WHAT SAY YOU, MY BIDAYUH FRIENDS?

I came across this piece of article in http://brokenshield.blogspot.com and I suggest that everybody should read it and learn a thing or two. This goes to all those who are involved with SALCRA. Read it...sit back...think about it...and make up your mind.

Wednesday, April 29

Jabu under fire over NCR scheme ~ Malaysiakini

Taken from http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/103229

By Tony Thien Apr 28, 09 12:38pm

A Miri-based Dayak NGO has taken Sarawak's most senior Dayak minister Alfred Jabu to task for 'once again shortchanging the community' through one of the state government's most praised native customary land development schemes’ commonly known as 'konsep baru' or new concept.

It cited the latest incident which involved the Iban communities from Rumah Belili and Rumah Ranggong situated at Ulu Niah, Miri Division.

Borneo Resources Institute Malaysia (Brimas) executive director Mark Bujang said last Thursday, Jabu (right) handed out a total of RM436,708.20 in dividends and bonuses to 226 participants of the Ulu Niah NCR Joint Venture Project.

At first glance, he said, the total amount seems reasonable if the payment of dividends and bonuses are for the year 2008, but upon checking with the participants, it was learnt that this is the first time in 10 years that the JV project has paid out dividends or bonuses.

“If we were to make the assumption that the dividends and bonuses are divided equally among the scheme participants, each participant would receive about RM1,932,” he added.

Divide that by 10 years, he said, each participant would only get RM193 per year. This, he added, is a far cry from the government's promise that the scheme would uplift the socio-economic status of the Dayaks.

Snek Bagat, one of the residents of Rumah Ranggong, said: "I was looking forward to receiving the dividends and bonuses from our investment (in the JV project). But I was shocked to find out that our investment only yielded 50 cents per month after 10 years. Not enough to buy a cup of coffee."

Why the sudden need to do so?

Meanwhile, Bujang questioned the need to hand out dividends and bonuses after 10 years. "Why does the government and the JV company have a sudden interest with the NCR landowners after they have been neglected all these while?"

"Is it because that the community of Rumah Belili and Rumah Ranggong are suing the private investor BLD Resources Sdn. Bhd. for not keeping its end of the bargain?" he asked.

Previously, in 1999, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between BLD Sdn. Bhd (sister company of BLD Resources), Sarawak Land Development Board (SLDB) and the NCR landowners at Ulu Niah, where Rumah Belili and Rumah Ranggong were the participating longhouses, to develop the Ulu Niah NCR land based on the ‘konsep baru’ scheme.

Jabu and the then Sarawak Minister for Housing Celestine Ujang handed out the 10 percent upfront payment worth RM294,990 in 2001.

However, in 2008, a resident of Rumah Ranggong, Changgai Dali was sued by BLD Resources for allegedly trespassing into BLD’s plantation. When Changgai and his longhouse folks disputed this they discovered to their horror that their NCR JV project was cancelled - reason given was the government made a mistake saying the land is NCR.

Commenting on the dividends and bonuses received, Changgai said: "We thank Jabu for handing out the dividends and bonuses to us, but we are not happy with the amount."

"How come after all these years, this is all we get? Jabu not once mentioned the status of our land during the ceremony. When I asked Jabu if he could withdraw the provisional lease of the company, he replied that he does not have the authority," he added.

Problems in other schemes

In another case, Jabu also handed out dividends amounting to RM52 million to 16,480 participants for the year 2008 in another NCR land development scheme managed by another state government agency, the Sarawak Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority (Salcra), where Jabu is also its chairman.

According to an article sourced from a blogsite, Anilnetto.com, Salcra should have netted profits amounting to RM292 million for 2008 taking into account the price of oil palm that year. Jabu announced that another RM22 million had been set aside for loan repayments.

The article went on to say that the net balance after dividends and loan repayments should have amounted to RM218 million, or RM13,240 per participant.

The article questioned Salcra on where the balance of the money went. The article went on to state that even if 50 percent is withheld to allow for reinvestment and replanting, that would still amount to RM109 million or RM6,620 per participant to be accounted for.

In another NCR JV scheme in Suai, Miri Division, the Penans from Kampung Ugos threatened to withdraw from the said scheme launched by Jabu himself in 1998 if the state government agency the Sarawak Land Development Board (SLDB) did not disclose transparently the official documents, records, JV agreements and statement of accounts of the company.

The Penans also complained that they do not know how SLDB arrived at the amount of dividends paid which is exactly RM500,000 and they do not know which private investor company is in the JV. Some of the scheme participants have died not knowing what will happen to their land and their investment.

Inconsistent, insensitive translations of ‘Allah’? (Part 2)

A response to Prof Dzulkifli by Fr Martin Harun (Part 2)

Source: http://www.heraldmalaysia.com/news/storydetails.php/A-response-to-Prof-Dzulkifli-by-Fr-Martin-Harun/362-2-3

Prof Dzulkifli: The consequence of this translation will be that Muslims will be confronted with blasphemous ideas that ‘Allah’ has a son; that ‘Allah’s son was born in the manger; that ‘Allah’s son was crucified; that ‘Allah’s son died for all of us. This may have public order implications under section 298 of the Malaysian Penal Code which forbids the wounding of religious feelings.

Fr Martin: Such a statement could amount to forbidding the presence of Christianity altogether. Prof Zulkifli forgets that Bible and Biblical Literature are intended for Christian readers.

Prof Dzulkifli: As it stands, the use of ‘Allah’ the way it is can only arouse suspicions as to why an Arabic word is used for an Indonesia- Malay translation of the Gospel. Why not use the Hebrew or Armenia (Should it not be Aramaic? Editor’s Note) equivalents, instead?

Fr Martin: In a bible translation Hebrew and Greek words have to be translated, and — as said — the best and most enduring translation for the concept of Elohim and Theos has been the Malay/Indonesian word ‘Allah’. In our language ‘Allah’ is no longer an Arabic word with Arabic grammatical and syntactic rules, but has already for centuries become a Malay/Indonesian word that listens to our own language rules. E.g. we can say “Tuhan, Allah kita” which is impossible in Arabic.

Prof Dzulkifli: To add on to this suspicion is why there is no insistence that examples in the fore-mentioned names be substituted with the Arabic equivalent, including places like ‘Jerusalem’ which is substituted by ‘Yerusalem’ which is not the name in Arabic either.

Fr Martin: Once again, our bible translation is not a translation from Arabic or into Arabic.

Prof Dzulkifli: On the contrary, there are biblical names that are readily rendered to the equivalent Arabic in the translation. The examples are numerous, for instance: David as Daud; Zacharias as Zakharia; Aaron as Harun; Joseph as Yusuf; Moses as Musa; law of Moses as Taurat Musa (though, more appropriately it should have been ‘hukum Musa’, since there is the specific term ‘Torah’ for ‘Taurat’).

Fr Martin: Malay and Indonesian languages are enriched by the influence of many languages, Sanskrit, Portuguese, Arabic, Dutch, English, bahasa daerah, etc. Any of these originally ‘loanwords’ or name transliterations can be used by the translating community if it sounds familiar to them and is an adequate rendering. There is no rule that all should be taken from one background, or none from another. Language is a living and always developing mixed reality. The community itself has to decide about choices that fit best. Translation cannot be decided by outsiders with rigid consistency rules.

Prof Dzulkifli: The final straw is when the patriarch ‘Abraham’ who is the fountain head for Judaism, Christianity and Islam is also not rendered to Arabic ‘Ibrahim’ — but left as ‘Abraham’. Here, the inconsistencies, inaccuracies and insensitivities in the use and misuse of the word ‘Allah’ become even clearer. And this must be the concern of all.

Fr Martin: Abraham is a close transliteration of the Hebrew and the Ancient Greek (Abraam). No need for intervention from transliteration in a third language, and no dictionary forbids one language to have several ransliterations that function in different communities or subcultures.

Inconsistent, insensitive translations of ‘Allah’?

A response to Prof Dzulkifli by Fr Martin Harun

Source: http://www.heraldmalaysia.com/news/storydetails.php/A-response-to-Prof-Dzulkifli-by-Fr-Martin-Harun/362-1-3

By: Dzulkifli Abdul Razak (Wed, 11 Mar 2009)
Prof Dzulkifli Abdul Razak in his article in The Sun on Mar 11, wrote about the Christian Bible and its translation in Bahasa Indonesia (Alkitab). Unfortunately he manifested not only his lack of understanding in the specified field of bible translation but also an inadequate knowledge of basic Christian concepts. Hence we have asked Fr Martin Harun, OFM, a biblical scholar, to respond to his article. Fr Martin is a member of the Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia. Please note that we have not altered the original article of Prof Dzulkifli. The response of Fr Martin is in bold beneath those statements that are inaccurate or which do not measure up to good scholarship.

Prof Dzulfikli Abdul Razak: The use of the term ‘Allah’ has captured the attention of the media again. Of late, even a newspaper from down south carried a commentary on the issue. The slant is usually political, and not religious, and does not throw any new light on the issue. It also does not appeal to the intellect; instead, it seems to border more on emotions that further confuse the issue.

[We disagree with the above sentence. In our response to what follows we challenge the subjective views of the author. Our statements are based on historical facts and intellectual objectivity. (Editor’s Note)]

To all Muslims the term ‘Allah’ is laden with the concept of Tauhid — that ‘Allah’ is “the One and Only” as defined in the Quranic language, which happens to be Arabic. ‘Allah’ cannot be understood without this concept of his oneness. Any attempt to do so will amount to a vulgarism of sort, and an affront to Muslims.

Fr Martin Harun: All Christians in the Arabic world and Indonesia and Malaysia who use the word ‘Allah’ for God, confess ‘Allah’ yang Esa. Christian Trinitarian belief is monotheistic, although not in the same sense as Muslim monotheistic belief. Each religion has of course its own specific definitions, as has been acknowledged by Muslims and Christians from the very beginning.

Prof Dzulkifli: Moving forward, let us briefly try and understand the reasons for Muslim misgivings by using the Bahasa Indonesia version which is translated from the English New King James Version and authorised by Konperensi Waligerja Indonesia (Edition, 2004). Let us randomly take The Gospel according to Luke, translated as Injil Lukas, to briefly illustrate the point.

Fr Harun: Alkitab Terjemahan Baru and Alkitab Bahasa Indonesia Sehari-hari both are translated not from any other modern language like English but from the original Hebrew and Greek text. When translating Elohim and Theos with ‘Allah,’ the translations follow an already long established translation tradition. Since the seventeenth century bible translations in Malay have used the word ‘Allah’ as the best word available in the Malay language to express the monotheistic concept of Elohim and Theos.

Prof Dzulkifli: In Luke, ‘God’ is generally substituted by ‘Allah’, whereas ‘Tuhan’ is commonly used to substitute ‘the Lord". Note the article ‘the’ applies to ‘Tuhan,’ but not to ‘Allah’. Hence, where there is ‘the Lord God’ in the English version, it becomes ‘Tuhan Allah’. ‘The Lord their God’ becomes ‘Tuhan, Allah mereka’. Note the use of a comma!

Fr Harun: Alkitab is not translated from English, but from Hebrew and Greek. ‘Allah’ is not chosen as an Arabic word, but as an already Malay/Indonesian word that best expresses the meaning of Elohim and Theos in the biblical texts, and Tuhan best expresses the meaning of Adonai / Kurios in the biblical language. So every comparison with English and also Arabic is irrelevant and highly confusing.

Prof Dzulkifli: On some occasions though, ‘God’ is also translated as ‘Tuhan’, though ‘God’ in this example does not carry the article ‘the’ as in ‘the Lord’. So does it mean there is a time when ‘God’ is not ‘Allah’? Or that ‘Tuhan’ is ‘Allah’ after all?

Fr Harun: This happens only in the Old Testament, more often in the book of Ezekiel when the Hebrew text says Adonai YHWH (pronounced Adonai Adonai, harfiah Tuhan Tuhan). In many bible translations in many languages, starting from the Latin Vulgate this repetition has been avoided by translating ‘Tuhan Allah’, ‘Dominus Deus’, ‘Lord God’, ‘Herr Gott’, ‘Seigneur Dieu’. The Indonesian Alkitab Terjemahan Baru follows this old use, but could also opt for a different way, e.g. ‘TUHAN Yang Mahatinggi’ (BIS), ‘like Sovereign LORD’ (NIV).

Prof Dzulkifli: Yet, on other occasions, ‘Allah’ is used as substitute for ‘the LESUS.’ But then, ‘the LESUS your God’ is rendered as ‘Tuhan, Allahmu’ — note again the comma!.

Fr Harun: There is no word as ‘the LESUS.’ Prof Dzulkifli may have meant ‘the Christ’ meaning ‘the Lord.’ The word ‘Allah/Theos’ is never used for Jesus in his earthly existence, but some times in liturgical contexts for either the preexistent Logos, Word (John 1:1) or the Christ (John 20:28) as Thomas said to the risen Jesus, “My Lord, My God”, ‘Tuhanku, Allahku’, so always in celebrating his unity with the One God.

Prof Dzulkifli: Just from these few random examples, one can already sense the complexity and confusion in the use of ‘Allah’ in the translated version. To make matters even more confusing, the biblical name ‘Mary’ is rendered as ‘Maria’ — when the Quranic equivalent would have been ‘Maryam’; And ‘John’ as ‘Yohanes’ instead of ‘Yahaya.’ Or for that matter ‘Gabriel’ is not even translated but kept as it is. The Quranic ‘Jibrail’ as an equivalent is not even considered! How about ‘Jesus’ himself? Why is this rendered as ‘Yesus’, rather than ‘Isa’? In the Quran both are the sons of Mary or Maryam.

Fr Harun: Names are a different question. They are not translated, but can be transliterated from the original language in different ways according to the use of the receiving language group. The confusion is 100 per cent created by Prof Dzulkifli himself who keeps on forgetting the Bible is not translated via English or Arabic, but from Hebrew and Greek direct into Malay/Indonesian language. Not knowing Hebrew and Greek Prof Dzulkifli should not judge any translation from those languages, as I myself not knowing Arabic would not dare to judge any Indonesian translation from Arabic.

Prof Dzulkifli: If the worry is that the use of the word ‘Isa’ in the Quran is limited only to him being the son of man and not of ‘Allah’; unlike what is understood for the biblical ‘Jesus’ — then should not the same consideration and sensitivity for Muslim feeling be shown when ‘Allah’ is used in the translation, without any concern for the Quranic Tauhidic concept. This inconsistency, indifference and arrogance is rather obvious when it comes to the biblical ‘the Son of God’ and the use of ‘Anak Allah’ as an equivalent in the translation — something which is conceptually outright not acceptable to Muslims. In fact, it tantamounts to the denial of the concept of ‘Allah’ as explained in the Quran, Surah Al- Ikhlas 112: 3 that “He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none co-equal or comparable to Him”.

Fr Martin: In any language the same common word for God is filled with different concepts, since the users of this same language have different religious convictions. These differences are to be respected, without anyone claiming monopoly to the common language. The more so in this case, since the use of the word ‘Allah’ in early Christian circles precedes its use in the Quran.

Inconsistent, insensitive translations of ‘Allah’?

A response to Prof Dzulkifli by Fr Martin Harun

By: Dzulkifli Abdul Razak (Wed, 11 Mar 2009)
Prof Dzulkifli Abdul Razak in his article in The Sun on Mar 11, wrote about the Christian Bible and its translation in Bahasa Indonesia (Alkitab). Unfortunately he manifested not only his lack of understanding in the specified field of bible translation but also an inadequate knowledge of basic Christian concepts. Hence we have asked Fr Martin Harun, OFM, a biblical scholar, to respond to his article. Fr Martin is a member of the Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia. Please note that we have not altered the original article of Prof Dzulkifli. The response of Fr Martin is in bold beneath those statements that are inaccurate or which do not measure up to good scholarship.

Prof Dzulfikli Abdul Razak: The use of the term ‘Allah’ has captured the attention of the media again. Of late, even a newspaper from down south carried a commentary on the issue. The slant is usually political, and not religious, and does not throw any new light on the issue. It also does not appeal to the intellect; instead, it seems to border more on emotions that further confuse the issue.

[We disagree with the above sentence. In our response to what follows we challenge the subjective views of the author. Our statements are based on historical facts and intellectual objectivity. (Editor’s Note)]

To all Muslims the term ‘Allah’ is laden with the concept of Tauhid — that ‘Allah’ is “the One and Only” as defined in the Quranic language, which happens to be Arabic. ‘Allah’ cannot be understood without this concept of his oneness. Any attempt to do so will amount to a vulgarism of sort, and an affront to Muslims.

Fr Martin Harun: All Christians in the Arabic world and Indonesia and Malaysia who use the word ‘Allah’ for God, confess ‘Allah’ yang Esa. Christian Trinitarian belief is monotheistic, although not in the same sense as Muslim monotheistic belief. Each religion has of course its own specific definitions, as has been acknowledged by Muslims and Christians from the very beginning.

Prof Dzulkifli: Moving forward, let us briefly try and understand the reasons for Muslim misgivings by using the Bahasa Indonesia version which is translated from the English New King James Version and authorised by Konperensi Waligerja Indonesia (Edition, 2004). Let us randomly take The Gospel according to Luke, translated as Injil Lukas, to briefly illustrate the point.

Fr Harun: Alkitab Terjemahan Baru and Alkitab Bahasa Indonesia Sehari-hari both are translated not from any other modern language like English but from the original Hebrew and Greek text. When translating Elohim and Theos with ‘Allah,’ the translations follow an already long established translation tradition. Since the seventeenth century bible translations in Malay have used the word ‘Allah’ as the best word available in the Malay language to express the monotheistic concept of Elohim and Theos.

Prof Dzulkifli: In Luke, ‘God’ is generally substituted by ‘Allah’, whereas ‘Tuhan’ is commonly used to substitute ‘the Lord". Note the article ‘the’ applies to ‘Tuhan,’ but not to ‘Allah’. Hence, where there is ‘the Lord God’ in the English version, it becomes ‘Tuhan Allah’. ‘The Lord their God’ becomes ‘Tuhan, Allah mereka’. Note the use of a comma!

Fr Harun: Alkitab is not translated from English, but from Hebrew and Greek. ‘Allah’ is not chosen as an Arabic word, but as an already Malay/Indonesian word that best expresses the meaning of Elohim and Theos in the biblical texts, and Tuhan best expresses the meaning of Adonai / Kurios in the biblical language. So every comparison with English and also Arabic is irrelevant and highly confusing.

Prof Dzulkifli: On some occasions though, ‘God’ is also translated as ‘Tuhan’, though ‘God’ in this example does not carry the article ‘the’ as in ‘the Lord’. So does it mean there is a time when ‘God’ is not ‘Allah’? Or that ‘Tuhan’ is ‘Allah’ after all?

Fr Harun: This happens only in the Old Testament, more often in the book of Ezekiel when the Hebrew text says Adonai YHWH (pronounced Adonai Adonai, harfiah Tuhan Tuhan). In many bible translations in many languages, starting from the Latin Vulgate this repetition has been avoided by translating ‘Tuhan Allah’, ‘Dominus Deus’, ‘Lord God’, ‘Herr Gott’, ‘Seigneur Dieu’. The Indonesian Alkitab Terjemahan Baru follows this old use, but could also opt for a different way, e.g. ‘TUHAN Yang Mahatinggi’ (BIS), ‘like Sovereign LORD’ (NIV).

Prof Dzulkifli: Yet, on other occasions, ‘Allah’ is used as substitute for ‘the LESUS.’ But then, ‘the LESUS your God’ is rendered as ‘Tuhan, Allahmu’ — note again the comma!.

Fr Harun: There is no word as ‘the LESUS.’ Prof Dzulkifli may have meant ‘the Christ’ meaning ‘the Lord.’ The word ‘Allah/Theos’ is never used for Jesus in his earthly existence, but some times in liturgical contexts for either the preexistent Logos, Word (John 1:1) or the Christ (John 20:28) as Thomas said to the risen Jesus, “My Lord, My God”, ‘Tuhanku, Allahku’, so always in celebrating his unity with the One God.

Prof Dzulkifli: Just from these few random examples, one can already sense the complexity and confusion in the use of ‘Allah’ in the translated version. To make matters even more confusing, the biblical name ‘Mary’ is rendered as ‘Maria’ — when the Quranic equivalent would have been ‘Maryam’; And ‘John’ as ‘Yohanes’ instead of ‘Yahaya.’ Or for that matter ‘Gabriel’ is not even translated but kept as it is. The Quranic ‘Jibrail’ as an equivalent is not even considered! How about ‘Jesus’ himself? Why is this rendered as ‘Yesus’, rather than ‘Isa’? In the Quran both are the sons of Mary or Maryam.

Fr Harun: Names are a different question. They are not translated, but can be transliterated from the original language in different ways according to the use of the receiving language group. The confusion is 100 per cent created by Prof Dzulkifli himself who keeps on forgetting the Bible is not translated via English or Arabic, but from Hebrew and Greek direct into Malay/Indonesian language. Not knowing Hebrew and Greek Prof Dzulkifli should not judge any translation from those languages, as I myself not knowing Arabic would not dare to judge any Indonesian translation from Arabic.

Prof Dzulkifli: If the worry is that the use of the word ‘Isa’ in the Quran is limited only to him being the son of man and not of ‘Allah’; unlike what is understood for the biblical ‘Jesus’ — then should not the same consideration and sensitivity for Muslim feeling be shown when ‘Allah’ is used in the translation, without any concern for the Quranic Tauhidic concept. This inconsistency, indifference and arrogance is rather obvious when it comes to the biblical ‘the Son of God’ and the use of ‘Anak Allah’ as an equivalent in the translation — something which is conceptually outright not acceptable to Muslims. In fact, it tantamounts to the denial of the concept of ‘Allah’ as explained in the Quran, Surah Al- Ikhlas 112: 3 that “He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none co-equal or comparable to Him”.

Fr Martin: In any language the same common word for God is filled with different concepts, since the users of this same language have different religious convictions. These differences are to be respected, without anyone claiming monopoly to the common language. The more so in this case, since the use of the word ‘Allah’ in early Christian circles precedes its use in the Quran.

BEWARE! ‘Bible’ without “Allah” promoted in Book Fair

Source: http://www.heraldmalaysia.com/news/storydetails.php/‘Bible’-without-“Allah”-promoted-in-Book-Fair/500-1-1

By Fr Lawrence Andrew, SJ
KUALA LUMPUR: A ‘bible’ in Indonesian Malay but without the word “Allah” used in it was promoted during the International Book Fair held recently at the Putra World Trade Centre, Kuala Lumpur. The promoters had the book on display among other Islamic books on the first days of the Book Fair.

They also had leaflets for the whole period of the same Book Fair from April 17 - 26, among other Islamic leaflets, announcing that the “KITAB SUCI” has been printed.

Though they did not have any ‘Kitab Suci’ for sale, they instead suggested that the book be purchased on an online order using the website address they provided We are reminded of an earlier incident when a “Gospel of Barnabas” was on sale in a number of Muslim bookshops but not in any Christian bookshop. That ‘Gospel’, we know, is a false ‘gospel’ written by a Muslim.

On hearing of the publication — “Kitab Suci”, we wrote to the publishers in Indonesia to enquire if this edition of the “Kitab Suci” was approved by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference or the Bible Society of Indonesia (BSI). Our email returned with the tag ‘delivery failure’.

We then wrote to the two Authorities that approve the publication of the Bible in Indonesia. Their reply was in the negative. We were informed by a member of the Indonesian Bible Society that this “Kitab Suci” was done on the basis of J.P. Green’s literal translation. He wrote that “to some extent it differs from the earlier plagiaristic (sic) version.”

What this means is that there was an earlier version in which the word “Allah”, or God, was replaced with “Elohim” and “Tuhan” , or “Lord”, with “Yahweh” in the K. This is crass plagiarism! Faced with this situation, we read the first chapter of the Gospel of St John in English, and took note that there were only two words, namely GOD and LORD used in this chapter.

Then we turned to the ORIGINAL VERSION IN GREEK of the same first chapter of the Gospel according to John and we found that the terms “Elohim” and “Yahweh” were NOT used but instead “Theos” for God and “Kurios” for Lord.

Therefore, how can the publishers of “Kitab Suci” mention in the flyer distributed at PWTC that “it was not to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one but to make a good one better”? It is obvious that the original Greek version did not have ELOHIM and YAHWEH. Are these publishers, who have no authority to publish the Bible, saying that the original Greek version is wrong? What is their evidence for such an assumption?

What is certain, however, is that the publishers have cheated in the first instance by their manipulation of the words ELOHIM and YAHWEH, had second thoughts about their plagiarized version, and therefore have amended the current version of their “Kitab Suci”. This version varies from the earlier plagiaristic version. But the BSI pointed out to us that “anybody familiar with the Indonesian Standard Version (Alkitab Terjemahan Baru, 1974) would be able to detect their more covert plagiarism of the publishers of the “Kitab Suci.”

We as Christians are naturally disturbed by the fact that such a publication has been allowed to be promoted in Malaysia — one which does not have the approval of the authorities that give recognition to the credibility and trustworthiness of the translation of a bible. Are we, through this publication, condoning the stealing of another’s intellectual property without any qualms about this theft? This is outrageous, to say the least.

**************************************************************

BE VERY CAREFUL MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST.