THE HISTORY AND TRUTH OF THE SPANISH BIBLE CONTROVERSY
by Robert Breaker III
* The following online book has been designed to be "printer friendly." So please feel free to print the entire thing and read it through! Or read it here online.
A printed booklet form of this book is available, and can be ordered through Amazon.com.
Click here to buy the revised and updated printed version of this book.
Several years ago the author of this booklet wrote a much-needed treatise entitled, The History of the Spanish Bible. Numerous individuals have printed it and it has opened many eyes to the importance of the Spanish Bible Issue. Countless people have contacted me by email, telephone, and letter telling me how it liberated them from ignorance and led them to a purer version of the Spanish scriptures.
Even though we live in an age of apostasy in which the unenlightened masses continue to depart farther from the truth, more are waking to the solemn fact that Satan is using Bible Societies, Scholars, and Popular Religious Speakers to push modern versions of the Holy Scriptures that are not perfect. They are perversions. And, although they find it costs something to stand for God's pure word (lack of friends, loss of support, constant ridicule, etc.) more are starting to take a hard position against modern versions containing the critical texts of men. For this I give God the glory!
I wrote this book with three goals in mind. First, to inform you of the history behind the Spanish Bible Controversy, and the continued battling over Which Bible? in Spanish that rages on today among Fundamentalists and true Bible Believers. This controversy has not been around for only a few years as most 1960 defenders would have you believe. Its roots extend clear back through the ages. You will clearly see how Satan has used either Catholic influence or critical text readings to hinder the Spanish people from having the pure word of God in their language throughout the centuries.
Second, I wish to introduce you to the Gringos who have dedicated themselves to giving the Spanish Speaking people a pure Bible in their language, as well as the Spanish-speaking nationals who are now taking a stand against the numerous Bible Society Spanish perversions, and seeking a purified version of the scriptures in their own tongue.
Finally, this book was composed to expose the hypocritical, apostate Fundamentalists who lie, cover up, and falsify information about the Spanish Bible Issue to deceive American pastors into thinking there's not a problem. Many of these are 1960 Missionaries who claim to be King James Bible Believers in English, because it comes from the right texts, but in Spanish they use and endorse a perversion full of Catholic, critical texts of men.
My prayer is that God will use this work to open the eyes of all those who are searching for the truth about the Spanish Bible Controversy.
Permission is hereby granted by the author to quote, print, or use anything in this book as long as it is not changed or taken out of context.
I was born on July 13th, 1974, in Milton, Florida of church-going parents. As a child, I attended a variety of Churches and denominations, and I remember being in a different church every Sunday. Sometimes my parents would take me to the Southern Baptist Church, other times we would go to Dr. Peter Ruckman's church (whom my mother despised, labeling him a, "Fanatic and legalist," for his strong convictions about the English KJV). On occasion, my mother would take me to Pentecostal, Charismatic churches. Through all of this, I only used one Bible - the King James and I never had any problems understanding it. I believed it to be the very words of God!
Doctrinal differences divided my parents. My Dad stood for the pure word of God (the KJV), and wanted to be in a Baptist church that believed and preached it. My mother, however, followed the Charismatics, and eventually divorced my father (against his will) under the grounds that he was, "Too fanatical."
I remember them arguing. My father would always say, "The Bible (KJV) says..."
My mother would reply, "You should not follow the letter of the law so much! The letter of the law killeth!"
Unbeknownst to them, I'd hide behind the couch and record their debates with a tape recorder. Sometimes their discussions grew heated. My Dad would boldly claim the King James was God's word, but my mother insolently defended modern versions, especially favoring the NIV. I knew then, as a young child, there was a Controversy on the subject of the Bible in English.
In 1988, my mother abandoned and divorced my Bible-Believing father and took my sister and me to live in Cushing, Oklahoma. Every night I read the King James Bible my father had given me. It was a small, leather-bound, black book with gold edging. I was very fond of the front page, which had my father's signature and the date of 1981 when he gave it to me.
In Oklahoma, my Mom attended an Assembly of God church, and I eventually joined the Youth Group. Many of the kids had other Bible versions (especially the NIV), and every time I'd read from one of them, I'd find them hard to understand. They claimed these new translations to be, "Easier to understand."
However, after reading the KJV all my life, they seemed strange. They were supposed to be Modern English, but I liked Old English. I understood my Authorized Version. After a few years, I missed my father and my birthplace. I kept telling my mother, "As soon as High School is over, I'm moving home!"
It saddened her to hear this, but she said, "When you're 18, you can do as you please." (Because she had acquired a court order that said I couldn't see my father until my 18th Birthday).
Graduation finally arrived and I was free. I quit my job at the Jewelry Store, broke up with my girl friend, and headed home to Florida—it was July 22nd, 1992—I was finally on my way home to the place of my birth to see my father.
My Dad received me with open arms, and even overlooked my long blonde hair and worldly ways. One week later he led me to the Lord in our kitchen. I was so thankful to finally know for sure I was saved and on my way to heaven! Never had I heard the gospel in any of the churches I visited in my youth. Nor did the Assembly of God church preach it. They only told me, "Speak in tongues so you'll have the Holy Ghost!" but were quick to add, "But be careful not to lose it!"
I lived in fear in that Cult Church, never knowing if I had salvation, or if I could keep it. I had the right Bible (KJV) but wrong religion and wrong doctrine.
I grew swiftly in the Lord through my Dad's instruction. I cut my hair, visited several Independent Baptist Churches, and learned sound doctrine. Most importantly, I learned why the King James Bible was indeed God's word—because it's based on the right texts! I used it no longer out of preference, but out of conviction. I didn't use it because my father gave it to me, I read and believed it because God preserved it for me!
My father had a friend named Ed, who used the NASV version of the Bible. One night he came to visit us, and my Dad showed him where that modern version was wrong. Ed was shocked when he turned to Colossians 1:14, for that perverted translation left out the words, "through his blood," while the King James had them. Ed's reaction was one of anger, as he yelled, "Who would take the blood of Jesus out of the Bible?"
This was one of my first experiences in learning about the leaven in modern [per]versions.
Later Ed enrolled in Dr. Peter Ruckman's Bible Institute in Pensacola. When I saw him, I thoroughly enjoyed soaking up all the Bible Information he was learning at P.B.I. During a not so fruitful year in the secular University of West Florida, I decided it was time for me to pursue Biblical knowledge instead of worldly wisdom. As a new Christian, the booze, women, rock music, homosexuality, and other blatant sins, which the University promoted, were not what I desired. Nor did I want to be around such an evil atmosphere. I hungered to learn more of God's word.
In spite of all my University classes and teachers being anti-Bible and anti-God, I did find a chance to witness in a small way in my secular university. In my English Composition class, one of the authorized topics on which I was allowed to write was: "Why the King James Bible was a better translation than newer versions."
Armed with Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, that I had recently read, and Let's Weigh the Evidence, by Barry Barton, I compiled my research. I also used many other books and material in my paper. I proved why the King James is correct and all new versions are frauds based on man's critical texts rather than God's Majority Texts. However, I received a, "C" because the unsaved teacher didn't like the subject. He wrote in red ink, "You sound like you're preaching!"
In 1995, I left the University and enrolled in the Pensacola Bible Institute. In the next three short years, I learned more than I could have ever imagined! Praise God for a man like Dr. Ruckman, who not only knows the Bible and teaches it, but also defends the King James Version, and tells you why it's God's pure, preserved word!
During my years at P.B.I., God dealt with me about being a Missionary. I had studied four years of Spanish in High School, and wasn't using it. One evening in church, I heard a message entitled "God will use what you have in your past!" Dr. Ruckman preached, "Peter was a fisherman, and God made him a fisher of men. What you have in your past, God can use!"
I immediately went down the aisle and prayed, "Lord, it's not much, but if you want to use my Spanish, then please take it. I give it to you!"
A few weeks later, Pastor Ruckman preached a message entitled "Giving your life to God!" I went down to the altar and surrendered my life to the Lord, never thinking he'd call me to a foreign Mission field to preach in their native language.
Not much later, I met Missionary to Honduras Santos Ortiz. I told him I'd surrendered to be a Missionary, and he responded, "Well, you can come down to Honduras and work with me!"
I was open to the invitation, but wanted to make sure it was God's will. After asking others to pray for me, I continued seeking God's direction. Time and again in the next year the word Honduras kept popping up. I tried to get away from it, but I couldn't. So I decided to take Bro. Ortiz up on his offer.
One night in our Baptist Missions Class, a Missionary came in and presented his testimony. He said, "I thought God called me to Austria, so I went. When things fell apart and I had to leave, I realized I had called myself there, and I felt destitute. Eventually God called me to Romania, and I was sure it was his voice and not mine. Now I know I'm in God's will!" He then cautioned us, "Make sure you know for sure that it's God calling you!"
Scared, I read my Bible and prayed. Was I calling myself to Honduras? Did I want to go there, or did God want me to go there? Was it His will or mine? After much prayer and fasting, God finally cleared up my confusion with the following verses:
2 Cor 8:11 Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have.
2 Cor 8:12 For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.
I knew then that God wanted me to go to Honduras, so I spoke with my Pastor. He said, "If that's what God wants you to do, then do it! The church will even pay for your plane ticket!"
They didn't, and I didn't press it. I wanted to pay my own ticket, making the sacrifice myself.
Two weeks after graduating from P.B.I. in 1998, I was on my way to Honduras to visit Missionary Santos Ortiz. The plan was to stay with him from July to September and learn about Honduras, the culture, the people, and the language. During my time there, I also learned about something I hadn't expected – The Spanish Bible Controversy. Young and naive, I thought that if a man was King James only in English, he'd be the same in Spanish. I had a lot to learn.
In my three months with Bro. Ortiz, I was not lax. He told me, "You're going to get your feet wet here, sonny!"
And he put me to work preaching three to four times a week. It took me four to five hours studying for each sermon. After a month I told him, "My feet are more than just wet, I'm drowning!"
It was in Honduras when God showed me the problems with the Spanish Bible. I bought a 1960 Spanish Bible from a bookstore in America and took it with me, because most Missionaries use this version. It was a parallel 1960/King James. As I read through the entire New Testament in three months, I noticed that the 1960 did not say what my King James did. There were many omissions, changes, additions, and doctrinal errors. I could not believe it! I immediately went to Bro. Ortiz. He told me, "The 1960 Spanish Bible has a lot of problems. The 1909 Spanish Bible is much better, but they are hard to get. But it too doesn't follow the King James completely."
I was heartbroken! How was I supposed to preach to the people the pure words of God in their own language if I didn't have them?
I asked Bro. Ortiz to take me to a Spanish Bible Bookstore and there we found some 1909's. I bought one as well as a facsimile of both the original 1569 Reina Bible and 1602 Valera. In my daily Bible reading and studying, if the 1960 did not match the King James, I looked the passage up in the 1909, which was usually correct. If it wasn't, I checked the original 1602 and 1569, and more times than not, they were correct, although those versions too had some errors. In my time in Honduras, I read the entire New Testament, and was appalled at how different Spanish Bibles were from my King James!
Upon returning to America, I began to investigate the Spanish Bible Issue. I didn't know at the time that it was a Controversy. When I started deputation, I asked many other Spanish Missionaries which version they used. Most of them replied, "The Sixty." I asked them if they knew it didn't read with the King James, and they replied, "Yeah, but that doesn't matter. It's God's word in their language."
How could it be God's word in another language when it didn't line up with God's word in our language—English? Shouldn't they say the same thing?
As time went on, I met more and more true Bible Believers that saw the errors in the 1960 and tried to either correct them or revert to a purer Spanish Bible. Many people said they would just use the 1909. I even found a website that boldly proclaimed, "The 1909 Spanish Bible – The Word of God in Spanish!"
The worst thing was most American Pastors weren't interested in what I knew. I would tell them, "The 1960 Spanish Bible has many mistakes, and it doesn't read like our King James, rather with the Critical Texts of man! Yet this is the version that most Fundamentalist Missionaries, who claim to be KJV in English use in Spanish!"
The typical response from American Pastors was, "Well, I don't speak Spanish, so it doesn't matter to me! I've got the King James in English and it's perfect, so I'm happy with it. What Missionaries use in other languages is their business!"
On deputation I ran into more Missionaries who were confused about the Spanish Bible. They too had found doctrinal errors in the 1960 (and God cannot lie), but they didn't know what to do. They decided they'd use the '60 just because everyone else did. This did not sit well with me. Why use a corrupt Bible just because everyone else does?
So I researched the Spanish Bible Issue, and wrote a short book entitled, A Brief History of the Spanish Bible. I printed as many copies of this as I could on my personal printer and handed them to many Missionaries to Spanish-speaking countries. I discovered Hyles-Anderson, Bible Baptist Fellowship, Bob Jones, Tennessee Temple, and other Fundamentalist Missionaries were offended when I asked them which Bible they used and why. They all said, "We use the 1960!" When I questioned them about why, they replied, "Because that's what our group uses! That's why we use it!"
When I showed them it oftentimes read with the critical texts against the King James (which they claimed to believe and use in English), they either walked away—deciding to remain ignorant—or tried to rationalize away the differences.
What's worse, is I found evidence from those who translated the 1960 Spanish Bible that they used and relied heavily upon the English Revised Standard Version in their translation work. How could people who preach against that version in English use a version based upon it in Spanish? How could they be KJV in English and RSV in Spanish? I was baffled!
In Pensacola, I was approached by Jeff McCardle and Bro. Paul Garcia, who claimed that they had found the perfect word of God in Spanish. They invited me to their house and told me all about the 1865 Spanish Valera revision by Mora and Pratt. They claimed it to be, "The word of God," in Spanish, as it corrected many of the errors of the 1960 and 1909. It also read correctly in many places where the ancient 1569 and 1602 did not. The Revisers used the King James also in their work. But as I studied this version, I found a few places where it too read with the catholic and critical texts. Even worse, it had many places where it changed words without reason. It just wasn't perfect! And I'd determined I'd settle for nothing less than perfection.
A few months before leaving for the field of Honduras in 2001, I met Evangelist Bob Adams, from the WINGS Bearing Precious Seed organization. He too had been searching for the right Spanish Bible, and had been in contact with a church in Monterrey, Mexico, which desired the same thing. They had all the Spanish Bibles from the 1500's as well as the 1909, 1960, and 1865, and diligently collated these with the Textus Receptus Greek and the English King James to produce a perfect Spanish New Testament.
After working for seven years through much prayer and fasting, this New Testament was printed in 1999, and again (in its second edition) in 2002 (exactly 400 years after Valera's edition of 1602) under the name of the Valera 1602 Restaurada (restored). I quickly began calling it the 1602 TR or 1602 Textus Receptus. (Today it's called the 1602 Purified or 1602 Monterrey). I studied their version, and it seemed to be the best in existence – The best Spanish Bible to date! It not only reads completely with the Textus Receptus, but also reads along with my blessed King James Bible! This is the New Testament that I use in preaching and teaching in Spanish. Recently, they finished their revision of the Old Testament using the Hebrew Masoretic Text of Ben-Chayim, and their whole Spanish Bible is slowly becoming available.
Many English-speaking Missionaries to Spanish-speaking countries have left the United States and been shocked to find the Spanish Bible which most Spanish speaking people use (the 1960), does not read exactly like their blessed King James Bible in English. What gives? Why the differences? Should not God's word read the same in every language?
Amazed and bewildered, that missionary has to make a decision. He will either: 1. Ignore the differences and use the 1960 perversion in preaching and teaching, never wondering, asking, or studying the reason why it doesn't read like his King James, just to get along with the crowd that uses the same Spanish version, or 2. If he loves God's words and wants to defend them, he can try to get to the bottom of why they read differently by studying the history of Spanish Bibles, and figuring out why they aren't in agreement with his infallible English King James.
If he chooses the second option, his studies will most certainly bring him to the conclusion that modern versions of the Bible in Spanish contain many pro-catholic, critical text readings of man, and don't read completely with the Protestant Majority Texts on which the King James Bible is based.
He'll then have to face the following question: "Should he use a Bible he knows contains readings based on corrupt manuscripts and eclectic texts and just forget about the fact that it doesn't read the same as his English Bible, or should he search for a purer version of the scriptures in the Spanish tongue? And if he cannot find one, should he do the work of translating himself?"
