Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who is Rev. David Bauscher?
#76
....


Quote:I think David has worked just as hard in his work as I have in mine. I think we have both been sincere and genuine in our efforts too, but honestly sometimes the flaws are NOT in the translated text, but in ourselves. People can't help but project their own positions--and we our own--into what we do. The best we can do is make a good effort to explain consistent methods, admit where we are coming from honestly and give the reader the tools to make up their own mind.


Andrew, I believe you take the right position here.

I know that Mr. Bauscher was not tying to deceive anyone with his translations. I respect his labor there as well. I am sure you will agree that no translation can be 100% perfect and free of our own minds.

Thank God we have been given the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us into all truth and without this in this day and age, we would be hopelessly lost as we hear and read the teachers and the translations.

Mr. Buascher is not a villain in any respect, let me make that clear. He is a person who is doing the best he can with what he knows and has learned, and I don't fault him for that. And just like us all, there is room for improvement and corrections. But I will point out something that I see as dangerous when I see it.

Who is Rev. David Bauscher...? He is a Man, who wants to be pleasing to God as best as he is able, and who wants to be as faithful to God and His Word as possible. I have no doubt about that, even though he is mistaken in some of his beliefs and translation work.

I pray that he will see it, and can change what needs to be changed....That is God's work.


...
Reply
#77
.....

Quote:Just because Dave did not believe in tongues he is getting flac. This is unfair. He will never return to this board if people keep attacking him while he's gone. I will only bring up issues to him up front. Believe me, I have many many disagreements with his NT, but I'm not going to claim he has a sinister agenda while he's gone and can't defend himself.

I haven???t seen this happen here. Mr. Baushcher is not being attacked in any way. His translations have been examined rather and in some places found to be wanting. Who here has claimed he has had "a sinister agenda"?

I know everyone sees things from their own perspective, but if there was a car crash, there should at least be a car involved....


....
Reply
#78
...


Quote:Forgive me, but I'm not sure that he meant "laguages" in that sense. I think he is simply of the opinion that they were all known languages, not "nonsense" spiritual tongues. I, personally, am undecided. I'm just saying that you can't say that the translation is "wrong" because it is correct technically. So to attack the man, his theology, or translation based on a translation that is accurate is really kind of...I hate this word, but...unfair.


You said: "Not "nonsense" spiritual tongues"

Q: How can "spiritual tongues" be "nonsense"?


You said: "you can't say that the translation is "wrong" because it is correct technically."

I have said that it was linguistically viable, but not correctly interpreted as to its true meaning. Others here agree. And other translators have gotten it right, even if they did not have a doctrinal bias going in.


You said: "So to attack the man, his theology, or translation based on a translation that is accurate is really kind of...I hate this word, but...unfair."

Never have I attacked the man. Show me where.

And I will address a translator???s theology when it is taught publicly and a translation that is made for the public's consumption must be examined and judged when it is faulty. I have tried to do this here with Grace and Love.

This thread is not about Mr. David Bauscher really, but about a translation and if it is trustworthy. Go back to the top and see how it started and why. The title of the thread is misleading in that respect.


...
Reply
#79
Hi, Dawid.

For years, I've seen Dave take all kinds of heat. One difference now is that Dave has not been responding. Another difference is that others (besides you) have been responding on his behalf.

-Doug "Whitey" Jackson
Reply
#80
It was I who claimed that Dave's reason FOR LEAVING THE FORUM i.e., his jealously over the Forum's attention about Andrew's forthcoming Mari/PEACE was "sinister".

Albion





Thirdwoe Wrote:.....

Quote:Just because Dave did not believe in tongues he is getting flac. This is unfair. He will never return to this board if people keep attacking him while he's gone. I will only bring up issues to him up front. Believe me, I have many many disagreements with his NT, but I'm not going to claim he has a sinister agenda while he's gone and can't defend himself.

I haven???t seen this happen here. Mr. Baushcher is not being attacked in any way. His translations have been examined rather and in some places found to be wanting. Who here has claimed he has had "a sinister agenda"?

I know everyone sees things from their own perspective, but if there was a car crash, there should at least be a car involved....


....
Reply
#81
...

I quite enjoyed some of his discussions on the forum.

...
Reply
#82
If you ask me, Dave desperately needed to try on the garments of Mercy, and Compassion.

Shlama, Albion



Thirdwoe Wrote:...

I quite enjoyed some of his discussions on the forum.

...
Reply
#83
Rafa,

Once again you (seriously) misquote me!

Where did I say that Bauscher's writings are "FROM HELL"??

Sounds like a Johnny Depp movie to me! <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) -->

You saw WITH YOUR OWN EYES Bauscher be demeaning, cruel, and totally non-compassionate, more than once!

Please STOP MISQUOTING ME!

Albion

P.S. I'm ASSUMING that you've NOT READ Mari yet, where do you get off acting like you HAVE!?

"it's the same WORD to me!" <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->



Rafa Wrote:That's so harsh Albion, no really my brother I think Dave's translation was excellent in so many ways, only he should not have called Andrew a "heretic" and just left like that. If you have a serious disagreement with a brother, you don't treat him like "the other" and say his approach is "from hell". That being said, the issues being discussed in MARI from an Eastern perspective are of a very different flavour than what most Westerners are accustomed to and can touch a raw nerve. I think that the culture, language barrier is the primary one though still (why we have so many disagreements on things like the Nicean Creed for example). Once we get past that we shall see our views align very well. Not that we can agree on everything, but I think 90% of the disagreements here are linguistic cultural ones.
Reply
#84
Thirdwoe Wrote:Mr. Bauscher took lots of heat for his false doctrines while he was still posting here.... preterism, universalism, cessasionism, bible codes....etc, etc.

These are not attacks on the Man, but a mans false doctrines that need to be shown for what they are. False.

I have nothing against Mr. Bauscher personally, but I do have something against the false doctrines themselves, and will show them to be so.

This is about a translation that was put out to the world....and it is being examined....where false doctrines show up in it, it should be exposed.

This has nothing to do with Mr. Bauscher's personal sins in his life, where that Scripture you alude to would apply.
Among those false doctrines, I, too, am a universalist. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
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. 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.
Let me put all I've said above this way: Is Mr. Bauscher's translation technically wrong in these cases?
Reply
#85
...

Quote: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....<!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->


Quote: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?


Quote: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.


Quote: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.

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.


...
Reply
#86
Thirdwoe Wrote:...

Quote: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....<!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
lol. Touche!

Thirdwoe Wrote:
Quote: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. <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->

Thirdwoe Wrote:
Quote: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.

Thirdwoe Wrote:
Quote: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.

Thirdwoe Wrote: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.
Reply
#87
...

I too believe that the two passages of Scripture are speaking of the very same thing. It is referring to a God given supernatural ability to speak, pray, worship and so forth, in a God given supernatural language, that He chooses to give the individual by the power of The Holy Spirit within the person them self. The language, being beforehand unknown to the person and they did not understand with their own minds what the words meant which were coming out of their spirit through their mouth as the Holy Spirit was giving them utterance. This I believe is the clear teaching of Scripture regarding supernatural spiritual tongues or languages that are given by God.

I understand the passage in 1st Corinthians Chapter 14 in this way, while leaving the word Language or Languages as the translation rather than Tongue or Tongues and putting (in brackets what I believe is the correct meaning or sense of the passage.)

Using Mr. Bauscher's translation:

1st Corinthians Chapter 14

1. Run after love and be zealous for the (God given supernatural) gifts of The Spirit, but especially that you may prophesy.

2. For whoever speaks in (God given supernatural) languages does not speak to men, but he is speaking to God, for no man understands what he speaks, but by (the gifted utterance of) The Spirit (of God) he speaks mysteries.

3. But he, who prophesies, speaks edification, encouragement and comfort to children of men.

4. He who speaks in (God given supernatural) languages builds himself up (within his own spirit), and he who prophesies builds the Church up (as a whole).

5. I wish that all of you might speak in (God given supernatural) languages, but all the more that you may prophesy, for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in (God given supernatural) languages, unless he Interprets (the supernatural language as God enables them); and if he interprets (as God enables), he edifies the Church (as a whole).

6. And now my brethren, if I come to you and speak (these God given supernatural) languages with you, what do I benefit you, unless I shall speak with you either by revelation or knowledge or by prophecy or by teaching?

7. For even inanimate things which give sound, whether a flute or harp, if they make no distinction between one tone and another, how will anything that is played or anything that is harped be known?

8. For if a trumpet make a sound which is not distinct, who will be prepared for battle?

9. So you also, if you will say words in (God given supernatural) languages and (but) you will not interpret (by God???s supernatural power), how will anything be known that you say, for you yourselves will be as one who is speaking to the air (it wont help the others out around you).

10. For behold, there are many kinds of languages in the world, and there is not one of them without sound.

11. And if I do not know the import of the sound, I am a foreigner to him who speaks, and also he who speaks is a foreigner to me.

12. So also you, because you are zealous of the (supernatural) gifts of The Spirit (of God) for the edification of the Church, should seek to excel (in this regard).

13. And he who speaks in (God given supernatural) languages let him pray to interpret (the words by God???s supernatural power).

14. For if I should pray in (God given supernatural) languages, my spirit is praying, but my understanding is unfruitful. (I don???t know what the supernatural words mean that I am speaking through my spirit)

15. What therefore shall I do? I shall pray with my spirit (in my God given supernatural language), and I shall pray also with my understanding (with my own natural language). I shall sing with my spirit (in my God given supernatural language), and I shall sing also with my understanding (my own natural language).

