Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who is Rev. David Bauscher?
#31
You said:

Quote:The only place in scripture that gives any clue that lashana is also a heavenly language is in I Corinthians 13:1. Here the phrase tongues of angels is interpreted to mean heavenly language. However, the word for angel is the same for messenger in it's generic form malakha. So the phrase could just as well be languages of messengers/diplomats. There is no solid evidence that speaking in tongues is referring to anything but known languages.

It could, but it does not. And there is absolutely solid evidence right here in the Holy Scriptures.

God, through His Apostle is teaching us that there is a difference between the two.... 1 Cor 13:1 "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels...."

If Angels here were just human Messengers/Diplomats as you imply, then what is the difference with them and Men. It would make no sense whatsoever if we used that logic.

If this Gift of The Holy Spirit of God were just the ability to speak a known Language of mankind, then the Scripture makes no sense when it says here in Mr. Bauschers translation: 1 Corinthians 14:2. "For whoever speaks in languages does not speak to men, but he is speaking to God, for no man understands what he speaks, but by The Spirit he speaks mysteries."

Now, it has been shown that Mr. Bauscher got it wrong there in his translation and if it were speaking of mere human lingo, then this verse makes completely no since whatsoever.

This is because it is talking about a Spiritual Language that is not learned or made up by man's mind.

And to build on that, look at another verse where Mr. Bauscher's translation has it wrong.

Same Chapter, verse 14. "For if I should pray in languages, my spirit is praying, but my understanding is unfruitful."

You can see here that the human mind hasn???t a clue what is being spoken when the spirit is praying because it is not a human Language being spoken.

The next verse really brings it home.

Again using Mr. Bauscher's translation of verse 15. "What therefore shall I do? I shall pray with my spirit, and I shall pray also with my understanding. I shall sing with my spirit, and I shall sing also with my understanding."

Again later in the Chapter The Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul says this: verse 19. "But in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also, than 10,000 words in languages.

Mr. Bauscher gets it wrong again here as well, not translating it as Tongues which it should be rendered. The Scripture clearly makes a difference here of a Language of the mind, from that of a spiritual Language that one uses to pray and worship God with that no man understands, not even the person themselves.


Q: When you were praying in Tongues for all those years, was your spirit praying or your mind? Did you pray sometimes in your normal Language say English and sometimes in Tongues?

I have seen people over the years believe they had the Gift of Tongues the Scripture is talking about here, only to learn later that they were just mimicking what they had heard from someone else....

That is not the Gift of The Holy Spirit.

It is rather a person wanting something so bad that they copy what they are hearing and oft times comes when someone is trying to get them to speak in Tongues up in front of a church group, while the pressure mounts to utter something....


You also said:

Quote:Given church history, is it credible that this latent gift of the Holy Spirit would not be known till the early 20th Century at the Azuza Street revival meetings? I spent three decades of my Christian life "speaking in tongues" and only came to a realization of the falsehood when I began to read the Peshitta New Testament. For the most part it's a harmless syllabic exercise of prayer but to follow the doctrine of tongues to the extent that the Pentecostal and charismatic churches have, leads to confusion. Been there, done that and got the T-shirt!!

I see that you are unaware of the Gift of the Holy Spirit down through the ages. You can easily do some research these days on the Internet and see the documented proof of the Gift of Tongues and other Gifts of the Holy Spirit never ending among Christians.

What happened in Topeka Kansans and Los Angeles was not the first time since the 1st Century, by a long shot.

As for what passes as the Holy Spirit of God in many Pentecostal and Charismatic groups out there, I agree that it is confusion...The Apostle Paul was addressing this very same thing to the Corinthian Christians here. They needed to get some sound teaching real bad.... and did.

Lets not throw the Baby out with the dirty bath water, lets just get rid of the polluted water. Amen
Reply
#32
Quote:I simply disagreed with you regarding speaking in tongues, in the very way that the majority of the world's Christians would.


Being in the Majority is not often a good place to be if ever. God's people have most often been the little flock and the lone man against the rest of the bunch.

Be careful going to the big church or the oldest one in town, it is most likely a whited sepulcher full of dead men's bones.... filled with the traditions of religious people.

Edit 8/5/2011 --->Or it might just be the best little Church on Earth (The Church of the East)... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#33
Shlama all,

Quote:Bauscher WAS WRONG in his translation. Ryan, I Love you like a Brother, but I still feel that Dave screwed up BIG TIME in his "translation".

