In vs On

[Jerome]

From the Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. "in":

in ME. the distinction of in and on was gradually restored, though many traces of their former blending still remain. (See sense 2.)
The formal coincidence of in with the L. prep. in (with which it is originally cognate) led to its being employed, in translating from L., in senses or uses which were idiomatic in L., but not originally English. These also have affected the current contextual use of the preposition.

2. a. = ON (of position). Obs.
Partly a reaction from the blending of in with on in OE.; but partly also transl. L. in, and partly due to a different notion in reference to the n.

22. Formerly (and still sometimes) used, where at, on, during, for are now in use, or where the preposition is omitted.

32. The sense of motion or direction formerly gave rise to various modifications. [Cf. L. in with acc.] Obs. a. = upon, on.

 

[Salamander]

Please show us where in the book of Revelation we are told the mark of the beast is only figurative. Your problem, Salamander, is that you are seeking to spiritualize what is not said to be spiritual. You probably don't believe Christ will return to earth and reign 1000 years, either.:laugh:

Your confusion is quite evident, Salamander. But then you have never been ashamed to show your confusion for everyone to see.

Ok, so you are another of those who attempt, with futility, to UN-spiritualize the Bible.

You assume too much.

You think the devil is just stupid enough to allow the Book of Revelation to have within its pages a description of the mark of the beast and then have people run around with that mark in plain view for all the world to see. You underestimate the powers of darkness and are overtaken by him at his will in this particular area and are also unwise to his deceits.

I am glad I've got you to tell me what my problems are, I just wish you knew more of what you are talking about when you think you know it.

 

[Salamander]

And just what do you base this on, as opposed to just blithely making this declaration? The Greek language, now?
The word "salvation" does not even occur in John 3, nor do the words save, saves, saved, or any variation of them, with the single exception of a verb in subjunctive usage, in John 3:17. Here "might be saved" is 100% correctly rendered from the Gr. "sOthEi" (first aorist subjunctive), indicating 'potentiality'. "Saved" as it is a verb, cannot occur in the "nominative", as "nominative" is a case, and cases are for nouns. [One can find "salvation", and the only time that word is used by John in either his gospel or his epistles, in John 4:22, where it (soteria) is "feminine nominative singular", but that is not in the chapter you referenced.]

OK, so you don't associate being born again with salvation.:sleep:

However, your attempt to deflect from your original statement (for the second time), and BTW the only one I first questioned, per se, is still not going to 'fly' with me.

Um, did you just flip me off?

So I'll have to requote it (for now the third time), since it would appear you are either forgetting (or ignoring) what you actually said. The quote is from post # 13. Remember, you were the one who introduced this idea into the thread, as well. I have quoted Scripture to indicate that Scripture does not teach that, in the sense you are claiming in post #13 where I questioned your original statement (post #16), and in further detail in post #23, after you attempted to sidestep the issue, the first time.

Ok, so you think one can only rely in what Jesus Christ accomplished for everyone that believeth and not rely ON.

Yet you still do want to not answer my objections that I made from Scripture.I wonder why?

I answered your objections and they remain unfounded.

Actually, the English language of today does not distinguish between any cases, in its word endings.

:laugh: That was a classic

But you might be interested to know that like the Greek language, nouns in the Old English did have a true nominative case. This was defined by the endings of the words. However, to our knowledge (and unfortunately), there were no complete Scripture translations made in either Anglo/Saxon or Early English, but only small bits and pieces. Wyclif, with its Middle English, is the first complete version in 'English', and the other English Bibles we usually have access to, are all in more modern English, from the time of Tyndale forward.

(That group, in more modern English, includes your personal favorite, the KJV, and my own personal favorite, the NKJV. And BTW, I have previously mentioned that you, yourself and others who hold a similar viewpoint, are using what has pejoratively been referred to as an "MV", as well, even while simultaneously decrying others for doing the same thing.)

Language Cop

The only "decry" we make is the confusion that what we refer to as "MV's" cause. Your case in point is exactly why we continue to do so.

 

[Salamander]

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. Whether the "mark" is physical or spiritual or both, how does that alter the fact that the New Testament was originally written in Greek (with some Aramaic), and that it is therefore important to check which particular meaning of an English word in our translations is the one that best translates the Greek?

There the problem ensues.

We are not to determine what best translates the Greek, but we are to be busy about what best expresses the word of God.

To soley rely upon a singular language of men to understand what the Spirit saith is heading down a dead end.

The arguements will soon appear against advanced revelation and such, but men want the word of God to remain dead and not be alive as God will have it.

 

[Askjo]

"mark" Greek "charagma".

I've read and heard that this is what we would call a "brand".
Like on cattle, a give-away as to who the true owner is.

In ancient times (I have heard in more than one sermon) a recovered runaway slave was "branded" on the hand or forehead with a hot iron so that all would know.

How to apply this in the 21st century?

I think people "brand" themselves by both what they believe/think (symbolism of the forehead) and/or what they do (symbolized by the brand on the hand).

Perhaps it will become evident as the Day approaches.

2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.​

HankD​

Are you saying that the word, "in" on Rev 13:16 is wrong?

 

[TCGreek]

In Rev. 19:16 the KJV translated epi as "on" twice: "And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

 

[EdSutton]

OK, so you don't associate being born again with salvation.:sleep:

While this comment from you does not really merit a response, I'll give one anyway. In fact, I have already given it in post #16, which I will now quote.

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 (sic) "saved", don't you??

(Do you ever bother to actually read the posts, and see what is being said??) And this, once again, is an attempt by you to sidestep what I actually said, in this post you are supposedly replying to. There, I was answering a mis-statement by you as to the proper use of "nominative", and a mention of a word that does not occur in the chapter, you claimed. (And you were the one who said I needed to "Learn English!")

Um, did you just flip me off?

Um, No! I posted two emoticons that showed one shaking the index finger, that something was a "No-no!" Unless there is some new gesture that I'm not yet familiar with, in every instance I can recall where someone would "flip me off", it was not the index finger that was used.

Ok, so you think one can only rely in what Jesus Christ accomplished for everyone that believeth and not rely ON.

Once again, you are mis-stating what I have or have not said. [BTW, the word "rely" (or the phrase "rely on") does not occur, in any form in the NT in the NKJV. BTW, the word "rely" (or the phrase "rely on") does not occur, in any form in the NT in the KJV.] Same difference, here?? But the phrase "believe on..." occurs. And so does "believe in...". And I am claiming they are one and the same, in the Scriptural usage, and both are said to 'lead' to everlasting life, or salvation. I have already cited the verses where this is said to happen. But apparently I will have to quote some verses (in both versions), since once again, you apparently missed them. I'll embolden the appropriate words so as to help overcome poor eyesight, should you be so afflicted, which I genuinely hope is not the case.

14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? (Rom. 10:14 , NKJV)

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? (Rom. 10:14 , KJV)

16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. (I Tim. 1:16 , NKJV)

16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. (I Tim. 1:16 , KJV)

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. ( John. 5:24 , KJV)

24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. (John. 5:24 , NKJV)

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John. 3:14-18 , KJV)

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[a] have eternal life. 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. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:14-18 , NKJV)

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. (John 6:47, KJV)

47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me[a] has everlasting life. (John 6:47 , NKJV)

So which part of that is unclear, in either version? It seems perfectly clear to me in either version. Same difference! To "believe in Jesus" for salvation is to "believe on Jesus" for salvation.

I answered your objections and they remain unfounded.

Where did you answer what I just posted above? Remember you have got to answer Paul and Jesus, here, not me. I just repeated what they said.

The only "decry" we make is the confusion that what we refer to as "MV's" cause. Your case in point is exactly why we continue to do so.

The "confusion" here is not from me, nor does it arise from either the King James Version or the New King James Version. It arises from an attempted reading difference in what the KJV said, to fit some system of theology (usually an attempt to "backload" works into salvation, but that is for another forum. And it is here arising from a misunderstanding from the KJV (by "adding to the Word"), and not the KJV (or the NKJV), itself.

I am not attempting to indict you, here, but merely to show how easily this is often done (and I am sure I may have done the same, at times), and by those who are completely well-intentioned individuals, such as yourself. That occurred where you made this statement, in post #13.

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.

Scripture never says "devils" (demons) are capable of "believing "in" Jesus". What it does say is that the "devils" believe there is one God, and tremble at that, just as James has described some of his listeners, who also believe in "one God".

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (Jas. 2:19 , KJV)
19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! (Jas. 2:19 , NKJV)

There is all the difference in the world in being a "one god" monotheist: and "believing in/on Him (Jesus)" for salvation.

Ed

 

[Keith M]

Ok, so you are another of those who attempt, with futility, to UN-spiritualize the Bible.

The Bible is spiritual, Salamander. But everything in the Bible is not spiritual. By spiritualizing the Bible as you do, your next "revelation" will probably be that Jesus wasn't a real person, but only the Spirit of God on earth. Everything in the Bible cannot be spiritualized as you seem to think, Salamander.

You assume too much.

And you don't assume a thing, I suppose. Well, you also assume too much when you falsely claim the mark of the beast is spiritual.

You think the devil is just stupid enough to allow the Book of Revelation to have within its pages a description of the mark of the beast and then have people run around with that mark in plain view for all the world to see. You underestimate the powers of darkness and are overtaken by him at his will in this particular area and are also unwise to his deceits.

Uh, Salamander, Satan doesn't allow a thing to do with Scripture. Scripture came through the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and Satan had nothing to do with it. You're highly confused again.

I am glad I've got you to tell me what my problems are, I just wish you knew more of what you are talking about when you think you know it.

And I suppose you DO know what you're talking about, right? That's a hoot! You assume you know things you really don't have a clue about, Salamander. And yet you accuse someone else of thinking they know something. You're looking in the mirror again and getting yourself all confused.

:laugh:

 

[HankD]

Are you saying that the word, "in" on Rev 13:16 is wrong?

I'm not sure I would say its "wrong" askjo because in the 17th century prepositions then may have had subtle differences than now.

In any event I don't believe it is a "right" or "wrong" issue but what is better or best for the modern English speaker.

​

But after looking at the Greek "epi" of Revelation 13:16, I would say for a 21st century translation "on" or "upon" (as in the NKJV) would be the better choice than the 1611 choice of "in".

HankD

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

How in the world can a discussion over "in" vs "on" get personal?