Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
The Passion Translation: A Critique of the Critics (part 1)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2021
- The Passion Translation is a new translation (or paraphrase if you prefer) produced by Brian Simmons, a former missionary to Panama and former pastor in Connecticut. He began the project in 2011 after a visitation from the Lord, in an effort to provide a vibrant translation that communicates God's heart of love. The critics have not exactly embraced TPT but the main motivation to do this 2-part video response was the attack on Dr. Simmons' integrity by one Mike Winger. This video contains an overview of the objections to TPT and a rebuttal to Mike Winger's comments.
Sources
Little Light Studios on TPT - • Exposing 'The Passion'...
Larry Overton's Review of TPT - www.larryoverton.com/a-critiqu...
Andrew Wilson's Review of TPT - thinktheology.co.uk/blog/arti...
Mike Winger "Exposing Origins & Agenda" of TPT - • Exposing the Agenda an...
Mike Winger "Is Brian Simmons Qualified?" - • Is Brian Simmons Quali...
Mike Winger "Modern Fake Apostles" - • Modern FAKE APOSTLES!?...
Mike Winger "20 Questions with Pastor Mike" - • 20 Questions with Past...
Mike Winger/Ryan Pauly Video on TPT - • What You Need To Know ...
Mike Winger/Melissa Dougherty Video on TPT - • Before You Use The Pas...
Mike Winger "My Concerns About TPT" - • My Concerns About The ...
Mike Winger/Douglas Moo - • What Dr. Douglas Moo T...
Dr. Michael Brown on TPT - • What is the Passion Tr...
Brian Simmons on Sid Roth - • Rekindle Your Passion ...
Ethnos360 Statement of Faith - e360bible.org/about/our-beliefs/
Ethnos360 Linguistics Curriculum - ethnos360.org/training/missio...
Bill Mounce on Translations and Paraphrases - www.billmounce.com/monday-wit...
Dr. Brian Simmons Responds To His Critics - www.premierchristianity.com/P...
Calvary Chapel Distinctives - calvarymillcreek.com/resource...
ESV Translators Debate "Slave" - • ESV Bible Translators ...
TPT FAQs - www.thepassiontranslation.com...
Olive Tree on God's Word Translation - www.olivetree.com/store/produ...
Olive Tree on the ESV - www.olivetree.com/store/produ...
***************************
My Blog - jewandgreek.com
My Twitter Account - / jewandgreek
My Facebook Page - JewAndGreek
My Book on Word of Faith Apologetics - www.amazon.com/Defending-Fait...
What about him adding hundreds of words to confirm his own doctrines.
When I was newly saved and knew zilch about different versions, I had an NIV at home and a Living Bible in my toolbox at work. I had a voracious appetite for scripture, and the Spirit spoke to me powerfully through both. God's word is living, and accessible even in flawed versions.
Absolutely.
Yes me too.l read niv,classic Amp, esa,and passion...l keep a Kjv on hand in case l need to help a king only,ps
Right? The Holy Spirit is bigger than that. I mean, I get that people can be misled... maybe? But the Holy Spirit can correct. I'm not an expert though.
Beautiful. Just beautiful. You are doing us Pentecostals, Charismatics and Word of Faith people a huge favour. We are always being attacked (very rarely responding) and it's nice to have someone stand up to the unnecessary bullying and personal attacks because of different doctrinal positions. The TPT has been a great blessing to me since I "discovered" it a year ago (I use multiple versions my main one being KJV) and I knew when I read it there would be controversy but it's a very consistent translation and if one has a basic understanding of Biblical Hebrew and Greek (I studied them in my undergraduate) then you'll know there's no such thing as a perfect translation (or transliteration) because whatever translation philosophy one comes from the translator has to translate (not transliterate i.e. give a word for word translation). This is why there can't be a perfect translation unless you understand Hebrew, Greek and Arabic which probably over 95% of Christians don't know and even the scholars themselves are not perfect because most of them don't even speak these languages. I personally use the KJV, NIV, NLT and TPT but at the end of the day it's not even debating which translation is correct but rather READING your Bible and growing in Intimacy with Christ. That is the main goal. If a person grows to love Jesus more regardless of the translation they use then all these arguments are not necessary.
Thanks Rod for the work you do. Your channel is a great blessing 🙏🏿
Transliteration is the act of transferring a word from alphabet of one language into the alphabet of another. For example Arabic, Russian or Cantonese script into the roman alphabet/script.
There is an issue when you take what Mike relates what others have said and dismiss it because Simmons says otherwise when asked. There are several points where you take what Brian says as truth with no further probing yet are unwilling to accept what others say in the same unskeptical way. You say what Mike relates is secondhand yet many he has spoken to have allowed their statements to be used on this matter.
Maybe you could give me an example of when I did that? If you referring to the fact that Brian Simmons claims he returned to Panama for the ceremony in 1995, I can't prove that that's true but at least I included Brian Simmons' account which Winger didn't. The point is Winger just presented Simmons as a liar rather than providing his explanation for the timeline discrepancy. That's sloppy research at best and deceit at worst.
I remember years ago some friends gave my wife and I some material from a "ministry" which spoke about The Message paraphrase. After we finished reading it my wife asked the people if the ministry those people had had collapsed. They claimed it had come under great spiritual attack. My wife responded by saying she asn not surprised. What the people had writen sounded right but on closer inspection was not quite right. Their ministry didn't collapse due to attack it collapsed because it was not of God.
Baloney. Ministries DO NOT stand and fall on paraphrases or translations.
@@lightlover33 where did I say that they did? You need to read more carefully.
Michael brown states his opinion of the man, but the people who actually did the translation said he had nothing to do with translation.
And one of those guys was sitting in an air-conditioned building in Florida while the other one was in a different village in Panama according to Brian Simmons.
@@JewandGreek according to “ Brian Simmons “
there’s been a lot said according to Brian Simmons, turns out after the dust has settled and fact checking began Brian doesn’t really love the truth, on the contrary it seems Brian struggles with matters of truth.
@@markshaneh Give me one example of Brian Simmons not telling the truth. All I've heard up to this point is accounts that seem to contradict. I've lived long enough at this point to realize that human relationships and communications are full of conflicting accounts because people sometimes remember things differently or state things inaccurately. No need to demonize one party and celebrate the other based on personal preferences.
When I first learned about TPT I was watching a Mike Winger video, and because I trusted him I accepted his account. Then I heard a contradictory opinion about Simmons and TPT from Dr. Michael Brown, which was a red flag for me. It doesn't mean that one of them was lying. It just meant that their accounts conflicted. As I researched I found that in fact Winger got some things wrong, which led me to produce these two videos on TPT.
William Carey who is the father of modern mission movement was a cobbler. He translated Bible into Bengali, Oriya, Assamese, Marathi, Hindi and Sanskrit - and many other Indian languages. Started the very first University in India. God can use anyone - "HE equip the called not necessarily call the equipped"
People are calling TPT a translation due to the lack of precision of the definition. "Word for word" Is presumed to be the standard for the definition by most, but "thought for thought" was the defacto standard for the NIV. There are two competing translation philosophies in this regard, and even if one attempts to translate word for word, it is not strictly possible. This obscures the boundaries of the definition.
Well this was very interesting... and rather unexpected! 😀
The jury is still out for me on this one. I'm trying to be careful and stay objective, but I'm not yet convinced. 🧐
I'm very much looking forward to part 2, Rod. Perhaps I'll change my mind. 🤗
⚠️ Side note: it's true that we all make mistakes, but making mistakes on a bible translation is a whole different ball game. I'm not sure I would have used that reasoning there. 😉
I hope in part 2 you discuss the real issue, how TPT deviates from the original languages so much as to change meaning. If signs and wonders and the gifts are in the Bible it should be clear to see with an accurate translation and not need to be shoehorned in. If an angel "downloaded" spiritually a knowledge of ancient Greek and gave him new insights and knowledge then it calls into question the validity of the Bible we have always had, right back to the 2nd Century.
Oh wait, just got back from heaven where I spoke to an angel with a trumpet and he said . . . Sorry can't reveal it yet.
I asked Holy Spirit about TPT. He said "I prefer the KJV and NKJV". So to 'test the spirit' I asked another friend to pray on this. She was told the the same and when she pressed in was told "it's off and not accurate."
Seems your comment and another persons comment tell the Holy Spirit spoke differently
@@kelvinmawira1222 1John 4. Test the spirit.
I have been waiting for your video for a looong time 😅
I don't understand why so many Christians have trouble with the KJV. Jesus sent us the Helper, The Holy Spirit before we read Gods word we should always ask the Holy Spirit to allow what we read to go straight to our spirit.
The Holy Spirit should be the librarian of our mind our thought process. We can only hold so much so The Holy Spirit can keep what we need and discard the things of the day that we don't. That's renewing the mind. Also, we have dwelling inside us the living Word Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the if you like the index to the Word in us. Hence he can give us the things to say when needed. There will come a time when we probably won't be allowed to have a copy of the Bible, as some countries don't now. We need to cultivate a close and intimate relationship with the Father and with Jesus, as we would any relationship we have ie, spouse or best friend which Jesus should be to us, and realize we have living inside us the whole Word of God. Its no longer I who live but Christ who lives within me.
So how come Brian Simmons literally on many occasions changed the words and made them say something else that has nothing to do with the Scriptures. Also lemme guess you're all waiting for the 22nd chapter of John Brian Simmons says Jesus told him in heaven He was gonna give him in the future??? 🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️
He never said he was going to add a chapter to John. I cover the John 22 issue in part 2.
@@JewandGreek He said that there was a chapter 22 that Jesus showed had on the shelf on his visit to heaven that Jesus was gonna give him in the future
I'll check out your 2nd video either way.
@@holykhaos1337 sounds like he had a Joseph Smith moment
@@sparkey8065 yes it does.
Very informative brother Rod, keep up the good work.
Looking forward to part 2
Didn't know that about the NIV, thx very good info here.
I don't speak in tongues yet I consider myself to be charismatic because the theology resonates with me. I desire the gift and have prayed for it numerous times. Once, it was manifesting: I could feel it coming up my esophagus, but I choked it down because I didn't know what it was going to do and I didn't want to look uncool in front of the people I was praying with. It's never manifested again. I anticipate it manifesting again because the gifts and callings of God are without repentance.
