As part of my day job I occasionally appear in the News or on TV. Generally related to research or anxiety disorders: my first paper was published in 2000. I become part of the news cycle for about six hours. I provide content.

I’d rather be writing the papers and blogging. Whatever I do in the media does not influence here. This blog is getting harder to find. I’m being pushed down the google rankings. But it matters not.

The traffic remains the same. What has happened is that the narrative is now so ridiculous that the truth must be suppressed by the media… so the media are losing their audience.

When you are approached by the media, be it Megyn Kelly, Piers Morgan, Wired, The New York Times, or The Atlantic, you must understand that they see you as the content du jour. And the content is always folded, spindled, and mutilated to fit their current Narrative, which is NOT the reason they will give you when they try to get you to talk to them or appear on their show.

Here is the thing. You don’t need the media. As Mike Cernovich points out, they need you. It is Piers Morgan whose name is on the headlines because Tommy Robinson was willing to make Morgan relevant today, not the other way around. Who is more relevant and has a bigger platform, Richard Spencer, who leaps to talk to the media, or Stefan Molyneux, who will not even return their emails?

And as both Mike and I have noticed, mainstream exposure doesn’t even move the needle. Not in terms of blog traffic, Twitter followers, or book sales. It is probable pain for no gain. Whereas whenever he goes on Infowars or I go on FreeDomainRadio, we see observable bumps in one or more metrics.

The strongest example of this is ancient. The Sadducees were the elite among Jewry. They were sophisticated. They made accommodations with their Roman overlords. They would have been considered the moderates, the ones who supported the Imperial narrative.

But they were not heard by the people. They were ignored.

Luke 20:27-40

²⁷Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him ²⁸and asked him a question, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. ²⁹Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; ³⁰then the second ³¹and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. ³²Finally the woman also died. ³³In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.”

³⁴Jesus said to them, “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; ³⁵but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. ³⁶Indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection. ³⁷And the fact that the dead are raised Moses himself showed, in the story about the bush, where he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. ³⁸Now he is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive.” ³⁹Then some of the scribes answered, “Teacher, you have spoken well.” ⁴⁰For they no longer dared to ask him another question.

Our God is not a God of the dead, but the living. Christ said that the patriarchs are alive in him. Wonderful. A promise that we can trust.

But mistrust the translators, for they also have an agenda.

According to Christianity Today, the SBC opted for “optimal equivalence” rather than a literal word for word translation. In a nutshell, this means the translators gave what they believed to be the thoughts of the writer in some instances rather than a straight word for word for word translation of what the original writer actually penned. There are numerous problems with this approach:
1) The Revelation of St. John is rather clear that anyone who adds to or takes from the words of the book is in deep trouble.
2) Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass away until all things were fulfilled.
3) Imagine you are interviewed for a newspaper article and ignore Vox Day’s advice. You give written answers to a reporter’s questions, and then discover that what he prints is not what you said. The words are close, but a few are slightly adjusted in order or phrasing and give a meaning other than what you conveyed. The reporter defends himself by saying he simply printed what your actual thoughts were in a clearer way than you presented them yourself, and really it’s pretty close to what you actually said. This is what the SBC has done with the word of God.
4) It demonstrates a lack of faith in the word of God. A strict, literal translation of God’s word is not good enough. The SBC feels the need to polish things up around the edges so that it can actually do the work God intended. I believe we used to call that the sin of pride.
5) The King James, New King James, American Standard, New American Standard and some others are strict, word for word translations. A few discrepancies exist due to slight differences in the Textus Receptus and the Textus Sianaticus. None of these discrepancies involve the gender of nouns or pronouns, and all of these translations have served to reach millions with the Gospel of Christ.

The key verse here is Luke 20:38. It cuts the narrative of the Sadducees off. It is a promise to treasure, if we are of faith. But some translations miss the point.

There is a tendency in the non literal translations to see this as everyone, universal. It is no.

This mode of expression is employed in various senses in Scripture; but here it means that believers, after that they have died in this world, lead a heavenly life with God; as Paul says that Christ, after having been admitted to the heavenly glory, liveth to God, (Romans 6:10) because he is freed from the infirmities and afflictions of this passing life. But here Christ expressly reminds us, that we must not form a judgment of the life of the godly according to the perceptions of the flesh, because that life is concealed under the secret keeping of God. For if, while they are pilgrims in the world, they bear a close resemblance to dead men, much less does any appearance of life exist in them after the death of the body. But God is faithful to preserve them alive in his presence, beyond the comprehension of men.

Calvin, John. “Commentary on Luke 20:38”. “Calvin’s Commentary on the Bible”. .

New International Version
He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

New Living Translation
So he is the God of the living, not the dead, for they are all alive to him.”

English Standard Version
Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.”

Berean Study Bible
He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for to Him all are alive.”

Berean Literal Bible
Now He is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to Him.”

New American Standard Bible
“Now He is not the God of the dead but of the living; for all live to Him.”

King James Bible
For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
He is not God of the dead but of the living, because all are living to Him.”

International Standard Version
He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, because he considers all people to be alive to him.”

NET Bible
Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live before him.”

Translation is a slippery thing. The idioms from one language do not map that well into another. It has been a source of scholarly work since Jerome translated into Latin from Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. There is a need to carefully consider the original in scholarly exegesis.

And each word matters.

Do not trust the press, for they twist your words, to the point that academic leaders need training in handling such snakes. And mistrust the translators who try to fit the revealed word of God to their prejudices.

Do not be such. Do not follow the narrative. Do not be them. Do not be like them.