All these questions and more shall be discussed within these pages so that the English speaker may know exactly why modern Spanish Bibles don't read like the English King James, or the texts it came from, and why it's hypocritical to be KJV in English and 1960 in Spanish, for they do not read alike. They are not based upon the same texts.
This book has been written to present the longevity of the Spanish Bible Controversy. This issue didn't start merely a few years ago, as modern Fundamentalists would like you to think. Nay, this issue has been around for hundreds of years, and has yet to be settled. The two biggest hindering factors are 1. Ignorance on the part of English Speakers (who support Missionaries to Spanish Speaking Countries that use perversions, most of which hypocritically claim to be pro King James in English), and 2. The blatant lying and hiding of the truth by Spanish Speaking Missionaries who claim to be King James in English (because it's based on the right texts), but dogmatically defend critical text translations in Spanish. It is high time that the truth be presented clearly.
My motive is pure and simple, I desire to give nothing but the facts so no one will be in the dark. I present the very foundations of this debate, and the continual ongoing battles between Bible believers and modern day apostates, many of which hold to a perverted Spanish Bible or Bibles, while lying to American churches and Pastors saying they came from the same texts as the King James. The simple truth is that they do not.
It is true a Bible translated into another language doesn't have to be translated directly from the King James Bible. Most modern Bible defenders attack those like myself who desire a pure Bible in Spanish by saying, "You just want a King James Bible in Spanish!"
This is simply not so. But if a Spanish Bible is based entirely on the pure, preserved texts of which the King James Bible came from, then the truth is that version will indeed read with the inerrant, infallible King James Bible, as they would come from the same fountain.
The fact is that most Spanish Bibles do not read completely with the texts from which the King James came. Instead, they follow the corrupt, Roman Catholic, critical texts of men in hundreds of places. To defend such perverted versions is a heinous crime. Someone should be willing and ready to "...cry aloud and spare not...lift up [their] voice like a trumpet...and show [God's] people their transgressions." (Isaiah 58:11)
Presently, there are five main Spanish Bibles which Fundamentalist Christians use. They are the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible revision, the 1909 Antigua Version (Old Version), the 1865 Mora and Pratt revision, the Monterrey 1602 P (Purificada) whole Bible (which I call the 1602 Monterrey), and the Gomez Bible. We shall look at all of these in this work.
The majority of Fundamentalists use the 1960, and claim it to be the best. But, it is nothing more than an RSV in Spanish 1 (according to the very statement of the men who worked on it). IF THE RSV IS WRONG IN ENGLISH, IT'S WRONG IN SPANISH!!! IF IT CAME FROM THE WRONG TEXTS, IT'S NOT GOD'S PURE WORD!!!
Some men still use the Antigua Version (Old Version) of 1909, yet they are a minority. Though their Bible is much better than the Modern 1960, it too has many critical text readings. An even smaller minority is now proclaiming that the 1865 Spanish Bible is the word of God in Spanish. But it is not perfect. It has some problems (but these are fixed in the Monterrey).
What will be the final outcome of the Spanish Bible Controversy? Is there even a controversy? The 1960 crowd says there is not, and people like myself have invented one. To them the corrupt 1960 is God's word. Why then doesn't it read with the King James, which they claim is the word of God in English? And why does it read with the critical texts of man on so many occasions? How could anyone defend the '60, and then claim to be King James in English? These are not the same bibles. Nor are they based on the same text. They simply do not read the same.
Before studying the Spanish Bible Controversy, let us first define what a controversy is. The Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines the word thus:
1. Dispute; debate; agitation of contrary opinions. A dispute is commonly oral, and a controversy in writing. Dispute is often or generally a debate of short duration, a temporary debate; a controversy is often oral and sometimes continued in books or in law for months or years.
By this definition, a controversy then is nothing but one man's opinion against another's. I don't desire the opinions of others, nor do I desire to dispute my opinions with those of other people. We can all argue each other's opinions until the cows come home. No, we need FACTS! We need the TRUTH!
What is the truth about the Spanish Bible Issue? That's the key question, and only facts, not opinions, will show which Spanish Bible is the purest.
I thereby present this treatise to enlighten the reader of the History and Truth about the Spanish Bible Controversy. But that in itself is not enough. I cannot just write a book giving my opinion, or one man's opinion over another's. Nothing will be settled. No one will be the better, and the truth will never be reached. Thus, my motive for writing this book is to show not only the MEN who are behind the so-called Controversy, but to also show the FACTS of the entire debate so the reader can come to a clear and concise understanding. When one reads this book, he should be able to know something based on truth! May TRUTH be exalted in this work, and not opinion! And may God use this work to show others the need for all Missionaries, Pastors, Preachers, Evangelists, etc. to defend and preach the pure words of God in any language!
Since the beginning, Satan has been busy causing people to doubt what God said. In the Garden of Eden he approached Eve with those infamous words "Yea, hath God said?" (Gen. 3:1).
This put doubt in Eve's mind, and eventually led to her sinning, and the downfall of mankind. Satan must have savored this, his first victory. But, Satan's attack upon the word of God didn't stop in Eden. Paul tells us that the devil continued in his day trying to change God's word. In 2 Cor. 2:17, we read, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." Paul also talks about those who handle "the word of God deceitfully" in 2 Cor. 4:2.
In this chapter, we will look at those many that Satan used in corrupting the word of God, handling it in a deceitful manner, as well as those few who sought to defend it from Satan's destructive claws.
THE OLD TESTAMENT
We must begin with the Old Testament. Biblically, God gave the charge of keeping and copying his words to the priests, specifically to the Levites (Deut. 17:18 and Deut. 31:24-26). These priests were the scribes (like Ezra in Ezra 7:6,11), whose job was to copy the Old Testament vigorously, and faithfully. As time progressed, the work of copying fell into the hands of the Masoretes. These scribes were very tedious in their work and went to great lengths to make sure they copied God's word without error. 2 They would duplicate manuscripts by hand word-by-word, careful to use a pointer under each word they copied. 3 After a page was done, it had to be checked. So greatly they desired to keep God's pure words, they counted the number of letters of each page, and then read the text forwards and backwards. If the page had more than two mistakes, it was destroyed, and the scribe had to start again. 4
This pure, undefiled Hebrew Masoretic text has been preserved for us today in the Hebrew Jacob Ben-Chayim text of the Old Testament (taken from the Waldenses Hebrew text and the Hebrew Masoretic) printed in 1524 in Venicia by a man named Bomberg. 5 So, for the Old Testament, God's pure preserved words can be traced clear back to Moses, the Psalmists and the prophets, kept pure by the work of copyists like the priests, scribes, and Masoretes.
Satan could not rest in allowing God to preserve his precious word without error. So he too became active in Bible copying. But instead of reverently replicating perfect copies, as the Masoretes did, in the original language, Satan acquired the help of a man named Origen to make some changes to the Old Testament text, mixing in a little Gnosticism and Greek Philosophy, as he produced an entirely new translation in Greek – a critical text modified by man's opinion.
Before the time of Christ, many Greeks desired to be able to read the Old Testament in their language. Thus, several men translated the Hebrew to Greek. Origen, a scholar in Alexandria, Egypt, preserved several of these versions in his work known as The Hexapla, a six column parallel Bible in which the first column was the Hebrew Text, the second a Greek Transliteration, the third the version of Aquila, the forth the version of Symmachus, the fifth of Origen himself, and the sixth of Theodotion.
The fifth column of the Hexapla is where the famous LXX or Septuagint comes from, a corrupt Greek version of the Hebrew with many changes, omissions, and additions. Dr. D.A. Waite states of the LXX, "The Septuagint is inaccurate and inadequate and deficient as a translation." 6 Yet, this translation is used today by modern scholars to translate the Bible.
A few hundred years after Christ, Jerome translated the Bible into Latin using this Greek Text of Origen. This translation then became known as The Vulgate, the official Roman Catholic Bible. 7 As you'll see later from the quote of Cassidoro de Reina, this catholic translation contains many errors.
Other perversions of the Hebrew Text exist today. One of these was a revision of the Leningrad complete Old Testament from 1008 A.D, codenamed "L," by the German theologian Rudolf Kittel. He used this text to produce his own eclectic Hebrew Old Testament text. Many modern translations of the Bible today are based upon this altered text. However, God used JEWS not GERMANS to give us the Bible (Rom. 3:2).
This concludes the origin of the Old Testament. Clearly, God's word has been preserved in the Masoretic Hebrew text. But Satan corrupted that and preserved his own distorted text in impure form in the critical Greek Septuagint Text, the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate, and in the Germanic Kittel Hebrew Critical text.
THE NEW TESTAMENT
In the New Testament, the story is much the same. God gave us his pure text, and Satan counterfeited it. The writers of the New Testament wrote in Koine A Greek (the language of the common people of the time). During this time, most of the early church resided in Jerusalem, but after much persecution, they were scattered abroad (Acts 8:1). The Bible tells us that it was in Antioch of Syria that the disciples of Christ were first called Christians (Acts 11:26), not in Rome. In fact, the Bible doesn't have much good to say about Rome. For it was Rome that crucified Christ (Matthew 27), killed the Jewish babies (Matthew 2), killed the Apostle James (Acts 12:2) and persecuted the early church (Acts 12:1).
To find the pure words of God, we should then look to Antioch of Syria. And sure enough, it is from there that we find the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament in the Syriac language. It is also from this Byzantine area that we find the Greek Textus Receptus. This Textus Receptus, or Received Text (also known as the Majority Text), is the sum of more than 5,309 Greek New Testament documents (some being whole, others pieces, or parts of manuscripts). These Greek New Testament documents read together on the whole 95% of the time. And by the process of collation or reading each one and taking what the Majority say, we can arrive at exactly what God said in the originals. 8
This aggravates the Devil. Satan could not allow the world to have God's pure words. So through the ages, he's been busy producing his own perverted New Testament texts in Greek. The most famous of the Devil's manuscripts are the Codex Siniaticus (called Aleph) and the Codex Vaticanus (known as B), both Roman Catholic texts. (And, these are the basis of all modern Critical Texts).
Aleph was found by Constantine Von Tischendorf in 1844, in a wastebasket at the Catholic monastery in Santa Catalina at the base of Mt. Sinai, where it was waiting to be burned in a fire. 9 (The question must be asked, "Why was it in a garbage can?" The most likely answer would be that the monks there knew it was full of errors and mistakes and that's why they were going to throw it out!)
B or the Vaticanus Codice was found in the Vatican (where the Pope lives) in 1481, and was taken to Paris during the time of Napoleon. These two manuscripts are riddled with errors, omissions, and changes. In just the four Gospels alone, there are over 3000 differences between these two manuscripts! Not to mention that whole verses are left out, and even whole paragraphs are missing in these versions. 10
As bad as these two catholic texts are, many modern day scholars refuse to accept the evidence, and claim that Siniaticus and Vaticanus are the, "Oldest and best manuscripts." Because of this, they have been laid as the foundation of all modern versions of the Bible, and are Satan's greatest tools in undermining the authority of the true words of God.
In the late 1800's, Satan used two Occultic Spiritualists, who claimed to have had contact with the dead, 11 12 named B.F. Westcott, and F.J.A. Hort to produced their own eclectic Greek text, based upon these corrupt manuscripts. (In other words, they took what they wanted from these two manuscripts and changed the Textus Receptus with them). Eventually, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament text and the American Bible Societies Greek New Testament (GNT3) were produced from Westcott and Hort's work.
Sadly, every new translation of the Bible after 1881 (when Westcott and Hort published their new corrupt Greek Eclectic Text) is based upon these two vile and perverted codices (Vaticanus and Siniaticus). 13
Thus, we see God's divine providence in preserving his pure word for us in the New Testament through the Textus Receptus, also known as the Majority Text, with roots from the early church of Antioch. But we also find Satan's Catholic masterpiece perversion of it found in the critical texts of men like Westcott, Hort, Aland, and Nestle. And we can clearly see the connection of Rome in all modern versions of the Bible.
For a translation to be the pure word of God, it must by necessity come from the Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament (just as the King James Bible does). Sadly, most modern versions of the Bible in all languages do not come from these texts. Instead, they are based on the Catholic, perverted, eclectic, critical, texts that have been butchered by demonically influenced men!
With the mandatory introduction to the dirty work of how Satan corrupted God's word, we can now turn toward The Spanish Bible Versions.
The Early Versions of the Bible in Spanish
Spain is a Roman Catholic nation. It hasn't always been, but the majority of its history is riddled with idolatry, Papacy, and superstition. Because of this, Roman Catholicism has dictated on many occasions the translation work of the Bible into the Spanish tongue. Almost every Spanish translation has been tainted with Catholic textual readings and teachings. And, almost all Spanish translations are the work of Catholic translators from Catholic translations (like the Latin Vulgate).
For this reason, the Spaniards have been greatly hindered from receiving the pure words of God in their own tongue. The sad truth is there has never been a perfect, infallible, inerrant, word of God in Spanish that all Spanish speakers can read and enjoy, as our blessed King James in English. Spanish translations have always held some form of error, whether Catholic or critical text reading.. Floyd Dallis says sadly of the Spanish Bible, "...the Lord has not yet chosen to give the Spanish world a perfect translation." 14
This is the reason for the controversy. Let's begin by looking at the history of early Spanish versions.
The first known work of translation into the Castellan tongue was that of Alfonso X, also known as Alfonso el Sabio in 1240, based entirely upon the Latin Vulgate. 15 Obviously, it was a Catholic translation.
Jewish translations also existed. The first was a Bible commissioned by Luis de Guzmán—the Guzmán Bible. The work was done by the rabbi Moisés Arrajel (or Arragel), and carefully revised by Arias de Enzinas. It was first printed in 1420, others say 1430, 16 belonging to Casa de Alba. Because of this, it became known as The Alba Bible. It was again published in 1922. 17 This version is more reverenced for it's colorful Medieval art then for its translation skills. In 2004, I found a color facsimile of this version on the Internet selling for $20,000.
Back to the Catholic translations, we find the work of Bonifacio Ferrar, a Catholic scholar who printed a Catalan version of the scriptures in Valencia in 1478, edited by Jaume Borell. 18 This version was immediately destroyed by the Inquisition, and only a single leaf of it exists in the Hispanic Society of America's library. 19
In 1502 a man named Montesino tried his hand at translating parts of the scriptures into Spanish. These were printed in Alcala, Spain in 1502 and again in Toledo in 1512. (His work must have been Pro-Catholic for it to be allowed to be printed by the Catholic press.) Some of his work was revised and corrected in the seventeenth century, but saw little circulation. 20
From 1534 to 1537, the famous Juan de Valdés, translated parts of the Bible into his native tongue. These included: Matthew, Luke, the epistles of Paul (except for Hebrews), and the Psalms. 21 One author says of Valdés and his works, "Though Valdés cannot be correctly described as a Protestant, the Protestants found his biblical translations and commentaries useful...[his] two books were included in the Index of 1559. His other biblical translations perished, or had to wait until the nineteenth century before they were printed." 22
The first printed complete Old Testament in Spanish is the Ferrara Bible, published in 1553. It was the work of two Spanish Speaking Jews - Jeronimo of Vargas, and Duarte Pinel, who were expelled from Spain and moved to Italy. Their version was a word-for-word literal translation of the Hebrew and thus not easy to read. It is called the Ferrara Bible for it was dedicated to the Duke of Ferrara on March 1st, 1553.
The first complete New Testament translation of the Holy Scriptures was the work of Francisco de Enzinas, published in Antwerp in 1543. Enzinas used the text of Erasmus for his work. 23 However, the Enzinas N.T. was not perfect. Enzinas was hurried in his work and finished it in only 18 months. Thus, it does contain some errors and omissions. (The author of this book has a copy of Enzina's text and has studied it extensively.).
Enzinas, dedicated his work to Emperor Carlos V. When asked by the Emperor if Enzinas was the author of the book, he responded, "...I am only a faithful servant and weak organ that has translated this work in the Castellan tongue..."
