05/9/23

Passionately NOT a Bible Translation!

Image: Broadstreet Publishing/YouTube

At the beginning of February 2022, Bible Gateway removed The Passion Translation (TPT) from its listing of 90 English-language translations. TPT was first released as a New Testament in 2017 with the intent to “recapture the emotion of God’s Word.” The removal itself raised passions for and against the action by HarperCollins, Bible Gateway’s parent company. Brian Simmons, identified as the lead translator for The Passion Translation by Broadstreet Publishing, provocatively said: “Cancel culture is alive in the church world.” Is this true, or has the church world, beginning with Bible Gateway, simply had enough of Simmons’ outrageous rhetoric?

Let’s focus on the above linked Facebook post, where Simmons alluded to Bible Gateway’s decision as coming from “cancel culture.” There, Simmons referred to an unnamed critic “who paid scholars to trash TPT, so now we’re off.” This unnamed critic is, in fact, Mike Winger, a Calvary Chapel-trained pastor who has an online ministry called BibleThinker. It is “a ministry dedicated to helping you learn to think biblically about everything.” At the bottom of BibleThinker’s homepage is a link for “The Passion Project” that takes you to everything Winger posted on The Passion Translation.

Winger also has a YouTube channel where he streams his podcasts, and on April 28, 2020 he announced the (then) future Passion Project in “I’ve kept this project a secret… until today.” You can watch it from BibleThinker or from Winger’s YouTube channel. He identified Simmons as the sole translator of the work, despite Broadstreet’s assertions to the contrary, which calls him merely the lead translator. He said while it sells millions of copies, TPT has a lot of serious issues. “Believers just a lot of the time are not aware of how much it radically changes the text of Scripture and makes them think that the Bible is saying things that it isn’t saying.”

Winger said in places TPT adds theology into the text that doesn’t belong there; adding words without telling the reader these words or phrases “are not there in the original language.” Simmons says he is appealing to the Aramaic, supposedly to the “original Aramaic”, when there is no original Aramaic that he can appeal to. The New Testament was written in Greek; and nearly all the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. Only 268 verses of the Bible were written in Aramaic.

Its popularity increased dramatically with endorsements from well known, public figures and pastors in what he called the signs and wonder movement. In a post on his Facebook page on December 10, 2020, Winger said: “TPT presents itself as being a translation that does not reflect the views of any denomination or tradition within Christendom. That claim goes a long way toward convincing people that it’s not a skewed version of the Bible.” But the endorsements show that claim was false: “TPT is skewed toward a hyper-charismatic perspective.”

When explaining why he did his Passion Project, Winger said he realized that scholars who have the credentials to look at a translation and say, with some credibility, whether or not a translation like TPT should be used weren’t paying attention to it. I’d suggest that was probably because they didn’t tend to worship at churches in the signs and wonders movement.

These guys are not generally paying attention to The Passion Translation. They’re not interacting with it; they see it as just this sort of weird kind of translation. They’re not really giving it the time of day. But I can get the attention of scholars because of the platform God’s given me online. . . I can reach large numbers of people online. I can create a bridge between the scholarship and the normal people.

It is true that Winger paid several bible scholars to critique specific books of the Bible, such as the Song of Songs, Galatians, Ephesians, Romans and 1 Corinthians. He thought he could get some scholars to evaluate and produce a significant number of papers dealing with TPT. His plan was to hire a number of well-respected scholars, “And have them each evaluate different books of TPT. They’re going to each write papers on their evaluations.” Winger planned to give those papers to his audience for free, which he did do (see them on BibleThinker). He also put together video interviews with each scholar, “where they summarize … as objective as possible, their conclusions about TPT.”

He thought that would be the kind of resource that would answer all the questions someone may have about TPT. Because the critique would be coming from different scholars, “who all have credentials in their fields and they even specialize in the books that I’m assigning to them to do … you can’t think that it’s the bias of one individual.” He added that Brian Simmons and his supporters tended to dismiss critiques by saying the person has an axe to grind; or they don’t believe in the gifts of the Spirit; or they paid scholars to trash TPT. Winger said: “I believe in the gifts, so you can’t apply that to me. But that is the accusation that comes out.”

Winger noted there have been a few scholars who have critiqued TPT, typically saying “pretty negative things about it.” What has happened is Brian Simmons changed the translation in order to dodge the criticism. He calls it a dodge because while Simmons changes the examples pointed out by the scholars, he doesn’t change the problem throughout the translation. So, this means that an individual paper, even presented by a credible scholar, misses the mark. “Because, six months later there’s a new addition to The Passion out and it doesn’t have those verses that were critiqued.”

“By having scholars analyze multiple different books, showing that there’s not just a few weird verses, but there are pervasive problems with the translation that’s going to get the job done.” One of the most disturbing claims made by Simmons is how he was specially chosen by God for this translation project.

