A NEW TWIST TO THE TRANSLATION CONTROVERSY
By Wayne Camp
For some time I have wondered what non-English speaking/reading people do for a Bible since some argue that the only acceptable Bible in the world today is the AV 1611 KJV. I recently received communication that apparently answers my question.
One letter that was included in the communication said, "Our church is Bible Baptist Church in Seoul, Korea. We published a Korean King James Bible in 1994." Another letter included in the communication said, "We have Korean King James Bible (KKJB) April 12, 1994."
That doesnt really answer my question. In fact, it raises others. The AV 1611 was a translation into English. It is alleged by some to be the only perfect Bible available today. If that be true, then how can anyone get a perfect translation into another language?
One of the Korean preachers who wrote the letters quoted above also wrote, "Meanwhile there is another group of people who attempted another King James Translation (He means a translation of the KJV into Korean). The leader of that team, Man Soo Park is an Associate of our Pastor. He is a responsible translator of KKJB. Park recently published his bible saying it is a literal translation. We have found out that bible was translated with robbing many words and verses from our Bible. More than that, it is not necessary to be born. It is just like the NKJB (New King James Bible) against KJB (King James Bible)."
This is very strange. First, when you translate the KJV into another language it is no longer a KJV. And, there is no argument under the sun that can make it so! Secondly, it appears this first group of Koreans who translated the KJV and called the translation the KKJB (Korean King James Bible) think they have come up with the perfect translation in Korean. Now, they are blasting one of their own translators, Man Soo Park, for producing this new version that they compare to the New King James Version which is rejected by many as being spurious. Is it not strange that Park was and is considered a responsible translator as long as, and since he worked on the first KKJB, but now, his second effort is tagged as spurious because it must differ some with the first, or simply because he dared make a second?
It occurs to me that more than 75% of the AV 1611 KJV was taken directly from Tyndales translation. If the Korean translation from the KJV should be called the Korean King James Bible, should the KJV not be called the King James Tyndale Bible? Or should the KJV New Testament be called the King James Textus Receptus. That would be as correct a description as is Korean King James Version. Folks, any way you cut it, you cannot get a King James Version in the Korean language. Calling it the Korean King James Bible is just calling it that, nothing more.
Do not mistake this as KJV bashing for it is not. I am just amazed at this New Twist in the translation controversy. The next thing you know there will be a Japanese King James Bible, an Indian King James Bible, a Philippine King James Bible, and who knows what else. And, even more amazing is the charge from one of the translators quoted above. Someone who worked on the first KKJB and is, admittedly, a worthy translator, has translated another KKJB which is being declared spurious by some of the translators of the original (?) KKJB.
All this is rather bewildering. It reminds me that many insist that the AV 1611 is the only valid translation in existence today, but, when they get in the pulpit to preach they use a 1769 revision of the AV 1611.
It also reminds me of those who argue that the Septuagint is a spurious translation and should not be used. Yet, they do not hesitate to read as authoritative those quotes from the Septuagint found in the Textus Receptus, and translated into the KJV. If the Septuagint is spurious, one wonders why Jesus quoted from it as the Word of God?
Return to Index Page for Past Issues of The Grace Proclamator and Promulgator
Return to CENTRAL BAPTIST CHURCH HOME PAGE
Send mail to email@example.com
Last updated on Friday, March 04, 2011