Have you communicated with Ethnos 360 to get their position on Brian Simmons?
No. I'm willing to accept Winger's account. Dr. Simmons left Panama 32 years ago, so memories can be fuzzy and contradictory.
Excellent review, Rod. God help us all from being so agenda driven that we slander and promote "authoritative" opinions (false witness and innuendo) as undeniable facts. Listening to Mike rant makes me so grateful that over the years I did not have a platform to spew my ignorance for everyone to hear. On another note: I personally know a south African couple, the Swanepoels, who lived more than 35 years of their lives in the nomadic desert of northern Kenya, among the Rendille. They learned their language, planted churches, started schools and worked on translating the New Testament into Rendille. Like Simmons, they were not (and are not) qualified to sit on a translation committee, but they worked for decades on the translation - then they retired, leaving the final touches with others. Once the Rendille NT was published, they returned to the village to be honored and to present it to the people. I also knew a missionary in Ecuador who spent 30 years on a translation, and after retiring, returned for its presentation and dedication. This is a very common practice, and clearly parallels Simmons' experience.
Very great review Brother Rod on TPT Bible.
Thank you for your analysis. I will watch your video later.
If anyone wants an easier to read version than the KJV I would suggest the modern English version it's not widely publicized about but it is an amazing easy to read translation I love my KJV but if I had to choose anything that was easier to read I would say the modern English version ,it's funny to me that these folks are so up in arms over this passion translation when they read the nasb which literally removes the blood of Jesus Christ out of it....
@Jew and Greek The argument in your video devolved to "solo projects are normative, and Dr. Simmons is a good guy, and Mike is part of the NAR conspiracists." In short, this falls back into ad hominem instead of investigating the translation's correspondence with the manuscripts (where the book would have its merits and demerits). However, Winger questions the validity of Simmon's translation as a translation or even a paraphrase in comparison with the text. Winger also expanded to discuss how Dr. Simmons deviates from both the Greek and the Aramaic (Syriac). Having read from portions of the Peshitta, as well as the textual history of the Aramaic, I would ask, do you support Dr. Simmons' claims even when his text deviates from the Aramaic? Dr. Simmons' ideologically-based, private revelation text alters the meaning of the Syrian and Greek in a manner that fits his agenda, which is more serious than individual vs committee translations (indeed, this basis has more in common with Joseph Smith and Charles Russell's justification of their interpretations without education in the original languages, than with Wycliffe, Darby, or Luther who studied in the ancient languages they translated from). Here is a survey of the Peshitta vs the Passion Translation, which seems to undermine the premise that Simmons brings a fresh take on the Aramaic or the heart of God. Instead, wouldn't it be better to read authentic translations from the Syrian to the English than a supposed translation that fails to use the actual Syrian manuscripts? theriveroflife.com/2020/06/19/the-passion-anti-translation-did-brian-simmons-really-translate-from-the-syriac-peshitta/
While the Disciples ran afoul of the experts of their day, neither Jesus nor His disciples set aside the Hebrew and Greek texts of the OT in defending their stances on the gospel, marriage, miracles, Sabbath, etc. Paul, a once rising star in the Pharisees, became the author of the majority of the NT. His European gentile audience likely had no familiarity with Aramaic. When he sat down among the Twelve, he neither scorned their lack of education nor did they denounce his education (Gal. 1:11-24). Indeed, the private revelation Paul received matched what Ananias had received and what the other Apostles taught. The other leaders seemed overwhelmed by his knowledge, but affirming of his wisdom (2 Peter 3:15-16). If we are to receive Dr. Simmons' claims, then he should have correspondence with the original language he claims to faithfully represent. Yet, if the text fails to match, we should ask, "Is that because he has secret wisdom or because he has made a false claim?" It would be one thing for Dr. Simmons to endeavor to give an amateur translation and falter on his own merits; it is another thing for him to stake God's authority to his work and fail at basic Syrian. That's not preference. That's pretense.
First of all you misrepresent the content of my video. Individual translations are in fact common as I showed. That's just a historical fact. I don't recall saying that Simmons is a good guy. In fact in the second video I admit that he could be an ax murderer for all I know. I've never met the man. But Dr. Michael Brown vouches for his Christian character, so unlike Winger I take that into consideration. As for Winger being a "NAR conspiracist", I believe I said that he considers Bethel dangerous (and showed clips to support that) and you need to take that into consideration as well. There's no ad hominem attack there. I point those things out to show how Mike's research and commentary are influenced by his theological differences with Bethel which led to his discovery of TPT, and his lack of proper questioning and the spreading of misinformation that ensued.
Secondly, the claim that TPT has anything in common with The Book of Mormon is absurd. The Book of Mormon (as I suspect you know) was extra-biblical and was taken from golden plates provided by the angel Moroni. Brian Simmons received six months of linguistics training prior to becoming a missionary and working on a translation for a native tribe in the jungles of Panama. Over twenty years later, much of which was devoted to studying Greek and Hebrew, he felt that God would have him to do a new translation into English. That project has been ongoing now for 14 years and will probably continue another 5 years. No golden plates. No non-canonical books. Just a new (albeit controversial) translation.
