In vs On

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.

 

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.

 

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

Um, did you just flip me off?

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

I answered your objections and they remain unfounded.

:laugh: That was a classic

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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."

 

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.

(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, 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.

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.

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.

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 "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.

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".

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

Ed

 

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.

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.

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.

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:

 

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

 

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