OK, some of you are going, “Wow, cut Dave a break. You are harder on him than the Muslims.” Yes, I am. See, I hold a Christian apologist, who is invited into the pulpits of churches all across the world, to a completely different standard than I do a Muslim apologist. I expect a Muslim apologist to be…a Muslim! I expect him to act in accordance with his worldview. But I have listened to Dave Hunt “go after” all sorts of folks for minor infractions of his dispensationalist theology without the slightest meaningful basis for doing so (outside of simply not following his own traditions) many times over the years. And yet here we have him undermining the very foundations of the Scriptures and for what reason? The fact is you could place Acts 13:48 along with John 3:16 and Romans 9:16 and a few other verses in Greek in front of Dave Hunt and he would not, by his own confession, be able to tell them apart, let alone find a periphrastic construction with an imperfect form of eivmi, and the perfect passive participle of ta,ssw. Dave Hunt ignored the advice of many of his peers and committed himself to the path he now doggedly pursues to the detriment of everything he’s ever taught on the reliability and inspiration of the Scriptures, and for what reason? All I can see is a man unwilling to admit his errors, desperate to find any way at all to get around passages that, when accurately exegeted, teach contrary to his highest authority: his traditions. And isn’t it odd…most in the apologetics community have recognized the propriety of exposing Richard Mouw’s flawed and very one-sided understanding of Mormonism, but if Dave Hunt says the NWT’s rendering of Acts 13:48 is “the best” over against all the committee-translated English versions, then drops that without a word of apology, and replaces that gross error with an even bigger one, one that requires us to follow unnamed scholars from unnamed and unreferenced sources in “redacting” the text of Acts back to a mythical Hebrew original that, when translated by these same unnamed scholars just happens to be quite different than the Greek of the canonical gospel of Acts—well, let’s cut the guy a break since 1) he’s done so much good stuff, and 2) this is just a book about Calvinism anyway!
Quick Addition: I was just forwarded the URL for the “translation” Hunt added to his Acts 13:48 section as well, the “Nazarene Translation 2000.” Here it is. Once again one is left either fuming, or chuckling, at Hunt’s work. This is actually the “21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures” not the “Nazarene Translation 2000.” In fact, the proper name is the Nazarene Commentary 2000, a far cry from translation. And the level of scholarship is clearly indicated by clicking on the footnote attached to its odd translation. It reads, “Disposed: Or, ordained, predestined, marked out, appointed, destined. The Greek is TETAGMENOI [Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance #5021, arrange in an orderly manner, assign, dispose to a certain position]. It is not the individuals who are so disposed but the type of Life the Church will receive.” Ah, Strong’s. There we go. Any recognition of the periphrastic construction? Nope, of course not. [Insert “sigh” here]. Redacted mythical Hebrew texts prophecied by the Dead Sea Scrolls and the transformation of a Nazarene Commentary based upon Strong’s into a translation. There ya go, folks. Gail Riplinger has moved to Oregon.
