Sure, not ALL evil!!!

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C

cows_chewing_grass

Guest
#1
This is in response to scott announcing that the KJV version was wrong about what it describes as the root of all evil. I asked him for some clarification about the mistake but he went quite so I'm posting some clarification myself. It was written by a friend of mine and it's a bit long but well worth the read. Jesus, Paul and even Solomon get a mention.

St. Paul wrote a letter to a young Christian, and said that the root of all evil is the love of money. (1 Timothy 6:10 ) This is an amazing claim.

Perhaps too much love for too much money we could go along with, or perhaps we could agree that it is the cause of some evils... maybe even a lot of evils. But to just come right out and say that all love for any amount of money is the cause of all evils is a bit much for most people to take.

You only need to quote the verse as it is written, to get a reaction from the average churchgoer. Try it, and see if they don't say something like, "It's the love of money, mind you, not money itself." They then go on to tell you how they know of a lot of rich people who have accomplished a lot for God.

What is happening when they respond like this? Let's change the issue slightly to make it clearer. Suppose someone says that drug addiction is ruining Western society, and a reaction comes back, stating that it's not the drugs themselves, but addiction that is the problem. Suppose they go on to inform you that they know of many people who take drugs regularly, but that they are confident that these friends are not addicted, and that taking drugs does not affect their ability to live a happy, normal life. Why do you suppose the person would react in such a way? There is a line from Shakespeare which says, "Me thinks thou dost protest too much." In other words, when someone feels heavily convicted by the truth in a statement, they tend to overreact, and this overreaction (or "protesting" too much) actually gives away their guilt.

Modern Bible translators have had a problem with this verse, because they know it is offensive to most church people. The King James Version faithfully expresses the thought of the passage. The original Greek does say that greed is the source of all evils. So how could the translators soften it and still avoid being accused of distorting the original message? The Bible Society came up with an ingenious solution for the Today's English Version. They wrote: "The love of money is a source of all kinds of evil." Apart from the dishonest use of the word "a", they have technically used the word "all". The problem is that they have used it in a phrase which has an idiomatic meaning that is rarely taken literally. "All kinds of" just means "lots". It does not mean "all" at all.

Surely, if greed is the root cause of all other evils, then it should be the fundamental target of any campaign to bring righteousness to the world. It stands to reason that if we could rid the world of the root of all evil, then the eventual consequence would be a world without any evil in it at all. But where is the church, denomination, or religion that is waging such a campaign against greed? The truth is that the entire topic of greed, and especially greedy people (presumably the rich) get very light treatment from religions everywhere.

But let us start by taking the more popular approach to this passage, which is that for one reason or another, Paul never intended to say what he is recorded as having said in 1 Timothy 6:10 . Let us assume that the love of money (while harmful if overdone) isn't all that bad, and certainly is not the cause of all the problems in the world. Let us assume that the 1 Timothy 6:10 passage slipped into the Bible by mistake, or that it was placed there by an overzealous monk in the very early days of the church.

If that is so, then we would expect the subject to be dropped. We should not be bothered by other passages promoting such an extreme teaching. We would certainly not find Jesus or the apostles teaching such nonsense. The battle between good and evil for them would be more of one between God and the devil, perhaps with something like pride or a lust for power (and not greed) being the real source of evil in the world.

In the gospels, Jesus tells us that we have a choice between good and evil, and we cannot "serve" both "masters". The picture is that of an employee, or servant, trying to work for two employers or bosses at the same time.

Presumably one employer would be God, and the other would be the Devil. Right? But no, that is not how Jesus describes them. He does say that one employer is God, but he says that the other employer is (wait for it) money, or "mammon" (mammon is a term for money which also includes the material things that money can buy). Jesus says that we cannot work for God and work for money at the same time. (Matthew 6:24 , and Luke 16:13 ) How amazing! He goes on to say that we are going to end up despising or hating one employer or the other. Between this approach and the one taken by Paul, there is no room left for a person to be neutral, either with regard to God or with regard to money. We are going to end up loving one and hating the other. It's not a matter of loving one just a little bit more than the other, but rather a matter of putting them on opposite ends of the spectrum.

One is going to be our god, and the other is going to be our worst enemy. We must choose.

It is consistent with the picture of one employee trying to work for two employers at the same time. The employee is obviously going to have to cheat one employer in order to turn up at work for the other. His or her "hate" for the cheated employer will take the form of trying to rip off wages for something that he or she is not entitled to.

Could it be that many religious people are trying to rip off, or claim something from God (eternal life) when they are not really entitled to it? The immediate argument that we face with regard to such a question is the widespread belief amongst professing Christians that we do not have to do anything to be entitled to eternal life. Salvation, they say, is our "right"; we're entitled to it, whether or not we ever turn up for work.

