A Powerful New Tool!

Those who follow the Spanish Bible Issue know that there are many different modern versions of the Spanish Bible being used today.  These include the 1865, the 1909, the 1960, the 1995, the modern 2010 Gomez and many more.  However, they all fail to realize just how far away these versions are from the original Reina-Valera and the old Spanish Protestant Castellan Bibles of the Protestant Reformation.  History proves that Bible Societies were guilty of taking the Spanish Catholic Bible and MIXING the Protestant versions with it.  Thus, they produced "Hybrid Spanish Bibles," which are not true Reina-Valera Spanish translations.  In fact, they aren't even Protestant versions.  They are half catholic and half protestant.  Why was this done?  I delve into this more in my book:  "The History and Truth about the Spanish Bible Controversy."  But the easy answer is that modern so-called PROTESTANT Bible Societies are COWARDS in comparison to the old Spanish Reformation saints of old who were willing to die for the pure words of God rather than compromising.  The fact is, the Spanish Inquisition prohibited the Bible in Spanish unless it was a CATHOLIC translation, and anyone caught by the papist priests with a "Protestant" version was persecuted and their Bible thrown to the flames.  For this reason, Protestant Bible Societies in the 1800 and 1900's decided they would CHANGE the Reina-Valera Bible and make it look more Catholic.  They used a Catholic translation by a man named Scio de San Miguel, and mixed that version with the protestant Reina-Valera text.  They then distributed their hybrid text among the masses of Roman Catholics in Spain and Latin America. 

An easy way to tell if a version in Spanish is one of these hybrid Bibles is to look at John 1:1 (Juan 1:1).   All true Protestant texts have the word "Palabra" when referring to Jesus Christ.  Catholic versions used "Verbo" from the Catholic Latin Vulgate reading of "Verbum."  Thus, if your Bible reads "Verbo" instead of "Palabra," some one somewhere has messed with your Bible!  (For more about the catholic word verbo please read Gail Riplinger's treatise on the subject by clicking here.  Please note it is a .pdf file and might take a few minutes to load.  Gail does a great job of showing the word verbo to be not only a Papist word, but also an occultic word as well.) 

The only Spanish Bible in print today that does not have "Verbo" but rather reads with the Old Spanish PROTESTANT texts is the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible, the work of a King James Bible Believing, Independent Baptist, NATIVE SPEAKING Spanish Church in Monterrey, Mexico.  They did what no other man or Bible Society has ever done.  They went back to the original 1602 and then used it while comparing the older Protestant Spanish Bibles to the KJV, the Textus Receptus, and the Hebrew Masoretic Text.  And what they produced is a pure Spanish Bible, a Protestant Spanish Bible, a Castellan Spanish Bible.

Sadly, very few today know about this version, and they are blindly following people who claim their "hybrid" Spanish versions are the best.  Most of these people have never learned about the Protestant Bible Society conspiracy to mix the old Reina-Valera with the Catholic Scio.  In fact, very few have ever even seen the Catholic Scio text.  Nor have they ever seen the older Spanish Protestant texts like the New Testaments of both Francisco de Enzinas of 1543 and of Juan Perez de Pineda of 1556.

It is for this reason, that I am so glad to report that a man named Steven Hite has done an amazing thing in putting together a powerful new reference tool which he calls the Octapla.  Click here to go to the website about the OCTAPLA. 

His work is a compilation of the entire New Testament of eight different Spanish versions verse by verse, allowing both English and Spanish speakers alike to look at each translation and see exactly what THEY SAY, compared to what modern versions say. 

Included in his work are the following Spanish New Testament texts:

1543 Francisco de Enzinas N.T.
1556 Juan Perez de Pineda N.T.
1569 Cassiodoro de Reina N.T.
1602 Cipriano de Valera N.T.
1793 Felipe Scio de San Miguel N.T. (Catholic version)
1865 ABS Mora and Pratt N.T.
1909 ABS N.T.
1960 ABS N.T.

Mr. Hite has done a wonderful service for the Spanish Speaking world, by giving them access to various versions of the New Testament in Spanish that they have never seen before.  And his work does well to prove that modern versions like the 1960 and the Gomez rely heavily on the newer Spanish translations done AFTER the Scio text (which they used to insert words in their translations to make their "hybrid" Bibles) while the only Spanish Bible that reads truly as a Protestant Spanish Bible is the old Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible.  (To see the Valera 1602 Purified in adobe format, click here).

Because of Mr. Hite's work, people can now study the Spanish Bible Controversy for themselves, VERSE BY VERSE, dealing with the WORDS themselves, rather than fighting and debating one another's opinions, which has usually been the case with the Spanish Bible Controversy.

You, therefore, are encouraged to order a copy of Mr. Hite's OCTAPLA, for it is a great study and refernce tool.  Note, however, that Mr. Hite's work was the work of an America who speaks no Spanish.  This was on purpose, so that no bias would affect the outcome.  He desired also to print the old versions EXACTLY as they appeared in their first year of printing, meaning that they are spelled in old Castellan Spanish.  AN equivalent would be like English Speakers reading an original copy of the King James, in which a "s" is an "f" and a "v" is a "u" etc.

Because Mr. Hite knew no Spanish, I have discovered a few small mistakes in Mr. Hite's work.  He assures me this shall be corrected in the second printing.

It is my hope that this valient work go far and wide and will once and for all allow Spanish speaking people the tools they need to study their own Bible and see why the modern versions are so bad, and it will give them a desire to go back to the older Spanish words, like the Valera 1602 Purified does.

It will also show them the SCIO Catholic text, of which so many Protestant Bible Societies have followed so often. 

Where was the apostle Paul born?

I've recently finished my latest book about the Spanish Bible and the history of those old Spanish Protestant Corageous Men behind its inception.  It can be found on my website in both English and Spanish at:

ENGLISH:  http://www.rrb3.com/mypub/books/spn_bible_inception_men_translation.htm

SPANISH:  http://www.rrb3.com/espanol/mis%20libros/biblia_espanola_incepcion_hombres_corajes.htm

I have such a new found respect for those old Spaniards of old who were willing to die for the truth of the Gospel, and who oftentimes willingly gave their lives for the word of God and the cause of Christ.

Yet there was one man who I never looked at as a Spaniard.  Who was he?  I'll get there.  But let me explain something first. 

I've been reading through some old books on the History of the Middle East from the late 1800's.  I've enjoyed learning about the conquests of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Medes and Persians, and more.  And towards the end of the book, it talked about the Phoenecians.

I knew some about them, but not everything.  And one thing I learned shocked me.  They started their kingdom on the mainland in Sidon.  But they later moved to an island offshore in which they built the city of Tyre.  These Sidonians or Zidonians were the best shipbuilders in the world, and they would travel everywhere in order to mine gold, silver, tin, and more, and then ship it back to their home, or sell it to other countries.  And did you know that they even founded colonies on the North West Coast of Africa and on the South of Spain?  That's right, they founded Carthage, a historic city.  They also found Cadiz, on the South of Spain, as well as the Spanish city of "Tarshish."

Okay, so what is "Tarshish?"  Well the Bible speaks about that city 21 different times.  (Look it up, I don't have time to list all the references).   Probably you remember the most famous mention of that place in the book of Jonah, in which the prophet Jonah tried to flee from the Lord and his calling for him to go to Nineveh.

So what's so important about Tarshish?  What's so important is that it is also is known by another name, that of "Tarsus."  The city in which the Apostle Paul was said to have been born in!  (Acts 9:11)  It is also known as "Tartessos" an ancient harbour city in the South of Spain!

So does that mean that the Apostle Paul was a Spaniard???  Could he have been born in Spain?

Well, I did some more digging, and it looked like it at first.  I mean, hey, he said towards the end of his ministry that he wanted to make his way unto Spain.  (Rom. 15:24 and 28).  This sure would make it appear that he was from there, and that's why he wanted to go back there towards the end of his life.

Sadly, I found some more verses that made me think otherwise.  For in the scriptures I found the following verses:

Acts 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

The apostle Paul of his own mouth clarifies exactly where he was born.  He was born in the city of Tarsus, in CILICIA, which is found in Asia Minor.  This means there are two cities named "Tarsus," one in Spain and one in Asia Minor, and they were both founded by the Phoenecians. 

So I was devestated when I saw this.  I wanted to believe so much that Paul was indeed a Spaniard.  But it appears he wasn't.  Still, I appreciate him for desiring to go to Spain.   Did he make it?  Who knows.

There are many who think he didn't make it there, for historically we hear nothing more of him, and whether he made it there or not.  Others think he did make it, and then journeyed unto England thereafter, preaching the Gospel in that country as well.  I guess we'll never know.  But the Bible does say he "turned the world upside down." (Acts 17:6).  Does this mean he did indeed make it over there, as that's part of the world?

I wish Paul were a Spaniard.  Alas, he's not.  But I also wonder how his visit (or non-visit) to Spain affected that country?  Could he have taken a pure copy of the scriptures in Hebrew and Greek into Spain with him?  If so, can it be found today in that country?  Or, if it existed, could it have been messed with by Catholic scholars and changed to read closer to the corrupt Latin Vulgate rather than the original Byzantine, Textus Receptus, Antiochian text?  (If you'll read my latest book, you'll see that's what Catholic Spain did to the Bible.  They "corrupted" it with the corrupt Catholic Alexandrian Latin Vulgate).

I guess we'll never know.  All we do know is we have a miracle in our blessed King James Bible, for it is God's pure and preserved word in English.  And I thank God for our Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible in Spanish, which follows those texts underlying the King James Bible, texts which would have been in agreement with those texts the apostle Paul would have carried with him.

FACTS about the SPANISH BIBLE ISSUE

It's sad that the Spanish Bible Controversy is riddled with lies and half truths.  But as the battle rages among Fundamentalists and Evangelicals about which Bible is Spanish is the right one, I constanly see them using lies and half truths to defend their versions, instead of giving all the facts and letting the chips fall where they may.

On the subject of the Spanish Bible, you first have those who don't know anything about it.  They have a certain version and use it, read it, and believe it, and don't know there are other versions.  They are ignorant of the subject, and don't know their version is full of problems.  These people need to be taught, and given a purer version of the scriptures.

But then you have those who do know about the problems in the Spanish Bible but they choose a certain version and dogmatically defend it alone against all others, oftentimes even attacking other versions in defense of their version alone.  And rather than have an orderly, scholarly, and decent conversation about the differences among the various versions, they ATTACK others and their versions without pity.  In their eyes, it's not about truth, but about who can come out as the "big dog" who yells the loudest and who is able to look like the guy who won the debate.   But shouldn't the issue be about the "facts" and not about the "men" behind those versions?

For those who don't know, the versions dogmatically defended today include:  The 1865, the 1909, the 1960, the Gomez, and the Valera 1602 Purified.  But which of these is the best and why?  Well, if you listen to those behind each one of these versions, they will tell you that it is THEIR version and all the others are not as good as THEIRS.  But where are the facts?  Usually, they won't give them to you, and you'll only get their opinion.  But what I desire are the FACTS!

That's why I try not to give my opinion, rather to simply give the facts.  And recently, I did a comparison chart on all these various versions to see which one is really the best, and the chart gives the fact that the Valera 1602 Purified is the best Spanish Bible.  To view this chart, please go to:

http://www.rrb3.com/bibles/spnbibl/my_comparison_of_spanish_bibles.htm

There you will see examples from each version looking at over 200 verses, and you'll see that the only one that reads completely with the texts underlying the King James Bible is the Valera 1602 Purified.

What bothers me about the Spanish Bible Controversy, and those who defend their own versions, is how they do not focus on or give all the facts.  They oftentimes omit certain truths in order to make their versions look better than they truly are.  But we must never overlook the origins of modern Spanish Bibles.  For, as we study the History of the Spanish Bible, we find a sad thing, modern Spanish Bibles have been messed with by so-called "Protestant Bible Societies" which mixed in either the catholic or the critical texts in their revisions of the original Reina-Valera Spanish reformation text.

That is to say, the "Protestant" Bible societies were guilty of mixing the Reina-Valera with the CATHOLIC texts, all so that their Bibles would be accepted when they distributed/sold them to catholic people. 

(I have this information in my book, "The History and Truth About the Spanish Bible Controversy," found at: http://www.rrb3.com/mypub/books/hist_truth_spn_controversy.htm )

A prime example of this is the word "Verbo" now found in many modern Spanish Bibles.  This word came from the Catholic text of SCIO, who was the first to use that word in Spanish, taking it from the Catholic latin vulgate text reading of "verbum."  But before that, all PROTESTANT Spanish Bibles read "Palabra" in reference to Jesus Christ in John 1:1.  The only Spanish Bible today that retains the protestant word "Palabra" is the Valera 1602 Purified.  All others use the catholic word "Verbo."  For more on this, please read Gail Riplinger's fine treatise about this word found at: 

http://www.rrb3.com/PDF%20files/Catholics_Changing_Gods_Name_mailed2.pdf

For more information about so-called "Protestant" Bible Societies maliciously mixing catholic and critical texts into the Reina-Valera Spanish Bible, please read my book at the following link:  http://www.rrb3.com/mypub/books/hist_truth_spn_controversy.htm

Another thing about the Spanish Bible that people want to lie about or give a half truth about is the word "Jehová."  Those who use other versions do not give all the facts about this word and why it is in their versions, rather they want us to believe it's right Spanish word, and the only Spanish word that ever has been and ever should be used in the Spanish Bible.  They refuse any evidence to the contrary.

The facts, however, prove otherwise.  For in the Protestant translation of the Psalms of Juan de Valdez printed in 1537, we find him using SEÑOR rather than Jehová.  Why is this important?  It's because the use of the word "JEHOVA" in modern Spanish Bibles rather than the KJV reading of LORD (SEÑOR) has lead to the influx of many Jehovah Witnesses gaining much ground in Spanish-speaking countries, and made it easier for them to turn countless millions of hispanics to their false teachings.  This is a great problem that cannot be denied.  But why do Spanish Bibles use Jehovah instead of LORD?  The answer is a little surprising.

And, as we read the preface of the original 1569 Spanish Bible of Cassidoro de Reina, we find the reason why he chose to use Jehová rather than SEÑOR.  For it is there that he ATTACKS the Jews for their not wanting to attempt to pronounce the name of God.  He then ridicules them and calls them "supersticious" for their reverance of that holy name in putting SEÑOR instead of Jehová.  He further states he chose to use Jehovah instead just to be contrary to the Jewish custom of not pronouncing the word out of reverance for that holy name.

But Reain then writes that if you are reading his version, and you don't want to try to pronounce the word, then you can just read SEÑOR in each place the word Jehová is found.  That is, Reina said it wasn't wrong to use SEÑOR and that you could use the word instead of Jehová. 

Today, the only Spanish Bible to follow the King James, and the older Spanish Bibles in using SEÑOR instead of Jehovah is the Valera 1602 Purified, and it does it because it knew Jehová was not only inserted into the text because Reina was anti-semetic, but because it showed reverance to God's holy name.  That is, if you use a Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible, you WILL NOT BE DECEIVED BY THE JEHOVAH WITNESSES!

There are many more things that could be said about the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible.  But the imporant thing is that it is a true Reformation text.  That is the translators took all the old Spanish Protestant Bibles and used them in their work.  They studied them verse by verse with the textus receptus, the King James, the Hebrew Masoretic text, and the old Protestant versions.  They did not follow the modern Bible Society texts.  

With this stated, my desire is that those who are seeking more about the truth of which Spanish Bible is the best will read the information given here, and will visit my site at:  http://www.rrb3.com/ for more.  For my desire is to simply give the FACTS, not my OPINION about the Spanish Bible Issue.   

The 1602 Valera Purified New Testament now Available

We now have the Valera 1602 Purified in Spanish available online via Amazon.com at a price of $16.02.  (Price is intended to honor the year of Valera's work of 1602).

It can be ordered by visiting:

https://www.createspace.com/3676224

We are practicing and learning how to use P.O.D. (print on demand), so we have taken the .pdf file of the Valera 1602 Purified New Testament and cut and copied it page by page to make the New Testament of this translation available, as they are hard to get today. 

Thankfully, though, more whole Bibles shall be printed soon, as the plan is to print the newest, updated version in December.  I hope we can find a way to make these available online as well.

My Books Now Available Online for purchase through Amazon.com

Finally, I've found a way to have my books available online to purchase through Amazon.com.  I've worked hard at designing new covers for them all and making them available through Print on Demand technology.  They can be found at my bookstore at:

http://www.rrb3.com/bookstore/bookstore_index.htm

I've rewritten and updated by book "A Brief History of the Spanish Bible," and boy did it turn out good!  It has a lot more information (it's not longer that "brief), as well as many prints of the prefaces of many old Spanish Bibles inside.  I've also added a comparison chart of the Spanish Bibles used today, which shows the Valera 1602 Purified is the best.  This book is work getting, as it's chalked full of important information about the Spanish Bible.

I've also revised and added much material to my two other books, "The History and Truth About the Spanish Bible Controversy" and "The History and Truth About the Reina-Valera Gomez Spanish Bible."  These two books contain a wealth of information for anyone seeking to know more about the truth about the Spanish Bible, its history, and those who have tried to get the Spanish-speaking people a pure Bible in their own language.  It also shows how the modern Gomez Bible is not a true Protestant Castilian Spanish Bible, as it relied heavily on the modern 1960 Spanish Bible.  They also will point you to the Valera 1602 Purified as the purest Spanish Bible to date and why.

Soon, I hope to post my lastest book about the Spanish Bible, entitled, "The Spanish Bible: its Inception and Those Courageous Men Behind its Translation."  I'm still working on it though. 

My other books are also available at my bookstore.  I've gone through and reread them time and again and updated them with more information.  I believe they are worth your time in reading. 

VERBO vs PALABRA

When I first started deputation way back in 1998, I was shocked to see that almost all Missionaries to Spanish-Speaking peoples used a Reina-Valera Spanish Bible that was corrupt!  (At that time, they used either the pro-critical text 1960 dynamic equivalence version or the A.B.S. 1909 critical text bible).

            As I read through the 1960 with my KJV, I was greatly appalled at the many doctrinal errors and critical text readings I found.  I then bought the older 1909, and was devastated to find many critical text readings and doctrinal errors in it as well.

            This drove me to study the history of the Spanish Bible, and I found the inconvenient truth that all Bible Societies had done an evil thing.  They had revised all their Reina-Valera Spanish Bible revisions with catholic and/or critical texts.

            Because of this, I bought a facsimile of both the old 1569 of Reina and 1602 of Valera and began reading them myself.  I found that though they were much better, they were not perfect, reading with the corrupt Latin Vulgate time and again, but at least not as much.

            In 2001, the 1865 American Bible Society Spanish translation was resurrected by the Valera Bible Society, and claimed to be the word of God in Spanish.  However, as I studied it, I found it too was full of errors, reading not only with the Latin Vulgate, but also it changed many words with no textual basis to do so.  Although it might have fixed some verses with the KJV, it butchered others, and left others unchanged, reading against the pure texts, often in favor of the modern critical texts.

            Then, in 2002 came the Gomez Bible, which used the corrupt Bible Society translations of 1909 and 1960 as it’s basis, claiming to have “corrected them” with the pure texts underlying the King James Bible.  However, it did not do a thorough job, (as it still has critical text readings), nor did it go back to the original 1602 to retain the pure old Castilian language.  (It’s in modern Spanish).  Further, it changed many synonyms in the Spanish Bible for no reason to do so, which made it read even closer to the modern Spanish NIV than the old 1602! 

            All of these versions also kept the corrupt catholic reading of VERBO in John 1:11, instead of going back to the pure Protestant reading of PALABRA in referring to Jesus Christ.  All the old Spanish Bibles, including the 1543 N.T. of Enzinas, the 1556 N.T. of Juan Perez de Pineda, the 1569 of Reina, and the 1602 of Valera, read “Palabra.”  (Note: The word VERBO did not even appear in Spanish, until it was added by Miguel Scio in his 1793 Spanish translation, translated completely from the catholic Latin Vulgate, in which the word in John 1:1 for Jesus is “Verbum”).

            I couldn’t help but ask myself, “Why did so many so called Bible-Believers use a corrupt Spanish Bible that read closer to the corrupt catholic texts than the pure Protestant Spanish Bibles which dated back closer to the time of our King James Bible?” 

            I still wonder why they do.  The only Spanish Bible ever to go back to those old Protestant texts of the Reformation, and “purify” the Spanish text by taking out any corrupt Vulgate readings, while still remaining true to the Castilian Spanish is The Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible.  (It is also the only one today to read PALABRA instead of VERBO). 

Sadly, many of those who claim to be Bible Believers today and preach to Spanish-Speakers don’t appear to even want to hear or know the truth.  Instead, they dogmatically defend their corrupt versions in Spanish, even going so far to proclaim that “Verbo” is better than “Palabra.”

            Gail Riplinger has recently written a great essay on the subject of why Verbo is WRONG, and Palabra is RIGHT!  And boy is it a definitive work on the subject!  She gives proof that the Pope is behind “Verbo” and that that catholic word is also used by modern occultists and New Agers in describing their own god.  She also shows how Erasmus and many others were dogmatically against “Verbo.”

            I'm pasting a link below where you can read her work..  I hope it will be informative.  My prayer is that you will read it and pass it along to others, so that they might see the truth about their perversion of the Spanish Scriptures.  What the Spanish-speaking world needs is a pure Spanish Bible, and not a corrupt version done by liberal Bible Societies that prefer critical and catholic text readings over the pure word of God.

            Cipriano de Valera said it best in 1602, “Because it is not right to confirm the certain with the uncertain, the word of God with the word of men.”

            With the mountain of evidence gives in her booklet, it’s hard for me to understand how anyone, when faced with this truth, could defend a Spanish version that uses the catholic, new age word “Verbo” instead of the more correct word “PALABRA.”

http://www.rrb3.com/PDF%20files/Catholics_Changing_Gods_Name_mailed2.pdf

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE 1865 SPANISH BIBLE

Way back on November 3, 2010, I posted a blog entitled: Truth STANDS ALONE, entitled, "A Crash Course on the Spanish Bible Issue," which you can still find and read. In respose to my article, a man responded on December 30, 2010 with the following words:

"Your history is incorrect regarding Mr Pratt and Mr Mora. Mr Pratt did not work on the 1865 Valera. He was commissioned to do it but did not because of the civil war and health issues. Therefore Mr Mora did the project on his own."

I believe this man was probably a defender of the 1865 Spanish Bible, and he probably was just repeating what many who defend that version are repeating, since one of the leaders of that movement has stated this very same thing on many occasions.

The statement this man makes above comes from the American Bible Society, and what he is stating is not the whole truth. I too have received the very same information which the 1865 people have and which they quote for this statement. But they do not give all the facts.

Here, for all the world to see, I give the whole truth about the 1865 Spanish Bible for all to see, for there are those who would have to you only know part of the truth, while they hide the rest, as it doesn't help their position. Here I will give the whole truth not only about that statement, but also about the corrupt 1865 Spanish Bible. I hope this article will not be seen as attacking, but rather as objective journalism, as the facts are clearly presented for all to see.

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE 1865 SPANISH BIBLE

According to Essay #16, of the American Bible Society Text and Translation, on pages 25 through 28, we find a written record of how the ABS 1865 Spanish Bible project was started. I will quote from that work on various ocassions, for it is critical (no pun intended), that you see what that version is, and what the American Bible Society believed, and who worked on that version and what they did. (I also am not photocopying or reproducing that article in any way, other than simply quoting from it as a credible source in this article).

According to page 25, we read:

"In March [of 1860] they recommeded that the services of Sr. de Mora of Madrid and the Rev. Mr. H. B. Pratt of Bogota, working with Mr. Brigham, be used to produce a Spanish Bible..."

Here we see there were not only two men who were hired to work on the version, but three.

Skipping ahead, the paper continues,

"The salaries for Mr. Pratt and Sr. de Mora were set at $1,200 a year each."

Then we read the words, "Then eye trouble and the disruption in communication by the Civil War made it necessary for Mr. Pratt (in North Carolina) to withdraw."

This makes it look like Mr. Pratt had nothing to do with the work, doesn't it? But we will see later that he did. (As it appears his eye trouble came from working on the revision).

Continuing in the report, we read,

"This enforced withdrawal of Mr. Pratt had caused the Versions committee to consider for a time dropping the project. The Committee approved Psalms and Proverbs, (1,000 copies each) for publication and requested Sr. de Mora to continue with the Old Testament consulting Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Jones of the Committee and Dr. Brigham, de Mora to continue at the rate of $1000 per year."

Here we find three more men who were on the committee and worked on the project, bringing our total to five if we include Pratt, which me still must, as I will prove later.

In a May meeting of 1865, one Mr. Holdich presented a lengthy report on the history of the 1865 revision, and concluded:

"Athough they may not dare to hope that the work is absolutely perfect, for that would be to claim for it what belongs to nothing human, yet they have strong persuasion that it will be found a very decided improvement on Valera's generally excellent version."

He goes on about how they carefully changed words to modernized spelling, while trying to remaim faithful to the old beauty of the Castellan language.

Then we are told after the version was finished, that the committee gave a gift of $1000 dollars to Mr. Mora for his work, and I quote from page 26, "The book was published in 1865 with great hopes for wide use in Spanish America."

But then on page 27, we read the words of Mr. Pratt (you know, the guy who was supposed to have "dropped out" and not done any work on the 1865). He says in speaking of Mora and the work:

"My good friend Mora, as my long and intimate acquaintance with him qualified me to know, was more than an ordinary master of Spanish, but had not nor could he have a clear notion of critical accuracy so far as the sense was concerned. In our own division of labor, he was responsible for the language, and I for the critical accuracy of the revision. He used to pass on over many things that greatly needed mending, without perceiving that need, till I followed after and called his aattention to them. It is, I assure you, one of the few great disappointments of my life, that I could not go on with him till the work was done; and the more so as two men never wrought toghter in greater harmony than we did."

So even though Pratt did drop out eventually, by his own confession from his own words here presented, he did work together with Mora (and in great harmony, mind you).

But look also at the words I have underlined in his quote. He confesses his job was to be responsible for CRITICAL ACCURACY. What does that mean? Well, if you know Pratt, and you know the American Bible Society at that time, and you know what was taught in their Bible Schools, then you know that it is talking about the CRITICAL TEXTS! That Mr. Pratt loved the critical texts is no secret. In 1893, he produced his own Spanish Bible entitled, "La Versión Moderna" which was based entirely upon the critical texts.

Still, 1865 defenders say it's impossible that Pratt could have inserted critical text readings into the 1865. They claim number one, he didn't work on that revision at all, (but what we've seen from his own words above he did work some with Mr. Mora), and two, they say that there were no critical texts around in 1865. But that is an outright lie. There were critical texts, especial those of Lachman and Tishendorf in the 1850s and 1860s. Not to mention there existed the corrupt Latin Vulgate, a critical, catolic text.

Now, we will look further at the ABS paper. On page 27 we read that Pratt requested two copies of the finished 1865 so that, and I quote, "...he might note in one of them all the remaining inaccuracies..."

So he kept one for himself, and the other he marked up, no doubt inserting more critical texts readings. Was this later used by the ABS? We do not know, but we do know the following from page 27:

"Dr. Holdich was distressed at the errors Mr. Pratt then noticed and the latter explained further what had been his part in the work:

'I must say in justification that Mr. Mora had no part of the Bible which I had reviewed except the New Testament (barring the Revelation, which I have here), or that we had made but a partial revision of it, having determined to leave many things unsettled, til we came to revise it again before publication, our intention was to revise the Old Testament once, but the New Test. twice as its CRITICAL ACCURACY [emphasis mine] was most important.'"

Notice what he says in this confession. He says that he was distressed by "errors" noticed by Mr. Pratt. It appears from context that to him "errors" are places where the 1865 does not read with the critical text.

Further, he says that Mora had no part in the translation except the N.T. So who did it? Could it have been Pratt working with him on the N.T. before he dropped out? Could this have been why he had eye trouble?

Finally, he says they revised the Old Testament once and the New Testament twice. Who did the revision??? Was it Mr. Holdich? Who ever it was, most likely he is the one who added many more critical text readings to the 1865, as it is full of them.

Continuing to read the ABS report we read on page 27:

"He [Holdich] pointed out that...Mr Mora had no critical knowledge of the Scripture, nor even of the present English version."

Did you get that? Mora had no CRITICAL knowledge. It appears Mora was only interested in the original 1602 of Valera and reproducing it. He worked hard at changing the Old Spanish spelling of words to modern Spanish spelling, but he either didn't care or didn't know anything about the critical text readings, so he steered away from them. It was PRATT, and HOLDICH, who found them, pointed them out, and most likely made changes.

Now we come to the last paragraph on page 27, which is a real shocker. It says:

"A point of interest in this connection is committee action in 1868 by which the word 'Palabra' was ordered changed to 'Verbo,' Dr. Schmidt to make a list of the places where this was to be done. At the next meeting he reported changes to be made in John 1:1, 14, 1 John 1:1, 5:7, and Rev. 19:13."

So here we have an interesting confession. We are told in 1868 the word "Palabra" was ordered changed to "Verbo" in the 1865 edition. So that means there must have been an 1865 edition where it said "PALABRA." Thus, that means there was more than one edition of the 1865!

If you look at the 1865 that is being sold today, you'll see it says "verbo." So is it really even an 1865, or is it instead an 1868 revision of the 1865?

That needs to be addressed, especially, when you have yahoos going around saying things like, "We need to defend every word of the 1865!" How can they do that if the version they are using isn't the 1865, but a revision of it done in 1868???

Anyway, on page 28, we find an interesting paragraph with a lot of information. There we read:

"About this time [1868] in writing to Mr. Girdlestone of the BFBS, Dr. Holdich said he was at a loss to know what to do about a Spanish Bible. The ABS edition was better than the Valera but what were they to do? [Note: it was better in their eyes because they were pro-critical text and they added Critical Text readings.] All the criticisms came from Mexico and South America. 'We do not know how far to rely on them!' He would like a comparison of the BFBS and ABS editions. There should be one as near perfect as possible and both Societies use it. 'How can this be secured?' "

Look at what we find in this paragraph. Dr. Holdich of the ABS (American Bible Society) wrote to a member of the BFBS (British Foreign Bible Society), and proclaimed his 1865 (or 1868) was better than the Valera. To him I'm sure it was, as it had been mixed with critical texts, which he believed were the "older and more reliable" texts. But then he confesses that there were many criticisms of the 1865 from Mexico and South America! That means many Spanish Christians did not like it or accept it! Probably because they weren't in favor of the critical texts!

And then he says they should work together to get a near perfect as possible Spanish Bible.

Interestingly enough, they did work together to produce the 1909 Reina-Valera Spanish revision, which became very widely accepted and even was the standard Spanish protestant Bible in Central and South America for over 70 years (until it was replaced by the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible). (Note: the 1909 was not perfect as it too has critical text readings).

So there you have it. We clearly see from the ABS Text and Translation history that the 1865 Spanish Bible was produced by men who were pro-critical texts, and who inserted many critical texts into their translation. We also see that their version was NOT ACCEPTED and was very much criticized by people in Mexico and South America. And the fruit of the 1865 (or 1868), was to get them to produce another Bible, the 1909.

Years ago Dr. Floyd Dallis wrote of the corruption in the 1865 Spanish Bible, and adamant defenders of the 1865 lamblasted him and said his claims were unfounded lies. I'll let you decide for yourself as I quote from Dr. Floyd Dallis:

"Dr. Pratt made the most of his textual changes because of the then recent discoveries of Dr. Tishendorf. Thus, of all the revision to this date, this one had more changes in the text bassed on Westcott and Hort corruptions. About 100,000 chagnes were made in wording. Dr. Pratt and Dr. Mora began their work in 1861. Because of the numerous corruptions of this edition, the 1909 was published! Note the 1909 was therefore published to correct the corruptions of the 1865 of the ABS!"

Now two things are obviously wrong with this statement. First, Westcott and Hort didn't come on the scene until 1881 with their own published critical greek text. Second, Pratt and Mora started in 1860, not 1861.

But the rest of the quote seems pretty much right on the line! Especially with the evidence we have just seen as we read through ABS's own history of that version.

With all this information, how could anyone who claims to be a Bible Believer who loves God and wants a pure Spanish Bible use the 1865? We don't even know if it really is an 1865. For what those who use an 1865 are preaching from says "Verbo" which our source tells us is what was changed in 1868.

But even after reading all of this evidence, there will still be some who will seek to defend the 1865 and try to deny the truth. It is for them, that I continue with a little more evidence.

THE CRITICAL TEXT READINGS IN THE 1865 ABS

We will assume that the 1865 being pushed today is the original 1865. We don't know this, but we'll assume it. And we will take the version that they are printing and look at some places where it does not line up with the Textus Reptus and the King James Bible. In fact, we'll prove that it instead lines up with the critical texts. Eight examples should be sufficient to prove the point. (For even one critical text reading against the textus receptus and King James in favor of the Vaticanus and Siniaticus is too many!)

However, before going further, let me state that in my first book, "A Brief look at the History of the Spanish Bible," I pointed out a list of problems in the 1865 Spanish Bible. After that, those behind the 1865 Spanish Bible printed the 1865 with fifty changes to the text (many of which are those same errors I listed in my book), and these were listed in the back of their version under the title of "Errata." (If this is not a confession that the original 1865 was in error, I don't know what is).

Because of this, many brethern accused those behind the 1865 of being deceitful in continuing to call that version the 1865, as it was no longer the 1865, but a revision of it done in 2005. They claimed it should have been called either a 2005 Reina Valera, or a 2005 revision of the 1865.

Those behind the 1865 later undid those fifty changes (many of which were critical text readings removed), in order to defend the original 1865, claiming it alone was the word of God, and that no version after 1881 (when Westcott and Hort put out their critical text) could ever be anything more than a "Laodicean" version of the scriptures. (So what did that make their 2005 edition?)

8 PLACES THE 1865 READS WITH THE CRITICAL TEXTS

Matt. 24:2 Omits the word Jesus following the Latin Vulgate

Mark 15:3 Removes "mas el no respondió nada" following the Vulgate

Luke 9:43 Removes the word Jesus as do Aleph, B, and the Vulgate

Jn 14:28 Changes "mi padre" to "el padre"as do Aleph, B. and the Vulgate (see also 16:10,25 and (8:28)

Acts 16:10 Changes Señor to Dios following the Vulgate, Aleph, and B

Acts 17:27 Changes Señor to Dios following the Vulgate, Aleph, and B

Acts 22:16 Removes the words El Señor reading with the Vulgate and the critical texts

James 1:12 Changes Señor to Dios following the Latin Vulgate reading

CHANGES IN THE 1865 WITH NO TEXTUAL BASIS

Not only does the 1865 follow the critical texts against the King James and Textus Receptus, it also makes many strange changes with no textual basis for doing so. Below are a few examples:

Matt. 8:1 Adds Jesus to the verse when there is no textual basis to do so!

Mark 6:44 Omits the word como

Mark 8:25 Adds the words de lejos

Acts 8:16 Omits Señor

Acts 8:25 Changes Señor to Dios

2 Cor. 10:18 Changes Señor to Dios, following no text on earth!

1 Tim. 6:1 Changes Dios to Señor with no textual basis to do so

2 Tim. 4:14 Changes Señor to Dios, for no reason following no text

These are just a few of the many places in which the 1865 version has changed the true Reina-Valera Bible, departing not only in favor of the critical texts, but making changes with no texual basis to do so whatsoever! It's almost like whoever revised it decided they liked to interchange God and Lord back and forth anytime they so desired.

IN SUMMARY

The mountain of evidence given in this brief blog should be sufficient to any true Bible believer that the 1865 spanish Bible is not worth wasting your time with. Although it has greatly improved some verses to match even closer to the KJV, it has also destroyed other verses by making them read with the critical texts, and decimated even other verses by changing words which don't match with any text on the face of the earth!

Those who defend the 1865 claim to be KJV in English. If so, how do they reconcile the fact that their Spanish version doesn't line up with the English version? And how can they claim (as they do) that the KJV is perfect, and then claim their 1865 is perfect when they don't say the same thing?

It is up to you, dear reader, with the evidence presented here to decide for yourself what to do with the 1865 (or is it an 1868?) Spanish Bible. Facts have been given which cannot be denied from those who commissioned the work to be done (the American Bible Society). I have also tried to give evidence within the pages of the 1865 itself which prove it reads with the critical texts, and I've given information about how those who push the 1865 have revised it, but then gone back to the old version, proving they are not really interested at all in a pure Spanish Bible that lines up with their English King James.

But, you mark my words, those who defend the 1865 will not deal with the facts, or the evidence. They will continue to do what they have always done, which is to try to explain away the obvious, and say that facts have been "twisted" or "taken out of context."

If falls upon you then, dear reader, to study this issue for yourself and see who is telling the truth. And please don't allow yourself to be taken off the trail with side arguements. Stick to the facts as I have done.

Eventually, if you will study with an open mind, you will find exactly what I have found, that the purest Spanish Bible available today is the 1602 Purified Spanish Bible.

P.S. A friend sent me this after having written this article. It proves the critical texts were used in translating even in the middle 1800s and before, and that those behind the 1865 would have used the critical texts in their work...

"Just found the following quote in Memoir of Adoniram Judson Being a Sketch of His Life and Missionary Labors, by J. Clement, published in New York by C.M. Saxon, Baker and Co., 1860, pp. 237-239.

"In my first attempts at translating portions of the New Testament, above 20 years ago, I followed Griesbach, as all the world then did; and though, from year to year I have found reason to distrust his authority, still, not wishing to be ever-changing, I deviated by little from his text, in subsequent editions, until the last;"

I don't know when Judson wrote this, but he died in 1850. So he must have been referring to people using the corrupt Griesback text between 1813 (when he first published the book of Matthew in Burmese) and 1830.

The importance of this quote is in the fact that apostasy did not begin in 1881 in Greek textual matters. It could be said to have begun a century earlier with the publication of Johann Griesbach's corrupt text in 1774-1775. Therefore, the Laodician period cannot be DATED 1880 in textual matters."

Crash Course on the Spanish Bible Issue among Independent Baptists Today

              As an Independent Baptist Minister and Missionary to Spanish-speaking people, I've found that even though many Independent Baptists claim to be in favor of only one Bible in English (the King James Authorized version), they use multiple versions in Spanish.  And sadly, most of those versions are not in agreement with the KJV.   This has led to much bitter infighting within the Independent Baptist movment over the Spanish Bible Issue for decades, and this heated arguing continues still unto our day.
              From the sidelines, I've watched these Fundamentalists battle each other over which Bible in Spanish is the right one. And I've seen them all be consistenly WRONG on which Bible they chose, as each one defended a version that is either mixed with catholic texts, the critical texts, and/or is full of many modern Spanish words and grammar instead of the beautiful old Castellan of Spain, like the old Reina-Valera of 1602.

As I watched the fray, I didn't realize at the time, that God was putting me right slap-dab in the middle of the controversy in order to teach me some things and then use me to help Hispanics learn about the History of their Bible, and to point them to the purest word of God in their own language.

Looking back now over the years, I see just how God has used me in a mighty way to show English and Spanish Speakers alike the truth about the Spanish Bible Controversy and the practice of modern day Fundamentalist Pharisees who hypocritcally hide the truth about their corrupt versions in order to deceive the masses.

Over the years, I wrote several books on the Spanish Bible Issue and I saw them printed and distributed far and wide, with much positive feedback.  Gail Riplinger has even flattered me personally, saying: "As far as I'm concerned, you are the foremost authority on the Spanish Bible Issue and the History of the Spanish Bible."

As flattering as that might be, I know I still have much to learn.  But I'm grateful God has given me a purpose and a reason for my ministry. So, I steadfastly continue preaching the truth about the various Spanish Bible versions, and pointing Spanish speakers to the purest word of God in their language.

For those who don't know anything about the Spanish Bible Issue, I give the following crash course...

THE MODERN AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY 1960 REINA-VALERA REVISION

Fundamentalists for almost half a century have adamantly defended the popular 1960 Spanish Bible, now known as the "Crown Version." But when the New Testament of that version came out in the early 1950s (its appeared only as a bi-lingual edition printed with the RSV in English), no Fundamentalist would touch it with a ten foot pole! It wasn't until they printed it with the Scofield notes, that some Fundamentalists bought it. Then eventually more followed, and it finally became the standard Fundamentalist and Evangelical Bible for the next forty years. (How sad they bought it more for the NOTES and not for the TEXT!) This is how many Fundamentalist missionaries who were KJV only in English hypocritically became RSV in Spanish, and still are to this day (defending their beloved 1960).

Then, along came a few guys like myself who actually read the 1960 with the King James and became appalled at the many differences. We then began to ask how other missionaries, who only use the KJV in English and are against the English RSV, could use a Bible in Spanish that read with the RSV in many places? It just didn’t make sense.

Eventually a Missionary in Guatemala found a book by Jose Flores (a consultant on the 1960 revision) in which the author stated the 1960 Spanish Bible relied heavily on the English RSV and the CRITICAL TEXTS in it's revision. Myself and others began to point this out, as well as the many DOCTRINAL ERRORS in the 1960. We also showed the influence of Eugene Nida and his damnable doctrine of DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE, (which almost all Fundamentalists are against), which teaches a man doesn't have to translate the words rather only the idea or the message behind the words (This allows the translator to become his own "Interpreter" rather than an honest and objective translator).

But for our speaking out on the truth, we were labelled as "trouble makers" and "Bible attackers" among modern day Fundamentalists (better stated Funny-mental-ists) instead of the true Bible Believers we are who wanted a pure bible to take to Hispanics.

THE 1909 REINA-VALERA REVISION

Not all Fundamentalists jumped on the bandwagon of the 1960. A few stuck with the old 1909, and were often ridiculed and attacked by the 1960 crowd because of it. Many claimed it was "archaic" and "out-dated" and others should just chunk it in favor of the more popular 1960. But many a dogmatic fundamentalist who knew his Bible and saw the horrendous errors of the 1960 would not waiver. They stood firm on their convictions of using the old 1909, which had become known as "La Antigua" (the Old version).

But when faced with the truth that the 1909 was done by men who not only favored the Critical Texts, but also used them in their translation, many 1909 users became upset. Eventually they desired a pure Bible based upon the pure texts underlying the King James Bible, and not a version mixed with the critical texts of men. So they began to look elsewhere.

THE 1543 ENZINAS NEW TESTAMENT

A movement began in Arizona in the 1990's to resurrect the old Francisco de Enzinas New Testament of 1543, the work of a learned and well-known Protestant Spaniard. It was reprinted in old Spanish (where the "s" is an "f" and the "v" is a "b," etc.) but saw very little distribution and acceptance by modern Fundamentalists. Although it was much better than the 1960 and 1909, it also had been messed with by Catholics who changed some things after Enzinas did his work. So it too wasn't pure.

THE 1865 A.B.S. SPANISH BIBLE

Then in 2001, Jeff McCardle and Paul Garcia tried to resurrect the 1865 Spanish Bible. I was there when they called a group of men together to show them the version they'd found and how they tried to convince us all that it was, and I quote, "The true word of God in Spanish."

With their list of 200 verses that showed the 1865 was better than both the 1960 and 1909, and closer to the King James, some people readily accepted the 1865. I was skeptical, and did not, determining to study it out more. I did, and found Mr. H.B. Pratt who worked on the 1865 (with a man named Mora) was very biased towards the critical texts (so much so that he produced a version in 1893 based entirely on them, called "La Version Moderna"), and that he had inserted some critical text readings into the 1865. He also changed many words with no textual basis to do so (often times changing "God" to "Lord" or vice versa for no reason!)  (NOTE:  Some who defend the 1865 wrongly say that Pratt had nothing to do with the work, as he dropped out because of the Civil War.  But a letter from Mr. Pratt himself in which he says his job of translation was the "critical accuracy" (i.e. inserting critical text readings) and where he speaks of working with Mr. Mora, proves otherwise).

With a list I had found of about 50 places in the 1865 that read either against the King James or with the critical texts, I went with Jeff McCardle to speak to Peter S. Ruckman about the issue. Jeff had already written an article in Ruckman's Bible Baptist Bulletin, in which he stated that spanish speakers should defend: "...Every word of the 1865 Spanish Bible."

Faced with the truth, Jeff eventually made 50 changes in his beloved 1865, in favor of the King James and pure texts, but later decided to undo those changes, as they didn't go along with his teaching that no Bible after 1881 could be the preserved word of God. Because of his backpeddling, and not wanting to purify his version further, Jeff has since lost much credibility, and his movement and his Valera Bible Society are now suffering because of it. Emanuel Rodriguez (who is in favor of the new, modern Gomez Bible) has recently written a good article on the internet exposing Jeff McCardle and his illogical and flip-flopping doctrinal position.

THE 1602 PURIFIED SPANISH BIBLE

The next version to come along did what McCardle did not, in that it did do an extensive revising of the original Valera 1602 with the pure texts underlying our King James Bible. It is the Valera 1602 Purified (also known as the 1602 TR in the New Testament and the 1602 Purified or 1602 Monterrey as the whole Bible). Those who worked on this version are Hispanic in orgin (not American like McCardle). They are further Independent Baptist Fundamentalists Christians located in Monterrey, Mexico. As a local Church, they worked for 15 years purifying the Spanish Bible to bring it in line with the Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic texts.

Following the advice of Cipriano de Valera in his preface of his 1602 version, they went directly back to the original 1602 and started from there. (Note: The 1602 original wasn't printed much exactly like Valera's 1602 edition, as Bible Societies rather took it and "revised" [i.e. "changed"] it in many passages to read more in favor with the Catholic texts to be able to distribute it in Catholic countries. This is why modern bibles like the 1960, 1909, 1865, the Gomez, and more retain the Catholic term "Verbo" instead of the correct, Protestant term "Palabra" in speaking of Jesus Christ).

Those behind the 1602 Purified also went verse by verse with all older Protestant Bibles as well as the King James as they scrutinized every verse with the Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic Text. What they produced was the most exhaustive and scholarly work done by ANYONE on the face of the earth in giving Spanish Speakers a Bible that reads not only with the pure texts (instead of the Critical Texts), but also retains the old Castellan Spanish of Reina and Valera instead of updating to modern Spanish (like the Gomez does).

The Valera 1602 Purified is endorsed by Gail Riplinger, as the right Spanish Bible, not only because of the much work (prayer and fasting) involved, but also because it chose to use the old PROTESTANT WORDS instead of modern CATHOLIC words. It is also the only Spanish Bible that uses “SEÑOR,” following the King James Bible (and its use of LORD in all caps) in the Old Testament, instead of “Jehová.”

After the Valera 1602 Purified came out in 2002 (exactly 400 years after the 1602 revision), it was not well received. The reason being most Fundamentalists were still in attack mode. They used either the 1909 or the 1960 and didn't want anything else, as that's what their "group" had used for many decades. (I call them "groupies" who only use a Bible because others in their group do, not because they want a pure Bible for the Spanish Speaking People).

Because of their "group" or "camp" mentality, they chose to attack rather than study the issue, and were quick to put down the exhaustive work of the Valera 1602 Purified. They even made the outlandish claim that Pastor Raul Reyes was a "homosexual" (Isn't it kind of funny the enemies of King James called him the same thing?) and many others such derogatory names.

Those behind the Valera 1602 Purified were vehemently attacked by apostate Fundamentalists, but they didn't let it bother them. Instead they chose to work by themselves and let their critic's words come to naught. Like Pastor Raul Reyes said, "We had to make a decision. Either take out time to write back the letters and emails of our attackers, (which would have turned out to be a full time job), or shun their childish attacks and do the work of God trusting Him to help us get a pure Bible to the Spanish Speaking people."

Thus, they decided to let their finished work speak for itself. (Which it does by reading entirely with the pure texts against the critical texts, while still staying as close to the old Valera of 1602 as possible).

When the Purified was first printed, only as the New Testament (the whole Bible came out in 2007), the 1960 attackers who obtained a copy showed their ignorance of their own language and their own Bible history by attacking the word "Palabra" instead of "Verbo." Many of them had never even seen an original 1602, and didn't even know that all Protestant versions used "Palabra" instead of the pro-catholic word "Verbo."  (Even Erasmus was against the word Verbo, claiming it came from the Vulgate reading of Verbum).

The 1960 crowd’s adamant defense of their version proved they were more interested in politics than in the purity of God's words. But the more they lamblasted the Valera 1602 Purified, the more people became curious about it and sought it out. Thus, they learned the best way to keep the Purified out of the hands of the masses was to simply not mention it anymore. And that's exactly what they did, and what others are doing now, not even mentioning it at all in favor of a newer, popular Fundamentalist version called the Gomez. (Note: Many who are now in favor of the modern Gomez Bible are those same 1960 users who attacked the 1602 Purified).

THE modern 2004/ 2010 GOMEZ BIBLE

After the Valera 1602 Purified came out, some wise Fundamentalists began to realize they could not longer deny the fact that both their 1960 and 1909 Spanish Bibles had mistakes, additions, critical text readings, and doctrinal errors. Eventually the attacks slowed down and hispanic Fundamentalists realized the mistakes in their Bibles could no longer be denied. Thus, they chose to discuss the issue, rather than continue to debate it.

It is during this time, Mr. Humberto Gomez, a Fundamentalist Independent Baptist missionary to his native country of Mexico, decided he'd get on the band wagon and make his own translation of the Spanish Bible, by revising the old 1909 Spanish Bible. He knew no Hebrew or Greek, but he believed God had told him to begin work on revising the Spanish Bible, so he did.

The first edition of his New Testament came out in 2004, and soon became known as the RVG '04 (or Reina-Valera Gomez 2004). Interestingly enough, however, many have claimed his first edition reads a lot like the Valera 1602 Purified (which he has been rumored to have used in his churches for a short time), and that they thought he used the Purified in his work, making sure to change many words for Spanish synonyms in order to make it look like his work. Whether this is true or not, we'll probably never know, but this has been the charge that was made.

But, the facts are when Gomez' first edition of the New Testament came out, it was horrendous and full of errors and mistakes! For example, in 1 Corinthians 7, it gave permission to a man to marry his own daughter. (Yep, you read that right!) And in John chapter 2, it had Jesus at a party with people drinking hard liquor. (Yep, you read that right too!)

But instead of Gomez' work being attacked by modern Fundamentalists, he found many jump to his side and volunteer to help him with his work. (I guess they didn't read the first edition, for if they had they might have thought otherwise).

Their "help" consisted of emailing him many suggestions of things he should change. Mr. Gomez knew no Hebrew or Greek, so he eventually enlisted the help of Dr. Donald Waite, and together they tried to make their translation read more in line with the pure texts. However, Gomez was insistent upon being the "final authority" on the project, based upon his own words. (Thus, it is still called the Reina-Valera GOMEZ Bible).

The Gomez is now out in its fifth edition, and is now called the Reina-Valera Gomez 2010 Spanish Bible. Many Fundamentalists are now adopting this version, and even Chick Publications is printing it. (They are now calling their revision the Gomez 2010).

But as I've gone through and studied that version, I found an interesting thing. Even though it claims to be a revision of the old 1909, it in many places reads with the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible, choosing words and even sentence structure that follows that version exactly. (In other words, it appears Mr. Gomez' Bible is nothing more than a revision of the 1960.  NOTE:  Mr. Gomez recently confessed that the did use the 1960 in his work, copying it in at the very least 4000 places).  Some have hypothesized that the reason is because Mr. Gomez wanted many of those Fundamentalists who used the 1960 to come over to his side, knowing they would accept a version which read closer to their revision. Whatever the case may be, Gomez and his Bible is clearly becoming a political movement, as those who adhere to that version all seem to adore and worship Mr. Gomez more than the pure words of God. And the Gomez Bible, even though it might be closer to the King James in some places, still retains the catholic word "Verbo" instead of the protestant word "Palabra."

The Gomez today is dogmatically being labeled by its Fundamentalist proponents as "The Preserved words of God in Spanish."  But is this so?

The question needs to be asked: "Did God wait until Gomez to give the Spanish Speaking People His preserved Words?" If so, "Why?" And, "What about the 'marrying your own daughter thing?'" Was that God preserving His word?

We also must ask, "Did God want the many synonym words that Gomez chose in his version, many of which are not in the original 1602, to be His preserved words in Spanish, or did God give us His preserved words in 1602, and we should honor and keep those old words as much as possible?" (Just as those who put out the Valera 1602 Purified did.)

And finally, we should also ask, “If Fundamentalist were once wrong in using the 1960 Spanish Bible, could it be they are wrong again in turning toward this modern version which used as its basis two corrupt Bibles--the 1909 and 1960?”

IN SUMMARY

The Spanish Bible Controversy has been an issue of much bitter fighting, and attacks by modern Fundamentalists who battle each other over which Bible they think is best in Spanish. Usually, their reasoning that their version is best is because it’s the one their group uses or has used for years. But very few wish to actually do the painstaking work of comparing all the versions together with the King James and the texts underlying it, to see how it lines up, comparing it with the old Protestant Spanish Bibles as well. 

Instead of finding the pure words of God to take to the Spanish Speaking people, modern day Fundamentalists seem content to give them something they know contains catholic words, critical texts, and man’s synonymns.

As for me, my desire is to take Spanish-speaking people the pure words of God in their language, free of critical and catholic text readings. And, I believe the purest word of God in Spanish to be the Valera 1602 Purified, which is Old Castellan Spanish (not modern Spanish) and is the closest not only to the pure texts underlying the King James Bible, but is also the closest to the original 1602 and the Protesant texts of the Spanish reformation.

But as I watch modern Fundamentalists, I find they aren't as interested as they claim to be about a pure Spanish Bible. I appears they are more intersted in politics. And, instead of them talking about the "texts," (GOD'S WORDS) they seem to be either attacking or praising different Bible "translators" (MEN).

Fundamentalists have been WRONG in openly embracing the 1960, the 1909 and even the 1865. Could it be they are wrong again in accepting a new version like the modern Gomez Bible? You must decide for yourself. And the only way to decide is to STUDY it all for yourself.

I've done just that, and I only use the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible in preaching and teaching, and I do so only after having diligently studied the issue.  From my studies, I've come to the conclusion that the Valera 1602 Purified is the purest Spanish Bible available today. But don't take my word for it. Do what I did. Get an old 1602, all the old Spanish Protestant Bibles: the 1543 Enzinas, the 1556 Juan Perez de Pineda, the Biblia de Ferrara of 1553 and others. Then look at them verse by verse with the 1865, 1909, 1960, the Gomez, and more.

And what you'll find is that the Valera 1602 Spanish Bible is old Spanish (just like the KJV is old Elizabethan English), and reads in favor more with the texts of the Protestant Reformation, while the 1865, 1909, and 1960 all read with the Critical Texts time and again. And though the modern Gomez claims to have purified all critical text readings, you'll also find that the Gomez reads closer to the 1960 and even the Spanish NIV in its word choice than it does with the old Reina-Valera Spanish Bible!

So that’s the Spanish Bible Issue in a nutshell. Fundamentalists need to stop the "Groupism" and “Politics” which divides them, and determine to stop hiding behind ignorance.  Instead, they should get busy starting "STUDY GROUPS" to verify the FACTS.

For more information, please visit my website at:

www.rrb3.com