THE TRUTH ABOUT VERBO

Even though the facts have come out, there are many out there who are still quick to disbelieve them, and are adamant in their defense of the Catholic Spanish word "Verbo" in John 1:1.  This is hard to understand, as many of them claim to be true Bible Believers and anti-Catholic.  Yet, in defending this word, they are defending a long used Roman Catholic word, and denying the true word used in the anti-Catholic Bibles, the word "Palabra."

Gail Riplinger recently put out a great article about this word "Verbo," and showed how it came from the LATIN VULGATE based Spanish Scio text of 1793.  Before that date, ALL SPANISH BIBLES used "Palabra" rather than "Verbo."  Scio was the first to introduce that word into the Spanish Bible (notice I didn't say "spanish language" for the word "verbo" itself it can be found in Spanish before 1793.  However, in context to Jesus Christ, it was only used by Catholics, not Protestants until the 1800's when Protestants mixed that Catholic word into their Bibles to make their versions appear to be Catholic texts.  Their reasoning was so that their printed Bibles would not be burned by Catholic priests who hated Protestants and their Bibles.  Thus, you have Protestant Bible Societies mixing catholic words into their Spanish Bibles.)

The fact is, the word "Verbo" is indeed a CATHOLIC word.  Why then do people who claim to love God and love the old Reina-Valera choose to accept a version in Spanish that USES that word, instead of the old Reina and Valera word "Palabra?"  Is it because they are just ignorant of this fact?  That could very well be the case for many who still have not heard the facts.  But for those who have heard it and deny it, they are guilty of defending a "Catholic word" while they claim to be anti-catholic. 

Because of the insertion of the word Verbo into Protestant Bible texts, most Spanish-speaking people today use a modern version of the Spanish Bible that retains that Catholic word, and many of them don't even know that's not the original word used.  They have never seen the old Spanish Bibles.  Thus, to them it's not an issue.  But it should be.  For they have been duped into using a Catholic word, rather than the old preserved, long-standing word for hundreds of years.

Many who use the 1865, 1909, 1960, and even the modern Gomez want you to believe that this a "non-issue."  They want you to think that only in the last ten to fifteen years has it even ever been brought up, and that it's not important.  But the facts prove otherwise.  In fact, there has been a battle raging over this subject since around the first and second century after Jesus!  And the early church did not use the Catholic word!

The Latin Vulgate word used in John 1:1 is Verbum, from which in Spanish we get Verbo.  It's easy to see how close the words are, and how Verbo is a derivative of Verbum.  However, just because a Roman Catholic translates this word a certain way and corrupt, liberal Bible Societies choose to put it into their texts, does that mean we should accept it?  What if they did wrong in doing this?  I mean, should we accept Catholics, their teachings, and even their words after knowing what they've done to countless millions in the Spanish Inquisition?

The truth is that all Spanishs Bible BEFORE 1793 use rather the word Palabra in speaking of Jesus Christ.  These would include the Enzinas New Testament of 1543, the 1556 New Testament of Juan Perez de Pineda, the 1569 Bible of Reina, and the 1602 revision of it by Valera.  ALL of these Spanish Protestant Bibles use Palabra rather than Verbo.  Are we then supposed to spit in the face of these God fearing men, and choose a Catholic reading over the reading in their versions?

Many a modern Bible defender does just that!  They choose a Catholic word over the Protestant word.  But why? 

Before going further, let's look at their arguments. 

ARGUMENT #1  The "older Latin texts" have Verbum.

This argument is put out by Luis Vega, in which he dogmatically attacks Robert Breaker's defense of the word Palabra.   

However, Mr. Vega forgets several things in his article.  First, there are Latin manuscripts that do use something other than Verbum.  (Even though he says there are not).  In fact, the very earliest extant reading of John 1:1, cited by Tertullian (160-225 A.D.), rejects Verbum.  It uses a different word. (Let me depart here for a minute and quote from Marjorie O'Rourke Boyle, who writes, and I quote verbatim, "Tertullian and Cyprian [who died in 258 A.D.] quote Sermo in every citation of the opening verses of the Johannine prologe.  In addition to eight quotations is Tertullian valuable, impartial testimony in Adversus Praxean that the custom of Latin Christians was to read, 'In principio erat sermo,'  although he preferred ratio to sermo...")I wonder why Mr. Vega didn't mention that.   Or was he just ignorant of the fact that the early church used Sermo rather than Verbum?

Nor did Mr. Vega mention that the Catholic Church favors the Latin texts which use Verbum, so wouldn't it stand to reason that THEY are the ones who CHANGED the word in the second or third or fourth century to Verbum?  In fact, as we study a little more, we find that this indeed is what has happened. In fact, as we study Church History, we find this happening quite often on a massive scale.  The early church has it one way, they Catholic Church changes it to something else, and then it becomes their tradition. 

We further find that later on, the noted scholar Erasmus produced his own latin Greek New Testament.  In his "first edition" he indeed used the word Verbo.  This cannot be denied.  However, why doesn't Mr. Vega tell you the rest of the story?  For Erasmus later produced a "second edition" in which he CHANGED the word to Sermo.  The reason is he didn't believe the word Verbum to be the right one.  And because he was Catholic, he had to appease his church by using Verbo.  But when he could, he printed a second edition of it the way he thought it should read, he made it a point to get rid of Verbo.  How do we know that?  Because he wrote an entire treatise in Latin in which he speaks of why Verbo is wrong, and why another word Sermo should be used.  I wonder if Mr. Vega ever read that?

But that's neither here or there.  The fact is the Latin text used Verbo.  And that text is the Catholic text.  Why then would anyone who claims to be a Bible Believing Christian want a word from a catholic text?  Why not go back to the old Protestant texts and take the word word Palabra?  Wouldn't that solve the problem? 

Well, they have their own argument for why they want to keep Verbo.  It is as follows...

ARGUMENT #2 The word Palabra makes Jesus effeminate for it's a feminine word.

This argument is put out by Emmanuel Rodriguez.  He says that Verbo is the better rendering because it is a MASCULINE word, and that Palabra is no good, because it's a feminine word, and because of this, it reafers to Jesus as "ella," a feminine pronoun.  He then insinuates that since Jesus was "male" rather than "female" we should reject Palabra in favor of the Catholic word Verbo, because it's a masculine word.

This is very silly.  For just because a word in Spanish is feminine in gender DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ACTUAL OBJECT ITSELF IS FEMININE.  Any Spanish-speaker can tell you this!  So according to this argument, we should then CHANGE the rest of the Spanish Bible, and take the word "LUZ" in speaking of Jesus and change it, for it is a feminine word.  We should also change these feminine nouns as well which speak of Jesus because they are feminine in gender:

La resurrection

La Vida

La Puerta

La Verdad

This argument won't work.  For it's a pseudo-grammatical argument by someone who doesn't understand the Spanish language and it's grammar.  Just because a word is masucline or feminine DOES NOT mean the object is.  It's that simple.  Someone is grasping at straws with this argument.

ARGUMENT #3  God Preserved his word for us today through certain versions of the Bible, and since we have his preserved word, then Verbo is one of those words.

This arguent presumes that God used those behind the modern versions, and chose them to give us his word exactly how he wants it for us today in Spanish.  However, have they ever thought that this might not be the case?  The sad History of the Spanish Bible is that it's continually been messed with.  And, it's continually been a work in progress.  When Reina and Valera did their work, they both said it needed revision, as it wasn't perfect.  In fact, Reina said he wanted someone to revise it and TAKE OUT THE VULGATE READINGS, for in his own words, he said that that version was "full of errors!"  Valera also suggested that his version by revised with the pure texts.  (Remember, it was the VULGATE text that reads "Verbum.")

What happened next was that Bible Societies then mixed the Valera Bible not with the pure texts, but with the Vulgate, producing Spanish HYBRID BIBLES, part Valera and part Catholic.  Later, they mixed the text with the corrupt CRITICAL TEXTS. 

How then can we accept modern Spanish versions of the Bible that have this much corruption?  Even the modern Gomez Spanish Bible retains many words from the corrupt 1960, even though it has claimed to have made it read correctly with the King James and Textus Receptus.  But we must ask, "Did God preserved the 1960 words?  Or should we not go back to the original 1602 and those Protestant versions before it to find God's words, and purify those texts with the KJV, TR, and Hebrew Masoretic text?"

The truth is, the ONLY Spanish Bible that has gone back to the old Protestant versions as its basis is the 1602 Purified Spanish Bible.  All others used as their basis either a catholic or catholic-protestant hybrid text.

With this is mind, it's hard to swallow the argument that God used CATHOLICS, LIBERAL BIBLE SOCIETIES, and VULGATE readings to give us his pure and perfect words preserved for us today in the Spanish tongue.  It makes more sense to believe that to get those pure and perfectly preserved words, we must go BACK to the source, and not forward to the corrupted editions. Thus, we choose the Protestant Palabra over the Catholic word Verbo.