Hi Albion. I love you like love a brother, too. Still do! You can feel that Dave screwed up big time (remember my "BIG TIME NO" from my review of his translations concerning agreement with him on everything?), without necessarily being wrong. I just tried to point out that Dave also isn't necessarily wrong - but I was separating interpretiveness from linguistics. This is what I was talking about:

Quote:Actually, they are the same word - "Leshana" ("Lashon" in Hebrew). Literally means tongue (as in the muscle in your mouth), or language.

+Shamasha

And for that matter, Christina started out most excellently with the lexical answer as to my first inquiry of an apparent contradiction between Bauscher and Magiera. I just wanted to point it out, without having looked it up myself. I'm just trying to be all-around helpful towards Spyridon's question as to whether Dave's is accurate and reliable. To say categorically that Dave's rendition of, say, "translator" is completely WRONG dances the line between interpretiveness and linguistic operability. Anyone knows that a linguist interprets. Or, they translate. My high school Spanish teacher translated incomprehensible Spanish to me, into English, until I came to learn more of it myself, and could thus properly interpret it for myself. Andrew is both translating/interpreting the Eastern Peshitta from Aramaic into English, so that you and I can both comprehend what MarYah has spoken in a Language/Tongue foreign to both our understandings. We depend, yes depend, on the fidelity of the translator/interpreter to properly convey the Text's true meaning to us, the readers. As to whether Dave has chosen THE BEST way to render in English for ALL OF US, I simply see as a matter of opinion and interpretiveness (theological). LINGUISTICALLY he has not severely violated anything. Dave translates the WAY he does because of HOW he believes - I agree. Perhaps "translator" is an all-around bad way to go about conveying the idea, and is solely based on his supposition. But my point is, we ALL carry our presuppositions into the Text when we read It, so a certain latitude must be maintained when we go about judging a person's work and answering someone else as to its accuracy and reliability. We ourselves cannot suppose that each and every reader is going to be an upholder of glossolalia. And obviously not everyone is. I'm not here to try and fight about that issue with anyone, pro or con - you already know my position, and how I could easily get radically passionate about the issue. But I separate that issue from Dave's said-and-done piece of translation itself. I can disagree with his choice of words, but that doesn't mean he's violated the Lexicon.

And especially for those who take, for instance, the Evangelical Church's position on "speaking in tongues", they have a right to know that a certain passage which may not exactly be rendered appeasingly to a Glossolaliac's doctrinal taste, is still lexically and linguistically sound. Perhaps that leaves the glossolaliast in a hard-pressed situation where they have to dig deeper to see that they're not wrong, but each translation comes with its baises, and that's life. Otherwise, I completely know what you are trying to say, and frankly I agree. I also can whole-heartedly appreciate Stephen's contribution here, wherein I may not exactly agree with the totality of his experiences' conclusions, but he has an equal say in the matter from a Textual/linguistic viewpoint. In his defense, I also now read other certain passages of NT Scripture in quite a different light than I used to.

I also wholeheartedly appreciate Thirdwoe's contributions here, and have greatly benefited from them. Having looked up Spyridon's reference to the Greek Orthodox's position, I have learned something new there, as well. As to "Jehovah", I am in complete agreement that this usage is atrocious, but I'm not going to drop a sword onto a guy for alone using it. And frankly, we cannot forget it's origin in history: the Jewish scribes. Vowel-points for Adonai upon the Text's "YHWH" to so-called "protect" the usage (and vowel-points for Elohim upon "YHWH" when "Adonai YHWH" is used in the Hebrew Text, to avoid "Adonai Adonai" pronunciation). A lot of bad things come from all corners of civilization. What we hope for is not always what we get, but we have to take the best of the good, and run with it. If Dave wants to see universalism or preterism in the Peshitta[o], then I guess he is allowed to do so, as long as it comes out in his translation without violating Semitic grammar, lexical usage of definitions, and the overall sense of God's Word. I'm not a Syriac scholar, so I cannot discern his entire translation from beginning to end as being lexically free of error, but where the text sounds rough or wrong, I check deeper into it, and yes, so far those renderings of his are plausible and allowable. That leaves ME with a lot of work to catch up on, and perhaps - just perhaps - some revising of MY OWN doctrinal presuppositions. One can never know for sure, until they live up to the standard that Scripture Itself has set, on Its own terms, and in Its own Language. That's all I've been trying to say.

So perhaps when I say he was a faithful translator, we can each of us independently agree, without strife, that he at the same time might not always be the best translator (at least in places), yes? And we can know why, that it is because he believes theologically a certain way. But that does not exactly make him "wrong". Am I making sense here?

