Neither, IMNSHO
In vs On
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Rufus_1611, Aug 30, 2007.
Page 2 of 3
-
-
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. -
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. :D
Ed -
-
"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. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Your confusion is quite evident, Salamander. But then you have never been ashamed to show your confusion for everyone to see. -
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.
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 -
-
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) -
-
Ed -
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 -
Page 2 of 3