Winger said (in Everything Wrong With The Passion Translation in Colossians), “In my opinion, this is a fraud that has been perpetrated on the people of God, and it’s making one man very rich and famous, while changing God’s Word so much, that it is becoming the word of Brian Simmons.” Simmons claims God supernaturally gave him the spirit of revelation and secrets of Hebrew and Greek that he put into TPT. That he is unlocking the Bible and bringing revival. Simmons says,

It wasn’t a dream. It was a wonderful encounter I had at two in the morning, in an upstairs bedroom, where the one I love came and gave me this commission to do the translation process. He breathed on me so that I would do the project; and I felt downloads coming. Instantly, I received downloads. It was like I got a chip put inside of me. I got a connection inside of me to hear Him better; to understand the Scriptures better. And hopefully to translate. He promised He would give me new understanding, and new, fresh revelation from His Word. And immediately, He gave me downloads. Immediately, I began to receive a supernatural download of insight and revelation that has continued to this day. I had a visitation and I was given the commission by the Lord as He breathed on me, and released me; and called me to translate the Bible. I discovered and uncovered so many mysteries and glory realms in the book of Psalms, it will take your breath away. I believe God gave me the key to the book of Proverbs. The Lord showed me it’s the homonymic structure of Hebrew that is going to be the key to understanding revelation in the last days, including the book of Revelation, which you haven’t gotten yet, honestly. I’m mega understating it. God really helped me do this translation. He promised that he would give me secrets that had not been disclosed; the secrets of the Lord. He’s beginning to share them with me and I’d like to share them with you. I’ve made some discoveries … I don’t know who to talk to. I mean I’m finding out all the secrets and translating. Every time I open the Bible, I get fresh insight. It speaks to me; it goes beyond the mind. I get dreams and revelation from the Lord, that is clear and prophetic. So, I believe … I got baptized in the spirit of revelation in that library room of heaven. And He’s revealing Himself in this hour like never before. The Word of God is coming alive to us. It’s like we’re getting a brand new bible, isn’t it.

The above quotes were excerpted from various videos that Mike Winger has of Brian Simmons sayings these things. Not textual quotes, but video of various talks Simmons made. They are in the “Everything Wrong With The Passion Translation in Colossians” video available on BibleThinker. Alex Hewitt concluded in that video, that “Simmons has so radically altered the text of Scripture, that what you have, is not Scripture in your hands. It contains scriptural truths; it contains many of the ideas that the Bible communicates, but what you’re holding in your hands does not qualify as Scripture.”

The publishers of TPT, Broadstreet Publishing, make the claim that Brian Simmons is a linguist, who co-translated the Paya-Kuna New Testament for the Paya-Kuna people of Panama. But Simmons is not a linguist and he did not help translate the New Testament into the Paya-Kuna language. In this short YouTube video, “Is Brian Simmons Qualified to Make the Passion Translation?,” he claims to have had some linguistic training, but he didn’t. Don Pederson of Ethnos 360, the new name of New Tribes Mission, said, “Brian is not a linguist of any sort.” He was a church planter; not a translator.

Jerry McDaniels of Ethnos 360 said, “Nobody in our mission would ever say that he’s a bible translator or was approved as a bible translator.” Simmons said they had completed their translation work by the late 1980s, but the Paya-Kuna NT was not published until 1995. The Paya-Kuna translation was not completed while Simmons served with NTM. Pederson said, “Brian was not what he claimed and that NTM/Ethnos 360 did not agree with his doctrinal positions nor did we follow his approach to translation.” He added to Mike Winger:

My wife and I knew Brian and his wife Candy when we were in missionary training together in 1977. As you surmised, Brian is not a linguist of any sort. Even back then, he was prone to go on fringe doctrinal detours. It was because of this that he left NTM back in the 80’s (possibly dismissed—I’m not certain).

In “Bible Gateway Removes The Passion Translation,” Christianity Today wrote Simmons and his wife helped develop a new Bible translation, but not to the extent he alleges. The bottom line is Brian Simmons is not what he claims to be and the TPT is not really a translation. Bible Gateway had good reasons to justify its removal. Some of the scholars you can listen to on BibleThinker hesitate to even refer to it as a paraphrase. Please do not take my word for it, listen to them.

Listen to some of the video interviews with the biblical scholars; read some of their papers. Listen to some of Winger’s other TPT videos. Do this particularly if you have been drawn to TPT. All Scripture is God-breathed, according to 2 Timothy 3:16. The Passion Translation does not rise to that standard.

Originally posted on February 15, 2022.

02/23/21

“Unpunishable” is Unpalatable, Part 4

© mariogic | 123rf.com

In chapter 6 of Unpunishable, “Discipline in the New Testament,” Danny Silk opened with an anecdote of a situation where his sixteen-year-old son stayed out all night. Silk’s assessment of story was that it illustrated discipline, not punishment. He said although the two words are often used interchangeably, “biblically they are completely different experiences that produce very different results.” He then referenced another anecdote from chapter 1 with a pastoral staff member of his home church of Bethel who had committed adultery … twice. The man assessed what happened to him as a contrast between punishment and discipline: “When the first affair happened, I was punished . . . The second time, I was disciplined.” Silk then quoted a passage in Hebrews, saying it was a famous passage on discipline, showing us “what, how and why we learn,” and yet again his interpretation of the passage was biblically unpalatable.

Silk began by saying the word discipline comes from the same word as disciple, meaning learner. He seems to be drawing on the English meaning of the word. Merriam-Webster said discipline comes from discipulus, the Latin word for pupil, which also was the source for the word disciple. However, dicipline can mean punish or chastise as well as teach or train. In fact, the earliest known use of discipline appears to be punishment-related. It was first used in the 13th century to refer to chastisement of a religious nature, such as self-flagellation.

The English sense of discipline does not have a stark difference from the word punishment, at least as Silk uses the two terms in his discussion of the punishment paradigm. But he claimed there were biblical differences that produce very different results. So, let’s look at Hebrews 12:1-11, which he referred to as the famous passage on discipline. He quoted from the Passion Translation, a paraphrase favored by Bill Johnson, a senior leader of Bethel Church.

Note first that he edited out the beginning of verse 1 and completely left verses 2 and 9-10 out of his quote. The initial part of verse 1 (TPT) edited out was: “As for us, we have all these great witnesses who encircle us like clouds.” As Silk is using the passage to support his sense of discipline, it seems he edited out the reference to the “great cloud of witnesses” in chapter 11 in order to center the passage on the point he wanted to illustrate.

Verse 2 in the Passion Translation translated a phrase as “conquered its humiliation” that in the ESV is given as “despising the shame.” This may be the reason for editing out verse 2, as the footnote in the Passion Translation said the Greek meaning is “thinking of its shame.” The Louw-Nida lexicon said the Greek word used here means “a painful feeling due to the consciousness of having done or experienced something disgraceful—‘shame, disgrace.’ Silk connected shame with Adam and Eve realizing they were naked as the consequence of their sin of eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The core belief of his punishment paradigm is shame-based.

In the section of Unpunishable where he quoted Hebrews 12, “Punishment vs. Discipline,” Silk is contrasting the two, punishment and discipline. Quoting a verse that even obliquely alluded to shame would confuse the point he was trying to make, so it seems he did not include it. See Part 1 for more discussion on shame and its relationship to the core belief of the punishment paradigm.

Excluding verses 9-10 seems to have a similar intent, as the verses compare the discipline of God and human fathers. In verse 9, the comparison is an a fortiori argument, from the lesser to the greater: if we respected our earthly fathers who disciplined us, how much more should we respect God our Heavenly Father. In verse 10, the comparison is between temporal and eternal discipline: our earthly discipline has value in this world, but God’s discipline is eternal, for a life that never ends. The verses suggest a greater and lesser discipline, or a temporal and eternal one. The nuance does not fit with the stark contrast Silk wants to portray between punishment and discipline.

After giving his edited quote of Hebrews 12:1-11, Silk said: “The first thing to notice here is that in the new covenant, discipline is a relational exchange between the Father and His children.” Although we do experience discipline by human authority figures, that discipline only functions correctly when those figures accurately represent the heart of the Father. Silk wants to position his sense of discipline in the new covenant as fundamentally between us and the Father. The second thing to see is that the Father’s goal in this exchange is “to heal us of our wounds, train us to overcome sin, and transform our character.”

In other words, in the new covenant, discipline is focused on benefitting the person who has made the mess. In the punishment paradigm, the focus in on protecting the interests of everyone but the offender. . . . This is His process for helping His kids unlearn the punishment paradigm and rebuild their lives in His punishment-free relational paradigm of love, trust, and freedom. Where else can He best show us that His heart is not to punish us, but to remove our shame, forgive us, free us from the fear of punishment, and lead us into loving, safe connection with Him than in our messes and mistakes?

Silk wants to represent his punishment paradigm as the antithesis of Godly discipline. Discipline is what happens in progressive sanctification, as the Father seeks to heal and transform us. Punishment occurs when we are disconnected from the Father, and as a result, strive to avoid punishment, making self-preservation our priority. On page 108, he presented the following as a basic breakdown of the stark differences between punishment and discipline.

Punishment Discipline
Upholding the rules Restoring the relationship
Pain is inflicted/imposed Pain is embraced
Worldly sorrow Godly sorrow
Repentance is irrelevant Repentance is essential
Forgiveness is irrelevant Forgiveness is essential
Requires submission of control Requires responsibility, self-control
Stopping bad behavior Transforming heart
Good behavior is compliance and manipulative Good behavior is fruit of love
Powerless Powerful
Fear-driven Love-driven
Goal of self-preservation Goal of connection
External law Internal law

In summary, it is clear Silk sees an antithetical contrast between punishment and discipline as he describes the punishment paradigm. He said that biblically, they were different experiences, producing very different results. His comment that the word discipline comes from the same word as disciple had some nuance that casts doubt on how he conceived the contrast between punishment and discipline. The Latin word discipulus was the source for disciple. Yet it could also mean punish or chastise. In the 13th century it was used to refer to religious chastisement, such as self-flagellation.

If as Silk said, there is a clear biblical difference between the two terms punishment and discipline, we should see this difference reflected in what he called “the famous passage on discipline,” Hebrews 12:1-11. The Passion Translation is problematic here with some key verses, 12:5b-6: “My child, don’t underestimate the value of the discipline and training of the Lord God, or get depressed when he has to correct you. For the Lord’s training of your life is the evidence of his faithful love. And when he draws you to himself, it proves you are his delightful child.” The Passion Translation said in a footnote that the phrase “draws you to himself” means scourges or chastises in the Greek, but then seems to improperly derive its meaning from the Aramaic word nagad, which can mean “scourge” or “draw.”

There is absolutely no justification for incorporating an Aramaic word into the text here. All other translations Silk uses in Unpunishable, the NIV, the NKJV, and the NASB translate the word in Hebrews 12:6 as chastens or scourges. The Greek word used here in Hebrews 12:6 is mastigoi, which means to chastise or punish with discipline in mind. Used in John 19:1, it has the sense of flog or scourge: “And Pilate took Jesus and flogged him.” The Theological Word Book of the New Testament said mastigoi was used in Hebrews 12:6 to mean to impart corrective punishment. “As the education of a beloved child may sometimes demand blows, so God may sometimes smite His children.”

The Greek word translated as discipline in the Passion Translation, the ESV and the NIV, is paideia, which is derived from pias, meaning “child.” It is not derived from mathetes, meaning disciple, as Silk suggested. David Allen, in his commentary on Hebrews said paideia’s meaning can range between training and corporal punishment: “Generally speaking, it refers to education in Greek tradition and to discipline by punishment in Hebrew tradition. Allen added the following comments:

Sometimes, however, God employs chastising hardships to punish sin in our lives. Along with discipline, God employs fatherly correction. This is not to be thought of as the damning wrath of God, but rather as the corrective punishment of a parent. Verse 6 tells us of these heavenly spankings: “[He] chastises every son whom he receives.” The key word is mastigoi, which means scourging or whipping as an intense form of punishment. If we think God would never do that, we are obviously mistaken. While we are not judicially punished by God as Judge—Christ having borne all the penalty of our sin on the cross—God as Father gives painful, corrective punishment the way any loving parent does, because he wants us to grow up the right way. Many Christians have gratefully testified that the only way God got through to them in their sin and stubbornness was to allow a painful ordeal—the loss of a job, a severe illness, persecution for their faith. Eventually they recognized this as a sign of fatherly care, the kind that only beloved children receive from God.

Allen is not alone in this opinion. In his commentary on Hebrews, Paul Ellingworth also said the meaning of paideia ranges between training and corporal punishment: “Broadly speaking, the Greek tradition emphasized paideia as education, whereas the Hebrew tradition stressed the positive value of (especially God’s) discipline of his people by punishment.” Ellingworth further said:

In Hebrews, as in Proverbs, paideia is explicitly seen as including unpleasant elements; indeed, the theme is introduced because the readers are experiencing the pain of persecution; yet the physical aspect of parental discipline conveyed by mastigoi is not mentioned in the exposition.

An antithetical contrast between discipline and punishment does not exist in Hebrews 12:1-11, nor does it seem to be supported by the meanings attributed to paideia or mastigoi. Instead of biblically being “completely different experiences that produce very different results,” they appear to be biblically complementary.

Silk’s belief system regarding the punishment paradigm cannot be said to have a biblical warrant to support it. As he attempted to demonstrate the biblical reality of his concepts, he disregarded the clear biblical theological significance of Romans 1, claiming the full arc of the biblical story was to set us free from the punishment paradigm. He read the core belief of the punishment paradigm into the text, ignoring how it called for our need for a Savior because of original sin and rebellion in the Fall. Blinded by his belief system, he imputed it into his interpretation of the Genesis story of Adam and Eve, and the Fall. As a result, he ignored or missed the hope that was inserted in the story by God Himself, the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15. I believe Silk failed in his attempt to present Unpunishable as a biblical way to lead people in repentance, reconciliation and restoration.

Read other sections of this article, “Unpunishable is Unpalatable” here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.