Quote:Given church history, is it credible that this latent gift of the Holy Spirit would not be known till the early 20th Century at the Azuza Street revival meetings?

Honestly, I don't believe in the slightest that Azuza was the beginning. I am reminded of a chronicling book called "2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity" by one Eddie L. Hyatt. I'll hand it to you - there's A LOT of weird and WRONG stuff going on out there, and frankly I've been in the midst of some of the weirdest (ever heard of Todd Bentley?), but it is because I've been in the midst of the weirdest, that I am chary from attributing absolutely everything to either psycho-physiological phenomena, or to the demonic. Bluntly, glossolalia itself, from my experiences, can be divided into 3 - 4 categories; not 2, nor 1. But I just wanted to point out that there's a whole lot more chronicling than just the turn of the 20th century (D. L. Moody himself would've been categorized in that movement if he'd lived long enough; his Institute, which I've done courses through, went the opposite direction). But like you, I can agree that ANY see-saw without Torah sitting on the other end, is going to set rock-bottom on 1 side: unbalanced.

And one last thing - to Thirdwoe, I don't believe that Dave chose "teach" instead of "learn" due to

Quote:It is also held by those who say that God no longer gives the Spiritual Gifts listed in 1 Corinthians, that the term Prophesy or Prophesied is just saying that someone is teaching, as in giving a sermon or such.

I agree with you that

Quote:That is false.

but I do not believe this is where Dave was coming from. I derive this conclusion from past personal correspondance with him, wherein he offered me some consolation including that which he deemed to be from God, not from him (active prophecy), just as you put it:

Quote:To prophesy, is to speak a direct word, or words from the Holy Spirit, as it is given to the individual for the exhortation, edification, warning???etc, to another or group of people, to who God has instructed the person to deliver it.

Just wanted to mention that. Frankly, I think that Dave is taking way more flak than he should be, and it is not helping anything. Especially without his presence here, to defend himself. Granted, I myself mentioned the late Lamsa, but only in the context of certain places having been warped without conscience, when it has been made plain as day that he was more than adept at rightly translating those certain places in conformation with his beloved Eastern Peshitta. Justly so, I believe that Dave Bauscher has whole-heartedly and with a clean conscience translated that which he has, and his understanding of Scripture is in there ...... EVERY BIT as much as Andrew Gabriel Roth's and Paul Younan's are in theirs.

I'm trying to be as fair and even-handed as possible, without being accused of being an Ecumenist.


Blessings to all,

Brother Ryan
Reply
#34
Thirdwoe, I understand your opinion and I respect it. Need we discuss it any longer? Overall, is the translation accurate? Is it theologically sound?
Reply
#35
No need to go over the same ground, it's been plowed well enough.

Theoligicaly, I see some of Mr. Bauschers doctrinal bias poking through where it should not be and is unwarented. I have shown this already. But overall, the other parts that I have read, it is not a bad work of translating.

I have Mr. Bauscher's translation here at the house and use it. In fact, it is the only hard copy I have other than Lamsa's Translation. I look at them all online of course to compare. And am greatly looking forward to Mr. Roth's translation.

I have nothing against Mr. Bauscher personally. I don't know much about his life. I did not look for faults in his translating work, but came across the few I mentioned as I was reading the text and felt I should point them out at this time.

I still read it, but I???m thankful the Holy Spirit is leading and guiding me into all truth as I read.

I say, no translation can be inerrant or without some bias here and there and over all, what I have read thus far, but for the passages I mentioned here it seems to be a good translation. I know it is hard work. I like the way he has woven it together much better than a few online translations that I have read...it is very readable in that since for the most part.

But one must be careful with it, because Mr. Bauscher does hold to a number of false doctrines, which may influence his translation work. I have not read through it all carefully to see if this is so in other places besides the one I pointed out, but would caution the reader.

So, I would say that as to general reliability, it must be tested and proved by the Spirit as one reads through it and studies.

There is some good work there in some of his notes as well that show the Aramaic as the Original. I wont be throwing my copy out anytime soon.


One last thing....

Opinions are complety worthless, but Truth is priceless.....
Reply
#36
Amatsyah, you said:

Quote:And one last thing - to Thirdwoe, I don't believe that Dave chose "teach" instead of "learn" "I derive this conclusion from past personal correspondence with him, wherein he offered me some consolation including that which he deemed to be from God, not from him (active prophecy), just as you put it: To prophesy, is to speak a direct word, or words from the Holy Spirit, as it is given to the individual for the exhortation, edification, warning???etc, to another or group of people, to who God has instructed the person to deliver it. Just wanted to mention that.

