Who is Rev. David Bauscher?

[Dawid]

...

Among those false doctrines, I, too, am a universalist.

We'll at least you are able to admit that you hold to a false doctrine....<!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

lol. Touche!

Now, I do not object to the attacks on the volume. I objected to the post I quoted because it crossed a line. As long as we only address the translation on the basis of its technical merit, I am happy.

And what happens when you become unhappy then?

Not as clever as your first rejoinder, but I'll give you points for effort. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- s -->

The attack here has not been based on its technical merit. It is based on the precondition that tongues is a certain thing. This does nothing to prove whether or not his translation is correct. This is basing textual criticism and interpretation on personal doctrine, rather than the other way 'round, as it should be.

If by these "attack's" you mean some of my posts, then you must know that I don't believe that "tongues is a certain thing" nor is it a personal doctrine of mine...I have been talking about the choice of the term or word Languages over Tongues. This is why I asked Mr. Roth about who he chose to translate the word and why.... His response was revealing if you have read it. If not, then please do.

I merely meant to address the trend of the thread as I saw it in general.
I have not read it. I only read the first few posts. I didn't know that it existed.

Let me put all I've said above this way: Is Mr. Bauscher's translation technically wrong in these cases?

If you mean that he is within the law of translation to use the word "Jehovah" and "Languages", rather than YHWH and Tongues, I would say that a translator could get away with it "technically" since no one really knows just how YHWH is pronounced and what vowels are the right ones to insert there.... But again J & V ???
And "Language" or "Languages" could be the translated word when and if the text has that meaning...But in the case of 1st Corinthians Chapter 14, it is very clear that it is not the meaning at all.

I don't think that "get away with" is really applicable here. He is within the bounds of reasonable translation no matter how you look at it. And with translation, that is all you can ask for. It's not a science. It's guesswork.
"J" may be antiquated, but then the text is a bit of an antique, too. And "v" as opposed to "w" is rather standard. It's dialectual, since most Hebrew dialects nowadays use "vav" not "waw" this is to be expected, even though "waw" is more accurate as far as ancient times go.
I don't think that it is so clear.

If you have Mr. Bauscher's translation handy, just read real slowly through 1st Corinthians Chapter 14 and tell us that it makes any sense all translated that way. Then show why it makes sense to you, I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

I'm afraid I can't do this because I fail to see how it doesn't make sense. I read it and it seems perfectly logical to me within the larger context of the "NT," knowing what happened in Acts, etc.