In vs On

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Rufus_1611, Aug 30, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    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,​
     
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    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
     
  4. kubel

    kubel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  5. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    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."
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    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.
     
  7. kubel

    kubel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    That was certainly the case with "at" and "out" (Matthew 23:24). It's a plausible explanation.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Probably doesn't make much difference.
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78

    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".
     
  10. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unless the context demands it, epi is usually "on or upon" in the NT.
     
  11. kubel

    kubel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  13. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    :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.

    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.
     
  14. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    You gotta' be kiddin'!!

    What are you [​IMG] ??

    Is it the peel of a [​IMG]?? Or is it somethin' stronger ?? :laugh: :laugh:

    Ed
     
  15. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dare to dream and so far so good ;)
     
  16. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
    #16 EdSutton, Aug 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2007
  17. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  18. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  19. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  20. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    "in" -- the chip (666) under the skin.

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

    Which one is right according to Revelation 13:16?

    Any idea?
     
    #20 Askjo, Aug 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...