Well then, maybe Dave is not so bad after all.....lol

Seriously, I have met and fellowshipped (two fellows in a ship) with many Christians that do not accept the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and have got on good with them. I am certainly not a....well ya know.


You said:

Quote:Frankly, I think that Dave is taking way more flak than he should be, and it is not helping anything. Especially without his presence here, to defend himself. Granted, I myself mentioned the late Lamsa, but only in the context of certain places having been warped without conscience, when it has been made plain as day that he was more than adept at rightly translating those certain places in conformation with his beloved Eastern Peshitta. Justly so, I believe that Dave Bauscher has whole-heartedly and with a clean conscience translated that which he has, and his understanding of Scripture is in there ...... EVERY BIT as much as Andrew Gabriel Roth's and Paul Younan's are in theirs.

And that is fine, but all things must be tested and proved Amen? I certainly have not attacked Dave personally here, nor would I, but have pointed out some things in his translation and doctrines that I believe are wrong. I know that God is good enough to help Dave see The Light in due time and am not casting him off as a worthless branch. I am glad he completed the work, but it must be measured and weighed and eaten with caution as all translation must be.

I sure do appreciate your spirit. You sound like you have learned a few lessons along the way....<!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink --> Blessings to you.


You and the others may enjoy our Website at <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.mychoctawfamily.com">http://www.mychoctawfamily.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply
#37
Ryan said:

"Just wanted to mention that. Frankly, I think that Dave is taking way more flak than he should be, and it is not helping anything. Especially without his presence here, to defend himself."

Dave COULD still be here........BUT, he viciously attacked Andrew Gabriel Roth, and Paul Younan, then he decided that we were all his "enemies", and he summarily LEFT the Forum.

All of this because he could NOT handle someone else believing that the Godhead was NOT how Dave thought that it should be!

But his REAL reason was even more sinister.............his jealously over Andtrew's forthcoming, Mari/PEACE!

Just a reminder of what REALLY happened!

Albion
Reply
#38
<!-- s:| --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/neutral.gif" alt=":|" title="Neutral" /><!-- s:| -->
Reply
#39
Shlama all--

Not sure what to say here, but I think I need to interject a little. I would have certainly preferred to have had David Bauscher's understanding (even in agree to disagree mode) than his protracted absence which does not benefit anybody. I certainly have not nor will not shrink from defending myself when necessary, but that doesn't mean I stand on ceremony and remain angry until some apology manifests. I am content to make my point, give my "opponent" something to think about that they may or may not correct later, and in the meantime live my life. We cannot endure life waiting for apologies from all who wronged us or whom we perceived wronged us. That is why Y'shua said we need to love our adversaries and pray for those who abuse us, not for their sake, but for ours. Without forgiveness there is no repentance and without repentance there is no progress.

But I guess I digress a bit. In a sense, I want to in a way come to Bauscher's aid here. Whatever controversies may arise from his codes work or theological bent, the burden of translating holy text is an excruciating responsibility that can tax the strongest of people. No one, other than another translator, can understand the burden with respect to trying to deliver YHWH's Word into a language that did not exist for many centuries prior to it originally being given. How do you deliver as many as ten discrete meanings of an Aramaic word or navigate the endlessly complicated morphologies and combinations? Then, how do you speak it back in a way that won't excite some problem with somebody no matter what you say?

The answer, or part of it at least, is to do this for many, many years and to live, speak, breathe and sleep the text. That's what Lamsa did, for better or for worse. Same with Murdock, Etheridge and our own Paul Younan. It is, quite honestly, impossible to not translate something in a way that someone else won't have a problem with down the road. Christianity has 30,000 denominations and the problems on the Nazarene side are also evident. We will not solve those divisions with a single work or overnight no matter who does it, but we are commanded to try to move forward in some kind of unity, so the work is never done. Is Messiah divided? Was Rav Shaul crucified for you???

I don't know if Bauscher really has the animosity towards me or not that seemed to come out, and frankly, I don't care either. But I will say that I understand the challenge he has labored under better than many others because I have done the exact same thing. We filter things through our experience and understandings in this process, so some influence be it Nazarene or Protestant, may be inevitable. But it also helps to go over the text hundreds of times and try to root out as much of that as you can as well. The problem is, no translator knows how successful he or she has been at doing this most important thing. Only history and the well regarded opinions of others can do that.

