Dunning-Krugerrands for Jesus

[jasong]

That the love of money is the root of all evil can, conceivably, be disputed.

Of course it can be disputed, since it's a mis-quote. The original statement, made in the Bible, is that "Money is the root of many kinds of evil."

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by jasong

Of course it can be disputed, since it's a mis-quote. The original statement, made in the Bible, is that "Money is the root of many kinds of evil."

Actually you misquoted it:

1 Timothy 6:10 King James Version
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

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...10&version=KJV

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by jasong

Of course it can be disputed, since it's a mis-quote. The original statement, made in the Bible, is that "Money is the root of many kinds of evil."

Oh, how do you know it was not a mistake, and the true meaning was lost in translation? Can anyone confirm that the original hebrew text says the same?

[
Here it goes the joke with the buddhist monk apprentice (most Asian can't say the "r" sound, as they don't have it in their native languages, or they have softer versions, like "L", "gL" etc) who found that all the papers they are given to copy from, are copies. There was no originals of the holy papers they all had to copy and learn by heart, so he goes to his abbot and asks for originals, "maybe something was copied wrong, and we just propagate the mistake"... The abbot tells him that all their ancestors copied form copies, that was the tradition, for 5000 years, but also considering the young apprentice has a point, decides to go in the deep basements of the temple, where the most valuable things were kept, to search for the original papyrus manuscripts. He didn't come back... After hours, other monks got worried and went to search for him, they found him crying and banging his head against a wall: "the word was 'celebrate', not 'celibate'"...
]

[jasong]

Originally Posted by LaurV

Oh, how do you know it was not a mistake, and the true meaning was lost in translation? Can anyone confirm that the original hebrew text says the same?

Well, I think smart people trust King James about as far as they can throw it. If I lust after a woman, I can obviously do that without money having any part of it, so the badly stated verse(by King James, I assume) is disproven.

The love of money is the root of "many kinds of" evil.

Edit: And only the Old Testament is Hebrew, the New Testament is 2-3 languages, Greek, Aramaic and another I can't remember. Mostly Greek, I think.

Edit2: The verse I found in my Android app says something like,"Money is the root of all kinds of evil..." which obviously shouldn't be taken 100% literally. It's like when my friend said that black people can't swim. When I asked him about it he said it had to do with bone density and he meant the vast majority had a problem staying afloat rather than a literal 100%. The Bible is 100% God's word, but there is still the possibility of translation problems and misunderstandings.

Edit3: Please don't talk to me about black people and swimming, it was my friend's opinion, not mine. I honestly have no idea about the bone density of black people.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by jasong

Well, I think smart people trust King James about as far as they can throw it. ..... so the badly stated verse(by King James, I assume) is disproven.

The love of money is the root of "many kinds of" evil.

Well Young's Literal Translation (1898), the Emphatic Diaglott (1865), and the NET version (2006) all disagree with your supposition that it is a poor translation. Each of them is an independent translation, not copying from any other.
"for a root of all the evils is the love of money,"
"A root for of all of the evils is the love of money;"
"For the love of money is the root of all evils."

[kracker]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Well Young's Literal Translation (1898), the Emphatic Diaglott (1865), and the NET version (2006) all disagree with your supposition that it is a poor translation. Each of them is an independent translation, not copying from any other.
"for a root of all the evils is the love of money,"
"A root for of all of the evils is the love of money;"
"For the love of money is the root of all evils."

That's jasong for you.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Well Young's Literal Translation (1898), the Emphatic Diaglott (1865), and the NET version (2006) all disagree with your supposition that it is a poor translation. Each of them is an independent translation, not copying from any other.
"for a root of all the evils is the love of money,"
"A root for of all of the evils is the love of money;"
"For the love of money is the root of all evils."

I think you read more versions than that and picked and chose to make me look stupid. My version says,"The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil," which can also be interpreted as a lot of evil and not literally all kinds.

I know it's popular for intellectuals to make fun of Christianity, but if you're going to lie in order to do it, what do you think is going to happen on Judgement day?

Edit:And why did you pick two that were more than 100 years old? A lot of the modern ones, like the NIV, have had much better research done to help them express the verses the way God intended.

[Mini-Geek]

Originally Posted by jasong

I think you read more versions than that and picked and chose to make me look stupid. My version says,"The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil," which can also be interpreted as a lot of evil and not literally all kinds.

I know it's popular for intellectuals to make fun of Christianity, but if you're going to lie in order to do it, what do you think is going to happen on Judgement day?

Edit:And why did you pick two that were more than 100 years old? A lot of the modern ones, like the NIV, have had much better research done to help them express the verses the way God intended.

There's a difference between a literal translation and one that takes more liberties to try to make the intended meaning clearest. The NIV is in the latter category, while the YLT (maybe the others quoted) are in the former. Literally, the Bible says "all" there. Since it does seem, however, that some evil is not rooted in a love of money, maybe it shouldn't be taken as literally as "all" would imply to a modern reader. Hence, the NIV translates it differently.

[TheMawn]

Originally Posted by jasong

better research done to help them express the verses the way God intended.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by jasong

A lot of the modern ones, like the NIV, have had much better research done to help them express the verses the way God intended.

Please forgive me for this question, but you raised it...

How, exactly, would a mortal understand what God intended?

This is a sincere question. Is there a generally agreed formula?

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Please forgive me for this question, but you raised it...

How, exactly, would a mortal understand what God intended?

This is a sincere question. Is there a generally agreed formula?

This fascinating question belongs in its own thread.