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."