And third, Simmons' methodology isn't my concern. There's plenty of criticism of that coming from linguists who know a lot more about that than I do. My concern is Winger's attacks on Simmons' integrity. In all of my years I've never seen a translator attacked the way Simmons has been, and as I showed in these two videos much of that was based on information that was wrong, whether intentionally or not I won't say. Had Winger been content to criticize the translation itself I wouldn't have even taken on this project, but he insisted on demonizing the man based on his own shoddy research and IMO theological bigotry.
@@JewandGreek Integrity is a critical factor when one claims divine revelation, much less within the field of scholarly interpretation (an untrustworthy scholar tends to be disregarded). If Simmons wants to state that the Spirit wired his brain to uniquely understand the heart of God, writing secrets from the literature of God that no other scholar or saint has in 2,000 years, then yes his character, his competence, and his linguistic skills are subject to scrutiny--otherwise, we eject the bible's criteria for prophetic revelation from the conversation (e.g., Dt. 13, 18). One man's witness alone would not hold up in court, whether biblical or Western, so Dr. Brown's affirmation is one datum in a sea of data points.
Yes, Simmons' claims are more akin to Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell than generic interpreters; sure, Simmons does not add books to the canon with his work, but he alters their meaning to match his message (which Joseph Smith did do in addition to his book of Mormon) derived in significant part from visions, dreams, and his commitment to NAR doctrine. Simmons' Hebrew and Greek skills are not what he touts as the basis of his idiosyncratic insight; its his understanding of Aramaic as both a divine gift and his translation medium that he heralds as his source of inspiration. As such, 20 years of experience in other languages is not the reason for his criticism, though does cause scholars to wonder how he can make the claims he does about Aramaic since he should be aware of the textual transmissions (e.g., Peshitta relies significantly on the Greek). The myriad nameless monks who translated and copied texts for millennia, or their scholarly descendants today, avoided such claims and often rejected individuals who made such claims because their insights rarely matched the Word written or the Word as historically understood.
In all of your many years, has any translator made Simmons claims to direct revelation of secret things within the sacred scriptures unknown to Christians for millennia? Have they then produced and promoted their ideas as the true heart of God? When you make superlative claims, yes, you will probably receive superlative criticism. That should be expected, not a sign that you have become a uniquely persecuted individual. If combing Simmons' historical claims, comparing this with scholarly testimony from experts in the field, and then textually critiquing the TPT with other known translations is shoddy research, then what would you consider appropriate levels of inquiry? It seems like your latter frustration (Winger's critique of NAR) shades your perception of the former.
If you want to compare apples to apples of individual translations for a specific theological milieu, then consider the Complete Jewish Bible. David Stern made much more modest source claims while affirming his intent to bring forward the first century Jewish context into the text. His work received similar critiques that it is too idiosyncratic for scholarly purposes, yet had the added value to the Jewish Publications Society of being useful to those discussing the Lord's Jewish context. No ambiguous source material, no claims to divine revelation, and no head scratching as to where he derived his work. That is much more palatable than a man roaming the US declaring his visions as the certificate of authenticity on his translation.
Mike Winger is charasmatic??? WHAT!!!! Nooooo
Why “nooooo” lol
Its no secret that he is a continuationist
@@jerardosc9534 Mike is a theoretical continuationst. He believes in the gifts in theory, but he is a country mile short on actual practice. This is the epitome of Calvary Chapel.
@@lightlover33 You are correct👍
It seems that whenever a person practises the supernatural, persecution will always come surprisingly even from 'Charismatics'. Thanks Rod for the fair review. God bless you
I don't think it's an issue of the supernatural. I believe the issue is him claiming Jesus Christ told him that John's Gospel has an additional chapter
@@kevinevans8892 that's not exactly what he said Kevin. I'll cover that in the next video.
@@kevinevans8892 Kevin I’m realising this is an old post, did you check out the worlds leading NT scholars that Mike winger employed to critique the passion ? It is devastating to all that Brian Simmons has promoted and has proven him to be a bare faced liar , and his work useless.
If rod has watched the series and stands by his position that’s between him and God but I could never trust rods level of discernment again.
@@markshaneh I have watched Winger's videos, and the reason that I did these videos on TPT is because I fact checked Winger and found him lacking in credibility.
Do you trust Winger, despite the fact that he called Simmons a liar regarding the timeline on the Paya-Kuna translation completion without even asking him to account for the timeline "discrepancy"? Winger said that Simmons lied when he said that he was there when they handed the natives the final copy of their translation because he left in 1988 and the translation wasn't completed until 1995. So I asked Simmons about that and he said "We went back for the ceremony." The comment above confirms that this is a common practice with missionary translators. Winger apparently never even bothered to get Simmons' input on that. He just assumed that he was lying.
Winger also said that Simmons said he was going to add a chapter to John when Simmons never said any such thing. He said quite the opposite in 2015 when he said that John is a sealed book. And yet the rumor about what Simmons supposedly said persists because of Winger.
Winger also said that Simmons said an angel helped him with the translation, but Simmons never made that claim either. All of this is covered in these two videos. Winger is not credible. Sorry. Whether you like TPT and Brian Simmons or not, if you love the truth you have to care about getting facts right.