But this is totally false. When questioned more closely, they will all admit that salvation only comes through faith. And almost all of them will say that this faith must be placed in Jesus Christ. So how much faith do they have in what Jesus has said about working for God in preference to working for money? For that matter, how much faith do they have in anything that Jesus instructed his followers to do?

Jesus said that unless we stop working for mammon, or material wealth (John 6:27 ) and start working for him (Matthew 11:29 ) we will be regarded as an employee who has tried to rip off the most powerful Employer in the Universe. He said to stop worrying about food and clothes, and how we are going to get them (Matthew 6:25-33 ), and seek first to build God's multinational kingdom of love instead. He said that, if we will do that, God himself will take care of our material needs. He said that we should forsake all of our material wealth if we want to be one of his disciples. (Luke 14:33 )

So what has the church done with these and other specific instructions about challenging the root of all evil? They have told us that all of these teachings of Jesus and Paul mean little more than that we should try to moderate our greed. It's okay to spend your life making money if you are doing it for your family, and if you don't engage in anything immoral or illegal to do so, and if you make a point of giving a percentage of it to the church. "Forsaking" wealth, they say, just means sharing a bit of it with the right people from time to time.

There is a kind of mythical image in the churches of an incredibly greedy person who swims in pools full of diamonds and rubs money all over himself or herself as an act of worship. Church people know that they should not want to be like that person.

On the other hand, is there a record anywhere in the history of the entire institutional church (of all denominations) of anyone ever being excommunicated because of being too greedy?

The truth is that absolutely any excess of greed can be tolerated by any church in the world. As long as you don't break a short list of other rules, you can swim in all the diamonds you like, and just between you and me, the more diamonds you have, the more profusely they will welcome you! It is precisely because of this unwillingness to forsake wealth and to attack greed, that the church has been largely ineffectual in saving the world. Love of money in the world has caused wars, exploited the poor, led to drug trafficking, corrupted politicians, and much more. And love of money in the church has made the church virtually useless in changing present trends away from God. Daily, the world grows richer materially, but it also grows daily more and more destitute spiritually.

In the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, and in the middle of his discourse on greed, Jesus said, "The eyes are like a lamp for the body. If your eyes are clear, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eyes are bad, your body will be in darkness. So if the light in you turns out to be darkness, how terribly dark it will be!" (Matthew 6:22-23 , TEV) In other words, if the church, and individual Christians cannot get it clear with regard to his teachings on money, then Jesus is saying that they will not only be useless, but they will be seen as contributors to the "terrible darkness" that the world is in today.

I have found that this teaching on money is the key to understanding all of life. It is in this same chapter that Jesus makes reference to King Solomon, who was believed to have been the wisest person on earth when he was alive.

Jesus says that Solomon, with all his riches, was not clothed as beautifully as God has clothed the flowers of the fields.

In another place (Matthew 12:42 ) he refers to a story that is recorded in the tenth chapter of 1 Kings, when he says that the Queen of Sheba traveled halfway around the world to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and yet "one greater than Solomon is here". There is, in accepting this teaching of Jesus about money, the key to discovering wisdom that Solomon barely scratched the surface of.

The final book of the Bible continues with the theme of good and evil. It describes evil as a Prostitute (Revelation 17:5 ) and good as a Bride (Revelation 19:7 ). Both women give what our modern society has come to call "love", but one does it freely, while the other does it for money.

Artists commonly refer to "prostituting" themselves if they let greed influence their work. And each of us does the same thing when we use the life and gifts that God has given us, to make money rather than using it to freely share him and his message of faith and love with the rest of the world.

The Prostitute is given a name. She is called "Babylon". The name symbolises all of the worldly empires of human history. Babylon in particular is most famous for having invented money. They did not invent greed, because greed existed even in the days of bartering, but they did invent a much more efficient way for people to satisfy their greed.

Gold coins were the first form of money, but it has evolved through various forms over the centuries, as the rich have become more and more rich.

The Revelation also compares God to a "Lamb" that loses its life to save the world (Revelation 5:6 ). The antithesis of this poor slain lamb is a warring "Beast". The Beast is represented by a "Mark", which will eventually be placed on the back of everyone's hand or on their forehead, and without which they will not be able to buy or sell (Revelation 13:16-18 ). This is the ultimate step in the evolution of money, and it was prophesied in the Bible almost 2,000 years ago!

It is gradually becoming common knowledge that the world is just about at that point in history when the prophesied Mark will be put into worldwide circulation, in the form of a microchip implant on the back of the hand (or on the forehead if your hand has been amputated). People will be able to wave their hand in front of a scanner to electronically transfer funds from one account to another in the fast approaching "cashless society". This is not fanatical raving. It is all coming together right now. You can read about it almost anywhere in the secular Press. In Kenya people are able to buy their groceries using electronic payments via their phones and in Spain there are night clubs already using scannable microchip implants in the arm for VIP members who use the chip to pay for club fees and drinks.

