; it's all the one root, just like you'd not say you have many bodies by including your arms and legs as their own separate bodies.

It's not a case where some of the root feeds the tree while some of the root feeds some other tree or some of the root feeds the tree in one way while some of the root feeds the tree in a different way; all the root system exists for one, singular purpose; to feed the one tree. It is the source of all the branches produced up above the soil. This is why, when we use the expression, "get to the root of the problem" we do not refer to many different kinds of problems; we use the expression to suggest there is one, underlying, singular cause which is more significant than other other cause.

That is clearly the spirit of why Paul uses the word "root" to refer to the love of money; he's saying this issue is the source of all these other problems. It does not make sense to suggest that what he really meant was that there are actually many different roots and you just kinda pick and choose from among them which you think is more significant. His use of the word root is already doing that selection process; he's already singling out some specific problem to say, "This is it; this is the source of all the other problems"; it is the root.

You are using what you perceive to be a translation glitch (which it must be, since the way you describe the translation contradicts the underling concept which the words themselves are clearly being used to describe). I should clarify here that I am not suggesting your interpretation of the translation is correct; as you yourself have said, you are no expert, but even the experts sometimes get it wrong. I am only saying that even if your interpretation of the translation is correct, it still does not make sense and that somewhere along the line an inaccuracy was copied into the chain of translations. We can discern this because it makes no sense to use the word root to describe several of something; they are contradictory concepts.

The love of money is the root of all evil. Using an irrational argument to suggest there are actually many different kinds of roots is exactly evidence that the root of all evil is busily defending itself.

I see you don't know much biology, either. Most trees have multiple roots! Many have a main root, called the taproot, which generally grows almost straight down & is the tree's main anchor. Buth there are many other roots, akk growing from the trunk, which grow somewhat horizontally, whose job it is to gather water & nutrients from the ground.

And, for the umpteenth time, Paul did NOT write "the' root! We must go by what PAUL wrote here, not with some translator's own words.

It's been shown to you several times that there are other roots of evil, but you act as if they don't exist. You simply cannot make your case in the face of FACTS. "tHE" root is simply a goof in the KJV.

 

[robycop3]

In which post are you referring?

In post # 121, you quoted my query, asking for you to show where God closed the door on further English Bible translations being made after 1611.