Some good push back points Rod. since looking at the Passion translation i always considered it like the popular The Message by Eugene Peterson. as Dr. Micahel Brown said "a paraphrase" though Simmons says its a translation. i think thats the only valid critique which isnt mind blowing.
i love the ESV, but i used the NRSV for many years which has some liberal influence, so what. A translation isnt inspired by the Holy Spirit
Thank you for your youtube ministry ... it is a great blessing to me
Hmmmm it’s not a translation. Perhaps you need to start again. Dr Michael Brown is not really a credible balanced critique of the Passion. And Brian takes trips to heaven. Regularly. Have you considered this? His theology is quite extreme.
I cover the "translation vs paraphrase" issue in part 2.
Please read end time message thoroughly
Will you address John 22 in part 2?
Yes
I beg to differ: I have listened to some of your songs, and they are just as good in my oppinion as those recorded that have professional training.
This was really insightful. Thank you for the work you do.
We have also a lot of people saying that they got assignment from "god" about the revelation of the bible. Muhammed, James Smith, Charles T. Russel. I will not say that it makes a mans work necessarily approved.
Right. Just claiming that God gave you an assignment doesn't prove that your work is of God, but the others you mentioned - Muhammad, James Smith (presumably you meant Joseph Smith) and Charles T Russell did not affirm all of the essential doctrines of the faith as is the case with Brian Simmons. So there's no need to dismiss TPT out of hand.
Yeah, I read through a bit of it. I agree with Dr. Browns take. It's a paraphrase and a fine one at that.
Father likes me to read a chapter outloud to him daily...only one word l leave out bliss ..lol
I prefer translation by committee. I think the 4 or 5 best translations are translations that have been done by committee.
The King James Bible had 47 people on the translation committee. That's a relatively small amount of people on a translation committee, but they did a tremendous job. The New King James is a great translation. The American Standard is a great translation. These translations were done by committee.
I think translation by committee helps keep personal biases out of the translation. (just my opinion)
Passion translation is for the people want to know the heart of God more. All of the translations have some problems. I am Romanian and love this new translation. He has insights like no one else. Why we blame a man of God if he has a special task from the Lord?
This seems overly easy on Simmons and glazes over the fact that he got a “special new scripture” in a vision ( how almost all cults start ) adding to scripture and changing scripture. Like God didn’t say it good enough the first time but now he’s fixing it...? Although scripture does warn of adding to scripture multiple times and warm to test your experiences like he claims to have had against the Bible.
He didn't claim to get any new scripture
@@JewandGreek Pslams is at least 50% greater in length than any other translation. I would say he has "new scripture".
@@vhmdl5150 The greater number of words is a result of his methodology, not unlike that of the Amplified Bible and the Wuest Expanded translation.
@@JewandGreek I have to get to work and I can and will continue but here are some things, From Simmons’ own mouth. I would suggest Jew and Greek that you hold yourself to the same standard you’re invoking for Winger. You state Simmons’ gives a plausible explanation, but you are not looking for proof. You state that Winger did not bring any witnesses. He brought many people from Panama that knew him. But this somehow does not qualify as “witness”? Like I noted, I can go on and will. My only concern is that souls are on the line. If he said and marketed this as a paraphrase “in his own words”, there would be no issue. But he is invoking Devine inspiration. And even though he says that is not the case, many of the links below say otherwise.
Here he states that the NT was written nearly all in Aramaic and it is causing a bombshell in the scholarly community
ua-cam.com/video/7OfUZyCOJi4/v-deo.html
Here he says Jesus’ last word was not, “Finished” but because it is a “homonym” it means “Bride” and we have been robbed for 2000 years and would be for more if not for his “special knowledge”
ua-cam.com/video/7OfUZyCOJi4/v-deo.html
The Key to Revelation and understanding the book which, we do not have
ua-cam.com/video/7OfUZyCOJi4/v-deo.html
God Promised that he would give him secrets that had not been disclosed
ua-cam.com/video/7OfUZyCOJi4/v-deo.html
“it’s like we’re getting a brand new bible, isn’t it”
ua-cam.com/video/7OfUZyCOJi4/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/7OfUZyCOJi4/v-deo.html
You can be after God’s heart and at the same time be responsible for great sin. See David.
They are not mutually exclusive.
Simmons may have a heart for God. But his claims are highly questionable. There is no “original Aramaic”. There is only a Greek translation to Syriac Aramaic. As I’ve noted to Dr Brown, saying that one is using “original Aramaic” to achieve a beautiful understanding would be like me translating the Declaration of Independence into Greek then back to English and then saying I found beautiful new meaning from the original Greek.
So you guys don't add to scripture... What about Brian's "John 22" is that cannon?
It's not. That's why I would admonish Charismatic Christians to steer clear of The Passion Translation
There is no chapter 22 in the Book of John in the passion translation.
@@JewandGreek Love your channel about many things but not sure about some of this stuff. He is claiming that Jesus is going to give him it. (John 22 but at a later date.) He said so in an interview with Sid Roth. Also he does not say that he is relying on his ability of languages but on the help of Jesus.
(And He promised me that, that He would give me help, that He would stand with me and give me secrets of the Hebrew language, secrets of the Bible that would be for this Last Days awakening.) Secrets of the bible. Are there secrets of the bible that God will give to individuals? Seems familiar statements that i have heard before. Do they not sound familiar to you? Because someone has been a man of integrity and followed the Lord previously and sincerely believes he still is does not mean he can not be open to deception. Surely we can all can be susceptible to deception given the right circumstances no matter how long we have followed Our Lord
Surely he is very questionable.
@@disproveofthis Brian Simmons said he saw a book entitled John 22. He didn't say he was going to add a chapter to John. I'll cover this in the next video.
@@JewandGreek still many points to him and the translation are suspect to say the least. Sid Roth excert.
ua-cam.com/video/nMwnUM5g_n8/v-deo.html
I would say it's in the same category as The ..The living New Testament ..A Paraphrase ..
I would say it is something between a paraphrase and a translation. It is more precise than a paraphrase and backed with research. He also takes more liberties than a translation would normally allow.
This is not about mess ups - as we all have done ones or several times in our life. This is about BILBETRANSLATION. And there are NO room for mess ups!!
So which translation do you deem to be perfect?
Hmm... Seems to me that Jew and Greek may be giving up 1 bird for 2 in the bush here. Though bringing up some potentially probable points, the sweet spot was never really hit. That power "ah-ha!" moment was lacking, which usually lends itself to be the result of an unconvincing reality in the mind of the speaker himself, oddly enough. Taking up a defense position can at times become its own best offense, which I see here as the case. It's like the person who is dogmatic about NOT being dogmatic. I usually, as probably do most, tend to take the overall consensus on a topic before making a decision, which I think between Mike Winger's exhaustive research and invitation/interview of actual scholars, establishes the right and reasonable suspicions to steer clear of TPT.
Everything I said apparently flew right over your head. I never said that the passion translation is a good translation or that I endorse it. To the contrary I said I don't endorse any translation. My objection to people like Mike Winger is that they spread lies. That's Christianity 101 - that you shouldn't lie. There's your sweet spot. All the scholars in the world won't make lying okay. Brian Simmons never said that an angel gave him the translation. He never said he was going to add a chapter to the Book of John. And he had a plausible explanation for why he was at the ceremony when the natives of Panama received a completed copy of the Bible in their language. Mike Winger attacked his integrity and called him a liar without doing adequate research and asking the right questions. He implied that he is only doing it for the money. That is unacceptable. If you don't like the translation fine. Don't use it. Criticize it even. But don't attack the man's integrity because you don't like his translation or his theology. That's not discernment. That's just being a religious zealot.
@@JewandGreek Right, except for the fact that deceit is lying. If I were you, I think the honest thing to do would be to acknowledge that the touting of angelic visitations in the same sentence as claiming all these mysterious insights into the secret languages for your "translation" is ipso facto, the careful construction of deceitful words in order to pass oneself off as a credible translation source, which is what Mike correctly points out. Basically, you can't ignore all that while calling out Mike Winger.. That's why dogmatism over not being dogmatic is hardly ever a convincing point, which is what your video seems to do. I think most people would probably have a good reserve if they heard someone claiming they played for a winning football team in 2022, but all the evidence showed that they were like 50 years old. Deceitfulness and withholding certain precise information in certain contexts to make yourself look credible is a lie. Just basic discernment.
Which Bible translations do you recommend?
None. I look at translations like tools. Different translations provide different perspectives on tens of thousands of verses. Having said that, as I said I would prefer a translation coming from a non-Calvinist. I read The Living Bible when I was starting out over 40 years ago, but I would never read it today. When I'm doing bible study I use Bible Hub, Bible Gateway, and e-Sword to provide a number of translations and commentaries to help me understand the passages in question. I love Bible Hub's interlinears. I'll be discussing Bible Hub in a future video.
The best translation is the one we are willing and able to read - out of any of the known versions.
Whatever the best translation may be, it doesn't benefit anyone if it isn't read.
For study its best to cross reference with a number of versions. But don't try to study until you've read it all.
I have several versions and alternate with each read through. I also use journaling bibles where I can make notes in the margins addressing any alternate renderings between the versions.
So your objection to the ESV is based on Calvinistic doctrine being brought forth? That's a faulty objection, as in objections should be based on, how does it compare to the original languages? Your point regarding Psalm 51 is not a good one.
Not an objection per se. I said I prefer translations by non-Calvinists, and others have different preferences and that's okay. For the record, I own a copy of the ESV.
Im confused. Can the body of Christ help me with this verse?
They were together- face-to-face , in the very beginning.
John 1:2
"face to face" is italicized with a footnote that says:
"The Greek word used here and the Hebraic concept conveyed is that of being before God’s face. There is no Hebrew word for “presence” (i.e., the “presence” of God), only the word face."
@@JewandGreek god was face to face with himself?
I put this on one of my playlists. I have seen so many criticize both Simmons and the Passion Translation with unfair bias.
I thought Mike Winger was part of Hosanna Christian Fellowship as an Associate Pastor?
That church is associated with Calvary Chapel
@@JewandGreek Oh, thank you
I stand to be corrected but didn't the Lollards assisted John Wycliffe?