On the other hand, the other way to deal with "agenda issues" is to be proactive and admit them. I make no bones about the fact that Mari was developed not just as an interlinear translation but with appendices and other stuff to represent the Nazarene perspective. I tell my readers what I believe and why, so that when they see a line in Galatians that bothers them they go "See, Andrew told me why he did that". They may not agree with me, but I think most will at least appreciate my honesty. There is also a concerted effort--and the success of it is in the eyes of the beholders and not me--to keep a certain level of "speculation" out of the base text and even out of the footnotes, but to explore things in greater detail in the appendices. Is it too much or not enough? I have no idea. Only you folks can tell me if I have done right.

To my mind the problem is NOT that I have done this but that so many other translations haven't. They put forth this "word for word objective myth" that is nice for a goal but they proclaim it as hard fact and physics. Linguistics, especially from an ancient tradition, simply doesn't work that way. It is hard, painstaking, meticulous and straining work, and the timid should not attempt it. We are talking about something that will keep you up through half the night for YEARS at a time, and that's the price we pay, Bauscher and I.

As I tried to say to Bauscher once I will say to all of you once more: My job, and Mari's, is not to convert anyone from their faith. Rather, my job is to expalin MY FAITH, and from there leave the Ruach haKodesh to the rest of the work. But if Mari read like KJV, NIV, NASB and the rest, there would be no reason for me to expend the effort to create it.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#40
According to The American Heritage Dictionary the noun "tongue" can mean "A spoken language or dialect." There is no particular plain English distinction. They are synonyms.

Overall, I have found Dave's Plain English translation to be quite good and using his Interlinear every word can be verified.

Dave is a gifted linguist and a highly industrious tranlsator whose work is quite reliable, but some word choices may have been influenced by his theology. That is a problem for all translators, however.

His Bible code studies are worthless. Unfortunately he is unwilling to change his opinion about Bible codes even after being shown the flaws in his studies and he insists on putting Bible code claims in the introductions of his translations. I believe that these Bible code claims will turn off many intellegent readers

Here are some news clips I found on the web about Dave:

Rev. David Bauscher of Cambridge, NY has just published two books with Lulu.com, the world's fastest-growing provider of print-on-demand books. The books are titled "The Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament" and "Jegar Sahadutha-Heap of Witness."

David Bauscher is a pastor and former high school teacher with a proficiency in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and has been preaching and teaching The Bible since 1976 in several churches in the USA. He and his wife have 12 children, all of whom they have home schooled, with one ADA lawyer and another in medical school.




Otto
Reply
#41
Rafa Wrote:He convinced most of the other members of the council of Nicea to adopt this view.

What are you saying? Tertullian wasn't even present at the Council of Nicea. The Council accepted the Christology of St. Athanasius, as it was supported by the Tradition of the Church.
Reply
#42
Rafa, I cannot believe you unless you actually quote authorities from the Assyrian Church of the East.
Reply
#43
Dear Rafa,

I would say that the Day of Pentecost "tongues", and the gibberish spoken in most modern Pentecostal Churches is COMPLETELY different.

One is REAL and one is NOT.

Shlama, Albion
Reply
#44
Frankly, Rafa, please keep your opinions to yourself. For all you know, that lady cursing Yeshua (I'm sure it was really "Jesus"), was from a nearby coven of witches. Or I suppose in your dogma, you're already aware of this very common occurrance? Yes, people - not everybody sitting in your pews or standing in the aisles or dancing up at the altar is for real! Why do you think we have 30,000 denominations?! I'd rather hear Stephen's opinion on it, since he was exposed to it for 30 years. I did mention that I was not in here to fight about it, but frankly, your statements are inflammatory. Especially right after what should've been a good long "selah" from what Andrew posted. And as to the Trinity issue, again, please keep your opinions to yourself. Your dogma is not everyone's dogma. I've been as respectful as I possibly can towards all here, without getting too doctrinally biased on "hot issues", and I'd suggest you try the same from now on. It's less inflammatory to others that both share some of your views, as well as disagree. Where Scripture is unambiguous, the arguments are no longer opinions. But for "hot issues", leave them alone, already.

Affectionately,

Ryan
Reply
#45
I remain neutral on this subject of "tongues". I still believe it's most likely actual human languages, but I am open to the "language of angels" view. But I'm not setting anything in stone at this point, as I'm not sure, MarYah will provide my answer in His time.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)