09-17-2008, 05:37 AM
Shlama all,
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:
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?
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
I agree with you that
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:
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
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