16. Otherwise, if you say a blessing in The Spirit (with your God given supernatural language), he who fills the place of the unlearned, how will he say amen for your giving of thanks, because he does not know what you said?

17. For you bless well (with your God given supernatural language), but your neighbor is not edified.

18. I thank God that I am speaking in (God given supernatural) languages more than all of you,

19. But in the Church (setting) I would rather speak five words with my understanding (my own natural language), that I may instruct others also (who understand it), than 10,000 words in (God given supernatural) languages.

20. My brethren, do not be children in your intellects, but be infants in evil and be fully mature in your intellects.

21. It is written in the law, "With foreign speech and with another language I shall speak with this people, and not even in this way will they hear me, says YHWH."?

22. So then (God given supernatural) languages are established for a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers, but prophecy is not for unbelievers, but for those who believe.

23. If therefore it should happen that the whole Church assembles and everyone would speak in (their God given supernatural) languages, and the uninitiated (who dont understand what is going on) or those who are unbelievers (of God and the spiritual realm) should enter, would they not say that such (people) have gone insane?

24. But if all of you would prophesy and the unlearned or an unbeliever should enter, he is searched out by all of you and he is reproved by all of you.

25. And the secrets of his heart are revealed and then he will fall on his face and worship God and he will say, "Truly, God is in you."

26. I say therefore, my brethren, that whenever you gather, whoever among you has a Psalm, let him speak, or whoever has a teaching, or whoever has a revelation, or whoever has a (God given supernatural) language, or whoever has a (God given supernatural) interpretation, let all things be done for (the purpose of) edification.

27. And if any speak in (God given supernatural) languages (in a Church gathering), let two speak, or as many as three, and let each one speak and let one interpret (by the God given supernatural gift).

28. And if there is no (one who has the God given ability to interpret these God given supernatural languages then), let he who speaks in a (God given supernatural) language be silent in the Church (gathering) and let him speak to himself and to God.


I also smile when I read what appeared above each of the people in the upper room when the Holy Spirit rested upon them and they began to speak as the Holy Spitit gave them utterance.

Again, using Mr. Bauschers translation.

Acts 2: 3-4 And "tongues like fire" that were divided appeared to them, and they sat on each one of them. And all of them were filled with The Spirit of Holiness, and they were going out speaking in various (God given supernatural) languages, according to whatever The Spirit was giving them (God given ability) to speak.

I once found this other Scripture that I believe ties into this verse nicley....

"The spirit of man is the candle of YHWH, searching all the innermost places." Prov 20:27


Looks to me like God lit their candles/spirit in the upper room with the fire of the Holy Spirit.... <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->


...
Reply
#88
[content edited by author]

to all whom have contributed to this thread ---- YHWH richly bless you.

shalom
Gordon
Reply
#89
...

Thank you for the blessings Gordon.

Was showing here that Mr. Bauschers choice in translating the word "Languages" rather than the traditional way "Tongues" was a poor choice of his as it muddles the true meaning of the text in question...

The original post had asked the question who Mr. Bauscher was and if his translations were reliable. If you read through the whole thing, I think you can see the progression of the posts. Folks have been very polite here to each other and this is a testament to the maturity and love that the members posses. I thank God for that.

I am not a "Pentecostal" nor hold to any "pet" doctrines, but I am careful to check the Scriptures to see if they bear out a teaching that may be held by Christian groups and see if they are indeed correct and that they are correctly interpreting a passage of Scripture.

Of course we need the Holy Spirit to lead us a guide us in this along the way and getting a right understanding of the Holy Scriptures are greatly helped with a knowledge of what the Aramaic says...this being the original Language of the New Testament.

If you have been offended in any of my words, please know that has not been my intention.

I have pretty much said all that I have to say here on this Scripture passage and Mr. Bauscher's translation of it in his Aramiac New Testament.

Also, the Aramaic Forum is right next to this General Forum and it tends to get down to the nuts and bolts of the Peshitta in a more scholarly detail.

Blessings to you in Y'shua

...
Reply
#90
Thirdwoe Wrote:Mr. Bauscher took lots of heat for his false doctrines while he was still posting here.... preterism, universalism, cessasionism, bible codes....etc, etc.

By secessionism, do you mean that modern Christians do not speak in unintelligible language, or that the Church is the New Israel? That's what the majority of Christians believe and have for centuries. And concerning preterism and universalism, does he allow that to affect the translation itself? And how are you defining preterism and universalism? The Bible code was studied by Sir Isaac Newton, how is it a problem to you? As I've already explained, "Jehovah" is the traditional English transliteration of "Yahaweh" just as "Yeshua" transliterates as "Jesus."

For the future, please refer to Rev. David Bauscher as either Rev. Bauscher or Pastor Bauscher, unless he is in fact not a pastor.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)