That's a valid point. It was thought to be the work of Wycliffe alone in the past but now a lot of people believe he headed up a team of translators. At any rate, TPT publishers Broadstreet Publishing says "While Brian serves as the lead translator for The Passion Translation, every book (including the numerous footnotes) is evaluated by respected scholars and editors."
@@JewandGreek thank you for your analysis and response. I respect your work because you try to be fair. I remember reading in William Grady's Final Authority him dragging Brook Fos Wescott and Fenton John Anthony Hort thru the hot coals because of their promotion of the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts, as opposed to Erasmus' Textus Receptus. And I also remember Riplinger and Gipp taking kenneth Taylor to task for writing The Living Bible. While I am not endorsing the Passion Translation, King James Onlyists believe each modern translation is of the Devil. I wonder if Mike Winger is even aware of this ongoing war between the modern Bible versions and the KJV camps
That's cause the NAR guys love the portals and shifting the atmospheres breakthroughs and all the NAR buzzwords.
Another awesome video Rod! Thanks for what you do! You’re a blessing to us “Charismatics”!! 😊
You lost me, sir, when you addressed what Pastor Winger said about experts not praising his work. "That's just not supported by scripture"? What I understood from Pastor Winger's clip you shared was his belief that, if a man says God led him his work should show God led him. Or are you saying the "experts" at Jesus time didn't agree with what He taught, AND He taught errors? It's my understanding that if God is doing the leading you end up in the right place. You seemed to be saying, "If God leads you, you might end up in the right place and you might not." A scripture that comes to mind here is "be a fruit inspector." Again, maybe I misunderstand you. You lost me.
The experts in the law rejected Jesus and His disciples/apostles. Winger says that if God is in it the experts will approve, which wasn't the case in the Bible. The apostles weren't perfect and made mistakes, but they were still anointed and commissioned by God.
@@JewandGreek Are you insinuating that God inspired them to make mistakes in Scripture? I am not following your logic on this point. Revelations from God to man came with error? God speaks against those who falsely claim to do things in his name. Some people interpret their dreams from God and believe in grandiose feats placed upon them but they are of self. Kat Kerr comes to mind with her many revelations from God, and I wonder why her teachings and others who say they have spoken to Jesus have not written God's revelations should not to be sold, but placed as part of the original canon - correct?. If you mean by mistakes or errors that people feel God inspired them, but the prophesies or word of knowledge don't come to fruition, we can conclude this did not come from God - right? Or, if the product is OBJECTIVELY scrutinized by scripture instead of fitting it into a preconceived doctrine of cessationist or charismatic perspectives, there may be less confusion. However, I doubt this will ever happen until the return of the Lord and our glorification.
@@johnvilseck6065 I believe that the autographs of Scripture were inspired and are authoritative. Translations might be inspired in the sense that God leads you to participate in the project but I don't know of anybody who would claim that any particular translation is authoritative apart from the KJV Only crowd. The idea that Simmons is claiming that his work is inerrant or authoritative because God led him to do it is baseless.
The New World Translation of Scriptures was produced by a committee.....but I don't hear the Calvinists recommending that one!!!!!
end time message is word of God for this age
"Its just more NAR hysteria.." SPOT ON.
I bought the Passion Translation, 31 - Day Psalms and Proverbs Devotionals. Sat on my book shelf for awhile, didn’t read it.
Until the Holy Spirit asked me to read one of the Psalms from this book. I still read my Bible tho’, but just sometimes the Holy Spirit gets me to read something out of The Passion.
Now do you think the Holy Spirit would ask me to read something out of this book, if it wasn’t from Him?
My Bible is The Amplified Bible, the KJV only people, really know how to stick into you, when you tell them what Bible you read.
Perhaps you can talk about the Amplified some day.
In your handling of objection 2, you've basically stated that he is qualified to translate because Dr. Brown suggested he might be. Dr. Brown as per his latest video is not so sure, and has actually demonstrated where Simmons has taken great liberty with the Hebrew text. The objective marker should be, not who's opinion you choose to trust, but what are his actual credentials.
I don't know how you took that away from what I said. My reference to Dr. Brown is mainly pertaining to Brian Simmons as a godly man who loves the Bible. He didn't portray Brian Simmons as a liar or shyster the way that Winger did. And as I stated Brian Simmons doesn't have the qualifications to sit on a translation committee, but if God called him to do this translation then he's qualified.
@@JewandGreek I believe the statement you made was in relation to Dr. Brown's knowledge of Hebrew followed by a comment like 'I know which person I would rather believe.' If you really want, I can play back the video and pick out the time stamp. So you used Dr Brown not in relation to Simmon's character only. Which is indeed questionable by some of the statements he's made, but also in his ability to translate Scripture. I've noticed you've not addressed the homonyms issue or the Aramaic objection that Winder AND the scholars he talks to brings up. In the video you mentioned you have contact with Simmons, I would suggest you try and get them both together for a discussion.
@@tpw7250 I know what I said. I wrote the script that I read in the video. I said that Dr. Brown is a Hebrew scholar who knows Brian Simmons, so you'd have to give his views at least as much consideration as Winger's, if not more.
No I haven't addressed the methodology issues because that's not the point. The point is Winger attacked the man's integrity. Had he been content to question his methods I would never have even pursued the matter. But he didn't stop there. He went beyond the pale in calling the man a liar, and did so on flawed research and misinformation.
@JewandGreek Two things. Dr Brown has since changed his stance on the Passion. Secondly, the methodology is the issue that demonstrates Simmon's dishonesty. That is exactly why you should address it.
If you like to tickle your ears., I never heard anyone before tie Calvinism to translation. I think your off base and slanted. Your peer viewing yourself which is division: translations don’t have a doctrine slant. They are either formal equivalent or dynamic. But interesting take of what you think is the case
Sure wish Jesus had appeared to me and gave me supernatural knowledge of Greek when I studied it. I would have been satisfied with an angel with the test answers.
Well go through 6 months of linguistics training and then spend eight years on the mission field risking your life to reach the natives with the gospel and help translate the bible into their language and maybe that will happen.
@@JewandGreek Brian Simmons work colleges at the time of his mission work were perplexed that Brian holds the title “ biblical linguistic translator “ , pick up a phone or dig a bit deeper amongst Brian’s peers at the time he spent with his mission and then you can correct your claim and hopefully Brian can find his real calling in God.
@@markshaneh As I showed in the videos, one of those guys (Pederson) was in Florida and said he hasn't seen Simmons since 1984. The other (McDaniels) was in a separate village in Panama according to Simmons. And New Tribes Mission (Now Ethnos360) is a cessationist organization who naturally aren't supportive of Simmons' charismatic beliefs, so I'm not surprised that they don't speak too fondly of him.
I love the passion translation! Amen
Really enjoyed your research. I was bit by Mike W. I stopped following Him. I enjoy how you treat people. You are a blessing to the Body.
Mike winger on this occasion needs to be very careful to be throwing stones, because if what brian is saying is true and God is saying all this to him then repentance is needed, let's not Judge but Love all in what Jesus told us to do.
While I genuinely concede that there may be benefits to both basing a translation on the peshita, and letting your explanations in translation process be softly influenced by meditation and the move of the Holy Spirit. These are potentially good things.
But I'm fairly sensitive to the theological minefield based on interpretations of passages like Ephesians 1 and Romans 8:27-29... not just because of bias but because context vs tradition allows for multiple interpretation by nature of the words on the page. Some interpretations are indeed better, but if your version disallows the semantic range without favoring the clearest contextual clues instead of theological ones, you're actually RUINING the Bible. And thats the trouble with the Passion versions of these aforementioned passages.
Not everyone involved, especially from an evangelical charismatic perspective, are less likely to catch these issues, because these versions of those passages are PHILOSOPHICALLY compatible with Boethian/CS Lewis inspired take on an arminian "doctrine of God" systematic which most charismatic would gladly sign on to... but these sorts of philosophical takes are biblically compatible post-hoc explanations of core Christian doctrinal ideas, but they're not literally or clearly found in a straight forward reading of scripture. And changing the Bible so that it IS clearly and exclusively enumerated is highly problematic.
But note: the ESV is 95% wonderful, but 4% biased and 1% completely objectively wrong, specifically Revelation 13:8, which has a significant diversity of interpretation because of the grammar. And the KJV take casts a long cultural doctrinal shadow which has informed proples doctrine of God's atemporality, despite this likely being a wrong grammatical presentation of the intent of the Greek, and the less philosophically convenient take in the NASB, and NLT seem to be more reflective of the best textual scholarship, but the ESV version is 100% wrong because they deviate from both the older KJV grammar AND the clarity of the NASB, and chose to go full on left field and mistranslate "apo" as "before" which it never means. Ever.
And to its credit the Passion is closer to the rock solid arrangement of the NASB, despite its more colloquially smooth feel, which is an accomplishment.
So YMMV, and while this isn't damning totally, to me it puts the Passion on par with the older Living Bible... too biased and imprecise to be a valid source of theological study.
Typical that religious cults and religious movements have their very own translations.
You are referring to Calvinists? Of course they do.
Have you ever considered reaching out to Mike or even Melissa (I recently watched your video on her)? I think it would be really interesting to address your concerns about each other. Melissa has also addressed being called a Calvinist, which she denies, so it would be a neat opportunity to discuss the specifics of what you guys believe and why. I like watching all three of you (and more of course, but I'm keeping this comment simple) so I'm very interested to see what a discussion might look like.
Great job exploring this topic! I love how you directly address controversy without fear. Anxieties have no power in Christ!
I contacted Mike last year to discuss this and he didn't seem too flexible so I didn't pursue it any further.
I would like to see ONE video of the 100s Mike has produced actually display a conversation between himself and the one he criticizes. He finds people who agree, people who further his agenda, and he seems to avoid, perpetually, the actual source.
What about him outright lieing
I covered that in part 2
Mike, are you jealous?
"Misleading" is being far too kind to Mike on his claim to be a charismatic. Mike is a black and white rationalist who conveniently gives lip service to the supernatural gifts because they are written about in black and white. He is one tick up from Justin Peters in terms of real faith for supernatural gifts. He in fact has much more in common with a cessationist than any charismatic, and this has been illustrated plainly when he has publicly given JP aid and comfort in his criticisms of WOF.
I like the passion translation, it’s a good companion to the Bible.