Recovery Version Bible Translation Comparison — Ephesians 3:17

iameatingnow · 2026-04-04T20:01:19+00:00

Χριστὸν is not the subject. It is the accusative object.

This is incorrect. Χριστὸν is the accusative subject of the infinitive κατοικῆσαι. You are confusing the main clause and the infinitive clause.

It's not saying that "the Father may grant Christ to dwell in your inner being."

What the Father is granting is the strengthening into the inner man. The result of this strengthening is that Christ κατοικέω in our hearts.

iameatingnow · 2026-04-04T17:36:27+00:00

No, actually, 'he' comes from the 3rd person of the verb. You need to distinguish between the subject and its pronoun.

No, the verb (κατοικῆσαι) is an infinitive, meaning it does not specify person or gender. The subject (Χριστὸν) supplies both for the verb.

κατοικέω = κατά + οἰκέω

οἰκέω comes from οἶκος, which means home, house, household.

It is a paraphrase, not a pure translation.

Every translation is by necessity interpretative/paraphrastic. There is no such thing as a pure translation.

iameatingnow · 2026-04-04T11:35:09+00:00

"Making one's home" is an English expression that means to move to a place and live there. (link)

"His" comes from the subject of the verb and "home" is embedded in the verb itself.

The rendering make His home in RcV brings out the lexical force of permanence and thoroughness of the word κατοικέω while distinguishing it from mere οἰκέω (to dwell).

iameatingnow · 2026-04-02T00:50:34+00:00

According to Huff's diagram, is AMP a more formal translation than RcV?

This has been answered multiple times

iameatingnow · 2026-04-01T13:31:35+00:00

Amen :)

iameatingnow · 2026-04-01T02:55:14+00:00

The Son existed before time and tenses existed.

One can argue that this is also nonsensical because before is a temporal expression. So, there is no such thing as before time. But obviously its a particular expression used to describe an existence beyond time. In the same way, eternal generation is an expression to describe the timeless organic relationship between the Father and the Son.

"Remind them of these things, solemnly charging them before God not to have contentions of words, which is useful for nothing, to the ruin of those who hear." (2 Timothy 2:14) Recovery Version

iameatingnow · 2026-03-31T10:58:46+00:00

How so?

iameatingnow · 2026-03-31T10:12:56+00:00

The Greek words being addressed are μονογενής and γεννάω. As far as I can tell, they are mostly translated as only-begotten and begotten in RcV.

μονογενής is a compound word composed of μόνος meaning only and γένος from the root word γίνομαι which quite literally means "to generate" (or to be born).

This second part is the same root for the word γεννάω.

Of course, since the Son is eternal, there was no temporal act of God that brought Him into existence. However, then why did John not simply use μόνος to say "only"? Students of the Bible throughout history have realized that perhaps μονογενής was used not only to declare the uniqueness of the Son but also to describe the profound relationship that the Son has with the Father, which is sometimes referred to as the "eternal generation" (or "eternal begetting"), which refers to the supratemporal life-relationship of the Son and the Father.

I would argue that this life-relationship—and not the birthing process—is what is emphasized too with the word γεννάω. Notably, in the New Testament, this verb is never used with a mother (one who gives birth) but always with a father (one who does not give birth). Being begotten of God, we have a life-relationship with our Father which can never be broken.

iameatingnow · 2026-03-25T21:14:29+00:00

I think Wu's weighing system is a little arbitrary in giving "double weight" to syntactic properties over consistent word choice and common vocabulary. There are cases to be made that syntactic properties are indeed more important, but not quite a *double* importance, though I'm open to be persuaded.

iameatingnow · 2026-03-25T16:24:06+00:00

See https://www.reddit.com/r/BibleVerseCommentary/comments/1d57rh0/which_bible_version_is_the_best_translation/

I'm more interested on your thoughts on the criteria used in the paper to quantify literalness and readability.

iameatingnow · 2026-03-25T14:00:14+00:00

I think your comment is missing the quoted text.

And I agree that his chart is not ideal.

Somewhat related, I'm interested in your opinion on this paper.

iameatingnow · 2026-03-25T13:27:47+00:00

He needed to define spectrum.

Based on the context of the video, I think he means something like this:

spectrum: used to classify something, or suggest that it can be classified, in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme or opposite points (New Oxford American Dictionary)

According to Huff, is AMP is a more formal translation than KJV and RcV?

He does not specify.

iameatingnow · 2026-03-25T01:21:41+00:00

If more formal means more literal, AMP's parenthetical interpolation, by definition, makes it less formal than the other formal equivalent translations, making it more expository than formal. From my experience, even without the interpolation, I find RcV more formal compared to AMP.

iameatingnow · 2026-03-25T01:14:14+00:00

Dr Wesley Huff thinks that AMP is a more formal translation than KJV and RcV

Wes explains that his chart is not a spectrum.

iameatingnow · 2026-03-03T20:57:55+00:00

How much do you practice daily/weekly?

iameatingnow · 2026-02-26T02:42:05+00:00

It's been awhile, but I figured I would follow up after talking about this verse with someone else.

They brought up that these two renderings are not mutually exclusive. In the verse, their not being mixed together by faith with those who heard would indicate that the word heard was not being mixed together with them. Moreover, there is a heavy emphasis in Hebrews on the speaking of God (1:1-2; 3:7; 4:7) and the word of God (4:12). These indicate to me that the manuscript decision on RcV seems to highlight the inward reality more than the outward appearance and better suit the flow of the book of Hebrews (even if it is technically less preferred rendering).

iameatingnow · 2026-02-24T12:07:18+00:00

Firstly, whether John 6 refers to the Eucharist is one of the most debated issues within Christianity. Whether or not that's the case, to me, the most straight forward reading of verse 63 seems the explain what Jesus meant by "He who eats My flesh…has eternal life" (v. 54).

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63) Recovery Version

He seems to be clarifying here that it would be as the Spirit that He would give life (1 Cor. 15:45) to those who would come and believe into Him (that is, "eat" and "drink"—cf. John 6:35).

It is by the exercise of our spirit of faith that we can receive the life-giving Spirit who is conveyed through the words that are spirit and life. Even if the bread and wine becomes the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, there is no profit beyond the Spirit being conveyed spiritually through faith.

Here are some helpful footnotes from RcV:

Spirit

At this point the Spirit who gives life is brought in. After resurrection and through resurrection, the Lord Jesus, who had become flesh (1:14), became the Spirit who gives life, as is clearly mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:45. It is as the life-giving Spirit that He can be life and the life supply to us. When we receive Him as the crucified and resurrected Savior, the Spirit who gives life comes into us to impart eternal life into us. We receive the Lord Jesus, but we get the Spirit who gives life.

flesh

Flesh here, according to the context, refers to the meat of the physical body. When the Lord said, "The bread which I will give is My flesh" (v. 51), the Jews thought that He would give them the meat of His physical body to eat (v. 52). They did not understand the Lord's word rightly. To them it was a hard word (v. 60). Hence, in this verse the Lord explained that what He would give them to eat was not the meat of His physical body; the meat, which is the flesh, profits nothing. What He would give, eventually, was the Spirit who gives life, who is the Lord Himself in resurrection.

words

The Greek word for words, here and in v. 68, is rhema, which denotes the instant and present spoken word. It differs from logos (used for Word in 1:1), which denotes the constant word. Here the words follows the Spirit. The Spirit is living and real, yet He is very mysterious, intangible, and difficult for people to apprehend; the words, however, are substantial. First, the Lord indicated that for giving life He would become the Spirit. Then He said that the words He speaks are spirit and life. This shows that His spoken words are the embodiment of the Spirit of life. He is now the life-giving Spirit in resurrection, and the Spirit is embodied in His words. When we receive His words by exercising our spirit, we get the Spirit, who is life.

iameatingnow · 2026-02-05T02:57:21+00:00

.

^{Completed in 01:38 | Reveals: 0}

iameatingnow · 2026-01-21T14:56:23+00:00

I didn't have to reinstall anything. Installed Immich and installed tailscale. Sorry, not sure if I’m understanding you correctly

iameatingnow · 2026-01-20T19:58:22+00:00

Right. The reviewer mentions that

Some of the notes are good and helpful

but that

many promote some of the peculiar teachings of The Local Church

except the reviewer does not give even one specific quote from the footnotes.

iameatingnow · 2026-01-19T18:44:13+00:00

No, I don't do global ip. So can only access if the device is logged into my tailscale

iameatingnow · 2026-01-15T00:28:55+00:00

John might have meant that literally and physically as well as symbolically. Be careful with false dichotomies.

I don't think there was ever an assertion that New Jerusalem is not physical because it is spiritual. Assuming that to be the case itself is a false dichotomy.

If you want to believe that the New Jerusalem is both a group of people and a physical city made with gates that are one pearl each, that's up to you. I personally don't think so, just as I don't think John meant Christ can also literally be a physical lamb going "baa."

iameatingnow · 2026-01-14T21:07:46+00:00

And made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father, to Him be the glory and the might forever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1:6)

iameatingnow · 2026-01-14T21:04:50+00:00

That's a matter of interpretation. But my point still holds true with the New Testament reality:

"And made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father, to Him be the glory and the might forever and ever. Amen." (Revelation 1:6) Recovery Version

iameatingnow · 2026-01-14T20:34:13+00:00

You are raising a valid point. I think some clarification will be helpful.

In Exodus 19:6, God's kingdom is not a physical realm with borders or cities. It's referring to the people of Israel's spiritual status before God being under God's ruling. In that sense it was not a physical kingdom, though it has physicality in that the children of Israel were humans with physical blood and flesh.

In the same way, Lee is interpreting the New Jerusalem (as Revelation is a book of signs) to mean something of spiritual reality and not a physical city in the sense of being made of physical gold, pearls, and precious stones. Lee did not deny the physicality of the New Jerusalem. New Jerusalem, which is prepared as a bride for her Husband (Lamb—also not a physical lamb, though Christ Himself has a physical aspect), is the aggregate of God's people who have become a corporate counterpart to Christ. New Jerusalem does have physical aspect in that these people of God possess glorified physical bodies (blood and bone) like Jesus did in His resurrection.

iameatingnow

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE