Return to Question

πας ο παραβαινων και μη μενων εν τη διδαχη του χριστου θεον ουκ εχει ο μενων εν τη διδαχη του χριστου ουτος και τον πατερα και τον υιον εχει

II John 1:9 TR - Stephens 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624 and Scrivener 1894 are all identical.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. [KJV.]

John the Apostle here says that whoso “abideth” in the doctrine of Christ “hath” both the Father and the Son.

I am interested in the words “abideth” and “hath” and the relationship, grammatically and linguistically, between them. Abiding and having seem to me to be fundamental concepts.

It does not seem to me, that this is a matter of merely having intellectual knowledge of a subject and thereby possessing some kind of mental ability.

I would appreciate some assistance with the meaning and the force of the original Greek.

πας ο παραβαινων και μη μενων εν τη διδαχη του χριστου θεον ουκ εχει ο μενων εν τη διδαχη του χριστου ουτος και τον πατερα και τον υιον εχει

II John 1:9 TR - Stephens 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624 and Scrivener 1894 are all identical. See Textus Receptus Bibles.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. [KJV.]

John the Apostle here says that whoso “abideth” in the doctrine of Christ “hath” both the Father and the Son.

I am interested in the words “abideth” and “hath” and the relationship, grammatically and linguistically, between them. Abiding and having seem to me to be fundamental concepts.

It does not seem to me, that this is a matter of merely having intellectual knowledge of a subject and thereby possessing some kind of mental ability.

I would appreciate some assistance with the meaning and the force of the original Greek.

πας ο παραβαινων και μη μενων εν τη διδαχη του χριστου θεον ουκ εχει ο μενων εν τη διδαχη του χριστου ουτος και τον πατερα και τον υιον εχει

II John 1:9 TR - Stephens 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624 and Scrivener 1894 are all identical.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. ^{KJV, ©1769}

John the Apostle here says that whoso “abideth” in the doctrine of Christ “hath” both the Father and the Son.

I am interested in the words “abideth” and “hath” and the relationship, grammatically and linguistically, between them. Abiding and having seem to me to be fundamental concepts.

It does not seem to me, that this is a matter of merely having intellectual knowledge of a subject and thereby possessing some kind of mental ability.

I would appreciate some assistance with the meaning and the force of the original Greek.

πας ο παραβαινων και μη μενων εν τη διδαχη του χριστου θεον ουκ εχει ο μενων εν τη διδαχη του χριστου ουτος και τον πατερα και τον υιον εχει

II John 1:9 TR - Stephens 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624 and Scrivener 1894 are all identical.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. [KJV.]

John the Apostle here says that whoso “abideth” in the doctrine of Christ “hath” both the Father and the Son.

I am interested in the words “abideth” and “hath” and the relationship, grammatically and linguistically, between them. Abiding and having seem to me to be fundamental concepts.

It does not seem to me, that this is a matter of merely having intellectual knowledge of a subject and thereby possessing some kind of mental ability.

I would appreciate some assistance with the meaning and the force of the original Greek.

^Θʹ πᾶς ὁ παραβαίνων καὶ μὴ μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ οὗτος καὶ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ^{TR, 1550}

^{Stephens 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624 and Scrivener 1894 are all identical.}

⁹ Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. ^{KJV, ©1769}

John the Apostle here says that whoso “abideth” in the doctrine of Christ “hath” both the Father and the Son.

I am interested in the words “abideth” and “hath” and the relationship, grammatically and linguistically, between them. Abiding and having seem to me to be fundamental concepts.

It does not seem to me, that this is a matter of merely having intellectual knowledge of a subject and thereby possessing some kind of mental ability.

I would appreciate some assistance with the meaning and the force of the original Greek.

πας ο παραβαινων και μη μενων εν τη διδαχη του χριστου θεον ουκ εχει ο μενων εν τη διδαχη του χριστου ουτος και τον πατερα και τον υιον εχει

II John 1:9 TR - Stephens 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624 and Scrivener 1894 are all identical.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. ^{KJV, ©1769}

John the Apostle here says that whoso “abideth” in the doctrine of Christ “hath” both the Father and the Son.

I am interested in the words “abideth” and “hath” and the relationship, grammatically and linguistically, between them. Abiding and having seem to me to be fundamental concepts.

It does not seem to me, that this is a matter of merely having intellectual knowledge of a subject and thereby possessing some kind of mental ability.

I would appreciate some assistance with the meaning and the force of the original Greek.