This piece looks at a growing controversy inside some churches: a modern Bible version called the Passion Translation, the concerns voiced about its origins and methods, and why one radio host believes it poses spiritual and doctrinal risks. It examines claims about how it was produced, the theological oddities critics point to, and why feelings of spiritual affirmation don’t necessarily equal sound translation. The article preserves key quoted statements as they were originally said and keeps the media embed in place for context.
Many people assume that if something sounds spiritual it must be faithful, but appearances can be misleading. Critics warn that a version of Scripture that leans heavily on emotive phrasing and novel language can slip past a trusting church and reshape how people experience the Bible. That worry is driving a sharp critique from Rick Burgess on his program when he confronts what he calls a “spiritual counterfeit.”
On the show “Strange Encounters,” Rick Burgess places the Passion Translation under a skeptical spotlight and voices deep concern. “The more we researched this labor of love by Brian Simmons, the more my spirit was grieved and the more concern I began to have,” he says. “Here on ‘Strange Encounters,’ we absolutely believe with zero hesitation that the Passion Translation of the Bible is not of God. You need to get it out of your house if it’s in your house.”
The Passion Translation is presented as a modern, heart-level paraphrase aiming to unlock emotional resonance and “fiery passion,” but critics say presentation and substance are very different. Rick objects strongly to the label “translation” when the work reads much more like a personal paraphrase, arguing that such labeling misleads readers about the text’s basis. “It’s already being deceitful,” he insists, suggesting that calling the work a translation implies a scholarly, source-checked process it does not have.
Another major criticism centers on theology and editorial choices. Rick points to what he calls an egalitarian bent in the author’s views, noting that Brian Simmons reportedly holds that men and women are interchangeable in church roles and marriage. He also accuses the text of slipping into what he terms “hyper-charismatic” language that has “never been in Scripture,” language that disproportionately emphasizes feeling and revelation over established textual tradition.
Scholarly method is also part of the dispute. Traditional translations rely on teams and cross-checking against manuscripts, but Rick claims the Passion Translation appears to lack that collaborative structure. He raises the issue of source material, alleging that later Syriac texts were treated as if they represented an “original Aramaic” form, a choice he calls speculative and misleading rather than rooted in mainstream textual practice.
Perhaps the most provocative charge is about the project’s origin story, which involves claimed supernatural commissioning. Simmons has described a personal commissioning and supernatural help for his work, a narrative that Rick challenges aggressively. “We’re to believe that all those who translated the Bible into English correctly — none of them got it right? And some guy named Brian Simmons was deemed so valuable by God that Jesus went to visit him, touched his forehead, enlarged his brain so he could translate the Bible correctly for us?” he asks, using stark language to question that claim.
Rick doesn’t mince words about the nature of such encounters. “He might have been visited by a supernatural being, but it wasn’t Jesus and it wasn’t an angel, and I have zero problem saying that and saying that boldly,” he declares. For Rick, the combination of unconventional source use, lone-author methods, and sensational origin claims makes the Passion Translation especially risky for congregations wanting reliable teaching.
Beyond method and origin, there’s a pastoral worry: versions that feel good can seduce by emotion while steering people away from tested doctrine. Rick warns that appealing language that prioritizes personal experience creates a shallow trust in feeling rather than a firm trust in Scripture. “This is why it’s so dangerous.”
If you want to see the discussion in context, the radio episode lays the case out with examples and commentary and is embedded above for reference. The debate raises broader questions about how churches should evaluate new Bible editions, how to balance heart-level expression with textual fidelity, and how congregations protect their teaching from unstable influences.