The Bible says that anyone who accepts that Mark will be eternally ****ed. (Revelation 14:9-10 )

So is the church concerned about it? Are meetings being held to adjust their financial structure in order to survive without taking it? Of course not. In fact, if the subject comes up at all, it is quickly followed by arguments in favour of the Mark, and against those who see it as evil. The root of all evil is leading the institutional church straight into the hands of the Prince of Darkness himself, and all it took was the love of money to do it.

There is an interesting little note in the passage from The Revelation about the Mark of the Beast. It says, "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the Beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666." (Revelation 13:18 )

Here is wisdom. Wisdom has gradually become the all-consuming goal of my life, from the time that I first heard about King Solomon being given one request, and how he asked for wisdom. I want to know the truth. I want to have a sincere heart. I want to hunger and thirst after righteousness. I want wisdom. And so this passage tells me that I should seek to understand the meaning of the number 666 if I wish to have it.

I decided to get a huge Bible concordance and see if the number 666 appears anywhere else in the Bible. I found that it does. The number 666 appears in only one other place, and that, strangely enough, is the very same chapter that Jesus was referring to when he talked about having greater wisdom than Solomon. It is in 1 Kings 10:14 .

This is the chapter that tells us that the Queen of Sheba brought many gifts to Solomon, in exchange for hearing his wisdom. Others also came bearing gifts. And in one year, Solomon received 666 talents of gold as payment for hearing his wisdom. See, Solomon had a wisdom of sorts, but then he used it to make money. Jesus had greater wisdom, which saw through the money myth. He saw that love for money was the root of all evil.

My search for wisdom had started with Solomon; but it had taken me full circle back to Solomon. And the paradox is that, on returning to Solomon, I discovered that he was the counterfeit of the real thing. There is something better than Solomon, and it is the teachings of Jesus. The teachings of Jesus tell me that 666 talents of gold is worthless (whether it is in goods, gold ingots, cash, cheques, stocks, or e-money), that faith in God and a handful of wild flowers is worth more than all of this. The teachings of Jesus tell me that I could have all the wealth of the world, be a powerful king, have women circling the globe to listen to me, and still I would have nothing if I would not follow God. The teachings of Jesus tell me that the relatively short history of the human race has been little more than an experiment, to see whether we would spend our lives working for the source of all goodness or whether we would spend our lives working for the root of all evil. Our eternal destiny rests on which "master" we chose to work for.

What I have covered in this article has been the root of all evil, and the "key" to destroying it. There is so much more that could be said. But none of it will do us any good unless we are prepared to act on the truth of what Jesus has said. Our talk about faith and love and sincerity all crumbles into meaningless babble unless we are prepared, in obedience to the Creator of the Universe, to turn loose of our wealth and dedicate our lives to helping others and obeying God... without thought for food or clothing.
 
S

Slepsog4

Guest
#2
Given the length of your article it would seem that you are protesting too much.

First it should be noted that there is not definite article in the Greek text before the term root, thus it is not THE root, but A root.

Second the construction of the phrase "of all evil" is missing some things in the Greek text. Rendered this way is washes out a part of the text which is idiomatic and fails to recognize that evil is plural. It is this idiomatic expression and the plural of evil that caused versions to translate the entire phrase as "of all kinds of evil".

I am not sure what you mean by modern translations, but the ASV of 1901 so translates.


Something that is interesting in this whole matter is that the pre-KJV English Bibles often rendered this simply as covetousness. This broadens the subject significantly whereas love of money is very narrow.

When one looks at the 10 Commandments it seems the commandment against coveting largely summed up the motivation behind some of the sins listed earlier. If I do not covet a man's wife, then I will not commit adultery. If I do not covet a man's property, then I will not steal. If I do not covet a man's life to the point of hatred, then I will not murder.
 
D

dmdave17

Guest
#3
Dear cows_chewing_grass,

Your friend's position is well thought out, and very true. Love of money for it's own sake, or for what it can buy us, is the highest form of idolatry in existence (assuming nobody actually worships golden statues any more, at least in the western world). But I contend that we still have to take into consideration the motive for acquiring money before we decide that it s evil. For example, if I want to acquire a lot of money to buy myself yachts, mansions, etc., then I am committing a sin. However, if I want to acquire a lot of money so I can build an orphanage in Haiti, for example, then I believe that the motive overrides the sinful nature of my desire.

So I guess I would have to agree with the people who say "there are many rich people who do good things with their money". Perhaps the real root of all evil is hoarding money, rather than acquiring it.
 
S

Slepsog4

Guest
#4
In 1 Tim 6 Paul is warning about the risks attached to wealth. He reminds them that the desire to be rich has deadly potential.

He goes on to address those who ARE rich and admonishes them not to put their trust in their riches, but to be willing to share.

Having it or even acquiring it is not inherently wrong, but the means and motives behind the getting or having can be.
 
D

DanuckInUSA

Guest
#5
Yikes is anybody feeling the love.
 
S

Scotth1960

Guest
#6
This is in response to scott announcing that the KJV version was wrong about what it describes as the root of all evil. I asked him for some clarification about the mistake but he went quite so I'm posting some clarification myself. It was written by a friend of mine and it's a bit long but well worth the read. Jesus, Paul and even Solomon get a mention.

St. Paul wrote a letter to a young Christian, and said that the root of all evil is the love of money. (1 Timothy 6:10 ) This is an amazing claim.

Perhaps too much love for too much money we could go along with, or perhaps we could agree that it is the cause of some evils... maybe even a lot of evils. But to just come right out and say that all love for any amount of money is the cause of all evils is a bit much for most people to take.

You only need to quote the verse as it is written, to get a reaction from the average churchgoer. Try it, and see if they don't say something like, "It's the love of money, mind you, not money itself." They then go on to tell you how they know of a lot of rich people who have accomplished a lot for God.

What is happening when they respond like this? Let's change the issue slightly to make it clearer. Suppose someone says that drug addiction is ruining Western society, and a reaction comes back, stating that it's not the drugs themselves, but addiction that is the problem. Suppose they go on to inform you that they know of many people who take drugs regularly, but that they are confident that these friends are not addicted, and that taking drugs does not affect their ability to live a happy, normal life. Why do you suppose the person would react in such a way? There is a line from Shakespeare which says, "Me thinks thou dost protest too much." In other words, when someone feels heavily convicted by the truth in a statement, they tend to overreact, and this overreaction (or "protesting" too much) actually gives away their guilt.

Modern Bible translators have had a problem with this verse, because they know it is offensive to most church people. The King James Version faithfully expresses the thought of the passage. The original Greek does say that greed is the source of all evils. So how could the translators soften it and still avoid being accused of distorting the original message? The Bible Society came up with an ingenious solution for the Today's English Version. They wrote: "The love of money is a source of all kinds of evil." Apart from the dishonest use of the word "a", they have technically used the word "all". The problem is that they have used it in a phrase which has an idiomatic meaning that is rarely taken literally. "All kinds of" just means "lots". It does not mean "all" at all.

Surely, if greed is the root cause of all other evils, then it should be the fundamental target of any campaign to bring righteousness to the world. It stands to reason that if we could rid the world of the root of all evil, then the eventual consequence would be a world without any evil in it at all. But where is the church, denomination, or religion that is waging such a campaign against greed? The truth is that the entire topic of greed, and especially greedy people (presumably the rich) get very light treatment from religions everywhere.

But let us start by taking the more popular approach to this passage, which is that for one reason or another, Paul never intended to say what he is recorded as having said in 1 Timothy 6:10 . Let us assume that the love of money (while harmful if overdone) isn't all that bad, and certainly is not the cause of all the problems in the world. Let us assume that the 1 Timothy 6:10 passage slipped into the Bible by mistake, or that it was placed there by an overzealous monk in the very early days of the church.

If that is so, then we would expect the subject to be dropped. We should not be bothered by other passages promoting such an extreme teaching. We would certainly not find Jesus or the apostles teaching such nonsense. The battle between good and evil for them would be more of one between God and the devil, perhaps with something like pride or a lust for power (and not greed) being the real source of evil in the world.

In the gospels, Jesus tells us that we have a choice between good and evil, and we cannot "serve" both "masters". The picture is that of an employee, or servant, trying to work for two employers or bosses at the same time.

Presumably one employer would be God, and the other would be the Devil. Right? But no, that is not how Jesus describes them. He does say that one employer is God, but he says that the other employer is (wait for it) money, or "mammon" (mammon is a term for money which also includes the material things that money can buy). Jesus says that we cannot work for God and work for money at the same time. (Matthew 6:24 , and Luke 16:13 ) How amazing! He goes on to say that we are going to end up despising or hating one employer or the other. Between this approach and the one taken by Paul, there is no room left for a person to be neutral, either with regard to God or with regard to money. We are going to end up loving one and hating the other. It's not a matter of loving one just a little bit more than the other, but rather a matter of putting them on opposite ends of the spectrum.

One is going to be our god, and the other is going to be our worst enemy. We must choose.

It is consistent with the picture of one employee trying to work for two employers at the same time. The employee is obviously going to have to cheat one employer in order to turn up at work for the other. His or her "hate" for the cheated employer will take the form of trying to rip off wages for something that he or she is not entitled to.

Could it be that many religious people are trying to rip off, or claim something from God (eternal life) when they are not really entitled to it? The immediate argument that we face with regard to such a question is the widespread belief amongst professing Christians that we do not have to do anything to be entitled to eternal life. Salvation, they say, is our "right"; we're entitled to it, whether or not we ever turn up for work.

But this is totally false. When questioned more closely, they will all admit that salvation only comes through faith. And almost all of them will say that this faith must be placed in Jesus Christ. So how much faith do they have in what Jesus has said about working for God in preference to working for money? For that matter, how much faith do they have in anything that Jesus instructed his followers to do?

Jesus said that unless we stop working for mammon, or material wealth (John 6:27 ) and start working for him (Matthew 11:29 ) we will be regarded as an employee who has tried to rip off the most powerful Employer in the Universe. He said to stop worrying about food and clothes, and how we are going to get them (Matthew 6:25-33 ), and seek first to build God's multinational kingdom of love instead. He said that, if we will do that, God himself will take care of our material needs. He said that we should forsake all of our material wealth if we want to be one of his disciples. (Luke 14:33 )

So what has the church done with these and other specific instructions about challenging the root of all evil? They have told us that all of these teachings of Jesus and Paul mean little more than that we should try to moderate our greed. It's okay to spend your life making money if you are doing it for your family, and if you don't engage in anything immoral or illegal to do so, and if you make a point of giving a percentage of it to the church. "Forsaking" wealth, they say, just means sharing a bit of it with the right people from time to time.

There is a kind of mythical image in the churches of an incredibly greedy person who swims in pools full of diamonds and rubs money all over himself or herself as an act of worship. Church people know that they should not want to be like that person.

On the other hand, is there a record anywhere in the history of the entire institutional church (of all denominations) of anyone ever being excommunicated because of being too greedy?

The truth is that absolutely any excess of greed can be tolerated by any church in the world. As long as you don't break a short list of other rules, you can swim in all the diamonds you like, and just between you and me, the more diamonds you have, the more profusely they will welcome you! It is precisely because of this unwillingness to forsake wealth and to attack greed, that the church has been largely ineffectual in saving the world. Love of money in the world has caused wars, exploited the poor, led to drug trafficking, corrupted politicians, and much more. And love of money in the church has made the church virtually useless in changing present trends away from God. Daily, the world grows richer materially, but it also grows daily more and more destitute spiritually.

In the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, and in the middle of his discourse on greed, Jesus said, "The eyes are like a lamp for the body. If your eyes are clear, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eyes are bad, your body will be in darkness. So if the light in you turns out to be darkness, how terribly dark it will be!" (Matthew 6:22-23 , TEV) In other words, if the church, and individual Christians cannot get it clear with regard to his teachings on money, then Jesus is saying that they will not only be useless, but they will be seen as contributors to the "terrible darkness" that the world is in today.

I have found that this teaching on money is the key to understanding all of life. It is in this same chapter that Jesus makes reference to King Solomon, who was believed to have been the wisest person on earth when he was alive.

Jesus says that Solomon, with all his riches, was not clothed as beautifully as God has clothed the flowers of the fields.

In another place (Matthew 12:42 ) he refers to a story that is recorded in the tenth chapter of 1 Kings, when he says that the Queen of Sheba traveled halfway around the world to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and yet "one greater than Solomon is here". There is, in accepting this teaching of Jesus about money, the key to discovering wisdom that Solomon barely scratched the surface of.

The final book of the Bible continues with the theme of good and evil. It describes evil as a Prostitute (Revelation 17:5 ) and good as a Bride (Revelation 19:7 ). Both women give what our modern society has come to call "love", but one does it freely, while the other does it for money.

Artists commonly refer to "prostituting" themselves if they let greed influence their work. And each of us does the same thing when we use the life and gifts that God has given us, to make money rather than using it to freely share him and his message of faith and love with the rest of the world.

The Prostitute is given a name. She is called "Babylon". The name symbolises all of the worldly empires of human history. Babylon in particular is most famous for having invented money. They did not invent greed, because greed existed even in the days of bartering, but they did invent a much more efficient way for people to satisfy their greed.

Gold coins were the first form of money, but it has evolved through various forms over the centuries, as the rich have become more and more rich.

The Revelation also compares God to a "Lamb" that loses its life to save the world (Revelation 5:6 ). The antithesis of this poor slain lamb is a warring "Beast". The Beast is represented by a "Mark", which will eventually be placed on the back of everyone's hand or on their forehead, and without which they will not be able to buy or sell (Revelation 13:16-18 ). This is the ultimate step in the evolution of money, and it was prophesied in the Bible almost 2,000 years ago!

It is gradually becoming common knowledge that the world is just about at that point in history when the prophesied Mark will be put into worldwide circulation, in the form of a microchip implant on the back of the hand (or on the forehead if your hand has been amputated). People will be able to wave their hand in front of a scanner to electronically transfer funds from one account to another in the fast approaching "cashless society". This is not fanatical raving. It is all coming together right now. You can read about it almost anywhere in the secular Press. In Kenya people are able to buy their groceries using electronic payments via their phones and in Spain there are night clubs already using scannable microchip implants in the arm for VIP members who use the chip to pay for club fees and drinks.

The Bible says that anyone who accepts that Mark will be eternally ****ed. (Revelation 14:9-10 )

So is the church concerned about it? Are meetings being held to adjust their financial structure in order to survive without taking it? Of course not. In fact, if the subject comes up at all, it is quickly followed by arguments in favour of the Mark, and against those who see it as evil. The root of all evil is leading the institutional church straight into the hands of the Prince of Darkness himself, and all it took was the love of money to do it.

There is an interesting little note in the passage from The Revelation about the Mark of the Beast. It says, "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the Beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666." (Revelation 13:18 )

Here is wisdom. Wisdom has gradually become the all-consuming goal of my life, from the time that I first heard about King Solomon being given one request, and how he asked for wisdom. I want to know the truth. I want to have a sincere heart. I want to hunger and thirst after righteousness. I want wisdom. And so this passage tells me that I should seek to understand the meaning of the number 666 if I wish to have it.

I decided to get a huge Bible concordance and see if the number 666 appears anywhere else in the Bible. I found that it does. The number 666 appears in only one other place, and that, strangely enough, is the very same chapter that Jesus was referring to when he talked about having greater wisdom than Solomon. It is in 1 Kings 10:14 .

This is the chapter that tells us that the Queen of Sheba brought many gifts to Solomon, in exchange for hearing his wisdom. Others also came bearing gifts. And in one year, Solomon received 666 talents of gold as payment for hearing his wisdom. See, Solomon had a wisdom of sorts, but then he used it to make money. Jesus had greater wisdom, which saw through the money myth. He saw that love for money was the root of all evil.

My search for wisdom had started with Solomon; but it had taken me full circle back to Solomon. And the paradox is that, on returning to Solomon, I discovered that he was the counterfeit of the real thing. There is something better than Solomon, and it is the teachings of Jesus. The teachings of Jesus tell me that 666 talents of gold is worthless (whether it is in goods, gold ingots, cash, cheques, stocks, or e-money), that faith in God and a handful of wild flowers is worth more than all of this. The teachings of Jesus tell me that I could have all the wealth of the world, be a powerful king, have women circling the globe to listen to me, and still I would have nothing if I would not follow God. The teachings of Jesus tell me that the relatively short history of the human race has been little more than an experiment, to see whether we would spend our lives working for the source of all goodness or whether we would spend our lives working for the root of all evil. Our eternal destiny rests on which "master" we chose to work for.

What I have covered in this article has been the root of all evil, and the "key" to destroying it. There is so much more that could be said. But none of it will do us any good unless we are prepared to act on the truth of what Jesus has said. Our talk about faith and love and sincerity all crumbles into meaningless babble unless we are prepared, in obedience to the Creator of the Universe, to turn loose of our wealth and dedicate our lives to helping others and obeying God... without thought for food or clothing.
Dear friend, Here is a proper, true, and faithful translation of 1 Timothy 6:10, from the ONT (Orthodox New Testament, volume 2): "For the love of money is a root of all evils, by which some, reaching out for themselves, were led astray from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs". It is "a" root, not "the" root, and this translation is more accurate than the KJV. The KJV in Romans has "the Spirit itself", and this is a misleading, false verse in the King James Version. The Spirit is a "Himself", a "He", God is a "Him", not an "it". The KJV is also wrong in Hebrews 6:6. There is no word "if" in the original Greek. That is Calvinistic bias. A clear heresy. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington


 
Feb 9, 2010
2,486
39
0
#7
People that love money fall in to the category of selfishness and arrogance to a high degree,and the Proverbs 30:11-14,describes the last generation on earth,and that they will be highly selfish and arrogant,and describes that they will devour the poor from off the earth,and the needy among men,which means they love money to the point of not caring too much about people.

Money is a way for a person to say I got more than you,I am better.

Look what I've achieved,I am more successiveful than you.

It is for bragging about oneself among other people,because if they were the only person on earth they would not care about all that money,for there would be nobody for them to exalt themselves against.

People who love money want to heap it and not share it for the purpose of bragging and want you beneath them to exalt themselves above you.

The love of money is a highly selfish and arrogant pursuit,where we are at the time of the last generation where they really love money a lot.They could have a billion dollars and see a bum trying to pick up a dime,and knock the bum down and take the dime.

People who love money will do evil in the pursuit of money,and allow evil in the pursuit of money.

People who love money,it is all about them with little regard for other people,and if they do help people it is for their benefit that love money.

People who heap money to themselves but may give some away do not impress me,for they do it for their own benefit that love money.

Jesus said sell all you have and give to the poor,and the rich should distribute their money.People who have 500 miilions dollars,and give away one million dollars,but keep 499 million dollars do not really love people,for people who love people are not millionaires to begin with.
 
C

cows_chewing_grass

Guest
#8
Given the length of your article it would seem that you are protesting too much.
The bible is much much longer than the article I posted. Generally speaking people tend to post what they feel is their most significant argument first. I hope that isn't the case here, cause really...

