Definition: The AV is the word of God
Once again Textual Critics have taken it upon themselves to attack the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures even after professing the following:
1Ti 6:10 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.
I note here that the Textual Critics attacked the word of God and not King James Version Onlyism - only the KJV is the word of God in English. They can't understand nor explain how the love of money could be the root of all evil so they mock it, accuse it of being in error, and call it a mistake. They join the chorus of unbelieving skeptics using the exact same arguments and excuses for unbelief of the word of God. If one only has problems with the "only" of KJVO and believes other versions are the word of God also, then why the constant DOUBT about words, phrases, verses, chapters and books of the word of God in English - the AV? Textual Critics on this board have constantly professed that the AV is the word of God also. Refuting the "onlyism" of KJVO is simply a matter of proving that some other version is the word of God also! It doesn't require the disparaging of the words, phrases, verses, chapters and books as found in the word of God in English - the AV. But Textual Critics are not content to just try and prove that their favorite version is also the word of God, they feel compelled to find error in the word of God in English - the AV. To this I must strenuously object. For I am an AV Bible believer without equivocation. As for the love of money being the root of all evil - their rejection of this translation shows that they do not sincerely profess that the AV is 100% pure, perfect word of God. No one forced them to make that profession, they made it of their own volition. I have much more respect for sincere unsaved skeptics who openly reject the AV as the word of God than for Christians who profess that the AV is the word of God also and then find fault with it at every turn.
What are the accusations? For starters "There is no definite article in the Greek in this part of the verse so the AV is in error for using a definite article." Do you always need a definite article in the Greek before you can insert one? Come on, don't hide now! Do translators of modern versions ever insert definite articles when there are no definite articles in the Greek? Come on you armchair Greek scholars, tell us plainly: Do the translators of the NIV, NASB, ELT, RV, RSV, NKJV, etc. ever insert definite articles when there are none in Greek? Sure they do! Why all of sudden do you worry about definite articles and greater accuracy here? Don't Greek scholars (F. Field) say something like this:
Wycliffe: For the rote of alle yuelis is coueytise
Tyndale For coveteousnes is the rote of all evyll
Bishop's: For loue of money, is the roote of all euyll,
Geneva: For the desire of money is the roote of all euill
I remember Textual Critics and Skeptics on this board shouting: "What about the previous English versions prior to 1611, weren't they the word of God also?" or "I believe the Geneva is God's perfect word." or "Tyndale's is God's word!". All right, what about them? Do you believe them? Of course not. Textual Critics shout for these versions when the readings are different than the readings in the AV, but when these earlier English versions agree with the AV then suddenly the shouts of "the earlier versions are the word of God too" become a deafening silence.
John Calvin: For the root of all evils is avarice
John Wesley: For the love of money is the root of all evils;
John Darby: For the love of money is the root of every evil
Webster: For the love of money is the root of all evil
Calvin, Wesley, Darby and Webster all got it wrong but our armchair textual critics got it right? I trow not.
KJV21: For the love of money is the root of all evil
God's Word to the Nations: Certainly, the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil
Living Oracles: For the love of money is the root of all evil
New Living Translation: For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil
Wow, no Greek scholars behind these translations? I'll spare you the numerous foreign language translations that have "the root" as well. How did they come up with "the root"? I wonder? Because "the root" is a valid translation that's how!
The second argument is this: It can't be explained so it must be wrong. Or, it doesn't make sense to me so the word of God must be in error. Adam and Eve didn't have any money so how did they sin if the love of money is the root of all evil? etc. One has to wonder where the root of such skepticism comes from? It certainly doesn't come from belief in the word of God. What ever happened to: God said it, I believe it, that settles it? Do our skeptical friends have trouble with talking snakes and a dumb ass speaking as well? Do those things make sense? Match reality? Agree with the facts of modern science?
Just because a verse is difficult or impossible to explain to Skeptics does not make the word, phrase, verse, chapter or book poorly rendered, translated badly, in error, a mistake, etc. One can never come to understand difficult verses through doubt of their validity. This thread illustrates the exact difference in attitudes between "KJVO" and Textual Critic. Both claim to believe the AV. Both claim that the AV is the word of God. However, both groups do not approach the AV with the same measure of faith. "KJVO" approach this verse, and all verses in the word of God with faith: This is the very word of God. As such I must submit to it, for it is God's word and has God's authority. If I cannot understand something, or explain it, I must ask God for wisdom in trying to understand it. I must study further to find the answer. The Textual Critic on the other hand mouths the words: "Of course I believe the AV is the word of God", but approaches any particular verse in the AV with doubt, reservation and skepticism. The Textual Critic is ready to make corrections to any verse that he can't explain, or causes him discomfort. God forbid that his fellow scholars should find out that he believes something that he can't explain! That would be too humbling!
