The Problem With The Passion  🔗 **Source:** [The Problem With The Passion](https://www.kristadams.com/the-problem-with-the-passion/) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [passion-translation, biblical-scholarship, translation-methodology] > author: Krist Adams > source: KristAdams.com > reference: https://www.kristadams.com/the-problem-with-the-passion/ > date created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DD}} {{time:HH:mm}} > > # 🏷️ Title: The Problem With The Passion > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ## 📝 Summary - The Passion Translation is a controversial Bible version created by Brian Simmons, marketed as a translation but functioning as a paraphrase. - Simmons lacks formal training in biblical languages and claims divine revelation through personal visits from Jesus to justify his work. - The translation adds material not found in original manuscripts and promotes specific theological viewpoints rather than accurate translation. - Bible Gateway removed it from their platform due to quality concerns. - The author argues Christians should be more discerning about what they accept as Scripture. ## 📖 Main Content ### The Core Problem The Passion Translation markets itself as a Bible translation but functions as a theological rewrite. Unlike established translations that undergo rigorous scholarly review, this version reflects one person's theological agenda rather than faithful rendering of original texts. ### Translation Issues The work introduces unique terminology not found in other translations, such as "embrace" for "believe" and "wine barrel" for "wineskin." It adds explanatory material claiming to reveal God's "tone" and "heart" that doesn't exist in original manuscripts. The primary source text used—the fifth-century Syriac Peshitta—is itself considered a translation from earlier Greek manuscripts and uses a different dialect than Jesus spoke. ### Translator Qualifications Brian Simmons admitted in interviews that he had "minimal background in biblical languages." Most legitimate Bible translators hold advanced degrees in biblical languages, textual criticism, and theology. Simmons possesses none of these qualifications. ### Supernatural Claims Simmons claims Jesus personally appeared to him in 2009, breathed on him to give him "the spirit of revelation," and commissioned the translation. He alleges receiving "downloads" of Hebrew language secrets and promises of future visits to Heaven's library to receive additional biblical books. ## 🗒️ Notes - Bible Gateway's removal signals significant quality concerns from a platform that hosts dozens of translations - The distinction between translation and paraphrase matters for how readers understand biblical authority - Claims of new revelation raise theological red flags about the sufficiency of Scripture - Single-translator projects lack the peer review essential for biblical scholarship - The marketing as "translation" rather than "paraphrase" appears deliberately misleading ## 📚 References - [Bible Gateway](https://www.biblegateway.com) - Platform that removed Passion Translation - [Sid Roth Show 2015](https://www.sidroth.org) - Interview where Simmons made supernatural claims - [Passion Translation FAQ](https://thepassiontranslation.com) - Addresses theological bias concerns ## 🗣️ Paraphrase A Christian blogger critiques the Passion Translation, arguing it's not actually a translation but a theological rewrite by an unqualified single author. Brian Simmons lacks biblical language training yet claims divine revelation justified his work. The result adds non-scriptural material and promotes specific theological views rather than accurately translating original texts. The author warns Christians to be more discerning about what they accept as Scripture. ## 📰 Newsletter **Translation Troubles: When "Christian" Labels Mislead** The Passion Translation controversy highlights a crucial principle for WordPress developers and content creators: just because something carries the right label doesn't mean it delivers quality work. Much like how we vet plugins before recommending them to clients, the faith community needs better discernment about biblical resources. This situation mirrors our industry's struggles with "WordPress-compatible" themes that break core functionality or "SEO-optimized" plugins that actually harm rankings. The lesson? Look beyond marketing claims to examine actual credentials, peer review, and transparent processes. For developers building faith-based websites, this underscores the importance of recommending only well-vetted biblical resources and being transparent about the difference between scholarly translations and contemporary paraphrases. ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Education: Create guidelines for evaluating religious/spiritual content claims in developer resources - Developer experience: Develop fact-checking templates for content that makes authoritative claims #### Community - Maintainers: Establish peer review standards for educational content before publication - Contributors: Create checklists for verifying credentials of expert contributors #### WordPress - Community: Develop guidelines for WordCamps featuring speakers making extraordinary claims - Documentation: Create standards for distinguishing between official documentation and community interpretations ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Consumers prefer convenience over verification when choosing religious resources - Marketing something as "divinely inspired" creates resistance to critical evaluation - Single-author translations are more likely to reflect personal bias than team efforts - Removal from major platforms significantly impacts a translation's credibility and usage - Claims of supernatural revelation correlate with reduced scholarly oversight ### 📊 Methodology - Survey Bible software platforms to track which translations they include/exclude and stated reasons - Content analysis comparing Passion Translation renderings with established translations on key theological passages - Academic credential analysis of translation teams across major Bible versions - Usage tracking through Christian bookstore sales data and church adoption rates ### ❓ Questions - How do consumers typically evaluate the credibility of Bible translations? - What role do Christian bookstores play in legitimizing questionable biblical resources? - How effective are scholarly critiques in changing popular usage of problematic translations? - What standards should platforms use for including biblical texts? ### 🔮 Future Research - Long-term impact study of controversial translations on biblical literacy - Analysis of how supernatural authorship claims affect critical evaluation across religious traditions - Comparative study of peer review processes in biblical translation versus other academic fields ### 💡 Implications - **Practice**: Churches and individuals need better frameworks for evaluating biblical resources - **Policy**: Christian publishing industry may need clearer standards for translation vs. paraphrase labeling - **Education**: Seminary curricula should include training on identifying problematic translations - **Security**: Faith communities need protection from theological manipulation disguised as scholarship ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: Flesch-Kincaid Grade 12.2 - appropriate for educated adult audience #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Clear section headings, bullet points organizing key issues - Improve: Comparison chart showing Passion Translation vs. standard translations on key verses, credential comparison infographic #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Conversational tone, direct address to reader - Improve: Audio version highlighting vocal emphasis on key warnings #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear definitions of "translation" vs "paraphrase", specific examples - Improve: Glossary of biblical scholarship terms, more analogies to familiar concepts #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Step-by-step breakdown of translation problems - Improve: Checklist for evaluating Bible translations, hands-on comparison exercise #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Sequential argument building from qualifications to methodology to claims - Improve: Flowchart showing proper translation process vs. Passion Translation process #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: References to community standards and scholarly consensus - Improve: Discussion questions for Bible study groups, peer review comparison #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Reflection prompts about personal discernment - Improve: Self-assessment quiz on translation evaluation skills #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Limited environmental connections - Improve: Analogies to natural selection in ideas, ecosystem thinking about biblical scholarship ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Proper heading hierarchy, section structure - Improve: Alt text for any images, more descriptive link text than "here" #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard web navigation - Improve: Skip links, focus indicators for interactive elements #### Contrast and readability - Present: Standard text formatting - Improve: Ensure sufficient color contrast, test at 200% zoom #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive design likely - Improve: Verify no content clipping at high zoom levels #### Media and captions - Present: Text-only content - Improve: If audio version added, include transcript #### Forms and interactions - Present: Basic comment form - Improve: Clear error messaging, accessible form labels ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Limited to English-speaking Christian context - Improve: Acknowledge translation issues exist across all religious traditions and cultures #### Inclusive language - Present: Generally accessible language - Improve: Define insider terms like "paraphrase," "textual criticism" #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear structure, direct communication - Improve: Summary boxes, consistent formatting patterns #### Representation - Present: Male-dominated field discussion reflects reality - Improve: Acknowledge diverse voices in biblical scholarship #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful critique without personal attacks - Improve: Content warning about challenging religious assumptions ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - **Credentialing argument**: Logically sound comparison of translator qualifications versus industry standards - **Platform rejection evidence**: Bible Gateway removal provides independent validation of quality concerns - **Translation methodology critique**: Valid distinction between translation and paraphrase based on established scholarly definitions #### Fallacies - **Guilt by association**: Suggesting all Christians "gobble up anything with 'Christian' label" - overgeneralization without evidence - **Appeal to consequences**: Arguing translation is wrong partially because of supernatural claims rather than purely on textual grounds - **Straw man potential**: May oversimplify Simmons' actual methodology claims #### Tone of voice - Authoritative and warning-focused with phrases like "falling for lies masquerading as truth" and "That's not all, though." Uses insider Christian language assuming shared theological framework. ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis No DARVO patterns detected. The article critiques a published work and public figure making public claims, using documented sources and scholarly standards. The critique focuses on methodology and credentials rather than personal character assassination. ## 🎯 Conclusion The Passion Translation controversy illustrates the importance of applying critical thinking to religious resources. While the work may serve some devotional purposes, marketing it as a scholarly translation misleads consumers about its nature and authority. Christians and religious communities need better frameworks for distinguishing between legitimate scholarship and personal theological projects. The removal from Bible Gateway and scholarly criticism provide independent validation that quality concerns are justified, regardless of one's theological perspective. ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — The Problem With The Passion ### 📚 Literature Atoms (H3) #### Translation credibility requires proper academic credentials and peer review > [!quote] ID:rw_sample1 > Most translators of major Bible versions hold advanced degrees in biblical languages, textual criticism, and theology. Simmons does not have formal training in any of these areas. **Context & use**: - Core argument about translator qualifications - Establishes standard for biblical scholarship credibility **Tags**: #biblical-scholarship #translation-methodology **Highlight**: [Article content - no Readwise link available] <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### Marketing labels can mislead consumers about product quality > [!quote] ID:rw_sample2 > Christians will gobble up anything that has the label "Christian" slapped on it, without even verifying if it actually is. **Context & use**: - Opening thesis about consumer discernment - Applies beyond religious contexts to any specialized field **Tags**: #consumer-behavior #critical-thinking **Highlight**: [Article content - no Readwise link available] <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### Platform removal signals significant quality concerns > [!quote] ID:rw_sample3 > Bible Gateway (which offers dozens of translations on their site) has removed it from their website. They cite that critics have argued that it does not meet the rigorous standards of a traditional translation. **Context & use**: - Independent validation of quality issues - Shows market consequences of poor scholarship **Tags**: #platform-standards #quality-control **Highlight**: [Article content - no Readwise link available] <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates (H4) #### Extraordinary claims require proportional evidence and expertise **Claim**: When someone makes extraordinary claims about divine revelation or special knowledge, their credentials and evidence should be scrutinized more carefully, not less. **Evidence pointer**: [[#Translation credibility requires proper academic credentials and peer review]] **Scope & conditions**: Applies to any field where authority claims are made; particularly relevant in religious, medical, or technical contexts where misinformation has serious consequences **Links**: - [[Critical thinking frameworks]] — because extends - [[Authority evaluation methods]] — because applies-in expertise assessment - [[Consumer protection principles]] — because evidence-for verification needs <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - [F1] Research how other religious traditions handle translation controversies — scholarly standards comparison #fleeting #inbox - [F2] Investigate whether similar single-author translation issues exist in other faith contexts #fleeting #inbox ### → Things 3 (max 2 actions) - [ ] Create checklist for evaluating religious/spiritual resource credibility — for future content vetting #things <!-- deep-read:sections end --> ## Highlights - Most translators of major Bible versions hold advanced degrees in biblical languages, textual criticism, and theology. Simmons does not have formal training in any of these areas. - Note: 📚 Translation credibility requires proper academic credentials and peer review · - Core argument about translator qualifications - Establishes standard for biblical scholarship credibility · #atom/literature/h1 - Christians will gobble up anything that has the label "Christian" slapped on it, without even verifying if it actually is. - Note: 📚 Marketing labels can mislead consumers about product quality · - Opening thesis about consumer discernment - Applies beyond religious contexts to any specialized field · #atom/literature/h2 - Bible Gateway (which offers dozens of translations on their site) has removed it from their website. They cite that critics have argued that it does not meet the rigorous standards of a traditional translation. - Note: 📚 Platform removal signals significant quality concerns · - Independent validation of quality issues - Shows market consequences of poor scholarship · #atom/literature/h3 - Extraordinary claims require proportional evidence and expertise - Note: [[Critical thinking frameworks]] — because extends · - [[Critical thinking frameworks]] — because extends · #atom/zettel/z1 - Research how other religious traditions handle translation controversies — scholarly standards comparison - Note: ✏️ Fleeting capture #atom/fleeting/f1 - Investigate whether similar single-author translation issues exist in other faith contexts - Note: ✏️ Fleeting capture #atom/fleeting/f2 - May oversimplify Simmons' actual methodology claims - Note: 🔍 Fallacy: Strawman #fallacy/strawman ## New Highlights added 2026-05-31 at 1:19 PM - I’m sure he might be helpful as part of a team of translators. Actually, no, he wouldn’t. Why would I say that? Well, look at something else that most people don’t know about the single translator of *The* *Passion Translation*. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kszeweytgnn4en5h5f4dcvj3)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted