This is why men don't go to church anymore

 

Men don't go to church anymore because the church is out to cancel them. That's part of it, anyway. Why go where you're not wanted or respected?

The Acts of the Apostles in The New International Version of the Bible is a good example of this.

The NIV, perhaps the best selling Bible in America, especially among Evangelicals, wants its translation to reflect gender equality, so, for example, whenever brothers appears it often adds "sisters" even though "sisters" is not even there. The NIV's gender equality ideology actually trumps the text by adding "sisters" in 124 places where the Greek New Testament doesn't have it. It also adds the singular "sister" about 26 times. I guess the feeling on the part of the women is that the sisters have been canceled long enough, but the fact is they were never there to be canceled in the first place.  

We meet up with this even more acutely, however, in Acts, which is famous for its many orations by individuals which begin "Men, brothers" or "Men and brothers" (ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί), but "men" in these cases are actively canceled by the NIV.

An NIV footnote to the first of these at Acts 1:16 informs us that 

The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in 6:3; 11:29; 12:17; 16:40; 18:18, 27; 21:7, 17; 28:14, 15.

Yes, Inigo, they keep using that word but it does not mean what they think it means. If the text had meant to add "sisters" (ἀδελφαὶ) it would have. Unfortunately for the NIV, "sisters" appears just nine times (or eight) in the Greek New Testament, and this ain't one of 'em. It goes without saying that "sisters" is missing also in 6:3; 11:29; kai ta loipa (the funniest of these being Acts 6:3 where the NIV with a straight face wants us to imagine that The Twelve tell the brothers and sisters to choose seven "men").

The tell though is that the NIV manages to never translate ἄνδρες in these instances in Acts, except where it absolutely had no other choice in Acts 7:26. Otherwise the "men-ness" of the brothers is simply ignored, because it is counter evidence to the NIV's assertion that adelphoi means "brothers and sisters".

Here are all the instances of canceling ἄνδρες before ἀδελφοί in the NIV of Acts: 

The NIV has "brothers and sisters" at Acts 1:16;

"fellow Israelites" (not there at all!) at Acts 2:29;

"brothers" at Acts 2:37;

"brothers and fathers" (fathers is there) at Acts 7:2, even though it had to translate "Men you are brothers" at Acts 7:26 (the NIV shows by this that it knows it is up to no good); 

"brothers" at Acts 13:15;

"fellow children" at Acts 13:26 (ROFLMAO);

"my friends" at Acts 13:38 (even more ROFLMAO);

"brothers" at Acts 15:7, 13;

"brothers and fathers" at Acts 22:1;

and "my brothers" (!) at Acts 23:1, 6; and Acts 28:17, ending on a chummy note that isn't there either.

This is a completely disgraceful business, an indefensible slaughterhouse of "men" and the maleness of ἀδελφοί.

No wonder men don't go anymore.

The King James Version (observe "Men, brethren" as opposed to "Men and brethren" at Acts 7:2, 26 and Acts 22:1), and Young's Literal Translation both are among the translations which retain the forms of address which preserve the maleness and the dignity of the brothers as men.

The RSV was the Bible of my youth, and the KJV has been the Bible of my old age. But the NIV will never even be a Bible to me. It is literally an abomination. 

 

KJV

 

YLT

A Hellenized Jew might well recognize in Paul's three descriptions of his conversion experience and of his life in general a man judged by God according to Greek Deuteronomy

 

The LORD shall smite thee with madness (παραπληξίᾳ, stunned confusion), and blindness (ἀορασίᾳ, sightlessness), and astonishment of heart (ἐκστάσει, being out of one's mind): And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee. 

-- Deuteronomy 28:28f. 

Stunned confusion

And he [Saul] said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 

-- Acts 9:5

And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

-- Acts 22:8

And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 

-- Acts 26:15

Sightlessness

And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. ... And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.  

-- Acts 9:8f.,18

And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.  And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.  

-- Acts 22:11ff.

Being out of one's mind

And [Saul] hath seen in a vision (ὁράματι) a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.  

-- Acts 9:12

And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance (ἐκστάσει);  

-- Acts 22:17

And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.  

-- Acts 23:9

Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision (ὀπτασίᾳ):  

-- Acts 26:19

And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself (Μαίνῃ); much learning doth make thee mad (μανίαν). But he said, I am not mad (μαίνομαι), most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.  

-- Acts 26:24ff.

Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one--I am talking like a madman (παραφρονῶν)--with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 

 -- II Corinthians 11:23ff.

Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.  

-- Acts 26:32

 

Imagine how unreliable "eyewitness" accounts from antiquity must be when normal vision not requiring correction is such a rarity anyway

 

 

 

Reported here: 

In 2016, approximately 76 percent of adults in the U.S. stated they wore some form of vision correction.  

Widespread use of eyeglasses is an outgrowth of their late invention, during the Italian Renaissance, with ubiquitous production with plastic lenses dating only from the 1980s. Before that, things looked, well, kind of grim for an overwhelming majority of people.

St. Paul, who probably had very bad eyes from birth, yet boasted that he had seen the Lord.

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 

-- 1 Corinthians 9:1

Paul's conversion, however, bespeaks a probably lifelong preoccupation with his poor eyesight. It specifically involves being blinded, and then scales falling from his eyes when he recovers his sight well enough to be considered normal again, and this again miraculously (Acts 9:8f., 18, 27).

But evidently this was not a full restoration of his sight.

According to Acts 23:1ff. Paul still could not spot the high priest in a crowd of people he was addressing. He says the Galatians would have given him their own eyes if they could have (Galatians 4:15), admitting that he is infirm (Galatians 4:13), and that he must write to them using "large letters" (Galatians 6:11). The Galatians knew the man and the truth about the man.

By the time he is dictating Romans, he is now older and his eyes have grown so bad that he requires an assistant to write the epistle. This person even makes an appearance at the end of it in order to explain why the penmanship doesn't match Paul's (I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord. -- Romans 16:22).

We are to believe Paul was granted a miracle of an appearance of Jesus, but not a complete healing.

Like so much else outside the miracles recounted in the Synoptic tradition performed by the historical Jesus, one cannot help but feel let down by these details involving the achievements of the risen Saviour.

And a post-conversion St. Paul who could not see well enough to recognize the high priest may reasonably be doubted to have been able to recognize Jesus pre-conversion, risen or otherwise.

Isn't that obvious from Paul's own testimony?

Who art thou, Lord? -- Acts 9:5

Who art thou, Lord? -- Acts 22:8

Who art thou, Lord? -- Acts 26:15