ARGUMENT #4  The word Verbo is widely accepted today, and it's found in almost every Spanish dictionary as meaning the third member of the trinity, thus it must be accepted as it's the only word people know in speaking of Jesus in the passage of John 1:1.

This argument tries to make Verbo the ONLY Spanish word that can be used in Spanish.  They say, "Since it's been used so long in Spanish to apply to Jesus Christ, that it's the only word that now makes sense to Spanish-speaking people, and it is now the only true Spanish word." 

This line of reasoning omits so much.  First, it leaves out the fact that at one time there was another word, Palabra, that was used INSTEAD of Verbo.  (Just like Sermo was used instead of Verbum by the early church).  So they deny that the other word exists, and is perfectly okay in the passage.  Second, they refuse to study the history of Spain.  The SPANISH INQUISITION made people accept Verbo rather than Palabra and it was for this reason that compromising Bible Societies changed to the Catholic word in their texts.  Should we allow ourselves and our Bibles to be bullied by the Catholic Church?  For this reason alone we should all join hands against the papists and reject their word!

Next, they assume that Spanish dictionaries are all correct and unbiased.  However, the facts prove otherwise.  The Royal Academic Dictionary of Spain is very bias and very Catholic.  Of course it's going to define their own word from their own Bible the way they want to define it.  But not all dictionaries are catholic.  I found one from the eighteen hundreds put out in Spain by Don Sebastian de Corarrubia Orozco entitled, "Tesoro de la Lengua Castellana," in which the word Palabra is defined as part of the Godhead.

Why couldn't these guys find this?  It didn't take me too long to find it online.

One of the greatest defenders of the word Verbo is the 1865 crowd.  Yet, when I contacted the American Bible Society in New York, I was given some information from them and found from the very minutes of their meetings that the original A.B.S. 1865 Spanish Bible retained the word Palabra.  It wasn't until 1868 that they inserted the word Verbo into the text when they reprinted the 1865.  Why did they change it?  Do those who now use and adamantly defend the 1865 even know this?  Are they even defending the 1865 or the 1868?

SUMMARY

The truth of the matter is this: Verbo, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is a CATHOLIC word.  These guys who defend it and their own versions can say it's not all they want, but IT IS!  For the proof is in the pudding.  It did not appear in Spanish Bible translations until 1793, when it showed up in the first whole Catholic Spanish Bible translation, which was done directly from the ROMAN CATHOLIC VULGATE, where the word in Latin reads Verbum.  After that, devious and deceitful Bible Societies inserted the spanish vulgate based word (Verbo) into their texts, hoping their Bibles would be accepted by CATHOLICS and not burned.  They catered to the papists in order for the papists to approve their text.  Next, those who used the CRITICAL TEXTS to revise the Spanish Bible kept the word. Showing they did not want to deviate too far from the Catholic reading.  And today all Spanish Bibles printed and distributed world-wide retain that Catholic word; all except one.  The Valera 1602 Purified is the only Spanish Bible available today that chose to do the right thing and reject that Catholic word, and go back to the original Protestant word Palabra, in following the older protestant texts.

Aside from all the reasons already given, this is an important issue because in all Protestant Bibles in all languages, they all have the same word used for Jesus and his word in John 1:1.  In English we find Juan 1:1 reads in speaking of Jesus, the "Word."  Notice the Capital "W" at the beginning.  And we find that the scriptures are spoken of in the Bible as the "word" of God. (Notice the lower case "w."). The same word is used in speaking of Jesus and his word.

In Spanish, the word used in speaking of the scriptures is "la Palabra de Dios."  The only way for this to match like the King James Bible does in using Word for Jesus and word for the scriptures, is to use Palabra (notice the capital "P") in John 1:1 in speaking of Jesus Christ and palabra in speaking of the word of God.  It's that simple!

So why do these guys who claim to be KJV only in English, and claim to be against the atrocities and false doctrines of the papist church so in favor in Spanish of an anti-KJV, pro-Catholic rendering in Spanish with the word Verbo?   I can't understand it, can you?

For more information on this, please click on the following links:

Mr. Luis Vega's article about Verbo:  Refuting Breaker's Broken Interpretation of John 1:1

Gail Riplinger's article:  Changing God's Word

Manny Rodriguez' rebuttal to this article:  Is Gail Riplinger Right about the Reina Valera Gomez Bible?

Gail Riplinger's scholarly rebuttal to Mr. Rodriguez' above article:  A Quick Response to a Brief Preview