In his dedicatory, Enzina's wrote:
"These causes, your Majesty, have moved me to want to undertake this work, of which I've wanted to give to your Majesty a large account ... without any doubt of how worthy is the Royal Throne of your Majesty, worthy of knowledge, worthy of judgment, worthy of approval and worthy of your defense. And I well know the hearts of good Princes are directed by God, that your Majesty will well receive my work and with authority will defend it and protect it."
Sadly, the Emperor did not seem to share Enzina's enthusiasm for defending God's word, because before it was allowed to be printed, Enzina's work was revised by the Priest Pedro Soto, the Catholic Confessor of the Emperor. 24
Juan Perez de Pineda, born in Montilla, Andalucía, Spain, was the translator of the second New Testament into Spanish. He spent twelve years in his work. He was friends with notable Spanish Protestants such as Egidio, Constantino Ponce de la Fuente, Juan Valdez and Cipriano de Valera. His New Testament was printed in 1556, with the Psalms published only a year later. Menendez and Pelayo say of the translation of Perez, "...it is beautiful as a language, not very free, not very dragging, without inclination towards Hebraisms, nor exotic manners of speech." 25
In other words, it was easy to read. An interesting note about Pineda's translation is that he translates Lord as Señor instead of Jehovah.
This is the version that God used to free many from the evils of Catholicism. Julianillo Hernandez smuggled copies of this version in the bottoms of wine barrels and disseminated them in Seville, Spain. Many people came to Christ because of it, in spite of the attempts of the Catholic Inquisitors to stop its distribution.
Juan Perez de Pineda wrote the following in the dedicatory:
"My intention of translating your Testament, King of Glory, has been to serve you and help those that are redeemed by your precious Blood, as you, Lord, well know, are the author of it! And may they help others of the power of the greatness to give security of your books, for this to be yours, I have wanted, Lord, to favor myself in dedicating it to you, for you only are the Great and Powerful one, for those that you redeemed might rejoice and receive the fruit of your labour. For this being as it is, all yours, and your own thing to know and glorify your name, may it go out and be published under the title and care of your Majesty, for you are the beginning, the growth, and perfection of all that is good ... For this, Lord, I have run to thee, taking you as Patron, so that in this (according to your commandment) might be found glory. For as you are the author of this work that you love so, you might also be the tutor.
Obviously Pineda loved the Lord and his word. He was not interested in dedicating it to men, or princes, but to God! His desire was for Christians to use it to win souls and grow in the Lord! Sadly, his translation did not see much printing, and was hard to obtain as much as in his time as in ours. (I'm still trying to find a copy).
The first complete Bible in Spanish was the work of Cassiodoro de Reina, an ex-Catholic monk, born in 1520 in the South of Spain. While in the Monastery of San Isidro del Campo, in Seville, Reina received the teachings of Martin Luther through Julianillo Hernandez and others, and quickly embraced the doctrine of justification by faith. Because of this, he was forced to abandon his native land and flee from the Spanish Inquisitors that sought to put him on trial for heresy and execute him. His entire life he spent in constant flight, narrowly escaping them on numerous occasions.
During his exile, he turned his attention toward the work of translation. After twelve years work, he finally finished translating the entire Bible in September of 1569, which was printed the same year.
But, Reina used some Catholic texts in his translation work. He also didn't translate the whole Bible entirely by himself. Because of the constant danger of being captured by the Spanish Inquisition, Cassiodoro copied the work of several other versions that existed at that time. 26 He also, because of his exile and constant traveling, didn't have access to all the correct texts. Thus, he followed the corrupt Catholic Bible in some places.
That Cassidoro knew that the Catholic Latin Vulgate was corrupt, there can be no doubt. For in his preface, he writes:
"First, we declare that we have not followed completely or in all the old Latin translation, that is in common use: for although its ancient authority is mighty, neither one or the other should excuse the many errors that it has, departing so many innumerable times from the truth of the Hebrew text; others adding; others transposing from one place to another, all of which though could well be prevented, it cannot be denied."
But Cassiodoro also confesses that he wasn't able to use the Hebrew Text completely. He states:
"...we came as close as we could to the fountain of the Hebrew Text whenever it was possible, (though without any controversy it is the very first authority) which we did commonly following the translation of Santes Pagnino, who of the vote of all the wise men [learned] in the Hebrew tongue, is taken as the most purest up to date."
Here, Cassiodoro talks about the Santes Pagnino translation, which is pro-Catholic. Thus, Reina's Spanish Bible was not perfect, and contained many pro-Catholic readings (as you'll shortly see from the words of Cipriano de Valera).
Further in Cassiodoro's preface, we read his confession of plagiarism when he says:
"Of the old Spanish translation of the Old Testament, printed in Ferrara, we have helped ourselves in like needs more than any other that we have seen to date..."
Finally, Reina advocated the revision of his work, claiming it wasn't perfect or exhaustive. A. Gordon Kinder tells us this in the following words:
"Besides the work of translation, Reina's own contribution is the introduction, which pleads the necessity of having vernacular Bibles, so that the common people will not be deprived of the Word of God. In it Reina explains the methods he used to produce the version, and the other versions of which he has made use ... He says that, although he himself has not attempted an authoritative version, he puts forward an idea for the production and continuous revision of such a version. Let an official committee of pious men, learned in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, be set up that would produce two translations, one in Latin for students, and one in Spanish which would be the canonical translation for the country, declared authoritative by a national synod, that would also watch for errors that needed correction, and would make sure that a sufficient number be printed each year to ensure a free supply, to be produced in turn with care by a single authorized printer. Such practice would eliminate corrupt texts. It is noteworthy that this is almost exactly what happened in 1611 with the production of the English Authorized Versions. If a practice of constant revision such as that suggested by Reina had also been accepted, the effect would have been better over the long term." 27
Unlike English, Reina's Bible never became the Authorized Spanish Version. Instead, it planted the seed for the Spanish Bible Controversy, and paved the way for the revision of it by his fellow ex-monk Cipriano de Valera. Although Reina didn't do a perfect job of translation, we do honour him for his stamina, ambition, and aspiration to see his own countrymen have a Bible in their own language. This desire was so strong, that he willingly put his life on the line by translating and printing his Spanish Version. In fact, he even published the Council of Trent's Catholic mandate prohibiting the translation of the scriptures into any vulgar tongue after the preface in his Bible, as a sort of in your face note to the Catholics who might obtain a copy of his work.
Cassiodoro's fight for right amongst a deadly brutal enemy (the Roman Catholic Church) can been seen by the symbolism in the opening picture of his Bible.
Reina's Bible has become known as La Biblia del Oso or The Bible of the Bear for the drawing found on its title page. It has been theorized that the bear represents the beast—the Roman Catholic Church. The hammer and the honey represent the word of God, while the small bees symbolize those working hard at delivering the word of God to others (the translators). The birds seen in the background attacking the bees would seem to remind one of the cruel Inquisitors, seeking to destroy those who wish to see God's words dispersed throughout the land.
One final interesting note about Reina, his enemies accused him of Sodomy and being a homosexual. 28 Is this not exactly what the Papist haters of the Authorized Version accused King James of?
The next entire Spanish Bible was that of Cipriano de Valera, first printed in 1602. Valera's humility shines forth by his homage to Reina. Valera did not pretend to have produced a new version. He did not call his work the Valera Bible. Instead he called it a Second Edition. He looked at himself as only the Reviser, not the Translator.
Valera's desire of sharing the glory, rather than getting it all for himself can been seen in the title page of his revision:
Clearly we see a man planting and another watering. One author claims this is an illustration of 1 Corinthians 3:6: "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase," stating the symbolism means that Valera felt himself to have been only he that watered, while Reina was the one who planted the seed. 29
The need to revise Reina's work, according to Valera, was to rid the text of the Catholic readings, especially from the LXX and Latin Vulgate. In his preface we read:
"...It remains now to tell why we have been moved to make this second edition. Cassiodoro de Reina, moved by a pious jealousy to forward the glory of God, and to do a signaled service to his nation, in seeing faith in the land of liberty to speak and handle the things of God, started giving himself to the translation of the Bible, which he translated, and thus in the year of 1569, printed two thousand six hundred copies: which have by God's grace been distributed to many regions. So much so that today there is hardly found any specimen, if any one wants to buy one. So that our nation of Spain does not lack such a great treasure as the Bible in its own language, we have taken pains to read and reread it once and again, and have made it more profitable with new notes, and have sometimes even altered the text. Which we did with the most prudent counsel and deliberation: and not trusting in ourselves (because our conscience testifies to how small are our means) we have conferred with pious and wise men, and with diverse translations, that for the grace of God there are diverse translations today. About the rest, this version according to my judgment to all those that understand, is excellent... Also we have taken out all that was added by the 70 interpreters [the LXX], or of the Vulgate, that is not found in the Hebrew text...I say this, so that if someone confers with this version called the Vulgate, and does not find in this [version] everything that is in that one, no marvel. Because our intent was not to translated what man have added to the word of God, only what God has revealed in his Holy Scriptures...For it is not good to confirm the certain with the uncertain, the word of God with the word of men."
Here Valera states that in his estimation, his revision is an excellent translation. But that he didn't think it was perfect is clearly seen a little later in his preface, when he begs other, more pious and learned men to revise his own work and correct it. For we read:
"Would to God that by his infinite mercy [he would] inspire the heart of the King to command pious men throughout his coasts, learned in Hebrew and Greek to look into and revise this translation of the Bible, who excitedly with a pious and sincere desire to serve God and do well to their nation, would compare it and confront the Hebrew text, that God dictated to his holy Prophets before the coming of Christ, and with the Greek Text, that the same dictated to his holy Apostles and Evangelists after the coming of Christ in the flesh."
This is exactly what King James did! However, he only commanded men to give the English speakers an English Authorized Version. He did not do so for the Spanish.
Of the exact changes made by Valera to Reina's work, there is neither space nor time to tell. Needless to say the revision was not extensive. The following quote will suffice to give the reader an idea:
...Notwithstanding, he [Valera] introduced some important textual changes. 1. Valera omits the phrase, "por ventura" 113 times...and in its place he used words like: Perhaps, maybe, certainly, if, without a doubt, etc., depending upon the literary context. 2. In revising the texts, Valera rejects the various readings of the Vulgate: a). He omitted of the Septuagint: Gen. 46:20; Ex. 2:22; and Lam. 1:1a, b). Of the Vulgate he omits: Ps. 14:2; and Prov. 14:21, c). Of both: Prov. 4:27; 5:2; 7:1, 9,18; 10:4; 12:11; 13:13; 14:15; 17:16, and some others of this book. 3. Other interesting changes that Valera introduces in that of Proper names; they are changed on about 27 occasions, and since Cassiodoro de Reina had derived them from the Vulgate and the Septuagint, his Reviser kept himself faithful to the Hebrew Masoretic Text. 4. With the intent of illustrating more the feeling of the Hebrew Text, Valera added in the translation of Reina expressions or ideas in Gen. 27:19; Ex. 2:25; Neh. 9:3; Dan. 7:5; 2 Sam. 14:14; and Job 4:1, at the same time eliminating phrases and words of Reina in Ex. 3:15; Job 9:23; Ps. 146:4. The end result of Valera with his revision made a new reading of the text of Reina having presented the original texts, Hebrew and Greek, actualizing correct spelling and intending to clearly present the feelings and significance of the Bible texts." 30
Of the 1602 Valera revision, Thomas Holland states:
"...Changes were made to agree more closely with the Greek Textus Receptus and the language was revised as well. The Apocrypha was removed from the Old Testament and placed between the two Testaments to agree with the most Protestant Bibles of the day. Valera also added a note, as the Geneva Bible did, stating the historical importance of the Apocrypha and yet denying its inspiration. The phrases which were left out of the 1569 edition by Reina were place back into the text by Valera. However, in Romans 1:16 the phrase 'of Christ' was omitted." 31
Although it was very good, it's clear that Valera's revision was not perfect (For example, the words en salud from the corrupt Latin Vulgate in 1 Peter 2:2 are still found in Valera's Bible). It had some problems that needed to be corrected. Although it was a revision, it too needed to be revised. But even with the few errors it had, it became recognized as the standard Spanish Bible in the Spanish Speaking world. Carlos Lopez Lozano calls it, "...the most read and distributed Castellan Bible, constituting also a monumental literary feat!" 32
However, because both Reina and Valera worked alone, and because they both recommended that their work be revised, many people decided there needed to be other revised editions of the Reina-Valera text. Thus, many Bible Societies, individuals, and churches then published their own Spanish Bibles, being careful to say they were based on the Reina-Valera text of 1602. This made for hundreds of different versions of the Reina-Valera text, and there never really officially existed a standardized, Reina-Valera Bible that was in mass distribution (at least not in Valera's time). There were only many different revisions of it, claiming to all be based upon it.
In closing this chapter, allow me to summarize. The history of the Spanish Bible has been one of corruption, frustration, limitation, destruction, and revision. Copies translated into Spanish were either corrupt (based on the Catholic Vulgate) or unobtainable by the common man (unavailable for mass distribution). Reina's motivation and devotion to giving the common Spaniard the word of God is to be commended. However, he used the corrupt LXX and Latin Vulgate in his work, which Valera worked twenty years to cautiously and meticulously remove. Even though he called his revision an excellent translation, he also recommended a more extensive revision, not by one man, but rather many pious and learned men using the right texts as their basis.
Because both Reina and Valera advocated revision of their work, many new versions of the Reina-Valera were later done, each one saying something different, and not any one standing out as the standard Authorized Spanish Version, as we have an Authorized English Bible. Instead, much confusion followed, and through the course of time, many modern corrupt Spanish revisions, mixed with the Catholic, eclectic texts were made, all claiming to be Reina-Valera Bibles. We shall look at the history of the many revisions of the Reina-Valera text in our next chapter, as well as other translations of the Spanish Bible after 1602.
Versions of the Spanish Bible After 1602
1625 marked the year of the second publishing of Reina's revision in Amsterdam, Holland. Valera's New Testament was printed in 1708, and only four more times between 1806 and 1817 in England. 33 This means that Valera's whole Bible, exactly as printed in 1602, did not see too much circulation. Instead we find a multitude of other versions, translations, and revisions of Valera's work, both Catholic and Protestant, replacing it in rapid succession.
The first of these is the Felipe Scio de San Miguel Catholic Bible. Scio, a Segovian bishop, published the entire Spanish Bible in 1773 in Valencia, Spain. It consisted of ten volumes, and was translated directly from the Latin Vulgate. 34 His work was again printed in Madrid in 1794, 35 another source stating its publication between 1790 and 1793. 36
In 1785, Anselmo Petite translated a Spanish Bible, which first appeared in Valladolid, Spain. Obviously it was Catholic, as the Inquisition's Index of 1790 permitted it and similar translations. 37
The British and Foreign Bible Society revised Valera's 1708 New Testament and published it in 1806. The work went to an interpreter and translator living in London named Uzielli. This version was again revised many times in the next twenty years. However, it was mixed with the Catholic Scio version of San Miguel. 38
The Cambridge History of the Bible, edited by S.L. Greenslade, is very quick to point out that most "early Protestant versions printed for circulation in Spain and Latin America consisted of the Scio [Catholic] text." 39 This is so that Roman Catholic countries would receive them, believing them to be Catholic Bibles. In one source, we read, "In 1819, the Protestant Bible Societies reproduced the Scio version without the Apocrypha, by the hundreds of thousands." 40 The reason being that the Inquisition was still in existence, and Spain would only allow Catholic translations of the scriptures, not Protestant ones.
Thus, most Bible Societies did a sneaky thing. They distributed Catholic Bibles to people in Spanish-speaking Countries. How could people who claim to be Protestant, and even King James, do such a thing? (You will see later in this booklet, that even today most Bible Societies not only distribute Pro-Catholic Bibles, but also actually work with Catholics in the making of new translations in Spanish).
