Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who is Rev. David Bauscher?
#61
Better late, than never! lol


1st Corinthians from The Way International Aramaic-English New Testament:


(1 Cor. 12:10) and for another miracles, and for another prophecy, and for another discerning of spirits, and for another kinds of tongues, and for another the interpretation of tongues.

(1 Cor. 12:28) For God placed in his church, first apostles; after them, prophets; after them, teachers; after them, workers of miracles; after them, gifts of healing and helpers and leaders and kinds of tongues.

(1 Cor. 12:29) [Are] all apostles? [Are] all prophets? [Are] all teachers? [Are] all doers of miracles?

(1 Cor. 12:30) Do all have gifts of healing? [Do] all speak in tongues? Or [do] all interpret?

(1 Cor. 14:1-33)

1. Pursue love and be zealous about the gifts of the spirit, but especially to prophecy.

2. For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no man understands anything that he speaks; yet in the spirit he speaks a mystery.

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

4. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, and he who prophesies edifies the church.

5. Now I desire that all of you speak in tongues and especially that you prophesy. For greater is he who prophesies than he who speaks in a tongue unless he interprets. But if he interprets he edifies the church.

6. An now, my brothers, if I come to you and speak with you in tongues, what do I profit you, except I speak with you either by revelation or by knowledge or by prophecy or by teaching?

7. For even those things that have no life and give out sound, whether pipe or harp, if they do not make a distinction between one tone and the other, how is the thing that is sung or the thing that is harped known?

8. And if the horn should sound a sound that is not distinct, who will prepare himself for the battle?

9. Likewise also, if you speak a message in a tongue and it is not interpreted, how is the thing that you spoke known? You have become as though you are speaking into the air.

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

11. But if I do not know the significance of the sound I will be a barbarian to that one who speaks, and also he who speaks will be a barbarian to me.

12. Likewise also, because you are zealous of the gifts of the spirit, seek to excel to the edification of the church.

13. And he who speaks in a tongue should pray to interpret.

14. For if I were to pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is without fruit.

15. What then should I do? I will pray with my spirit and I will pray also with my understanding. And I will sing with my spirit and I will sing also with my understanding.

16. Otherwise, whether you bless in the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the unlearned say amen at your thanks, because he does not know what you said.

17. For you bless well but your friend is not edified.

18. I think God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

19. But in the church I would that I might speak five words with my understanding that also I might teach others, rather than a myriad of words in a tongue.

20. My brothers, do not err in your minds. But be children to evil [things]and be mature in your minds.

21. In the law it is written, With a strange speech and with another tongue I will speak with this people. Even so, they will not hear me, says the lord.

22. Therefore, tongues are placed for a sign, not to believers but to those who do not believe. And prophecies are not to those who do not believe but to those who believe.

23. If therefore all the church is gathered and all speak in tongues and unlearned ones or those who do not believe should enter, will they not say that these are mad?

24. And if all of you prophesy and an unlearned one should enter, or one who does not believe, he is examined by all of you and reproved by all of you.

25. and the hidden [things] of his heart will be revealed. And then he will fall upon his face and will worship God and will say, Truly God is with you.

26. I say therefore, my brothers, that whenever you are gathered, let the one among you who has a psalm speak. And whoever has a doctrine and whoever has a revelation and whoever has a tongue and whoever has an interpretation, let all of them be for edification.

27. And if a man should speak in a tongue, let two speak and at the most three. And let them speak one by one, and let that one interpret.

28. And if he is not one to interpret, let him who speaks in a tongue keep silent in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God.

29. And let the prophets speak [by] two or three and let the rest discern.

30. And if [something] is revealed to another while he sits, let the first be silent.

31. For all of you can prophesy one by one so that everyone may learn and everyone may be comforted.

32. For the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets.

33. because God is not of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Thanks so much to my wife Sandy, for typing this!

Shlama, Albion
Reply
#62
Quote:=Thirdwoe"]Not.

If you look closer here, these Tongues are not known human languages at all that is being talk about here.... As the Apostle Paul said...Tongues of Men and of Angels.

OK, if you want to believe that I Corinthians 13:1 reads "tongues of men and of angels" that's fine with me. I won't oppose you but we will have to agree to disagree.

Quote:The Scripture clearly says that there are various types of Spiritually gifted Tongues.

Recitation please. Are you referring to I Corinthians 14:2? Read also 14:10. If there is a dual meaning or an apparent contradiction, I think it's imperative to take the plain reading of the text. This avoids confusion.

Quote:The Tongues here refer to Spiritually gifted languages or words given to a person for there own personal edification.

That's the same concept as a mantra. Yeshua cautioned against vain repetitions. (Matthew 6:7)

Quote:Look at the verse that says that NO man understands them, and that the person's own understanding is Unfruitful regarding them.

This could simply be referring to a visitor who blurts out an edification in his mother tongue without an interpreter. If the congregation doesn't understand the language they can't respond intelligently.

Quote:These Tongues are for the individual???s OWN edification, not the rest of the Congregation.... And this is why the Apostle Paul says that in a group setting (in Church) he does not use his personal edifying gift, because his focus is on the edification of others around him in a group setting.

That's precisely what is taught in the Pentecostal church. If you want to follow their lead feel free. Again, the use of mantras, or unintelligible syllabications (glossolalia) is not what the apostle Paul was teaching. This can be easily understood in the plain reading. What Paul is saying in I Corinthians 14:4 is this, don't try to edify the congregation in a language that they don't understand. If I recite a Psalm in Hebrew to a church group that doesn't understand Hebrew, how are they edified. If I truly love them I will translate the Psalm into their mother tongue so they can read it for themselves and be edified.
I think that beyond the isogetic understanding of I Corinthians 12-14 is the mandate to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to everyone in their own mother tongue and translate the scriptures for them, both the T"NK as well as the Peshitta New Testament. That is precisely what Paul was teaching and that is history, my dear friend.

Quote:He says that though he uses his personal edifying gift of Tongues in his personal prayer life more than anyone else, he chooses rather to keep that between him and God in a group setting...

The apostle Paul spoke Hebrew and Aramaic and "who knows what else". He was studied and articulate. The Corinthian church was not fluent in the Hebrew scriptures. From his youth, Paul recited the Hebrew scriptures, but his recitations would be unfruitful in the Corinthian church if there was no interpreter, so Paul kept his recitations to himself till the opportune time when these passages were interpreted. It's not like there were Bibles behind every pew. The scriptures were read. It was the only way for one to hear the Word of God. How can one be edified if one cannot understand what is being recited either by reading or by memory. Interpretation was absolutely necessary. Paul was an extraordinary linguist. he made plain the concepts of salvation for all that heard him. His epistles didn't just happen to appear out of the blue. He received instruction from the Spirit of Alaha when he wrote to each congregation. These epistles took time to be interpreted in writing.

Quote:If this counsel were headed [sic.] today, there would be little confusion.

I'll post the references if needed.

I think you should always post references. As you can see, I post references as I write so you don't have to. It takes time to source references.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#63
Shlama:
Even if I Corinthians 1: is interpreted as "tongues of men and of angels" it still doesn't mean that angelic tongues are unintelligible. An angel spoke in Aramaic to Zacharias, (Luke 1:12-20)Gabriel spoke in Aramaic to Miryam. (Luke 1:26-38) Again the shepherds saw and heard the angels praising Alaha. (Luke 2:8:14) In fact there is no place in the entire Bible where any angel spoke in an unintelligible language. Perhaps it is an idiom to say, "tongues of angels". Is it the equivalence of "angelic conversation"? What about Stephen the martyr's discourse? (Acts 6:15)

"And all who sat in the council, looking steadfastly at him, saw his face as the face of an angel."

Paul should know this about Stephen because he was there when he was martyred. Perhaps, in I Corinthians 13:1, Paul is recalling the angelic behaviour of Stephen the disciple. It's an assumption to use this passage to reinforce dogmatic notions of unintelligible angelic tongues. How can this be edifying? If I recite to myself a Psalm in Hebrew, I am edified if I do a word study. I can do that privately and be personally edified.
I practiced glossolalia for many years believing that this was evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I now understand that I have had the Holy Spirit baptism ever since I received our LORD and Saviour Yeshua Meshikha. There is no salvation of the soul without the Holy Spirit to guide us into All Truth. (John 16:13) Therefore, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a "second blessing" apart from the work of regeneration. The WORD of Alaha in written form (II Timothy 3:15-16) is precisely affirmed by the Living Word of Alaha (Hebrews 4:12) and this in turn is the Life of our Saviour Yeshua Meshikha and His very words. (Matthew 5:17-18)

"The WORD was made flesh and dwelt among us...." (John 1:14)

