Background: The following post features the second part of an exchange between me and Apostle Brian Simmons, the translator of a 'New Apostolic Reformation' Bible called "The Passion Translation." See Part 1, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5. The exchange occurred after I wrote a critical review of his translation at Amazon.com (see the discussion thread here and notice that he has since deleted his response to me).I want to highlight in this post what I call the "Purple Haze Tactic." You could define this tactic as dodging criticisms with vague words and a positive outlook.As you read Simmons' response to my review, notice his vagueness. That is, he fails to state which revisions he made to his translation. Instead he basically says, "Trust me. Every little thing gonna be all right."First, here's what I said.

Simmons has taken verses of Scripture that have nothing to do with NAR teachings and practices and reworded them so they appear to support those very teachings and practices, such as "prophetic singing," the "transference of an anointing," and the issuing of "apostolic decrees."

And this was Simmons' response."   Though Simmons is clearly trying to reassure his readers that he fixed any inaccuracies I pointed out, he failed to reassure me. So, here's what I wrote back to him.

I applaud Simmons for being open to correction. But I ask him directly: Mr. Simmons, what changes did you make exactly and to which specific verses? As a matter of transparency, it is important for you to be specific--and not vague--about the changes you made in your translation and the reasoning for those changes. And I hope that your reasoning was not based solely on my critique, but that you actually consulted New Testament scholars.I am also concerned about Simmons' statement that the revisions will make the text "more clear and readable to those who resist the `prophetic' ministry of today." I believe Simmons included this statement for two main reasons.The first reason is to suggest that my concerns about his translation are based merely on a bias against NAR teachings about "prophetic" ministry and, thus, are not legitimate concerns. In other words, he is using NAR insider language to insinuate that his supporters should not listen to me because I am resistant to "prophetic" ministry. This is a sleight-of-hand maneuver, which Simmons appears to have done in an attempt to get people to ignore the serious critiques I raised about his translation.The second reason is to assure his NAR supporters that he did not make any substantial changes to his translation, but only reworded it so that the "prophetic" teachings would be more palatable to his critics. In short, Simmons does not admit that his original translation was inaccurate--only that it needed to be reworded so it would be "more clear and readable to those who resist the `prophetic' ministry of today."

Have you seen instances of the Purple Haze tactic used by others in the New Apostolic Reformation movement?-- By Holly Pivec