Now at the risk of more ridicule of my genuine faith in the word of God as it stands in the AV I'll attempt to give an honest explanation of this verse. But first let me remind you that "the love of money is the root of all evil" does not say:
1. money is the root of all evil.
2. the love of money is the immediate cause of all evil.
3. the love of money is the root of all sin.
4. the love of money is the immediate motive of any sin.
That should eliminate most of the silly problems such as: "Did Adam and Eve have any money? Did Cain kill Abel for the love of money? Does every sexual predator operate from love of money? Do the diaper-heads overseas blow themselves up for love of money?", etc.
What could "the love of money" mean? Instead of dissecting the phrase into determiners, nouns, prepositions and objects of the preposition the Textual Critic and Skeptic should have prayed to God for wisdom and then noted that the Bible often uses metaphors and idiomatic expressions such as this. Even in modern day expression we find:
If that wouldn't help, then the Textual Critic and Skeptic could have read Wycliffe's and Tyndale's translation and picked up a clue as to the meaning of "the love of money" - covetousness, greed, avarice. So, it becomes a little bit clearer - "covetousness is the root of all evil". Exactly what Adam and Eve had back in the garden and more importantly what caused Satan's fall.
Spurgeon picked up on it, Whitefield got it clear as a bell, even old Moody hit the nail on the head. But again, even if none of these explanations are good enough to persuade the Skeptic, that in itself does not prove that the word of God is in error or should be mocked.
Once again Textual Critics have taken it upon themselves to attack the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures even after professing the following:
- The AV is a valid version - All valid versions are the word of God. We believe every valid version is equally inspired by God.
- The AV is the word of God also.
- The King Jame Version (AV) is perfect, inerrant, 100% God's word.
1Ti 6:10 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.
I note here that the Textual Critics attacked the word of God and not King James Version Onlyism - only the KJV is the word of God in English. They can't understand nor explain how the love of money could be the root of all evil so they mock it, accuse it of being in error, and call it a mistake. They join the chorus of unbelieving skeptics using the exact same arguments and excuses for unbelief of the word of God. If one only has problems with the "only" of KJVO and believes other versions are the word of God also, then why the constant DOUBT about words, phrases, verses, chapters and books of the word of God in English - the AV? Textual Critics on this board have constantly professed that the AV is the word of God also. Refuting the "onlyism" of KJVO is simply a matter of proving that some other version is the word of God also! It doesn't require the disparaging of the words, phrases, verses, chapters and books as found in the word of God in English - the AV. But Textual Critics are not content to just try and prove that their favorite version is also the word of God, they feel compelled to find error in the word of God in English - the AV. To this I must strenuously object. For I am an AV Bible believer without equivocation. As for the love of money being the root of all evil - their rejection of this translation shows that they do not sincerely profess that the AV is 100% pure, perfect word of God. No one forced them to make that profession, they made it of their own volition. I have much more respect for sincere unsaved skeptics who openly reject the AV as the word of God than for Christians who profess that the AV is the word of God also and then find fault with it at every turn.
What are the accusations? For starters "There is no definite article in the Greek in this part of the verse so the AV is in error for using a definite article." Do you always need a definite article in the Greek before you can insert one? Come on, don't hide now! Do translators of modern versions ever insert definite articles when there are no definite articles in the Greek? Come on you armchair Greek scholars, tell us plainly: Do the translators of the NIV, NASB, ELT, RV, RSV, NKJV, etc. ever insert definite articles when there are none in Greek? Sure they do! Why all of sudden do you worry about definite articles and greater accuracy here? Don't Greek scholars (F. Field) say something like this:
The nature of the saying denotes "the" understood as hyperbole and gives examples of similar forms in Greek that require the use of the definite article in English. The definite article is not found in the Greek but may be implied. The Greek word for "root" is placed first in the sentence for emphasis. There were similar statements like this among the Greeks such as "The love of money is the mother-city of all evil."Notice the following translations:
Wycliffe: For the rote of alle yuelis is coueytise
Tyndale For coveteousnes is the rote of all evyll
Bishop's: For loue of money, is the roote of all euyll,
Geneva: For the desire of money is the roote of all euill
I remember Textual Critics and Skeptics on this board shouting: "What about the previous English versions prior to 1611, weren't they the word of God also?" or "I believe the Geneva is God's perfect word." or "Tyndale's is God's word!". All right, what about them? Do you believe them? Of course not. Textual Critics shout for these versions when the readings are different than the readings in the AV, but when these earlier English versions agree with the AV then suddenly the shouts of "the earlier versions are the word of God too" become a deafening silence.
John Calvin: For the root of all evils is avarice
John Wesley: For the love of money is the root of all evils;
John Darby: For the love of money is the root of every evil
Webster: For the love of money is the root of all evil
Calvin, Wesley, Darby and Webster all got it wrong but our armchair textual critics got it right? I trow not.
KJV21: For the love of money is the root of all evil
God's Word to the Nations: Certainly, the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil
Living Oracles: For the love of money is the root of all evil
New Living Translation: For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil
Wow, no Greek scholars behind these translations? I'll spare you the numerous foreign language translations that have "the root" as well. How did they come up with "the root"? I wonder? Because "the root" is a valid translation that's how!
The second argument is this: It can't be explained so it must be wrong. Or, it doesn't make sense to me so the word of God must be in error. Adam and Eve didn't have any money so how did they sin if the love of money is the root of all evil? etc. One has to wonder where the root of such skepticism comes from? It certainly doesn't come from belief in the word of God. What ever happened to: God said it, I believe it, that settles it? Do our skeptical friends have trouble with talking snakes and a dumb ass speaking as well? Do those things make sense? Match reality? Agree with the facts of modern science?
Just because a verse is difficult or impossible to explain to Skeptics does not make the word, phrase, verse, chapter or book poorly rendered, translated badly, in error, a mistake, etc. One can never come to understand difficult verses through doubt of their validity. This thread illustrates the exact difference in attitudes between "KJVO" and Textual Critic. Both claim to believe the AV. Both claim that the AV is the word of God. However, both groups do not approach the AV with the same measure of faith. "KJVO" approach this verse, and all verses in the word of God with faith: This is the very word of God. As such I must submit to it, for it is God's word and has God's authority. If I cannot understand something, or explain it, I must ask God for wisdom in trying to understand it. I must study further to find the answer. The Textual Critic on the other hand mouths the words: "Of course I believe the AV is the word of God", but approaches any particular verse in the AV with doubt, reservation and skepticism. The Textual Critic is ready to make corrections to any verse that he can't explain, or causes him discomfort. God forbid that his fellow scholars should find out that he believes something that he can't explain! That would be too humbling!
Now at the risk of more ridicule of my genuine faith in the word of God as it stands in the AV I'll attempt to give an honest explanation of this verse. But first let me remind you that "the love of money is the root of all evil" does not say:
1. money is the root of all evil.
2. the love of money is the immediate cause of all evil.
3. the love of money is the root of all sin.
4. the love of money is the immediate motive of any sin.
That should eliminate most of the silly problems such as: "Did Adam and Eve have any money? Did Cain kill Abel for the love of money? Does every sexual predator operate from love of money? Do the diaper-heads overseas blow themselves up for love of money?", etc.
What could "the love of money" mean? Instead of dissecting the phrase into determiners, nouns, prepositions and objects of the preposition the Textual Critic and Skeptic should have prayed to God for wisdom and then noted that the Bible often uses metaphors and idiomatic expressions such as this. Even in modern day expression we find:
- The space shuttle landed on the money at 9:55 a.m.
- His weather forecasts are always on the money.
If that wouldn't help, then the Textual Critic and Skeptic could have read Wycliffe's and Tyndale's translation and picked up a clue as to the meaning of "the love of money" - covetousness, greed, avarice. So, it becomes a little bit clearer - "covetousness is the root of all evil". Exactly what Adam and Eve had back in the garden and more importantly what caused Satan's fall.
Spurgeon picked up on it, Whitefield got it clear as a bell, even old Moody hit the nail on the head. But again, even if none of these explanations are good enough to persuade the Skeptic, that in itself does not prove that the word of God is in error or should be mocked.
