In vs On

Neither, IMNSHO

 

The ONLY fact that matters is that it'll be there.

COULD be in, COULD be on, COULD be both.

How could it be both? COULD be a computer chip imbedded in the flesh, with parta it at the skin surface.

This whole thingie is "much ado about nothing", another KJVO flop.

 

Since you were the one who made the supposed distinction between "believe "in"" and "believe "on"", and declared that one who only "believe ""in"" is not saved, and did not cite a particular verse, I did not make any jump, by quoting a particular verse. [I cannot read minds, if you happen to mean some other verse (or verses), and do not state such.]

Frankly, I think I'll take the words of Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John, to name four, over any poster on the BB. The issue is not the "declarative" vs. the "nominative", at all, as both "in him" and "on him" are prepositional phrases, and hence, "him" is "objective" .

Furthermore, the phrases "believe in Him", "believe on Him", "believeth in Him", and "believeth on Him" all occur in the KJV. And they all speak of being saved, in at least some instances. (Rom. 10:13-15; I Tim. 1:15-17; Jo. 5:23-25; Jo. 3:15-18)

But not every time the above phrases are spoken, are they always necessarily referring to being saved, either, except for the phrase "believeth in Him", which does always refer to being saved. (Jo. 7:4-6, 38-40; I Pet. 2:5-7 cp. Jo. 3:14-18; Acts 10:42-44)

I do happen to know a bit about the English language, you see. That is why I am a.k.a. the Language Cop.

Ed

 

I don't know if it's "in" or "on", but I can guess why it's either the hand or forehead. If you don't have a hand, it can go on your forehead. If you don't have a forehead, the mark probably isn't necessary.

 

There is no indication this verse should be spiritualized. Therefore, the verse should be taken literally.

"On" is correct as it more accurately reflects what was written by John. "In" is incorrect as it does not accurately reflect what John wrote.

 

Sounds like good, sound reasoning....

 

Uh, Salamander, the point is not how something is written in English, but how it was written in its original language. Getting something right in English doesn't necessarily mean that is how it was written in Greek. You've been around BB long enough you should know this simple truth by now.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

I know this is just random speculation, but the thing I think of when I hear "mark" is a tattoo. Pigments are injected in the skin, but are visible and applied from the outside. "In" or "on" would make sense with a tattoo as well.

 

Well, the satellite can't read the bar code, "ON", on the skin, but it can find the chip by its scan. For example, a prisoner has the chip "IN" under his skin. When he escaped from the prison in NY and hid in Calif, the satellite can find him by the scan and reports the location then a prisoner will be caught immediately.

 

The only salvation according to John 3 is the nominative.

 

The only problem you have with that is the mark is something within the heart and mind of the believer and not a physical mark. Thus your reference to the Greek is holding to the letter of the law and causes you to fail to undertsnd the implications of the passage.

 

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.

 

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.]

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.

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.

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

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

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

 

Not sure whether your examples are American or British, but those four uses of the word "on" are all used here in the UK, though perhaps we'd more likely say "What time's the service?" than "What time is church on?"

 

True, and anyway, it seems to me that the Greek word "eis" is sometimes translated "in" and sometimes "on". In John 3.16 it is "in":

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. (AV/KJV)

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. (NKJV)​

In Acts 19.4, that same Greek word is translated as "on":

Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (AV/KJV)

Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." (NKJV)​

 

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?

 

The oft-quoted statement of Papias about Matthew notwithstanding, what parts of the NT are written in a language other than Greek, aside from an occasional word 'imported' from the Hebrew, Latin or Aramaic? Don't you mean the OT, where parts of Daniel and Ezra are written in Aramaic?

Ed

 

Living in Ireland a long time now so these would be UK/Hibernian examples . This would be unusual uses to the pure American ear. My point was the even today the "on" may have slightly different connotations so perhaps the the 17th century readers "in" was more suitable than "on."

Again just a guess as to why the word was changed in later versions.

 

"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​

 

Sorry Ed, I just meant those few words like "Talitha, cumi!" I suppose I was trying to preempt someone replying and saying that not every single word of the NT was originally written in Greek. I was perhaps being over-cautious. Sorry for the confusion.