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. Sadly, most of those versions they use are not in agreement
with the blessed KJV. This has led to much bitter infighting within the
Independent Baptist movement over the Spanish Bible Issue for decades, and
this heated arguing continues still well into our day.
When I left for the mission field on a survey trip in 1992, I did what many other Missionaries did at that time, I bought a bilingual KJV/1960 Spanish Bible, and I read through the entire New Testament in just a few short months. What I found was that this version DID NOT read with my King James Bible, in fact it read much closer to the English RSV, and even the Spanish NIV! I was devastated, especially when I found out other Independent Baptist Missionaries, who were KJV in English, not only used the 1960, but adamantly defended it. I hurt me greatly that they were not taking a pure Bible in Spanish with them to the field. I couldn't remain quiet, so I spoke up about it. I soon found that when you do so, you immediately get "crucified" by "the brethren" who attack you bitterly and ridicule you for attacking their version of the scriptures in Spanish. But I could not remain quiet. I wanted a pure Spanish Bible, and I would settle for nothing less. From the sidelines, I watched Fundamentalists battle each other over which Bible in Spanish is the right one. And I saw them all consistently WRONG on which Bible they chose, as each one defended a version that was either mixed with catholic texts, the critical texts, and/or was full of many modern Spanish words and grammar instead of the beautiful old Castilian Spanish of Spain, like the old Reina-Valera Protestant Reformation text of 1602.
When I left for the mission field on a survey trip in 1992, I did what many other Missionaries did at that time, I bought a bilingual KJV/1960 Spanish Bible, and I read through the entire New Testament in just a few short months. What I found was that this version DID NOT read with my King James Bible, in fact it read much closer to the English RSV, and even the Spanish NIV! I was devastated, especially when I found out other Independent Baptist Missionaries, who were KJV in English, not only used the 1960, but adamantly defended it. I hurt me greatly that they were not taking a pure Bible in Spanish with them to the field. I couldn't remain quiet, so I spoke up about it. I soon found that when you do so, you immediately get "crucified" by "the brethren" who attack you bitterly and ridicule you for attacking their version of the scriptures in Spanish. But I could not remain quiet. I wanted a pure Spanish Bible, and I would settle for nothing less. From the sidelines, I watched Fundamentalists battle each other over which Bible in Spanish is the right one. And I saw them all consistently WRONG on which Bible they chose, as each one defended a version that was either mixed with catholic texts, the critical texts, and/or was full of many modern Spanish words and grammar instead of the beautiful old Castilian Spanish of Spain, like the old Reina-Valera Protestant Reformation text 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 own 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 expose the
practice of modern day Fundamentalist Pharisees, who hypocritically
hide the truth about their corrupt versions in order to deceive the masses.
Over the years, I wrote four books on
the Spanish Bible Issue and I've seen them printed and distributed far and
wide, with much positive feedback. Gail Riplinger has even flattered me
personally, by 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 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 suit, and then
more, until it finally
became the standard Fundamentalist and Evangelical Bible for the next forty
years. (How sad they bought it 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).
But not all Fundamentalists fell into
apostasy. There were 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 reads so closely with the RSV in so 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. (One
defender of the 1960 even made a website against me!)
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, and perturbed.
Eventually, they saw they could deny the truth no longer, desiring a pure
Bible based upon the pure texts underlying the King James Bible, and not a
version mixed with the critical texts of men, (like the 1909). 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 a few 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 American Bible Society's 1865 Spanish Bible
revision. 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, in fact, 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 origin (not
American like McCardle). They are further Independent Baptist
Fundamentalist 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, 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. They are "Hybrid-Bibles," part Catholic part
Protestant).
Those behind the 1602 Purified did not do
what the Bible Societies did. Instead, they choose to follow the
original 1602 as much as possible, as they went
verse by verse with all older Spanish Protestant Bibles, as well as the King James
in English, while
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 day Spanish.
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.
The majority 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, catholic words, 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 "Tex-Mex" 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 read a lot like the Valera 1602 Purified (which he used in his churches for a
while before he came out with his own version), and that they thought he
used the work the Purified in his edition, making sure to change many words for Spanish
synonyms in order to make it look like his own 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," and is full of many synonyms and modern
Spanish, instead of the beautiful old Castilian.
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. (They are "groupies" who follow a
version because that's the Bible their camp uses). 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 Protestant 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 interested 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
site at: www.rrb3.com
Or, click here to return to the Spanish Bible Issue page.