The Valera 1602 Purificada on E-sword?

A friend sent me a link the other day to a place where someone had posted the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible on e-sword. It is:

http://eswordbibliotecahispana.blogspot.com/2011/08/reina-valera-1062-purificada.html

I went there and tried to download the file, but was unable to do so. My Norton software said it had a low level virus. (Who would put a virus in a Bible program???)

Many people have been asking for and excited about getting the text to the Valera 1602 Purified to use on their E-sword program.

So can anyone out there download this program and take out the virus and make it available for others to use?

If so, let me know...

Robertbreaker3@hotmail.com

In Response to Luis Vega's article against me and the word Palabra

Years ago a man named Luis Vega wrote an article entitled, "Breaker's Allegation of 'Verbo' Refuted," in which he wrote a derogatory treatise in which he defended the word Verbo in the modern Spanish Bibles, while attacking Missionary Evangelist Robert Breaker.  He further attempted to prove his point with what he claims was "rock-hard" evidence, and what he gave to some might look convincing.  However, it's not what he said, but what he DIDN'T SAY.  It's what he either intentionally or unintentionally left out that gives us the true story.  To read this man's article, and I would encourage you to do so, please click on the link below:

http://www.valera1865.org/en/the_silly_gringos_club/roberts_breakers_broken_spanish/refuting_breaker_john_1_1/index.html

I also encourage you to look up:

http://www.valera1865.org/en/the_silly_gringos_club/index.html

In which, Robert Breaker, is labelled a "silly gringo" by these people. 

Let's now examine the evidence for ourselves and see who really is the "silly" one.  (Oh, and by the way, Robert Breaker does have Spanish Blood in him, so it's quite insulting to call him a "Gringo.").

In Mr. Vega's article, he claims, and I quote, "The only way that the word 'Verbum' could be accurately considered a Catholic word is if it originated from the Roman Catholic Religion or a Catholic text.  This article has been written exclusively to carefully examine Breaker's shocking claim to see if it holds water."

In the same spirit, we will do the same, and carefully examine Mr. Vega's claims.  For the FACTS prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to any rational minded individual that Verbum and Verbo are both CATHOLIC words.

Before going further, it must be mentioned that Mr. Vega claims he wrote to Mr. Breaker, and that he never responded.  The truth is Mr. Breaker did not receive his correspondence and would love for him to email it to him anew.  Mr. Breaker's email is:  Robertbreaker3@hotmail.com

Now, back to the truth about "Verbo."  Mr. Vega says that the word "Verbum" appears in, and I quote, "ALL pre surviving pre-Vulgate Old Latin Bibles."

He then gives a list of those he wants us to look up.  And then with an act of uncharitableness, he jabs, "I wonder if Robert Breaker knew this before opening his big mouth."

But what are these Latin manuscripts of which he speaks?  He gives us a 4th century manuscript and then tries to make us believe that it came from the 2nd century.  So we are supposed to believe him because he gives us a latin text 400 years after Jesus and says that it was from 200 years earlier.  So, according to Mr. Vega, the word Verbum is used in the Latin text 200 years after Jesus.

But he forgets two things.  First, the Catholic church was being formed around that time.  Some give the official date at 324 A.D with Constantine.  So wouldn't that put us in the time of Catholic scholars?  Second, what about the documented evidence of the fact that before 250-300 A.D. there are Latin texts which DO NOT USE Verbum in John 1:1?  Why does Mr. Vega not mention these?

Below, I quote from Marjorie O'Rourke Boyle, who wrote the scholarly work, "Sermo; Reopening the Conversation on Translating Jn. 1:1," published in 1977 by North-Holland Publishing.  Be it know that the words in BOLD and all caps were typed that way for emphasis:

"Tertullian [160-225 A.D.] and Cyprian [who died in 258 A.D.] quote Sermo in EVERY CITATION of the opening of the Johannine prologue.  In addition to eight quotations, there is Tertulian's valuable, impartial testimony Adversus Praxean that THE CUSTOM OF LATIN CHRISTIANS WAS TO READ, 'In principio era SERMO,' although he preferred ratio to Sermo.  Cyprian twice quotes Jn 1:1 in Adversus Iudaeos ad quirinum as 'in principio fuit SERMO, et SERMO erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Sermo.'  He also interprets Sermo as Christ in three three Psalm verses and a passage from the Book of Revelation.  CYPRIANO IS ACKNOWLEDGED A SUPERIOR SOURCE OF THE OLD LATIN BIBLE BECAUSE OF HIS ANTIQUITY, and because he repeats almost one-ninth of the New Testament.  But if the modern theory of dual North African and European sources for the Old Latin Bible is correct, then Sermo in Tertulian and Cyprian may only demonstrate the former tradition.  No European patristic writings in Latin contemporaneous with Tertullian survive for comparison. SERMO REMAINS THEN THE EARLIEST EXTANT LATIN TRANSLATION OF logos IN JOHN 1:1 and on Tertullian's word the reading commonly circulated."

Now, how do you argue with that?  SERMO is the oldest word, period!  But I must continue quoting from the same passage for you to see what happened next historically:

"Verbum FIRST OCCURS as a translation for logos in John 1:1 in Novatian's tract on the Trinity, but he reports Sermo also.  After Novatian this ambivalence about Sermo and Verbum disappears until Augustine REVIVES IT.  Hilary nine times cites the opening verses of the Johannine prologue an IN EVERY INSTANCE, logos is translated as Verbum.  By the fourth century Verbum is UNIVERSALLY PREFERRED IN THE WEST."

Now, I don't want to be mean.  I really don't, but if Mr. Vega can say it in his article, can I not say the same, only just changing the name.  I will do so, "I wonder if Mr. Vega knew this before opening his big mouth!"

Mr. Vega seeks to tell us that Verbum has always been the early reading.  But here is "rock-hard evidence" to show you the exact opposite.  He also only runs to 4th century manuscripts, but then tries to make you believe they were from the second century.  Should we believe Mr. Vega, or a true scholar who gives us documented evidence?

From the above quotes, we see beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was indeed the CATHOLICS who perverted the word and changed Sermo, the correct word to Verbum, their own preferred word.

Next, Mr. Vega says that Erasmus' Textus Receputs first edition uses "Verbum," and he wants us to believe that because it's in the Latin T.R., we should accept it.  He further tries to make you think that Erasmus was in favor of the word because he inserted it into the text.  Sounds like a good arguement, doesn't it?  But like Paul Harvey used to say, we need to hear "the rest of the story."

Erasmus later put out a second edition of his Greek/Latin New Testament "T.R." text.  And guess what?  It has Sermo in John 1:1 rather than Verbum.  Why is this.  It's because Erasmus was a Catholic who worked close with the Catholic Church.  For this reason, he HAD to use Verbum in his first edition.  But as he studied the issue, he viewed that word as wrong, and having liberty to do so, he later corrected the text with Sermo, and wrote an entire treatise in Latin AGAINST the word Verbum, and in favor of the use of the word Sermo.  Why didn't Mr. Vega tell us this?  Did he just not know about that? Let's give him the benefit of the doubt.  But with this stated, there is now no excuse for ignorance.  Verbum was the latin CATHOLIC reading, and Sermo was the old church reading from the 1st and 2nd century.  Erasmus, when he learned this, wanted to go back to the older reading, and not to the preferred CATHOLIC reading.

Mr. Vega then goes to the word in Spanish "Verbo" which incidentally comes from the Latin Vulgate word "Verbum," and tries to defend that word.  But he doesn't tell you the whole truth.  (That seems to be Standard Operating Procedure for Mr. Vega.)  The truth is ALL old Protestant Bibles from the 1500's and 1600's use Palabra in John 1:1 in speaking of Jesus Christ.  The word Verbo did not appear in the Spanish Bible text until 1793 when a catholic named Scio translated his own Spanish Bible (with the authority of the CATHOLIC CHURCH) directly from the Latin Vulgate.  He was the first to use the word Verbo in Spanish, clearly a derivative of the Catholic word Verbum.

Mr. Vega then runs to the dictionaries in Spanish and tries to defend Verbo.  But he fails to mention that many Spanish dictionaries are very bias towards Catholicism and the Catholic church.  But he does tell us that Palabra and Verbo are "synonyms."  If this be the case, then which word do you want?  The PROTESTANT word, or the CATHOLIC word.  For any sane person can see that Verbo has its roots in Catholicsm, and therefore is a Catholic word.

Mr. Vega closes his article by claiming that Robert Breaker is "irresponsible, profane, ignorant..."  He then tries to judge the heart of Mr. Breaker by claiming that Breaker's pointing out that Verbo is a Catholic word was only with the intent to, "harm."

Is that so?  Of course not.  Mr. Breaker is right and has been right in his assertion that Verbo is indeed a Catholic word.  And it's the intention of Mr. Breaker to point true Bible Believers to the only Spanish Bible put out today that doesn't use Verbo in John 1:1.  That Bible would be the Valera 1602 Purified.

In closing, something else that should be mentioned is the fact that the 1865 Spanish Bible that Mr. Vega and his crowd so dogmatically stand on leaves us questioning greatly the veracity of that translation.  For from the actual documents of the American Bible Socieity, which put out that version, we read that the original 1865 said, "Palabra" in John 1:1.  But the 1865 they defend does not say that (it reads Verbo).  Yet reading further in the A.B.S. documents we find that Palabra was changed in the text in 1868 to "Verbo."  So, the question must then be asked, are those who defend the 1865 really even have an 1865?  Could it rather be an 1868?

At any rate, Mr. Vega's article was not done in the spirit of meekness or in a scholarly fashion.  It was attacking and the fact that he did not present the facts (all of the facts) proves he needs to rethink his position. 

The facts are as follows:  Verbo comes from Verbum, the Latin Catholic Vulgate reading, which was not the original word used by the early church.  They used Sermo.  The word Verbo is a catholic word, who's origins first appear in the Bible in 1793 in Scio's text, which was translated directly from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.  And like the early church, the Spaniards of the time used a different word (Palabra).  It was the Catholics who changed the word to Verbo.  Should we as Spanish-speakers allow Catholics to bully us and make us accept certain words?  For that reason alone, we should return to the word Palabra, especially when that was the original word in the 1865 which these guys so fondly embrace and defend.

For more information about Verbo vs Palabra please click on the link below:

http://www.rrb3.com/bibles/spnbibl/verbo%20vs%20palabra.htm

This article written by Robert Breaker.  It was not written to attack rather inform.  It is my hope that the facts herein will be embraced by those who are truly interested in the truth, and are willing to accept it without becoming emotional about it.  It is my hope that true Bible Believers will come to terms with the fact that they've been duped into using a Catholic word.  And I hope they will return to the true word rather than continue using the vulgate catholic word or a derivative of it.

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

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.