Is it I John or 1 John?

Dr. Bob, your text is just "too too two" ... !

Haruo

 

I am seeing conspiracy all over this! After all, we can't let those number corruptors mess with the numbers in our bibles? We all know that Paul used Roman numerals (hey, he was a Roman!). So, if they were good enough for Paul, they are good enough for us.

What do you say we start a RNO (Roman Numerals Only) movement! Who wants to head that up?

 

I say there is a conspiracy! It's hit the medical profession, too.

For instance, it used to be "cranial nerves II-XII" for years and years! Now it is properly transcribed as "cranial nerves 2-12."

But the real reason behind all of this is simple: Younger people aren't apparently taught Roman numerals. So since those who do know them are getting older and dying off, that is the reason behind the change.

Interestingly, I've found some medical terminology being introduced into politics and military in recent years. Here are a few examples of what I mean:

"Exacerbation" of the problem

"Surgical" strikes

"Imbedded" reporters

"Extraction" of wounded

Don't remember this occurrence until Dr. Frist of Tennessee went to Capitol Hill as a Senator.

It's a sign of the changes in the verbiage of our times, Dr. Bob. You and I are just getting older and you know what they say about us, "old people don't like change."

 

from mesly in Ohio:

So, my favourite Scripture is
Job XIX : XXV

Or, should that be XIX : xxv

Or, xix:xxv

 

Even when using Arabic numerals in stead of Roman numerals, I still prefer to say "First John" rather than "One John." One John just sounds strange, besides being grammatically incorrect. It is the First Epistle of John, not the One Epistle of John, or the Two Epistle of John.

 

I was reading an older commentary yesterday on Zechariah, and the writer referred to Isaiah XlIII. I had to go ask for help and find out what that meant. It turned out to be the same thing as Isaiah XLIII, which I recognized. I had never seen lower case letters used in Roman numerals.

 

Aaah, now we are on to something. The year that commentary was written must have been the start of the numbering corruption. The lower case "L" is definitely a Satanic plot - ever so subtle, but it lead to the down fall of the use of the Roman Numeral system in our modern versions.

 

I always say First John and write it as 1 John. When I taught my kids the books of the Bible by singing them, it was 3 Johns, Jude and Revelation.

Blessings,
Sue

 

On my first typewriter there wasn't a 1 so I had to use "I" -- If I used "I" it only made sense to use "II" and for John's epistles "III" -- now that there is a 1 on my computer - I'll guess I'll use 2 and 3 as well.

The only time I've heard One John instead of First John is in the Ken Ham videos. But the bloke is from "down-under" so I guess that I'll have to forgive him for speaking so funny.

 

As long as nobody tries to throw in a (IV, 4, IIII, Fourth, 4th) John I'll try to keep up.
Date: IV/XIV/MMIII
Time: I:XVam (or is it AM or A.M. or a.m.)

 

We seem to say "One John" over here. Of course, if you want to be true to the original Greek, you ought to say "John Alpha, John Beta" etc

Yours in Christ

Matt