First it should be noted that there is not definite article in the Greek text before the term root, thus it is not THE root, but A root.
So, is it WRONG for the KJV to continue being printed? And how do you know there is no "the" in the original text. Maybe you are right about the literal letters "t h e" not being in the text, but the translators of the KJV, past AND present surely must see SOME reason to put it there in the translation and to continue doing so. Any idea what that reason could be, besides your theory that it's some kind of personal vendetta against the rest of the world? Otherwise, how many OTHER words did they make up as they went along?

But, lets assume you are correct. There is no word recorded to indicate "the" should be there. Is there a word to indicate "a" should be there? If there is clearly a word to indicate "a" then why would people continually translate it as "the"? Do the calvanists print the KJV even today, and has there been any controversy about them refusing to change the word because of protests from ANYONE about it being inaccurate?

And if there is no word "a" there, then why do you argue that it should be "a" as opposed to the, when neither word is present?

Something is definitely missing from your explanation.

I have another theory, in the absense of either word. "The love of money is root of all evil." That's what the sentence would look like without either word. So, what is the spirit of this verse saying?

We have the word "root" and in the context it looks an awful lot like it is a kind of superlative; like saying most or best. Even scott, who originally defended the dishonest (because of it's idiomatic meaning which just means "lots" and not "all" at all) "all kinds of" translation has corrected his stance to the plain old "all evil" translation. The word "all" is extremely significant in conjuction with the meaning of "root". For example, if we have a sentence like, "it is best food I ever ate" we can see something is missing.. In the absense of either "the" or "a" in front of best, what word would you, if you were attempting to translate the spirit of what this sentence is saying, think was most appropriate to express that concept? Easy isn't it?

Second the construction of the phrase "of all evil" is missing some things in the Greek text.
If you were to tell me that Jesus died for me so that I could have eternal life, and I responded that parts of the Bible where you read that were "missing some things" would you really take me seriously?

Obviously, you would want to know WHAT was missing and HOW that was relevent to the over all spirit of what Jesus was saying. Get my meaning?

Rendered this way is washes out a part of the text which is idiomatic and fails to recognize that evil is plural. It is this idiomatic expression and the plural of evil that caused versions to translate the entire phrase as "of all kinds of evil".
I really think you need to provide the evidence here so that it can be tested. When dealing with *blank* root of all evil it pays (snigger snigger) to be very very clear about what is being said and what it means. Like the one ring, *blank* root of all evil is very clever in protecting itself when the chips are down.

Something that is interesting in this whole matter is that the pre-KJV English Bibles often rendered this simply as covetousness. This broadens the subject significantly whereas love of money is very narrow.
Hmm, well I don't see the same difference that you seem to be saying and I have a guess as to why you are making this argument, but I'd like to hear your explanation. Can you be more specific as to what difference you see between covetousness (thank god for spell check) and love of money? How do you see love of money being more narrow than covetousness?

When one looks at the 10 Commandments it seems the commandment against coveting largely summed up the motivation behind some of the sins listed earlier. If I do not covet a man's wife, then I will not commit adultery. If I do not covet a man's property, then I will not steal. If I do not covet a man's life to the point of hatred, then I will not murder.
Do you really see no connection between what causes a person to covet whatever, and what causes a person to put money before God? I'll give you a hint, it's the root of all evil (yes, even covetousness) and it starts with a g.

Dear friend, Here is a proper, true, and faithful translation of 1 Timothy 6:10, from the ONT (Orthodox New Testament, volume 2):
Is there any kind of petition or movement to get the printing of the KJV changed or stopped altogether? If you really believe the KJV is being too hard on poor ole' love of money perhaps you should do something about it! False prophets and all that stuff, right?

[ "For the love of money is a root of all evils, by which some, reaching out for themselves, were led astray from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs"./QUOTE]

So, why do the other translations insert "kinds" in there? Is there a word in the greed that literally represents "kinds"? And if not, then why isn't slepsdog arguing about the inclusion of that word like he did about the word "the"? Could it be the calvanists again? Those guys are so sneaky!

The KJV in Romans has "the Spirit itself", and this is a misleading, false verse in the King James Version.
I appreciate your loyalty to the life of the holy spirit, but at the same time the point of the verse is not changed by using "itself" or "himself". To be fair I have heard some people who claim the holy spirit is more like the mother of the trinity. Father, son and holy mother (which they say conforms with the idea of the HS being the comforter).

Personally I don't really know and feel that whatever the holy spirit is, the job of the HS is still the same no matter what title or gender we give it. That is NOT true about the "the" or "a" issue, where the chaning of the word makes a fairly significant difference to the point of the verse.

There is no word "if" in the original Greek. That is Calvinistic bias. A clear heresy. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
I did a search for the word and apparently it appears 1595 times in the KJV. It occurs 1621 in the NASB (which is the version you originally sited for why the KJV is wrong). Maybe the calvanists are working that translation too! We just can't seem to get rid of these guys!!!
 
C

cows_chewing_grass

Guest
#9
Hi mpaper,

I liked some of what you said about how money affects people.

The love of money is a highly selfish and arrogant pursuit,where we are at the time of the last generation where they really love money a lot
I feel that you may be taking the position that it is the rich who fall into the trap of loving money. If that is so, then I think you may still be missing the solution that Jesus gave to killing the root of all evil. When he gave those teachings he was talking to a great multitude of people, and he spoke in all-inclusive terms about how we should not even work for food or clothing, much less money.

Those things should not be our motivation at all. This goes well beyond just discipling ourselves to not want as much as some other people want. We are talking about uprooting the entire tree, not just shying away from some of the more unsavory branches.

I certainly don't feel the root of all evil is something that can be killed in a single day, even if we do forsake all and stop working for money in a single day. There will always be a temptation within us to be greedy to some degree, but if we don't even take the first step then we'll always be hanging by the neck from it's branches pretending that such an existence is just how life works.

The "cutting down on greed" doctrine is a bit like trying to kill an ant nest by crushing individual ants with your finger as they climb up the kitchen cabinet. You could be there for years all the while more ants behind you are taking the food back down to the nest under the house where they continue breeding, and you keep wondering why the stream of ants in front of you just keeps coming.

Jesus was talking about ripping up the floor boards, pouring gasoline on the nest, and then letting the entire house burn down on top of it.

[But I contend that we still have to take into consideration the motive for acquiring money before we decide that it s evil. For example, if I want to acquire a lot of money to buy myself yachts, mansions, etc., then I am committing a sin. However, if I want to acquire a lot of money so I can build an orphanage in Haiti, for example, then I believe that the motive overrides the sinful nature of my desire./QUOTE]

Hi Dave. Thanks for sharing this though, but , and I hope this isn't making me sound like just another trouble maker, I still have a problem with your reasoning.

I think the problem is that you've listed criteria which seems to relegate the love of money to the very rich, or at least, those who want to be very rich.

I don't think greed is so picky, and Jesus didn't list such criteria, either. In fact, Jesus told people that they should not even work for something as basic as food. (john 6:27) but instead should do the works of God.

This is consistent with Jesus' teachings from Matthew 6:24-35 where he tells people that they should not let worry about food and clothing stop them from stepping out in faith in God's ability to provide for them (as opposed to the systems of man providing for them) if they will seek his kingdom first.

I think this relates to your thoughts about motivation in that ANYTHING, whether it be yachts or food, can be a wrong motivation if we allow it to come before our service to God. And that is exactly what happens when people spend time working to get money instead of working to promote the kingdom of Heaven.
 
C

cows_chewing_grass

Guest
#10
I wonder how that thread on single column vs double columb bibles is going. it must be a terribly fascinating topic...
 
C

cows_chewing_grass

Guest
#11
I didn't get to the net yesterday and discussion on the root of all evil slipped all the way to page three! What an unpopular topic! Anyway...
 
C

cows_chewing_grass

Guest
#12
Still waiting on the information on those weird greed oops I mean greek translations or whatever language it was people were referring to...
 
Jan 21, 2011
148
2
0
#13
And if there is no word "a" there, then why do you argue that it should be "a" as opposed to the, when neither word is present?
The Greek articles are different than those we have in English. For instance, the Greek definite article is used more commonly than ours and its omission is intentional and meaningful. In fact, Greek doesn't have an indefinite article, so the idea of the English indefinite article is indicated by the lack of the Greek definite article.

As an example, if I want to indicate "a brother" as opposed to "the brother," this is "adelphos" vs. "o adelphos." If I mean my reader to understand the definite article, I will usually have to include it. If I write "adelphos" without the definite article, I usually want you to understand that it's to be indefinite.

This is a consequence of the different structures of the languages. Because we don't have declensions, we rely heavily on sentence order and need more articles. Greek puts more information directly into the word endings and can do away with a lot of what we find necessary.
 
Jan 21, 2011
148
2
0
#14
To note the difficulty of translating the word translated "all" in 1 Timothy, here's an example of the less than literal sense:

Matthew said:
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Here, "all manner of" is the same word which elsewhere is translated simply as "all." If we translate it as "all" here, then this verse implies that all sin and blasphemy will be forgiven, leading to an interesting universalist interpretation. I understand that this wouldn't probably acceptable to most folks. Then it's followed by a clause that directly contradicts it, if we insist that pas means all - is all sin forgiven or is there one exception? As another example:

Revelation said:
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
If he's causing everyone to receive the mark, there's no use in talking about what happens to those who don't. We're supposed to understand that he's working on every single type of person.

These are just two of a number of examples in which you shouldn't translate pas without some careful consideration. We haven't even touched on the fact that "all" is plural in 1 Timothy.
 
Last edited: