Setting the record straight

[gbausc]

Why was my post removed? surely it can do no harm, if it is all lies and is easily refuted.
But we know why it was removed.

Plagiarism has nothing to do with whether a source is public domain, or not.

Here is pagiarism:
pla??gia??rize (pl?????j???-r??z???) v. pla??gia??rized, pla??gia??riz??ing, pla??gia??riz??es. --tr. 1. To use and pass off as one's own (the ideas or writings of another). 2. To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another). --intr. To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another. --pla???gia??riz???er n.

Andrew,please quote your introduction where you say Murdock and Younan (or Lawrence Sheets) were your base translation text, and that you merely revised them here and there.I will mark the words in my copy of your book.

Your text is certainly copied from them; I can show it again, if you like. But you take credit
for their translation work by your silence and refusal to attribute the translation to the proper
sources.

You can talk about your footnotes until the cows come home (is that mooing I hear?); I am referring to the translation itself.
I suppose that if I had simply copied Lamsa's translation, or Etheridge's, and published it with my name on it, that would have been just fine too?

I can't believe much of what I am reading here in the several responses to my post.
Paul wrote:

"not only is the Interlinear here on public domain, and not only is it NOT a translation"....

That's news to me; probably is news to most of you.
And Paul, again:

"Copyright on scripture? Have you no shame whatsoever?"

I have nothing to be ashamed of; Andrew does, as do all who condone what he has done.

Christine writes:

I also own a copy of the AENT, and I know that you have given both Paul & Murdock the credit due to them, and not once did you claim their work as your own. Of course I can quote your footnotes which clearly state this but I won't because I, unlike those 3 hypocrites actually respect the COPYRIGHT NOTICE!!!

Footnotes are not the place to give proper attribution; the introduction or preface is the place for that. Andrew has not done that. Are we supposed to believe you cannot reproduce the quote due to copyright notice? Talk about straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

And:

I say, who cares anyway, as long as God's Words are faithfully rendered into English!!!

Well, I care! Am I the only one? Perhaps. This is very sad.

And Andrew :

Let's call a spade a spade here--Bauscher's attacks must be viewed as theologically and perhaps racially motivated.

Wouldn't that be convenient,Andrew? Just take one's own plagiarism and turn it into someone else's racism?

I reproduce here the definition and description of plagiarism from writecheck.turnitin.com (a plagiarism checking program):

What is Plagiarism?
Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means:
1. To steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
2. To use (another's production) without crediting the source
3. To commit literary theft
4. To present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.
But can words and ideas really be stolen?
According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. In the United States and many other countries, the expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions.
Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some media such as a book or a computer file.
All of the following are considered plagiarism:
??? Turning in someone else's work as your own
??? Copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
??? Failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
??? Giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
??? Changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
??? Copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)

Attention! Changing the words of an original source is not sufficient to prevent plagiarism. If you have retained the essential idea of an original source, and have not cited it, then no matter how drastically you may have altered its context or presentation, you have still plagiarized.
Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism.

Actually, Andrew, I am the best friend you have right now. Most others here are complicit in your theft and fraud by their express approval of what you have done.

Ryan and Albion are also much better friends to you than your cheerleaders here. I know they
are very hurt, shocked and discouraged by what you have done. Where is your soul? Have you sold it and the truth for a mess of pottage?

Pr 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

-KJV

Ga 4:16

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

-KJV

Why don't you just humble yourself, confess and repent before God and us all?


Dave Bauscher