There is no ambiguity in the Hebrew and Aramaic texts. However, the Protestant Reformation solidly embraced and established the Greek New Testament (textus receptus) from the time of Luther, and this is the main reason that there are so many divisions amongst the mainstream Christian denominations and their various branchings. Erasmus and Luther were contemporaries. The Reformers rejected the Latin Vulgate and averaged the Greek texts to create the textus receptus.
In deed glossolalia is a relatively recent denominational phenomenon. The Wesleyan Holiness Movement united several branches in the early 20th Century, till the Azuza Street revival and the advent of glossolalia. This practice split the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene in 1919. Baptists were on a parallel path with the Wesleyan Holiness movement after the split between John Wesley (Arminian) and George Whitefield (Calvinist). These divisions including that over glossolalia are all because of the ambiguous readings from the Greek New Testament. Aramaic Primacy is not a "cure all". Between Lamsa and Bauscher there are many, many disagreements. Moreover, when a single dogma such as glossolalia can be the cause of so much internal strife and division in the Body of Meshikha, m'thinks we need to reevaluate the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and not respond with knee-jerks to Aramaic Primacy simply because it uncovers dogmatic follies and misrepresentations of the Greek textual traditions.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#64
....


How is it a Gift of the Holy Spirit if it is just a human learned Language that the Apostle Paul is speaking of here?

This whole passage is dealing with a Gift language of the Holy Spirit and a Gift of interpretation of that Gift language.

Why Gift? Because it is The Holy Spirit that must give the person the ability to both utter the words and interpret the words, BECAUSE, they are NOT Known to the individual beforehand.

It is the Holy Spirit who gives the utterance, through the person. The person's mind is not putting the words together, nor can it, because they are not generated in the persons mind!

This is why the Apostle Paul says that the person who gives a Tongue in the congregation should ask God for the interpretation of it, so that the rest of the congregants can know what the Holy Spirit has said through them.

1 Cor 14:13-14
Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

The person who has the Gift of speaking in Tongues is not putting those words together in their own minds....it is UN-Fruitful in this regard. It is the Holy Spirit doing the edifying work in the individual and through the individual....

Rom 8:26-27
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.

One last Scripture:
1 Cor 14:39
Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues.


.....
Reply
#65
Shlama:
I'm not going to pursue this thread. Let's agree to disagree and move on to something else.

<!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#66
....

Good choice there, all the bases have been covered, thanks for the polite discussion.

We have the Scriptures right here to look at and the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us into all truth...Amen
Reply
#67
Sir Isaac Newton devoted much of his life to studying the Bible code. It is not simply a matter of silliness, whether or not one believes it exists. If the Hebrew Bible has a certain code, wouldn't one also expect the original New Testament to have a similar kind of code?

From reading Rev. Bauscher's translation, and having personal correspondence with him, I've come to trust his work, unless proved faulty.

If his using "Jehovah," the traditional English transliteration, and not supporting Pentecostalism are the best criticisms one can have, then I know this is a good translation.

Quote:If the explanation of the form above given be the true one, the original pronunciation must have been Yahweh or Yahaweh.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N&search=yahweh#164">http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... yahweh#164</a><!-- m -->

Yeshua = Jesus
Yahaweh = Jehovah

There is certainly room for difference of opinion, and I look forward to reading Andrew's translation.
Reply
#68
In modern Hebrew, if I were going to ask you what language you speak, you know what I would ask? What "tongue" you speak. I think that "correct translation" is often subjective based on your preconceptions. Like the story I once heard about a pastor who started using the NIV until he couldn't find his favorite verse in it. Then he went back to the KJV for the straight Textus Receptus reading. Now, I don't know if anyone else has the same problem that I do with this story, but I find it a rather disturbing one. Rather than comparing Bauscher to Mageira to see which is more in line with how we've always heard something translated, and with our theology based on those previous translations, how about checking his translation word-by-word against the Peshitta itself? Maybe he's wrong, but then maybe he's right, afterall.
Reply
#69
Mr. Bauscher was not wrong linguistically at all.

He just went with his theology there and because of that the text makes zero sense.

Why? Because the passage is talking about a Gifted Heavenly Tongue that is given to the person for their personal edification.

It is in no way talking about the natural human language that one learns to speak over time and then learns to translate over time into other human languages.

One careful read-through of Mr. Bauscher's translation of 1st Corinthians Chapter 14 will show this clearly.

It make no sense at all to use "Language" and "Translation" in these passages...but is real clear with "Tongues" and "Interpretation of Tongues". Which are both given by the Holy Spirit as Gifts. i.e. you don't have to work for it.... <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
Reply
#70
I thought we were already done discussing Pentecostalism.
Reply
#71
You are talking about pentecostalism...I never mentioned it once and I am not a Pentecostal, nor do I espouse pentecostalism...

Nor do I hate or despise any Christian group.
Reply
#72
Thirdwoe Wrote:Mr. Bauscher was not wrong linguistically at all.

He just went with his theology there and because of that the text makes zero sense.

Why? Because the passage is talking about a Gifted Heavenly Tongue that is given to the person for their personal edification.

It is in no way talking about the natural human language that one learns to speak over time and then learns to translate over time into other human languages.

One careful read-through of Mr. Bauscher's translation of 1st Corinthians Chapter 14 will show this clearly.

It make no sense at all to use "Language" and "Translation" in these passages...but is real clear with "Tongues" and "Interpretation of Tongues". Which are both given by the Holy Spirit as Gifts. i.e. you don't have to work for it.... <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
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.
Why am I always the one who defends the person that it's become the trend to knock? And has anyone else noticed that Bauscher never took heat while he was here? Like nobody that gets attacked here is actually a member of the site? Hmm...next time someone has a question or criticism about someone how about not coming here to cut them down behind their backs, but instead going to face them head-to-head? If you have a question, ask them. If you have an objection, go to them. Remember the proper order of things, if you have a problem with your brother, the first thing you do is go to him alone. Not spread it abroad.
Reply
#73
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.
Reply
#74
Shlama all--

This is why I say translators like Bauscher and I have a burden that others cannot understand. This text that we call the New Testament has been intrepreted with a million controversies for 2000 years now. There is no reading of any line of it that will not spark controversy somewhere with someone.

I have struggled mightily over the years with where translating and faith intersect, what goes in and what stays out or what goes in footnotes, etc. Every word involves a high strategy. Every sentence dissected almost letter for letter.

The only reason this seems not clear to some is simply because large amounts of folks have become comfortable with a majority position that has taken root over the centuries and in my judgment creates a false harmony that is very appealing. And yet, even within individual congregations, there is wide disparity of viewpoints.

We think we have learned since Constantine but we are mistaken. The struggles for a unified vison are as pernicious now as they were 1700 years ago, and these are in turn reflected in the variegated phenomenon that was first century Jewish, Essenic, Pharisaic and Saduccean belief. Even Keefa had to address the confusion of his day, "who do YOU say I am?"

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.

I say these things as a man who is extremely grateful to everyone here and who has been warmed by your favor and your enthusiasm for what I am trying to do. And yes, Bauscher has at times really vexed me, but he should know as all of you should also, that not for one moment have I questioned his Aramaic skills. Never. There are others who have been frauds and charlatans, but whatever Bauscher may have done it is not due to a lack of work or consistent study. You cannot fake Aramaic knowledge and when people have tried they have paid a huge price from me personally.

In the end my friends what I would suggest to you is that more translation of the Peshitta can only be a good thing, and there will be folks that are inspired by David's approach, others by Paul Younan's and a few by mine. Collectively we will advance. Divided we will fail.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#75
It's ALL his "lashon ha ra" B.S. Don't even waste your time responding to him (Dawid)! Albion





Dawid Wrote:
Thirdwoe Wrote:Mr. Bauscher was not wrong linguistically at all.

He just went with his theology there and because of that the text makes zero sense.

Why? Because the passage is talking about a Gifted Heavenly Tongue that is given to the person for their personal edification.

It is in no way talking about the natural human language that one learns to speak over time and then learns to translate over time into other human languages.

One careful read-through of Mr. Bauscher's translation of 1st Corinthians Chapter 14 will show this clearly.

It make no sense at all to use "Language" and "Translation" in these passages...but is real clear with "Tongues" and "Interpretation of Tongues". Which are both given by the Holy Spirit as Gifts. i.e. you don't have to work for it.... <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
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.
Why am I always the one who defends the person that it's become the trend to knock? And has anyone else noticed that Bauscher never took heat while he was here? Like nobody that gets attacked here is actually a member of the site? Hmm...next time someone has a question or criticism about someone how about not coming here to cut them down behind their backs, but instead going to face them head-to-head? If you have a question, ask them. If you have an objection, go to them. Remember the proper order of things, if you have a problem with your brother, the first thing you do is go to him alone. Not spread it abroad.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)