In vs On

[Rufus_1611]

Is it possible that a single letter can change an entire teaching relative to something like the mark of the beast?

What might the mark be if it is "on" the hand or forehead?

What might the mark be if it is "in" the hand or forehead?

Is one's view of the mark, described in Revelation 13:16, determined according to whether or not one believes the mark is something that goes in the hand/forehead or on the hand/forehead? Or are these differences irrelevant?

What is the reason or reasons why the traditional Bibles have "in" and the modern versions have "on"? Are the traditional Bibles correct are the modern versions correct or are they both correct or both wrong?

Please keep comments focused on one or more of the above listed questions and let's play nice.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Revelation 13:16

"In" Bibles

Wycliffe 1395
And he schal make alle, smale and grete, and riche and pore, and fre men and bonde men, to haue a carecter in her riythoond, ethir in her forheedis; that no man may bie,
Tyndale 1525
And he made all bothe smale and grett ryche and poore fre and bond to receave a marke in their right hondes or in their forheddes.
Miles Coverdale 1535
And he made all bothe smale and greate, ryche and poore, fre and bond, to receaue a marke in their right hondes, or in their forheades.
Bishop's Bible 1568
And he made all both smal & great, rich & poore, free & bonde, to receaue a marke in their right hand, or in their forheads.
Geneva 1587
And he made all, both small and great, rich and poore, free and bond, to receiue a marke in their right hand or in their foreheads,
KJV 1611
And he causeth all, both smal and great rich and poore, free and bond, to receiue a marke in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
KJV 1769
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:
​

"On" Bibles

NAS
And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead,
Amplified
Also he compels all [alike], both small and great, both the rich and the poor, both free and slave, to be marked with an inscription on their right hands or on their foreheads,
NIV
He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead,
NLT
He required everyone – great and small, rich and poor, slave and free – to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead.
ESV
Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead,
NKJV
He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,
HCSB
And he requires everyone -- small and great, rich and poor, free and slave -- to be given a mark on his right hand or on his forehead,​

 

[Deacon]

I'll add...

"Upon" Bibles

And it maketh all, the small, and the great, and the rich, and the poor, and the freemen, and the servants, that it may give to them a mark upon their right hand or upon their foreheads,

Revelation 13:16 (Young's Literal Translation - 1898)


Jim, sometimes knowing a little Greek causes harm, in this case it might help.

Rob

 

[kubel]

Don't know Greek... but maybe this will be of some help:

1909 epi {ep-ee'}
a root;; prep
AV - on 196, in 120, upon 159, unto 41, to 41, misc 339; 896
1) upon, on, at, by, before 2) of position, on, at, by, over, against 3) to, over, on, at, across, against

 

[Keith M]

As the Greek epi is defined in Strong's as "1. upon, on, at, by, before 2. of position, on, at, by, over, against 3. to, over, on, at, across, against" it would seem "on" is a much more accurate translation of the Greek than "in."

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

By guess would be that it is a minor nuance as a result in the evolution of the English language. In other words perchance "in" had the same connotation the the pre-18th century English user that "on" has today. After all, they did not use "inside."

Don't have a real clue - just a guess.

 

[kubel]

That was certainly the case with "at" and "out" (Matthew 23:24). It's a plausible explanation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Probably doesn't make much difference.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

By guess would be that it is a minor nuance as a result in the evolution of the English language. In other words perchance "in" had the same connotation the the pre-18th century English user that "on" has today. After all, they did not use "inside."

Don't have a real clue - just a guess.

I do know that even today "on" can have slightly different connotations in British English than American English.

Some examples:

Ring us on 555-xxxx
What time is church on?
Is school on today?
Am I on? (Is it my turn?)

If these were the primary usages of "on" 300 years ago it might have been better to use "in".

 

[TCGreek]

Unless the context demands it, epi is usually "on or upon" in the NT.

 

[kubel]

Another example is "I'm holding a book in my hand". The book isn't embedded into your hand, and your hand doesn't even have to be closed for that sentence to work. We wouldn't say "I'm holding a book on my hand", even though that's essentially where it's at.

I would like to see some 1600's examples of "in" and "on" being used interchangeably (anyone up for the challenge?), but I would guess that it's just another example of those English words that were the same and that eventually became distinguished over the years of lingual-evolution.

 

[Salamander]

Um, "in" is correct due to the context being a spiritual mark in the hand and in the forehead.

The key is who it is that puts the marks there. Hint: the "marks" are not tattooes

 

[Salamander]

Another example is "I'm holding a book in my hand". The book isn't embedded into your hand, and your hand doesn't even have to be closed for that sentence to work. We wouldn't say "I'm holding a book on my hand", even though that's essentially where it's at.

:laugh:

"In" would be correct due to the hand is holding the book. In the case of the book being "on" the hand the book would be holding the hand down.

I would like to see some 1600's examples of "in" and "on" being used interchangeably (anyone up for the challenge?), but I would guess that it's just another example of those English words that were the same and that eventually became distinguished over the years of lingual-evolution.

Believing "on" the Lord Jesus is placing onesself upon Him for repose. Believing "in" Jesus is what devils are capable of, but not as if they are saved.

 

[EdSutton]

Please keep comments focused on one or more of the above listed questions and let's play nice.

You gotta' be kiddin'!!

What are you

??

Is it the peel of a

?? Or is it somethin' stronger ?? :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[Rufus_1611]

You gotta' be kiddin'!! ...

Dare to dream and so far so good

 

[EdSutton]

Believing "on" the Lord Jesus is placing onesself upon Him for repose. Believing "in" Jesus is what devils are capable of, but not as if they are saved.

Huhhh!?!??!! You wanna' try that one again?? As to the meaning of "in"!!

And I'll quote a fairly well known verse from your favorite version, as well as the same verse from the version I use, regularly.

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John. 3:16 - KJV)

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (Jo. 3:16 - NKJV)

Sure looks to me like believing "in" Jesus. i.e., the "only begotten Son" , is what is required for "everlasting life", here in this verse. Surely you believe that one who posesses "everlasting life" iis "saved", don't you??

I don't see "on" used here in either version.

Ed

 

[Keith M]

Um, "in" is correct due to the context being a spiritual mark in the hand and in the forehead.

The key is who it is that puts the marks there. Hint: the "marks" are not tattooes

The key is not how the verse is interpreted by modern readers but how it was written by John. Because of the way John wrote the verse, saying that "in" is correct is a stretch. "On" is much more precise to the Greek (see Strong's definition in my previous post). If the mark is spiritual as you say, Salamander, it would be within one and there would be no need for the mark to be on the forehead or hand.

 

[Salamander]

Huhhh!?!??!! You wanna' try that one again?? As to the meaning of "in"!!

And I'll quote a fairly well known verse from your favorite version, as well as the same verse from the version I use, regularly.
Sure looks to me like believing "in" Jesus. i.e., the "only begotten Son" , is what is required for "everlasting life", here in this verse. Surely you believe that one who posesses "everlasting life" iis "saved", don't you??

I don't see "on" used here in either version.

Ed

Sure, and you wouldn't jump to another verse either.

There is not the declarative present in John 3:16 but the nominative.

Learn English

 

[Salamander]

The key is not how the verse is interpreted by modern readers but how it was written by John. Because of the way John wrote the verse, saying that "in" is correct is a stretch. "On" is much more precise to the Greek (see Strong's definition in my previous post). If the mark is spiritual as you say, Salamander, it would be within one and there would be no need for the mark to be on the forehead or hand.

Again, we're dealing with the spiritual implication and not the literal application, of which there is none literal application of the mark in Revelation.

"In" is correct.

 

[Askjo]

Is it possible that a single letter can change an entire teaching relative to something like the mark of the beast?

What might the mark be if it is "on" the hand or forehead?

What might the mark be if it is "in" the hand or forehead?

Is one's view of the mark, described in Revelation 13:16, determined according to whether or not one believes the mark is something that goes in the hand/forehead or on the hand/forehead? Or are these differences irrelevant?

What is the reason or reasons why the traditional Bibles have "in" and the modern versions have "on"? Are the traditional Bibles correct are the modern versions correct or are they both correct or both wrong?

Please keep comments focused on one or more of the above listed questions and let's play nice.

"in" -- the chip (666) under the skin.

"on" -- the bar code (666).

Which one is right according to Revelation 13:16?

Any idea?