Bill Kincaid supports this with these words, "With the end of the Inquisition (in the 1820's) the Foreign Bible Society (British) began distributing Catholic Spanish Bibles adapted (Apocrypha and notes removed) from the Felipe Scio (1790's). Scio was a Roman Catholic priest whose translation was reprinted presumably with hopes it would be allowed to circulate." 41
These Scio Bibles were revised with the Valera to make a Valera-Scio hybrid. The first I can find who did this was Blanco White, who revised the Scio (most likely with the Valera) in 1820. Later the Englishman George Borrow, a Bible Society representative who traveled to Spain to print and sell Bibles, printed White's edition in Madrid, Spain in 1837. 42
Mr. Borrow worked with Luis de Rio in editing this Spanish Bible. In Mr. Borrow's own words, he says, "More immediately connected with the Bible Society and myself, I am most happy to take this opportunity of speaking of Luis de Usoz y Rio, the scion of an ancient and honorable family of Old Castile, my coadjutor whilst editing the Spanish New Testament at Madrid...I received every mark of friendship from this gentleman who...exerted himself to the utmost in forwarding the views of the Bible Society, influenced by no other motive than a hope that its efforts would eventually contribute to the peace, happiness, and civilization of his native land." 43
As we've seen, the Bible societies distributed Catholic Bibles. These were revised with the Valera text, but enough of Scio had to be left so that it appeared to the Papists to be a Catholic Bible. Because of this, many old and even new versions still contain Catholic words that neither Reina nor Valera used in their Bibles. One example is the word "Verbo." This comes from the Catholic Vulgate reading of "Verbum." All Catholic Spanish Bibles call Jesus Christ el Verbo in John 1:1. However, the original 1569, 1602, and all other Protestant versions before these call Jesus Christ la Palabra. Because of the many revisions and compromises by the Bible societies, many Catholic words are still retained, like this one, in modern versions. (Note: The 1865, 1909, 1960 and the Gomez Bible all call Jesus Christ the catholic Verbo, but the 1602 Monterrey calls Jesus Christ La Palabra,).
The first Catholic Bible printed on Latin American soil was the Vence Bible, translated from the French version of Vence and published in Mexico between 1831 and 1833. 44 This version had two columns per page, one in Spanish and the other in Latin, and consisted of 25 volumes. 45
In 1823-1824, a Catallan Spanish Bible was printed in Barcelona, Spain by the Catholic Bishop Felix Torres Amat. It also was translated from the Latin Vulgate. 46 One author states that from 1837-1856, many Bible societies put out a revised text of the Torres Amat Catholic version, but at very modest prices. 47 This was a Valera-Amat hybrid.
Not all revisions by Bible Societies were based entirely on the Catholic texts (Scio and Amat). The Cambridge History of the Bible, tells us "Later Protestant Bibles in Spanish have usually consisted of revised versions of Valera's text, printed in London, New York, Paris, and occasionally Madrid." 48
In 1831, we find the Bible Society of Glasgow publishing a revision of the Valera New Testament, in which changes were made in spelling and calligraphy. However, they also made some textual changes. 49 This was again revised and reprinted by the same society in 1832, 1849. The American Bible Society printed this text also in 1845. 50 (I have no further information of what texts they used in their revision).
In 1850, The American Bible Society corrected and published the entire Spanish Bible. Unfortunately, they used as their basis the Scio, the Valera, the Hebrew and Greek, the American Version, the French Version of Martin, and others. 51
Baptist versions of the N.T. were printed at Edinburgh between 1855 and 1860. 52 And 1858 brought to light a New Testament revision of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 53 in which changes were made in spelling, calligraphy, punctuation, as well as some textual changes. 54 This version was again printed in 1860. 55
The Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge (SPCK), printed their Spanish Bible in 1862. Dr. Lorenzo Lucena, an Oxford University professor, did the work of revising this text. He made changes in orthography and diction, and removed the Apocrypha. From this point on, no Valera Bible ever contained the apocrypha again. 56 What text exactly Mr. Lucena used as his basis for this Bible, is unknown. However, it is known that Lucena made a New Testament for SPCK in 1837 based on the Torres Amat Catholic version. 57
The year 1865 brought several different Bibles. First was the reprint of the 1858 BFBS revision. 58 Second, is the National Bible Society of Scotland's New Testament printed in Malaga, which appears to be a reprint of the 1831 and 1832 Glasgow Bible Society mentioned above. 59
1865 also brought us the American Bible Society's revision of the Reina-Valera done by Angel H. Mora, a Spaniard, and H.B. Pratt, an American Presbyterian Missionary to Bogata. 60 This is the version Local Church Publishers printed and distributed all across the world, claiming it to be the word of God in Spanish.
Of this 1865 revision, Floyd Dallis said years ago, "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 based on Westcott and Hort corruptions. About 100,000 changes 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 edition of the ABS!" 61
Most 1865 advocates refute this, and have sought to make Mr. Dallis' claim null and void. They state that Tischendorf's discoveries were not published until later, and they prove this can't be so, as the 1865 reads very closely with the King James on many occasions. However, I have found a few "critical text readings" in the 1865 they print, even though it does read closer to the KJV in some places. I've also found many places were the 1865 departs from any text or Spanish version on the face of the earth, making changes with no textual basis whatsoever (Examples will be listed later in this work). The 1865 also retains Catholic words (like Verbo), proving it's a hybrid Protestant-Catholic Bible.
It must be noted that Mr. Pratt was very active in Bible translating and revision, and was quite fond of the critical texts. In 1877, Pratt revised the Gospel of Matthew, using as his basis Tischendorf's work. 62 And in 1893, he published, through the American Bible Society, the whole Bible entitled, "La Versión Moderna" (The Modern Version), based upon the work of Reina, Scio, Amat, and Valera. 63 He also relied heavily upon the critical texts of Westcott and Hort in his work. 64 Of this work, one author says, "...the work suffered many defects...and did not have much acceptation among the evangelical world." 65 This Bible was revised and published again in Switerzland in 1929 (I have a copy of this edition in electronic Adobe Format).
In 1866, the British and Foreign Bible Societies printed the entire Bible in Spanish, using for their text the SPCK version of Lucena. However, the New Testament differed slightly from that of the Lucena. 66 And again in 1869 the SPCK 1862 revision was printed by the BFBS with "a few variations." 67 The Trinitarian Bible Society in Barcelona also printed this SPCK version in 1862. 68
The British and Foreign Bible Societies published a Bible in 1877, the work of Gladstone and R. Corfield, an agent of the BFBS, both of Madrid, Spain. 69 In 1883, the Trinitarian Bible Society printed a Bible edited by Jorge Lawerence. This work uses the Psalms of Pratt's revision and Louis Usoz y Rios' translation of Isaiah. 70
1886 brought us the Gospel according to Luke, published by the BFBS. It was the work of E. Reeves Palmer and was based on the Textus Receptus, but had reference to Tischendorf, Alford, and the English Revised Version. A provisional New Testament was then published in 1887. 71 In 1890, the BFBS printed a New Testament in paragraphs, and in 1905, we find an Old Testament translation by Juan B. Cabrera and Cipriano Tornos. 72
In the middle and late 1800's there were literally hundreds of Spanish revisions being printed by Bible Societies, every one varying from all the others. As it's impossible to list them all, I'll only give some, taken from the book: The Spanish Bible Still bearing Precious Seed, by Floyd Dallis. They are as follows:
1865 Reprint of the 1831 edition, N.T. only.
1866 Reprint of the 1862 edition.
1867 Reprint of the 1858 edition.
1869 Revision of the 1862 edition, minor and not based on textual changes.
1869 Reprint of the 1865 edition by the ABS, N.T. only.
1869 Reprint of the 1865 edition by the ABS, N.T. and Psalms only.
1870 Revision of the 1862 edition, done by Dr. E.B. Cowell of Cambridge, University.
1870 Reprint of the Reina-Valera Bible of 1865.
1871 Reprint of the 1865, N.T. only.
1872 Reprint of the 1865, N.T. only.
1875 Reprint of the 1865, N.T. only.
1875 Reprint of the 1862 edition by Dr. Lucena, N.T. only, published by Trinitarian Bible Society.
1876 Reprint of the 1865 edition, whole Bible.
1876 Reprint of the 1862 edition by the TBS.
1877 Reprint of the 1865 edition.
1877 Reprint of the 1865 edition.
1879 Revision by Dr. Pratt of the Psalms.
1883 Reprint of 1862 edition. However, Dr. Pratt's revision of the Psalms was used.
1884 Reprint of the 1865 edition, N.T. only, with Parallel edition of KJV.
1885 Reprint of the 1877 edition of the Psalms.
1887 Revision of the N.T. by Dr. Palmer.
1888 Reprint of the 1865 edition, N.T. only.
1888 Reprint of the 1879 edition of the Psalms.
1889 Reprint of the edition of Psalms.
1889 Reprint of the 1865 edition, Gospels and Acts only.
1890 Reprint of the 1865 edition.
1891 Reprint of the 1865, N.T. only.
1893 Reprint of the 1865.
1893 Revision of the Gospel of Matthew by the BFBS. Minor changes were made.
1895 Reprint of the 1865 edition.
1896 Reprint of the 1865 edition.
1897 Reprint of the 1865 edition.
1899 Reprint of the 1893 Gospel of Matthew.
1901 Revision of the Spanish N.T.
1902 Reprint of the 1865 edition.
1903 Reprint of the 1865 edition.
1905 Revision of the O.T. Spanish.
1909 brought to light the most standard of all Spanish Bibles, and the one that brought about more true revival than any of the others. This was the 1909 Spanish Bible today known as La Antigua (the Old Version.) It used the Valera Spanish Bible as its basis, however, it also contains some critical text readings. Floyd Dallis says of this version, "This revision made changes in the 1865 edition to make it more agreeable with the Greek Textus Receptus. Therefore, the 1909 is even closer to the King James than the Valera of 1865."
I'm sure the 1865 crowd would be the first to call this untrue, and there has been much controversy over this statement, for the 1865 that is being printed and distributed today is very close to the King James, yea even closer than the 1909 in many key verses. (However, the author has studied extensively the 1909 and 1865, and has found the 1909 Old Testament to be closer to the original 1602 Valera, while the 1865 New Testament is closer to the KJV as a whole, but still containing many departures from it).
Although the 1909 became the most accepted standard Valera text of its time (surpassing the 1865), the translators could not resist inserting critical text readings in their translation. Missionary Carlos Donate states, "The 1909 retains some of the Vulgate, with influences from Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and Wordsworth, who were translators and revisers with corrupt tendencies in past centuries; some of the LXX was also maintained in the 1909." 73
Though the men who worked on the 1909 were Fundamentalists, they were in favor of the Critical Texts. Donate again confirms this with the following:
"It is sad that some of the committee members of the 1909 worked on the 'Biblia Hispano-Americana' (1916), which was based on the critical text of Wescott and Hort and Nestle. I would like to say, therefore, that even the 1909 had good public acceptance, since the majority of its verses were from the Textus Receptus, with only a low percentage...from the critical text. The men behind this revision were mainly people who were considered 'Fundamentalist' or of conservative theology." 74
Thus, the 1909 Spanish Bible, however good it might have been, and however accepted, was not perfect. It had problems, errors, and critical text readings (some examples are found later in this work). For this reason, other translations followed. But instead of trying to get a Spanish Bible based solely upon the Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic Text (both Reina and Valera's desire), most Bible Societies and translators strove to make the Reina-Valera more in line with the Catholic and Critical Texts of man.
After the 1909 Spanish Bible was printed, it took off, and became the Standard Valera Bible throughout the entire Spanish Speaking world. For over 50 years, all Spanish Protestants used this version, believing it to be the word of God in Spanish. But even though Hispanics had their first Standard Bible (and even though it wasn't perfect), this didn't stop the Bible translators from seeking to produce even more critical text revisions. Let us now look at the new versions of the Spanish Bible. I'll call them Modern Versions, as the 1909 today is known as the Antigua Versión (Old Version).
In 1916, the "Versión Hispano-America" was published by the British and Foreign Bible Societies. It was based entirely upon the critical Greek text of Nestle. 75 Thankfully this version was not very well accepted.
1919 brought us the Pablo Besson Version, the work of a Swiss Baptist and Missionary to Argentina, who translated the New Testament from the Westcott, Hort, and Nestle text, using also the corrupt Hispano-America version. 76
Next we have a Catalan New Testament, printed in 1929 and 1931, by Emilio Mora, Jose Capo, and Armengol Felip. As far as I can gather, only from Matthew to Galatians was printed, as the rest was cut short due to the Civil war in Spain. 77
1936 gave us the translation from French to Spanish of the F.D. Faivre Bible, by J.T. de la Cruz, printed in Madrid, Spain. 78
In 1944, the Catholics produced the Nácar-Colunga Bible. It was the work of Eloino Nácar Fúster and Alberto Colunga. Pope Pius XII put his stamp of approval on this version in 1947, and it was greatly accepted by Catholic people. 79
Other versions include: 1928 Junemann (N.T.), 1934 Bellester, the Bover Cantera of 1947, and the Staubinger Argentinian translation of 1951. 80 81
In 1953, The American Bible Society published The Latino-American N.T. Revision, based mostly on the corrupt Hispano-America Bible of 1916. 82 I have a parallel English-Spanish version of this text. Care to guess which English version that used? If you guessed the KJV, you guessed wrong! It's a Revised Standard Version/LatinoAmericano parallel edition. (This shows the American Bible Society, prior to 1960, was in favor of the Revised Standard Version, which they used in their translation work on the 1960 Spanish Bible. See quote below).
The next version is that of the 1960 Reina-Valera revision, done by the United Bible Societies, which is used today by the majority of professing Spanish Speaking Fundamentalist Christians (many of which claim to be KJV only in English). So popular is this corrupt perversion of the Spanish Bible, that it's been called The Crown Version in Spanish.
Although it claims to be based on the Reina-Valera, it has made many changes. One author states, "It is affirmed that the revisions before 1909 introduced 60,000 changes in vocabulary and more than 100,000 orthographic changes. The 1960 revision includes another 10,000 changes." 83
That the 1960 inserted many critical text readings, there can be no doubt, for even Eugene Nida admits, "Nevertheless in some instances where the critical text is so much preferred over the traditional Textus Receptus, the committee did make some slight changes, particularly is such changes were not in well-known verses." 84
Here we have an open confession that Critical Text verses were preferred over the Textus Receptus and added into the text, especially in lesser-known verses so that it would be harder to find them. Is this not a devious?
Again, we see evidence of the mixture of critical texts in the 1960 Spanish version with the following words by J. Mervin Breneman, Editor of the Harper-Caribe 1960 Study Bible, "the Reina Valera Spanish translation is based on the Textus Receptus but in the 1960 revision the editors have taken into account some results from the new works of comparison with the oldest manuscripts that have been discovered [the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus]. This comparison of manuscripts to be more sure of the original text is called Textual Criticism." 85
Jose Flores, one of the consultants on the 1960 project says the following about the rules of translating the '60,
"One principle added to the first list of the Reina-Valera 1960 Revision committee was that wherever the Reina-Valera  Version has departed from the Textus Receptus to follow a better text [a critical text in his view], we did not return to the Receptus. Point #12 of the Working Principles states: In case where there is a doubt over the correct translation of the original, we consulted preferentially the English Revised Version of 1885, The American Standard Version of 1901, the Revised Standard Version of 1946, and the International Critical Commentary." 86
This confession shows that the 1960 Spanish Bible relied heavily on the English RSV, inserting many critical text readings of man in place of the Textus Receptus and actual Reina-Valera readings of which it takes its name. This means that it then reads with the Catholic Bible (on which the critical texts are based) in many places.(Reina and Valera would not approve!)
The idea of making the 1960 revision started in November of 1946, when the American Bible Society made preliminary plans to revise the 1909. 87 To evaluate the need for a new revision, pages were cut out of existing Bibles (the 1909) and attached to larger sheets with scotch tape and distributed to as many people as possible, asking them to write any changes they felt should be made in the margin. 88
(I can't help but remember the Disney movie "Treasure Island" that I saw as a kid, in which Long John Silver said, "What fool [would] cut a Bible?")
These cut pages of the Bible, were then sent to people of all classes, from pastors to barely literate laymen, asking them to suggest changes. 89 Within nine months, more than 1,700 pages with recommended changes were then received in return by the Bible Society. 90 With this, they decided to go ahead with revision.
Many people were against the translation, however, feeling their 1909 was good enough. One source says,
"The better educated people naturally tended to desire more radical changes, while the lesser educated were basically suspicious of alterations. In fact, in some limited groups, even the pastors were afraid to suggest the slightest change in the text, for fear that they might seem to be tampering with the word of God. On one occasion, the very mention of manuscripts in a talk about the history of the Spanish Bible brought an expression of deep concern from one pastor, who arose and in an almost tearful plea, held out a battered copy of the Reina-Valera text  and said, 'But is not this the word of God?'" 91
Though many pastors did not desire a revision of their beloved 1909, many scholars and seminary professors did, as we read from another source: "At the other extreme, professors in seminaries and in many Bible Schools urged the Bible Societies to consider a very radical revision of the Bible, which would bring it entirely up to date, not only in such mechanical phrases as orthography and grammatical form, but in textual and exegetical matters. Many of these persons would have preferred the publication of the Hispano-American Version." 92
Clearly, these liberal scholars wanted a Bible based more on the critical texts of man, and that's exactly what they got in the 1960 Spanish translation, although not as extreme as they desired. Thus, the 1960 Spanish Bible is a Reina-Valera-critical text hybrid.
THE EUGENE NIDA FACTOR
Dr. Eugene Nida was the Secretary for Translations for the American Bible Society, during the time of the translation of the 1960. Mr. Nida is also the founder of the theory of Dynamic Equivalence, which states that translation should not be based upon words, rather on the meaning. 93 In other words, Mr. Nida believes that translating the words (formal equivalence) is not important, and that the translator's job is only to convey the meaning behind the text. Yet this is completely unbiblical!
Jesus said in Matthew 24:35, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Jesus did not say his "message" would not pass away, but his words shall not pass away .
Again in John 17:17, Jesus says, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." According to the Bible, God's words are truth. Notice the verse doesn't say his message is truth.
There are countless scores of verses in the Bible that tell us to keep God's words. Some include Deut.17:19, 29:9, Ps. 119:57, and Prov. 4:4. Also in Luke 11:28, we are told that those who keep God's words are "blessed." And in Rev. 1:3, we are told that he that simply reads God's words will receive a blessing. Finally, Jesus said the following in John 14:23, "...If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Thus, according to the Bible, we should keep, read, and translate all of God's WORDS, not just the idea or message behind them.
Now let's look at Mr. Nida's own words in his book Message and Mission: "Even if a truth is given only in words, it has no real validity until it has been translated into life. Only then does the Word of Life become life to the receptor. The words are in a sense nothing in and of themselves." 94 (This Mr. Nida is the same man who said that instead of translating the lamb of God, it was perfectly acceptable to translate the pig of God. 95 )
It's clear to see that Mr. Nida is not a true Bible Believer. He does not believe that God preserved his words, nor should we. Instead, Mr. Nida only advocates translating the message of the Bible (whatever he wants to make it say), rather than God's exact WORDS. In an interview with Christianity today in 2002, Mr. Nida shows his true colors:
Magazine: What do you consider your most important contribution to Bible translation?
Nida: To help people be willing to say what the text means – not what the words are, but what the texts means.
Magazine: How did you develop your ideas about Bible translation 50 years ago?
Nida: When I was at the University of California, Los Angeles, our professors would never let us translate literally. They said, "We want to know the meaning. We don't want to know just the words.
Magazine: Is this difficult in practice?
Nida: ...Bible translators often think they must aim at almost exact verbal correspondence to the original in order to make sense. Many of them insist there must be consistency of words. But consistency in principal words is misleading because words have a variety of meanings depending on context. So a translator can be consistently wrong as well as consistently right. This "word worship" helps people to have confidence, but they don't understand the text. And as long as they worship words, instead of worshipping God as revealed in Jesus Christ, they feel safe.
Magazine: What is the impact of multiple translations?
Nida: It makes people begin to think. As long as all people had the King James Version, they didn't think. It's terribly important to have different translations to get a good argument started. 96
So there you have it. Mr. Nida developed his ideas in a secular college, and is weary of word worship. He's afraid of those that desire to have the pure words of God translated in their own language. Obviously he forgot Psalms 138:2, which states, "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." God says that his word is magnified even above his very name!
Mr. Nida also must have forgotten to read the words of Jesus in John 12:47-48, "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
For Jesus does not judge a man according to his message, but according to his words.
As blasphemous and ludicrous as it may seem, Nida's Dynamic Equivalence approach to Bible translating (which he developed in a secular College in California) has influenced the world, and produced many Bible translations in many different languages. George Mouldin states of Nida, "...for the past 30 years, Eugene Nida's masterful stimulus in bible translation has reintroduced the dynamic equivalence method of translation, which contrasts with the more traditional formal equivalence method. There is no doubt that Nida has brought an enormous renewal to this concept of translating the scriptures." 97
This enormous renewal produced the translating of the scriptures into many new languages based not on the Received Texts, but on the Catholic, critical texts of man. For in the following, we read:
"What of the present scene where the reader of the Greek New Testament now meets the new text of Nestle-Aland and the text of GNT3 which is identical with it? By this we mean the text officially recognized by both the United Bible Societies and the Catholic church (a significantly new factor in the present scene; cf. the Guiding Principles and Guidelines agreed upon in 1968 and 1987 between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies). Whether the student uses The Greek New Testament (GNT) in the third revised edition or the Nestle-Aland in its twenty-sixth edition...the text is the same, however much the format and the critical apparatus may differ. How was the new text formed?
The beginnings of this text go back to the late 1940's. This was when Aland began his association with the Nestle edition (the twenty-first edition of 1952 was the first to have his name in the preface.) His first assignment was to verify the data in the apparatus, and at the same time to re-examine the text itself and prepare for a revision of it – this with the explicit approval of Erwin Nestle, who had consistently affirmed the necessity of the task but with equal consistency shrank from it in respect for his father. Considerable progress has already been made when in 1955, on the initiative of Translations Secretary Eugene A. Nida of the American Bible Society, an international committee was established to prepare an edition of the Greek New Testament designed especially to meet the needs of several hundred Bible translation committees. At that time (as also today) there were programs under way in modern national languages throughout the world to make translations of the New Testament more easily understood, whether by revising earlier versions or by making completely fresh translations from the original texts." 98
Here we are told the Nestle-Aland Greek Text (also known as the GNT3) was produced by the Catholic Church and the American Bible Society, of which Eugene A. Nida was the Translations Secretary! We are also told that Nida made the initiative in 1955 (before the 1960 came out) to establish the committee to prepare the GNT3 and that Nida was already involved in translating the Bible into modern national languages throughout the world (including the 1960).
Calvin George, an adamant 1960 Spanish Bible Defender, who claims to be a King James Bible user in English, defends his Spanish perversion by stating that Nida had absolutely nothing to do with the translation of the 1960 Spanish Version. 99 However, I offer the following quote about Nida's involvement with the Nestle-Aland and GNT texts:
"The unification became complete when the Württemburg Bible Society abandoned plans for an independent edition, deciding the GNT and Nestle-Aland should not only offer a common text, but that it should be the responsibility of the same editorial committee: Kurt Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger, and Wikgren. These five names should actually be expanded to seven: Nida should certainly be added, for he not only initiated the undertaking but took an active part in all the editorial committee sessions..." 100
Here we are told that Nida (The Executive Secretary of the Translations Department of the American Bible Society from 1946 to 1980), INITIATED and took an active part in the editorial committee of the GNT3 text (which is based on the corrupt, Catholic, critical texts). Would not it stand to reason that if this was his character, that he too would have done the same in the committee meetings of the 1960 Spanish Bible Translators? 101
Whether or not Mr. Nida took an active roll with the translation process of the 1960 Spanish Bible, he did have influence over those who did the work, and he did support them when they used the critical texts in their translation work. This can clearly be seen by his following words:
"... For the New Testament, translators and revisers are recommended to follow the text of the original Greek edited by the British and Foreign Bible Society by Dr. Eberhard Nestle but are at liberty to follow that underlying the English Authorized Version, or that underlying the English Revised Version...Translators who are unacquainted with the originals are desired to follow the text or margin of the English AV or ERV (1881,1885) or the ARV (1901), or in the case of translators unacquainted with English, some other version sanctioned by the Committee".102
Here Mr. Nida said that translators can use the KJV, or the English RV, or other translations sanctioned by the Committee (which were these, and who sanctioned them? Mr. Nida was the secretary. Was he the one who sanctioned them?), but they are recommended to follow the Nestle's (Critical text) based on the corrupt work of Westcott and Hort! Clearly Mr. Nida is not Pro-Textus Receptus only. Nay, he is (by his own confession) in favor of using Catholic, critical texts in translation work.
Having thus shown the involvement of the American Bible Society with the Roman Catholic Church, and proving they work together in making corrupt, critical text translations (like the '60), let us now focus on the Ecumenical involvement in the 1960 Spanish revision. (It should be known, that the Editorial committee that did the actual translation of the 1960 consisted of two Methodists, three Presbyterians, and one Baptist.) 103
Mr. Nida tells us in 1978 in his book, Understanding Latin America, that the three important factors that motivated the UBS to produce a new, contemporary version of the scriptures in Spanish [the 1960] were:
A. The ecumenical Movement's ever increasing popularity, led by the Roman Catholic Church.
B. The Roman Catholic Churches leadership in resolving cultural and social differences.
C. The renewal of biblical scholarship in transmitting mainly the message of the Bible, and the proclamation of the Good News among Catholics. 104
If this is not a confession of ecumenicalism, I don't know what is! Here, Mr. Nida confessed with his own mouth that ecumenicalism brought about the desire to translate a new version of the scriptures, and that Catholic influence was behind the production of the 1960 Spanish version.
Thus, when the 1960 Spanish Bible came out, it is no surprise that it was accepted by both Protestant and Catholic alike. Jose Flores, says the following in his book, La Historia de la Biblia en España, "...The ecumenical groups of Mr. Taize and Father Robert Giscard appeared in the Spanish Television in 1965 giving money to the Roman Catholic publisher Herder to print 1 million ecumenical New Testaments. Simultaneously, several priests also purchased the recently published 1960 protestant Reina-Valera Bible, admitting that it is better, and that they will use it to teach children during catechism, due to the recent ambiance of Catholic aperture." 105
Catholics love the 1960 Spanish Bible! Why? Because it reads closer with their corrupt Latin Vulgate, for the Vulgate and the Critical Texts come from the same fountain! How can anyone miss this?
Bible Societies are ecumenical, and are happy to work with any denomination. James Moulton Roe tells us the following in his book, "The influence of the ecumenical movement and its expression in the constitution of the World Council of Churches in 1948 must also be recognized, a link between the latter body and the United Bible Societies having been carefully nurtured ever since." 106 And Kurt Aland confesses the following about the GNT, American Bible Society text: "...the text is distributed by the United Bible Societies and by the corresponding offices of the Roman Catholic Church (an inconceivable situation until quite recently), it has rapidly become the commonly accepted text for research and study in universities and churches. This builds also for translation projects in modern national languages (cf. the Guiding Principles formulated in 1968 by the Vatican and the United Bible Societies and reaffirmed as Guidelines in 1987, will prescribe its exclusive use)." 107
So there you have it. Bible societies are in cahoots with the World Council of Churches, and the Roman Catholic Church! Together, they have formed a text based on the Catholic critical texts of men and have used it to produce Catholic-Protestant Bible Hybrids, that all denominations can use and sell.
The 1960 Spanish Bible was one of the first of these ecumenical Bibles. Jose Flores says the following about the 1960: "The U.B.S. has taken a turn towards the Ecumenical movement, and that Catholic and Protestant editors have finally found common ground for the commercialization of the Scriptures." 108
Further, he states, "In the month of May of 1963, the visit of Dr. Eugene Nida of the American Bible Society to the Bible Office of Madrid, accompanied with the [Catholic] fathers Serafis Ausejo and Fuenterrabbia...showed that the Protestant Bible Societies had made a turn towards ecumenicalism..." 109
What Bible Believer, in his right mind (especially a King James Bible believer), would desire a translation that used the corrupt, eclectic texts of man, especially if it was an ecumenical Bible translated with the intention of unifying Protestants and Catholics? I sure wouldn't! How is it possible that so many Independent, Fundamental, Baptist Missionaries, who claim to be anti-ecumenical, Anti-Catholic, and anti-RSV in English, would defend the 1960 Spanish perversion and still claim to be King James in English? Valera most certainly would not have used the 1960 Spanish perversion. He would have revised it with the right texts! His following words should be heeded by modern Fundamentalists: "For it is not good to confirm the certain with the uncertain, the word of God with the word of men."
At first the 1960 Spanish Bible was not well accepted. Many liked their Antigua version and continued using it. However, the Bible Societies did a very devious thing. To sell more of the '60, they inserted the C.I. Scofield Bible notes in the margin. 110 Many people then flocked to buy it, never questioning the text itself, desiring more the notes of man.
After the 1960, many Catholic translations of the Spanish Bible came to light, as well as other revisions, claiming to be Reina-Valera Bibles, yet these inserted even more Critical Texts. We also see Eugene Nida's influence (dynamic equivalence) throughout these new versions.
The first of these was the 1966 Versión Popular (Popular Version) of the New Testament, also known as Dios Habla Hoy (God Speaks Today). This version followed closely the principles of dynamic equivalence (Nida's teaching), and was again revised in 1971. 111 It was published in two editions – one with and one without the apocrypha. 112 Obviously, this was to sell to both Catholics and Protestants. (The United Bible Society is handing these versions out with the Apocrypha in the mountains of Intibucá, Honduras, where I have worked as a Missionary. In the front, Catholic Bishop Raymundo Damascenco Asiss of Argentina condones this version. This is a Catholic Bible being distributed by so-called Protestant Bible Societies! How can this be?)
In 1967, the Catholics printed the Jerusalem Bible, translated under the direction of J.A. Ubieta, 113 and revised it in 1975. 114 Three Protestants and four Catholics working under the direction of Serafín de Ausejo produced The Ecumenical N.T. of 1968. The first edition saw more than one million printings, which were then given away in Hispanic America. 115
1972 brought to light the Catholic Biblia Latino-Americana, the work of Chilean priests. 116 It has almost more notes than Bible text. Next we find The New Spanish Bible, produced by a group of specialists directed by Luis Alonso-Shöckel and Luis Mateos. The N.T. of this version was first printed in 1966, and the whole Bible in 1976 and '77 in Madrid.117 1972 also saw the printing of the Nuevo Testamento Viviente (Living New Testament), which was an adaptation of the Kenneth Taylor's Living Bible Paraphrase in English. 118
La Biblia de las Americas came next, published by the Lockmann foundation in 1973. It used the Nestle Greek text (23rd Edition). 119
In 1977, a revision of the 1960 was published by CLIE. It claimed to have done a more thorough revision of the 1960 using various texts and translations. 120 The edition I own was printed by the Bible League, South Holland, Illinois.
The Book for the People of God, appeared in autumn of 1980. It is an Argentinian translation by Armando J. Levoratti and Alfredo B. Trusso. 121
Some Baptists put out a version in 1989 called The Reina-Valera Actualizada. 122 This revision of the 1909 is very corrupt. In the copy I own, put out by the Editorial Mundo Hispano in El Paso, Texas, the Introduction states that the corrupt Stuttgartensia Hebrew text was consulted in the work of the Old Testament, and the United Bible Societies corrupt GNT3 was used in the New. 123
In 1992, the Casa de la Biblia printed a revision of the 1966 text in Madrid Spain. The work took over nine years with a team of thirty priests working under the direction of Santiago Guijarro. We are told that this Catholic version was full of doctrinal notes. 124
1995 brought the new Reina-Valera 1995 Revision that is in wide acceptance today. This version is put out by the United Bible Societies and is sold with the slogan, "Mas brillante que nunca" (brighter than ever). 125 In a recent issue of "The Bible in the Americas" we read "The RV 1995 has the same textual basis as the 1960 edition, but includes notes in which it gives reasons as to the principal variants in it with respect to the critical text." 126
Both the 1995 and 1960 claim to be based on the Textus Receptus, but as we have seen, they are not completely TR, as they have many critical text readings in them.
Eugene Nida's mark can be seen in the first sentence of the preface of the 1995 RV. It says, "The Bible is the book containing the MESSAGE of God for all humanity." 127 Obviously, the translators used the dynamic equivalence method in their work.
In 1999, probably the worst of all Spanish Bibles came to light. This was La Nueva Versión International or as we know it in English, the New International Version. This corrupt version, which doesn't even contain Acts 8:37 (the whole verse is removed), was the work of the International Bible Society, and was translated from the English NIV. It outright states in its Preface that it is based upon, "The Greek critical text." 128
1999 also brought us the corrupt Biblia Textual, which claimed to be a Reina-Valera version. This perversion put out by the Sociedad Biblica IberoAmericana, printed in Spain, claims to be a "definitive adaptation of the Reina-Valera to the Textual Base that today, thanks to the findings of Biblical archeology and the advances in the critical texts, guarantee with most purity and faithfulness the Sacred Autographs, such as the Stuttgartensia Hebrew Bible and the New Greek Text [of Nestle-Aland]. 129 This is just too much! How could they even think to put the name Reina-Valera on this perversion? Neither Reina nor Valera would condone it, much less use it. It's against everything they stood for!
Perhaps now would be a good time to show the prefaces of both the Stuttgart Hebrew text and the New Greek text of Nestle-Aland, and prove they are corrupt critical texts based on perverted Catholic manuscripts.
On page XIII of the Stuttgartensia Hebrew perversion, I quote, "We can here at last fulfill Kittel's promise to present the Masora of Codex L in its entirety...The large Masora has been printed separately, and it is a welcome sign of the times that it was published jointly in 1971 by the Württemberg Bible Society, Stuttgart, and the Pontifical Biblial Instititute of Rome." 130
Here we find the text connected with Rome. Who would want a critical text version to begin with, and moreover, who would want an Old Testament connected with the Roman Catholic Church? Both Reina and Valera most certainly would not!
Of the Novum Testamentum Graece (New Greek Testament), of Nestle-Aland, I quote pg 44, "It was almost a century ago that in 1898 the Württemberg Bible Society published Eberhard Nestle's first edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece...based on the great textual critics of the nineteenth century. It is well known how he compared the editions of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth, adopting the agreements of [the] two for his text." 131
On page 45 we read about the GNT text, put out by the American Bible Society, as well as his 26th Edition of the Nestle-Aland. It states: "The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies, it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships." 132
Did you get that? Both the Stuttgartensia Hebrew Critical text of the O.T. and the Greek Critical Texts of the New are pro-Roman Catholic. And these are the texts used today by both Protestants and Catholics alike in their translation work. They are nothing more than corrupt, ecumenical, Catholic texts!
This is why all true Bible Believers need to have a pure revision of the Spanish Bible based only on God's pure correct texts, not on the critical texts of men. I'm sure that if Reina and Valera knew that Bible Societies were butchering their Bibles to make them more in line with the Catholic texts they tried to rid their translations of, they'd roll over in their graves!
As before mentioned, modern translators and scholars believe that the critical texts of men (based on corrupt Roman Catholic manuscripts) are the better, older, more reliable, etc. They are actively hostile toward the Textus Receptus texts, and try to undermine it in any way they can to bring people back to Rome. Look at the following two quotes. The first is from Eugene Nida himself, and the second from Kurt and Barbara Aland:
"For the New Testament text the United Bible Societies sponsored the work of an international and interconfessional committee, which studied all of the relevant manuscript evidence in order to produce the earliest recoverable text. This text, published as the Greek New Testament (at present in the corrected third edition) and the Nestle-Aland twenty-sixth edition, has been particularly appreciated by those who hold most firmly to the view of inspiration, since they naturally are anxious to have a form of the text which is as close as possible to the original autographs." 133
"How firmly the Textus Receptus was entrenched in these areas is shown by the fact that the British and Foreign Bible Society, then the largest and most influential of all the Bible societies, continued to distribute it officially for fully twenty years after the publication of the Westcott and Hort's edition. It was not until 1904 that it adopted the Nestle text, which was then in its fifth edition. This marked the final defeat of the Textus Receptus, nearly four hundred years after it was first printed.
Voices have been raised recently in the United States claiming superiority for the Textus Receptus over modern editions of the text, but they are finding little favourable response outside some limited circles." 134
Do not these quotes show bias on the part of Bible Societies, translators, and scholars? How can anyone miss this? The Bible Societies are in bed with the Great Whore . They desire to use her corrupt manuscripts instead of the Majority of witnesses. And they are openly claiming defeat of the Textus Receptus. How can this be? Further, how can someone be Textus Receptus in English (the KJV), but Critical Text in Spanish (the 1960)?
So beloved of modern Catholic translators, and liberal Bible scholars is the critical text, that I found a recent version of the Spanish Scriptures entitled, Sagrada Biblia: Versión Critica sobre los Textos Hebreo, Arameo, y Griego (Holy Bible: Critical Version based on the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). This Catholic version was the work of Francisco Cantera Burgo, and Manuel Iglesias Gonzalez (a professor at the Bible Institute of Rome), printed in Madrid, Spain in 2000. 135 It is based entirely upon the critical texts, using Kittel for the O.T. 136 and the American Bible Society's GNT for the New. 137
The year 2000 also spewed out the corrupt New Testament of the Biblia en Lenguaje Sencillo (Bible in Simple Language). The whole Bible of this same title was published in 2003. Another similar version is that of La Traducción en Lenguaje Actual (TLA). This version, according to the pamphlet given to me by those at the United Bible Society in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, claims to be based upon, "The Stuttgartensia Hebraica and the fourth edition of the Greek New Testament." 138
Other Bibles and Translations of the scriptures after the 1960 Spanish Bible are as follows:
1961 Félix Puzo
1961 Alejandro Diez Macho
1962 Toluca, Mexico (N.T.)
1970 Profesores Compañía de Jesus
1971 Bartina Roquer.
1972 Viviente (N.T.)
1975 Cantera Iglesias
1986 De las Américas
1993 Del Peregrino
1994 Americana San Jerónimo
2000 Nuevo Milenio.
2003 Universidad de Navarra 139
So there you have it. The History of the Spanish Bible has been one of constant change. No one edition or version has endured since 1602 like our blessed King James has from 1611. Both Reina and Valera requested revision of their work, and because of this, many versions of the Spanish Bible were produced. Sadly, the majority of these were and are today corrupt versions mixed with critical, Catholic texts. There has never been a pure Spanish Bible for the Spanish-speaking people, like our infallible, and inerrant King James in English. And instead of the body of Christ working today to reach this goal, they have grown lax, simply settling on the 1909 or 1960, and allowing apostates Bible Societies, controlled by Rome, to give them corrupt versions, full of the Critical Texts of men.
How can this be? When will it stop? Does anyone care? Some important questions need to be asked, such as: "Why aren't more true Bible Believers taking a stand against these critical text translations?" And, "Why is the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible the most used version among modern Fundamentalist Missionaries, who claim to be KJV in English?"
In our next chapter, I present some Gringos who have desired to work toward the goal of giving the Spanish Speaking people a pure word of God in Spanish. These men have either taken a stand for a purer Bible, or done the work of translation themselves.
Sadly, most Spanish Speakers don't know there's a problem with their Bible, and because of this, many Fundamentalist American Missionaries (usually '60 users) state that we shouldn't tell them the truth, claiming that it would confuse them and destroy their faith. This is not only deceitful, but is exactly what Satan wants, and is the very reason we have a controversy to begin with. Too many have kept their mouth shut, and stood idly by while evil men and apostate Bible translators have perverted the word of God! It's about high time someone spoke up! Bible Societies need to be exposed for the ecumenical, compromisers they are, otherwise more apostasy will creep in, and Hispanics will eventually be led completely back to Rome.
Because most Hispanics don't know their Bibles are pro-Catholic, it then falls upon English Speakers who know both English and Spanish to show them the truth about their Bible. We should not sit still and watch apostasy continue. Instead the correct approach would be to stand against perverted translations, and work towards getting Spanish Speakers the pure words of God in their own language. Some Gringos have taken it upon themselves to do so. This chapter will present these men, who they are, and what they've done to try to give Spanish Speakers a pure word of God in their own language.
The first Gringos that I know of that tried to make a stand for what they thought was a pure Spanish Bible are those of Broken Arrow Ministry in Pearce, Arizona. Pastor Clyde Thacker of the Broken Arrow Baptist Church (now deceased), began printing the Enzinas 1543 New Testament, believing it to be a purer version in Spanish. I have a copy of this in my library. The words are printed as in the original 1543, with the antiquated spelling of the words in Old Spanish (as Reina's and Valera's original edition). It also has no verse numbers, making it very hard to find verses. Inside the front cover, it says, A Ministry of Broken Arrow Baptist Church, Pearce, AZ, first printing, 1996, (1000 copies).
The story goes that Kent Rabe, a Hyles-Anderson Missionary to Mexico, came to Bro. Thacker's church and convinced Pastor Thacker that the Enzinas was the right version in Spanish. Mr. Thacker didn't know Spanish, but was convinced and determined to print the Enzinas N.T. in the church's printing press.
However, shortly thereafter, Bro. Thacker was murdered by a drug addict (a bullet to the head). Many 1960 Spanish Bible defenders have coldly stated that this was the judgment of God upon him for being against their beloved 1960 version.
Tim Thacker, Clyde's son, then took over. In January 1996, a three day Spanish Bible Conference was held in Arizona at Broken Arrow Baptist Church. There several men claimed the Enzinas was the word of God and it should be printed. One of these was Dennis Deno, who desired to print the pure words of God in Spanish (he is now printing the 1865).140
As far as I know, Broken Arrow Baptist is the only one that defended the Enzinas. Eventually the movement lost popularity, and many of those who stood behind it looked for other pure versions.
From another source, I've read, supposedly Bro. Thacker had a group of Hispanics working on translating the entire N.T. 141 But I am unable to find any further information on this.
A New Testament translation based entirely upon the King James English Bible came out later, printed by Pilgrim Baptist Church, Abingdon, Virginia. It was the work of Bernard McVey, a Missionary to Central America. McVey translated directly from the King James Bible into Spanish. The title page reads, Biblia Autorizada del Rey Jaime 1611 (Authorized King James Version 1611).
Many have ridiculed this translation, calling it a literal interlinear translation, or a transliteration, instead of a readable version in Spanish. 142 The problem that people have with this version is McVey's choice of words. He tried as much as possible to give the most literal and closest words to those of the King James Bible. However, this many times causes confusion to a Spanish Speaker.
Missionary Rex Cobb says of this translation, "Many years ago, Mr. McVey sent me a portion of his N.T. to check out because he heard that I was a 'Bible Believer.' He asked me to check it for closeness to the KJV. It was close, all right. It was too close! I advised him against such a literal translation, but he didn't take my advice. It is sad that someone would spend that much time to produce something unusable..." 143
Just of few examples of problems with the McVey New Testament are as follows:
Fantasma Santo vs Espiritu Santo.
In Spanish, you cannot say "Holy Ghost." It is always written as "Espíritu Santo" (Holy Spirit). However, McVey writes the Spanish words "Fantasma Santo" for the English KJV reading of "Holy Ghost." Some have stated that this is the equivalent in Spanish of saying a "Holy Spook" in English.
Rectitud vs Justicia
McVey uses the word "rectitud" in Spanish when translating the English word "righteousness." All Spanish speakers would not understand this, for rectitud literally means "straightness" in English. The right Spanish word, and the one used in all Spanish Bibles for righteousness is justicia.
Unico engendrado vs unigenito...
Here McVey takes the English word, "only begotten" and translates it "unico engendrado." This is literally, the only generated one. The Spanish word for only begotten used by almost all Spanish Bibles is unigenito.
Sufrir vs Dejar
Sufrir in Spanish means literally "to suffer." But the connotation of the word brings with it the suffering of pain. It is the same in English. However, in Old English, the word suffer means "to allow," and this is the way the word is used in Matthew 3:15 in the King James Bible. Yet McVey translates the word into Spanish as "sufre" (suffer) instead of "deja" or "let." This is a strong condemnation of McVey's work by many people. But in his defense, I found that in the Oceano Spanish Dictionary 2002 edition, that the word sufrir in Spanish can also mean to aguantar (put up with) or tolerar (tolerate), which is much closer to the English meaning of suffer in the context of the English verse.
McVey's work was not well known or widely used. The simple fact being that it translated too literally the King James, and lost the Spanish flavor of the Reina-Valera. But although the McVey New Testament is not being used today, it is not all together useless. I would recommend it for a literal translation and Bible Study help for Spanish Speakers, especially those who are learning English, and want to understand the King James Bible much better.
God did not give the Spanish Speakers a King James in Spanish. Instead, he gave them a Reina-Valera Bible. Thus, to have a pure Spanish Bible, it should be understandable to Spanish speakers, as well as retain the style of the Old Valera of 1602. It should also be based entirely upon the Received Texts, and use words that are Spanish is nature, not English. That's why the McVey Spanish N.T., although based upon the right texts (those underlying the KJV), cannot be the Standard Spanish Bible. What is needed is a Reina-Valera Bible revised with the pure texts, not the corrupt Critical texts of man.
THE PENSACOLA CONNECTION AND
THE 1865 REPRINT
While still on deputation as a Missionary to Honduras, out of Bible Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida, I was approached by some brothers in my home church inviting me to their house for a meeting about the Spanish Bible. These men were Paul Garcia, and Jeff McCardle, Missionary to Cuba. The meeting was held on January 26th, 2001, and several other Spanish speaking men and Missionaries were invited.
Jeff McCardle was the main speaker, and his first words were, "Gentlemen, we've invited you here to let you know that we've finally found God's word in Spanish," 144 referring to the 1865 Spanish Bible. The opening story, as told by Bro. McCardle, (and I paraphrase his words) is as follows:
"Ernest Sigrest, a Pastor in Whitesboro, Texas, had a Hispanic Missionary in his church to preach. This man went through Bro. Sigrest's book shelves and found an old Spanish Bible and began reading it. After a short while, he began crying, stating that what he held in his hands was the pure word of God in his own language." 145
Bro. Paul Garcia went to Whitesboro, Texas to look at this version, and it turned out to be a Mora and Pratt 1865 Spanish Bible produced by the American Bible Society. At the meeting, they said that they were studying the 1865 word for word, and were already convinced that it was the word of God in Spanish. Later in this work, I'll give the same list of verses they gave me that night to prove the 1865 was the purest word of God in Spanish.
Another one of their reasons for claiming it is God's word in Spanish, is that it comes before the 1881, when Westcott and Hort did their dirty work. I've since learned that McCardle and Garcia both believe that God gave his pure word in all languages in the Philadelphia church period, and that no translation done today (even based completely on the right texts) can be accepted as God's word in any language.
Before the meeting closed, I asked to see the 1865 they had, in which I turned to Romans chapter three and verse twenty-five, the verse in which I was saved reading. Instead of the theological term, propiciación (propitiation), which almost all Spanish Bibles use, the 1865 had aplacamiento. This made me a little angry, but I did not make up my mind just because of this verse. I sought to keep an open mind, and study their version more extensively. I also requested that they'd do the same, and not jump to any conclusions too hastily.
Having studied this version more, I'm convinced it has many errors and still holds many catholic critical readings. It is a Protestant-Catholic hybrid Bible. It also changes words with no authority or reason to do so. Although I'm happy that it's being printed, and people are using a purer Spanish Bible than the 1960 and 1909, I still believe that the Spanish Speaking people deserve better. They deserve a perfect Spanish Bible without any error at all, like our perfect King James in English.
Thankfully, God showed me one, and I have been able to use it in Honduras for six years to win souls and plant churches. It is as follows.
Having finished deputation in August of 2001, I was still studying the Spanish Bible Issue trying to find the purest word of God in Spanish to take with me to the field. I knew the 1960 was perverted, and full of error. I also knew that the 1909, contained critical text readings. So I was worried about which Bible to take to the Spanish Speaking people of Honduras. I just wanted to get them the purest word of God I could.
A few months before leaving, I ran into Bro. Bob Adams of W.I.N.G.S. Bearing Precious Seed. We talked and he told me that he knew all about the Spanish Bible Issue, and that in his estimation, the purest Spanish translation was the revision being done in Monterrey, Mexico by Iglesia Biblica Bautista de Gracia (Grace Bible Baptist Church). He also told me that they were holding a Spanish Bible Conference, and I should go. I did.
The Conference was called The Inspiration and Preservation Conference. There I met the entire team behind the 1602 revision, and was very amazed at their sincerity, knowledge, desire, and convictions. This church had completely followed Valera's suggestion of revising his version with the correct texts (The Textus Receptus). They not only used the King James and Textus Receptus, but also all Protestant Bible versions in Spanish before 1569, making sure they used the right Spanish word in the majority of the texts.
Bro. William Park, a Missionary and member of Raul Reyes' church, tells a brief history of events leading to the churches desire for a pure Spanish Bible:
"The need for a revision was seen by Pastor Raul Reyes who, like many Hispanic preachers, knew and used only the Scofield Reina-Valera 1960. However, he was always deeply bothered when trying to witness to Jehovah's Witnesses, as they would throw Hades as found in Luke 16:19-31 of the Reina-Valera 1960 at him in their denial of Hell.
"Missionary Doyle Johnson, working with Pastor Raul Reyes, used a King James-1960 interlinear, and was aware of the vast differences between the two. Things began to change after the month of June, 1993 when both men were given a big Valera 1909 by Pastor Hank Thompson of the Capital City Baptist Church, Austin, Texas. Pastor Thompson was very aware of the corruptions in the Reina-Valera 1960, and was concerned that those his church supported were using it.
After an exhaustive comparative study of the 1960 and 1909, Pastor Reyes realized the vast differences, and led his church, La Iglesia Bautista Biblica de la Gracia, to change from the 1960 to the 1909. The Holy Spirit continued to work in Bro. Reyes' heart in regards to having a pure translation of the Textus Receptus in Spanish. Being able to read English, Brother Raul began comparing the 1909 with the King James. Needless to say, coming across such wide discrepancies as found in Mark 1:2; Luke 23:42; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 7:5, and many more, he realized that the 1909 had many problems. The search continued.
He then came across the American Bible Society's Mora-Pratt 1865 Valera, and felt that he had finally found a true translation of the Textus Recpetus. However, after much comparison, he realized that the Mora-Pratt 1865 had more problems than the 1909.
Frustrated, but not defeated, Pastor Reyes led the church to fast and pray for the Holy Spirit's leadership. During this time he was able to learn and to teach his people concerning the manuscripts, and why there was corruption in the Spanish Bible. In 1994, the pastor and church felt led as believer-priests to obey God by purifying Cipriano de Valera's 1602 work, using a reprint of the 1602 and the 1909 as working copies, and to base it strictly on the Textus Receptus. They decided that it would be "por, para y de" (through, for and of) the local church, if others wanted it, fine, if not fine too. Pastor Reyes even invited a Messianic Jew in Monterrey to teach the church Hebrew. Bro. Reyes said that he was amazed at how many jumped on the band wagon after La Iglesia Bautista Biblica de la Gracia began the project..." 146
This is exactly what Valera said needed to be done. Pious men learned in the Spanish language with the knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and the right texts came together to revise the Spanish Bible. Their work of collation took them many years of prayerful consideration and fasting. Before a word was changed, added or subtracted, the entire church had to pray and fast before they voted to change it. 147 Their desire was not to make a new version, but rather finish what Valera did not, which was to purify the Spanish Bible and make it perfect. They also meticulously checked the Enzinas, Perez, and other pre Valera Bibles.
In 1999, almost 400 years after the original 1602, the first edition of their work came to light. Bro. Adams gave me a copy of their first edition, and I studied it extensively. Though it had a lot of spelling mistakes, I found no doctrinal mistakes. All the verses that were wrong in the 1960, 1909, and 1865 were fixed! It followed no critical text readings!
During their conferences, I found out much more about this reverent revision, and the godly men involved. What I learned left a lasting impression. These people were earnest in their desire to give the Spanish Speaking world a pure Bible. They did not concern themselves with how many copies they'd sell or how much money they'd make, like modern revisionists, but rather were simply interested in having the pure words of God in Spanish.
The main theme of the conference was, The Priesthood of Believers. They drove this point home time and again by showing how modern Christians have given away the work of Bible translation to liberal scholars and corrupt Bible Societies, which produce more and more corrupt Bibles based on the critical texts of men. They stressed that the words of God should be kept and protected by Christ's bride, the Church, instead of modernists and liberals, who most of the time are unsaved.
They called their N.T. revision the 1602 Restaurada (Restored), claiming it undid all the corrupt revision work of modern Valera-Critical Text Bibles. I immediately began calling it the 1602 TR. (I now hear that it is being called the 1602 Purified).
Many people called the Monterrey 1602 or 1602 P the William Park's Bible. But this is foolish. Bro. Park is only a member at Bro. Raul Reyes' church. At one time, he was asked to do the entire translation work, but he declined, instead claiming the work should be done by a Local Church.
The church asked him to help in the work, and did so only under the condition that he could be a member of the Church and put himself under the authority of Pastor Reyes. In the next several years, Bro. Park taught the men Greek and Manuscript Evidence. And the work of revision (rather I should say purification) began.148
This version, now in it's fourth edition (which has revised many of the spelling errors) is what I've used on the Mission Field. I have confidence in it, and can boldly hold it high, saying, "Thus saith the word of God!"
It says what my King James does! And I know, by examination, it does not read with the critical texts! Plus, it honors the wording and flavor of the original Reina-Valera, and prior Protestant versions. It is true Spanish.
Recently the church completed their work on the Old Testament, using the Hebrew Text of Ben-Chayim, and now the whole Bible is available. In my humble estimation, the Monterrey 1602 Purified is the purest word of God in Spanish, and is the only version from which I preach.
I have been active in sending out two to three copies of this N.T. per week to people emailing me, telling me they've read my website and that they've found the 1960 and 1909 very corrupt, and they'd found some problems in 1865. They are looking for a purer word of God, and ask me to send them a 1602 TR New Testament. I'm happy to do so without cost, asking only for a small donation to help pay the shipping costs, if possible.
By now, many who've followed the Spanish Bible Issue, have heard about the book entitled, "The Elephant in the Living Room: Seeing the Shadow of the RSV in Spanish" ("El Elefante en la Sala" in Spanish). This book was put out by the Landmark Baptist Church in Haines City, Florida to show the hypocrisy in Fundamentalist ranks among Spanish-speaking defenders of the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible.
For the sake of those who haven't read the book, I'll briefly explain what happened. Pastor Mickey Carter, author of "Things Different are not the same," (exposing the corrupt Westcott and Hort Texts), and founder of Landmark Baptist College, became curious one day about which Bible they used in the Spanish Department of his Bible School. He'd heard about the Spanish Bible Controversy from a friend, and wanted to make sure that the Spanish students had a version as close to the King James as possible. Upon investigating, Bro. Carter found that the Spanish director, Elmer Fernandez, was using the corrupt 1960 Spanish bible that contained critical text readings. Pastor Carter then had a meeting with Mr. Fernandez, and in his own words, says, "In this meeting, I gave no ultimatum or threat, only saying I could not defend the critical text in my college in contradiction to the King James Text. Certainly, it would be hypocritical to teach the King James in English and the opposite liberal text in Spanish." 149
To make a long story short, Mr. Fernandez, a pro-1960 Spanish Bible defender and big name Fundamentalist, stole the entire Spanish church and the offering, and with the help of Luis Parada of Long Beach, California, started a new Spanish Church a few blocks away. 150 All this because Bro. Carter took a stand against the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible.
After this, many Pro-1960, Spanish Speaking Fundamentalists have attacked Bro. Carter and his ministry, calling him a, "Nazi Baptist," a "pious Hitlerite," and a "Dysfunctional preacher." 151
But despite the opposition, Landmark Baptist Church and College has continued to stand against all critical text Bibles in both Spanish and English. Pastor Carter puts it very well when he says, "While most [1960 people] are good men, it is apparent that they have been misled on the true Bible trail. Many are claiming that the 1960 is from the Textus Receptus. They do not realize that its changes are from the critical text. Calvin George, one of their defenders who has regularly attacked us, admits that some of the differences in the RV 1960 'follow the critical text' and that 'the RV 1960 does have some readings which do not occur in any standard TR.' ... The truth is that when words are changed, the Critical Text is implemented." 152
Over the course of time, Landmark Baptist Church became more involved with the Spanish Bible Controversy, and in December of 2001, Pastor Carter held a Spanish Bible Conference, inviting anyone who desired a pure word of God in Spanish to attend. He again hosted a Spanish Bible Conference in September of 2002.
Jeff McCardle, a representative of the 1865 Spanish revision, spoke at this conference and said the following about Mora and Pratt, "...these two men did not produce a perfect Bible. However, there's much evidence that demonstrates that this Spanish Bible...is the closest to the King James that's available right now, I say the complete Bible. I don't say it's perfect, but I do say that the men who produced this Bible in the year 1865, produced this Bible for it to line up with the King James Bible." 153
When presented with the 1602 TR New Testament, McCardle said (after studying it) that in his estimation, it was, "Almost perfect." 154
He has since changed his mind, defending the 1865 Spanish Bible with a fervent passion, and attacking the Monterrey 1602 revision in the following words, "When we say 'Old Spanish,' we are certainly not referring to the Monterrey version of Monterrey, Mexico put out by Bill Park and Raul Reyes...When we say 'old Spanish' we are referring to the OLD Valera of 1602, which was reprinted in 1865 by the American Bible Society." 155
The truth of the matter is that the 1602 Purified from Monterrey is much older than the 1865, as it retains many Spanish words from versions before 1602 in its collation process. It also is based upon the Textus Receptus, Masoretic Hebrew and King James, while the 1865 has many changes that appear in no text on the face of the earth (see list of errors at the end of this book).
At this Spanish Bible Conference in Haines City, Florida in September 2002, which I attended, an amazing thing happened. Most of those who desired a purer version of the Spanish Bible met together in a meeting on the top floor of the James Polk Hotel, agreeing to work together to produce a pure Spanish Bible. Represented there was the 1865, the 1602 P, and others, with both Gringo and Hispanics present. Dennis Deno was also present, desiring to print the purest Spanish text.
With Dr. Carter's leading, an agreement was made between all present to work together with the goal to give the Spanish Speaking world a pure Bible. How great it was to see so many Fundamentalists come together and decide to work together! I could hardly believe my eyes! I thought for sure with all these people working together, they would certainly produce a perfect Spanish Bible. I was so very excited!
Unfortunately, this is exactly what they did not do. Instead, they left the Conference and went their separate ways. Some even attacking others.
Instead of one pure standard Spanish Bible, several men decided to do their own work of revision, based on the Textus Receptus. The first was Paco Guerrero, whom I've spoken with on two occasions when he visited Honduras. Last I heard he finished his translation of the entire New Testament, but I've yet to see it. (He was supposed to email it to me.)
The second was the Mexican Missionary Humberto Gomez, who recently began publishing his version, under the name of The Gomez Bible. It has seen several revisions and seems to be swiftly gaining acceptance.
Jeff McCardle and his 1865 group, instead of working with the others, defend their version more dogmatically, and viciously attack other versions, especially the Monterrey 1602 Purified. In an article by Mr. McCardle, published by the Bible Believer's Bulletin of August 2003, we read: "Every attempt should be made to defend every word found in the Valera 1865. The Valera 1865 is the correct Spanish text!" 156
One Sunday, while I was in the states, Bro. McCardle and I went directly to Dr. Ruckman to talk about the Spanish Bible Issue (It's interesting to note that Dr. Ruckman financially helped the Monterrey 1602 revision project). While there, we talked about the Spanish Bible, and I told Dr. Ruckman that the 1865 had some errors, the greatest of which was calling Jesus Christ, "Lucifer." This made him upset, and Bro. Jeff became quite flustered. Before leaving, Bro. Ruckman asked McCardle if they were going to revise the 1865, he said they would. (This after Jeff saying that they should defend every word of it).
While in Guatemala with Missionary Carlos Donate, in July of 2006, I learned that they did revise the 1865 Spanish Bible (with many suggestions I had in the back of my last book). However, when I examined Donate's copy of the revision, I found it still uses the same word for Lucifer as it does for Jesus.
In closing of this chapter, let me state that I believe a person has the right to choose which Spanish Bible they want to use. But they should choose based on facts, not opinion, on conviction not convenience, on truth not on preference. I have studied all the versions, and I use the 1602 P from Monterrey because it is the purest word of God in Spanish I've found to date. It is completely free of Critical Text readings. Most importantly, it doesn't call Jesus Christ Lucifer.
I believe the work of the church in Monterrey to be the answer to Valera's prayer for a revision done by pious Hispanics learned in the originals, purifying the word of God. It's not the work of a Bible Society, rather the work of Bible Believers!
Modern Defenders of the 1960 and 1909
With the blatant errors in both the 1909 and 1960 Spanish Bibles, some true Bible Believing Christian Fundamentalists have taken a stand against these perverted versions. In these last days, more and more Spanish Speakers are also waking up to the fact that they've been duped by ecumenical Bible Societies into using a version of the scriptures containing Catholic, Critical texts. They are now seeking a purer Bible in the Spanish tongue. These purer Bibles, as we've seen, include the revised 1865, the Purifed 1602 Monterrey, the Gomez Bible, and the Paco Guerrero version.
Pastor Mickey Carter once said, "In order to defend the 1960 RV you must attack the King James Bible." 157 If this be so, then the opposite is also true, to defend the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible, is to attack the King James!
I will now provide information about some of those I've come across who use and defend the perverted 1960 Spanish Bible, and prove how their stand for it obligates them to attack the English King James. How these men attempt to defend both versions I do not know. For it's impossible to be KJV in English and 1960 in Spanish! These two Bibles are just not the same.
While some are starting the see the light, the majority of Spanish Speaking Fundamentalists have decided to defend their corrupt 1960, even more dogmatically. They are so determined to defend their beloved '60, that I've recently heard some Spanish Fundamentalist Bible Schools are teaching the reason the King James reads differently than the 1960 is because the 1960 is based on the right texts and the King James reads with the wrong ones. If that way of thinking continues to be taught, then Spanish Fundamentalism has no choice but to become apostate and join the Ecumenical movement in defending modern critical text translations. Sadly it's heading that way.
Probably the best-known and most dogmatic defender of the 1960 Spanish Bible today, is Fundamentalist Missionary Calvin George. Mr. George was raised on the Mission field, and although he is a Gringo, he claims Spanish is his first language. I've had some personal correspondence with Mr. George in the early days of my ministry, and I found Mr. George to be a man who rigidly tries to defend both the 1960 in Spanish and the King James in English. But this is a hard task, as they don't both read the same, nor do they come completely from the same fountain.
In 2001, Mr. George wrote a book entitled, The Battle for the Spanish Bible. Inside on the cover page, the subtitle of his book reads, "A Fundamental Baptist's forthright defense of the Reina-Valera as the Word of God, with explanations of alleged contradictions with the King James Version; and a pointed refutation of some false allegations that attempt to discredit the Spanish Bible." 158
Notice he begins his thesis by stating he's defending the Reina-Valera, but he doesn't state which one (we learn later that for him it's the corrupt 1960 revision). He then calls all the differences between the KJV and 1960 only "alleged contradictions," and "false allegations." The rest of his book is written to explain away the differences and show that none exist, at least in his mind.
Yet later in his book, he confesses the following: "The Westcott and Hort text and its derivatives (i.e. Nestle-Aland) are examples of texts that frequently differ from the Textus Receptus. They contradict each other quite frequently...I believe Westcott and Hort texts can be consulted in the process of translating (such was the case in the Reina-Valera 1909 & 1960); however, it must not form the basis for the translation." 159
According to this statement, George admits there are contradictions between the King James (Textus Receptus) and critical texts (Westcott, Hort, and Nestle's). Astonishingly, he's unwilling to acknowledge any differences between the KJV and the 1960. This is very hypocritical.
The truth is there are many contradictions between the '60 and the KJV. Bill R. Bradley, in his critique of George's book, informs us, "As I read this book, it soon became very clear that many of the 'alleged contradictions'...were not 'alleged contradictions' at all, but genuine contradictions with the King James Bible." 160
These contradictions constitute the critical text readings in the 1960 Spanish Bible. And they are more than just contradictions, they are errors, lies, and falsehoods, some of them even affecting doctrine, as we'll see a little later.
On page 17 in his book, Mr. George proclaims, "The standard for me in English is the KJV, mainly because I believe it reflects the best manuscript evidence." 161
This would make one think he's a defender of the King James Bible, because it's based on the correct manuscripts. However, Mr. George later confesses the following: "There are a few translations in the 1909 and 1960 that may not be able to be traced to differences in TR editions ...A few departures come from a critical text." 162
But what true Bible Believer, who wants God's pure words–all of them–would want even a few critical text readings in their Bible? Not me! For the Bible tells us that a little leaven leaventh the whole lump! The truth is that critical texts are the words of men, not the words of God! How then can Mr. George defend the 1960 Revision, when it holds critical text readings of men?
In order to defend both the King James and the 1960 (remember you can't defend one without attacking the other), George weakly proclaims, "It is admitted that there are differences between the 1960 and the KJV/TR, but not to the degree of the modern versions." 163
Does this mean it's okay to use a version that doesn't have as many critical text readings as others? I trow not!
What Mr. George truly believes, can clearly be seen from the following quote in his book: "I believe it is possible for the current KJV and RV to contain human error." 164
In an email to Mr.
George, I asked him, "Do
you believe the King James Bible is the inerrant, inspired, infallible
words of God in English?" He responded in the following manner:
"That is a good question. My answer must be followed by an explanation. The following was written by someone else, although I agree with it 100%, so you can read it as if I was expressing my own view on the matter. 'I do believe by faith that the KJV derives its inspiration, its inerrancy in doctrine, and its infallible body of authority form the accurately translated autographs of the original autographs of the Holy Scriptures which underlie the KJB. The KJB is inspired, not directly, but derivatively. That is, the English words received God's breath from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. The KJV is inspired, not perfectly, but practically. It is inspired in the 'logos,' but not the 'rhema.' Because of language differences verbatim inspiration is sometimes limited, the translators added italicized words to help compensate for this difference. It is more accurate to say the KJV possesses virtual inspiration rather than verbatim inspiration. Again we are not referring to the English letters and words as inspired, living, breathing truth of God. Therefore, we believe by faith this same infallibly inspired truth has continued form the original God-breathed Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into our authorized King James Bible, thereby empowering it as God's infallible truth to the English speaking world. This resulted in an infallible canon of truth, through which the infallible Spirit of Truth can lead the English speaking Bible-Believers unto all truth.'" 165
I was hoping for a simple yes or no answer. But what he said showed that he didn't believe the KJV to be perfect, nor inspired. If that be his position in English, it must be his position in Spanish as well. Mr. George then has no infallible, perfect, inspired Bible in any language. All he has is a reliable translation (leaving room for error in it).
However, I believe I have a perfect, inspired, infallible Bible in English. Why? Because I know that my King James is God's promised words (Psalm 12:6,7) given to me through the miracle of preservation and collation, containing no critical texts of man. I also believe that my KJV is inspired, because 2 Timothy 3:16 states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
For my strong stand on the King James and against the '60, Calvin George has accused me of being an attacker of his beloved Spanish Bible. Below I present a copy of his webpage listing me as an attacker of the 1960 Spanish Bible:
Calvin George wrote another book in 2004 entitled, The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible. His reason for writing this book is found in his own words in the Foreword, "This book presents the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible in a positive light." 166
It most certainly does, as it acclaims liberal translators and exalts Eugene Nida almost to Sainthood!
The closing remarks of this book show clearly that Mr. George is not interested in God's pure, perfect WORDS, instead he only cares about the MESSAGE, as he quotes the 1960 Spanish Bible consultant Domingo Fernandez as saying:
"The immense majority of Spanish-speaking Christians love the Reina-Valera version just as it is now...We have the firm conviction that the providential hand of God has been manifested throughout the ages preserving the Sacred Scriptures, and that the MESSAGE of God to humanity has maintained itself pure, in spite of human imperfections. We can fully trust the Reina-Valera version. The MESSAGE of God remains without omissions or additions. Do not allow, dear reader, the attacks of apostate 'liberalism' to undermine your confidence in the Reina-Valera versions, which is up to now the best of all versions." 167 [emphasis added].
If Mr. George believes the above statement, it's clear that he is a follower of Nida's Dynamic Equivalence teaching, and is not at all interested in having the pure words of God in Spanish. In fact, in neither of his books does Calvin George face the true contradictions and doctrinal attacks caused by the critical text readings in the 1960.
The above quote also labels as liberals all those who try undermine confidence in the 1960, and then states that it's the best of all versions. Is this truly the case?
I will briefly now give a few horrendous critical text readings, as well as blatant doctrinal errors in the 1960, to prove the importance of having a translation based entirely upon the correct texts, with no mixture of man's critical perversion.
The 1960 revision omits translating the Greek word eike, (without a cause) in its translation. By doing so, this makes Jesus Christ a sinner. For the context of the verse is speaking of someone getting angry and because of this being in danger of judgment. This Greek word, translated "without a cause" in the King James, is also in the Greek Textus Receptus. We even find the 1909 Spanish Bible, translating it as locamente. However, the English RSV completely omits the words in English, adding the following footnote: "Other ancient authorities insert 'without a cause."
Why would anyone want to leave out a word that would make Jesus Christ in danger of judgment? For in Mark 3:5, we read that Jesus was angry. But he was not angry without a cause. He had a reason to be upset. Surely this verse is clear evidence of the 1960 Spanish translators following both the English RSV and the corrupt Nestle Critical Text (by the way, the Critical Apparatus of Nestle's shows that the Aleph and B manuscripts do not have this Greek word. This is further evidence of the corruption in the '60).
In this verse, both the King James, and the Textus Receptus have the word her, while the English RSV, 1960, and corrupt Critical text of Nestle use the word them. The verse, as it reads in the King James is as follows, "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord."
Notice the correct texts say her, while the corrupt texts have them. This is a very important distinction, and a blatant contradiction between the KJV and the 1960. The verse speaks of Mary having to offer a sacrifice of atonement for her sins according to the law in Leviticus chapter twelve. By changing the word to follow the critical text, the '60 makes Jesus Christ a sinner, in need of a sacrifice as well. This is not only erroneous, but blasphemous! According to the Bible, Jesus Christ was completely sinless (2 Cor. 5:21).
2 Corinthians 4:14
The perverted '60 here changes the word por (by), to con (with), causing one of the greatest doctrinal blunders in the history of the New Testament Church. The KJV says, "Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you."
This says that Christians shall be raised up BY Jesus, in other words, by his power. This word in Greek is dia which can be translated as by or through. However, the English RSV, as well as the '60, translates it as with. This means that Jesus Christ is still in the grave! For if Christians are going to raise WITH him, he must still be dead and not yet risen. What a fallacy! How could anyone use a version that has Christ Jesus still dead in the grave?
This verse is an attack on the deity of Christ, as both the 1960 and the RSV in English follow Nestle's Critical text in omitting the words by Christ Jesus. The Nestle's Critical Apparatus shows that these words are in the Textus Receptus, but not in the Aleph and B manuscripts. They are left out. But these words are very important to show that Jesus Christ is the Creator and one with the Trinity! Who would allow such a thing to happen? Thank God these precious words are found in the King James in this verse. (They are also in the original 1602 and 1602 Monterrey).
1 Peter 2:22
Here we find an addition to the 1960 Spanish bible from the critical texts that affects the doctrine of salvation, when we read the words para salvacion (for salvation). These two words come from the Aleph and B manuscripts and are not found in the Textus Receptus or King James. They also exist in the Catholic Latin Vulgate. This verse reads thusly in the English RSV, "Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation." This is a serious error. We do not grow into or grow up to salvation. Salvation is a free gift, not a spiritual progression.
1 Peter 3:21
In this verse, the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible subtracts the words "La figura de la cual" (which are in the 1909). Why? Because the English RSV does. An interesting note is that these words are in the Greek Textus Receptus and the corrupt Nestle's text. Why then are these words not translated in the '60? Obviously it followed the English RSV in this verse.
By subtracting these words, it makes it much easier for Baptismal Regeneration, or salvation by water baptism to be taught.
These few verses should be enough to prove that the 1960 Spanish Bible is not perfect, and is full of errors and critical text readings which follow at times the corrupt Nestle's text (based on Westcott and Hort) and the vile English RSV. But let me briefly mention that the 1960 Spanish Bible also removes the word Hell from the entire old Testament and the book of Revelation (instead translating hades), completely eliminates the word imputation, and with the Dynamic Equivalence method changes the word unicorn to buffalo every time it appears in the Bible. Should we defend a version that waters down Hell, removes doctrinal words, and adds an extra horn to animals?
In closing this brief section about Calvin George and his liberal '60 perversion, let me state that Mr. George is guilty of double speak. He claims to be a King James man because it's based on the Textus Receptus, But then he claims this is his reason for defending the modernistic Reina-Valera 1960 translation. But, as we've clearly seen, the 1960 Spanish Bible is an ecumenical Bible that departs from the Received Text in many places. Don't be fooled! The 1960 is not a perfect Spanish Bible worthy of being defended, nor is it entirely Textus Receptus.
Despite the evidence, Calvin George continues to deceive others into believing the KJV and 1960 are one and the same, and are both worth defending. From a letter dated December 28th, 2004, by Mr. George to a fellow Missionary friend of mine in Honduras, we read:
You have been chosen to receive a complimentary copy of a book which I recently wrote with the help and encouragement of a large group of missionaries to Spanish-speaking countries. I trust that this book will be a help and a blessing to you. The book is about the Spanish Bible version used by the overwhelming majority (around 90%) of fundamental Baptist missionaries and pastors. The book was written to provide documented answers to sincere questions that have been raised about the history and the men behind the Spanish Bible. Just as we have an authoritative and trustworthy Bible in our King James Version in English, so do Spanish-speakers. Although most of my attention in my writings is concentrated on the Spanish Bible, I have not wavered from my position that the KJV is God's preserved Word in English, and by conviction it is the only version I use and recommend in English."
I contend the KJV has no errors, but the 1960 Spanish revision does. And, it's impossible to put the infallible King James on the same level as the corrupted 1960 Spanish Bible.
Recapping Calvin George's position by reading his writings, we see he teaches that all contradictions between the King James and Reina-Valera 1960 are false and alleged. But he confesses that the critical texts and the Textus Receptus contradict one another continually. And then states that the '60 is based on the Textus Receptus (which it's not entirely), and only reads with the critical texts in a few places, but we should use it, because it doesn't have as many critical text readings as new versions. Finally, he claims that the 1960 is the best of all versions, but that both it and King James can contain error, and if anyone attacks the '60, he is a liberal. Am I the only one who sees a problem here?
We must remember the words of Pastor Mickey Carter, "In order to defend the 1960 RV you must attack the King James Bible."
Calvin George is not the only Missionary who claims to be a King James man in English, while standing for the 1960 in Spanish. The world is full of many Fundamentalists who use and defend both versions, claiming they are the same. But as we've seen, "Things different are not the same." 168
Because these two versions are so different, some Missionaries have to go to extremes, to explain away the differences between them, sometimes even claiming that the English Bible has mistakes, while the Spanish one is perfect. I've come across several Missionaries like this. They are King James Only with English Speakers, but 1960 defenders around Hispanics. Their position changes based upon who they fellowship with, and fluctuates back and forth to make them appear to be something they're not.
While in Honduras, I ran into many Missionaries like this. One of them invited me into his house to speak with him. He said he'd heard that I was against the 1960 Spanish Bible, and wanted to speak with me about it. Although he claimed to be a King James man in English, he confessed to me, "I don't read the English Bible anymore. I only read the Spanish 1960 Bible in my daily Bible reading."
When I pressed him about the Issue, asking if he believed the King James was God's perfectly preserved Bible in English, he replied, "No, the King James Bible has errors!"
I couldn't believe it! He continued by stating that the errors in the KJV were the word "Easter" (which should have been Passover in his opinion) and the word baptize (which he thought should have been immersion). I then tried to show him that these were not errors, but just his opinion. I then told him that the differences between the 1960 and the KJV are not just synonyms, but doctrinal errors, and complete words missing or added, and texts taken straight from the critical texts (I will give a list of more of these at the end of this book).
Rather than face the facts, and change to a purer Spanish Bible, this Missionary confessed to me, "...I've been using the 1960 for almost thirty years, and if the 1960 is incorrect, and I've been using a 'satanic bible' then it stands to reason that I've been wrong for all that time. And my ministry is then 'satanic.' That I can't accept." 169
He continued, "If I told the churches I've started that the 1960 was a bad translation, it would do more harm than good."
He then confessed, "Unfortunately, some of them are already moving to the 1995 RV, the Good News for Modern Man in Spanish, and others...We need to just tell them that the 1960 is it, and make them use it so everyone will have the same Bible, as many different versions will confuse the people." 170
Sadly, this is the position of many Gringo Missionaries to Spanish Speaking countries. When faced with the truth, they are too prideful to admit they've used a corrupt Spanish Bible. So rather then change and stand for a purer word of God, they defend the best of the worst–the least corrupted of the new age, apostate, critical text Spanish Bibles.
Needless to say, I did not make friends with this Missionary, who tried to make me look like a heretic in front of other Christian brothers at a Spanish Bible Debate eleven days later.
It's sad to see how apostate most Fundamentalist Missionaries are. Many claim to be Bible Believers but they aren't even Bible Readers. For if they read their King James with the '60, they couldn't help but see the blatant differences between them.
Instead of seeking a pure Spanish Bible, most modern Fundamentalist Missionaries, are happy with a version produced by malevolent Bible Societies who seek to dethrone God's pure word, and give people Catholic Bibles in their place. So happy, in fact, that they dogmatically defend them and label as liberals, all others who attack their translations. When presented the differences and the critical text errors in their blessed RSV '60, most reject it without even studying the issue. Because of peer pressure, most have determined to defend the '60 at all cost. But this has not always been the case, at least not in English.
When the English RSV came out, many Fundamentalist (King James Only) preachers cried aloud against it, claiming it to be an apostate, modernistic translation. But now, many of these same Fundamentalists are adamantly defending a version in Spanish based on the same RSV. How can this be? Not only are they calling it the word of God now, but they are attacking others who even attempt to mention the problems in it. How can this be? If the RSV is a critical text translation in English, it's a critical text translation in Spanish. Sadly, many Missionaries are standing for the very thing in Spanish that they stood against in English. This means that they are just as liberal as those on the RSV committee that they used to preach against.
In October of 2004, the afore mentioned Missionary in Honduras called me at my house, asking me if I'd like to debate a Bob Jones graduate, about the Spanish Bible Issue in front of over 100 Spanish Pastors in Honduras. This Bob Jones graduate was a Missionary in Honduras at the time, and most of the brethren there looked at him as one of the foremost authorities on the History of the Spanish Bible. I said I'd be happy to debate this Missionary as long I was able to pick the format. This I was told I could do.
However, before the debate began, this Missionary came up and told me, "We will go five minutes each to present our opening statements, next we will have twenty minutes apiece to speak, and then we will have five minutes apiece to ask each other questions." This was not the format I desired, but I agreed.
The Missionary then opened the debate shortly thereafter, taking time he wasn't allotted to say what he desired. Afterwards, he began his five-minute opening, in which he showed the audience a passage in the Old Testament and a quote of it in the New, which read a little different. He then said, "This is proof that a translation can never be perfect!"
He then talked about how the Majority of those present used the 1960, and how it was a "good" Bible. But also recommended the 1909 as a "reliable translation" (the same line that liberal scholars give about the ASV, RSV, RV, etc. in English). He then continued by saying that he was against "Modernist" Bibles because they come from the Alexandrian manuscripts, and that he defended the Received Text and Masoretic Texts as the authorities.
When my turn came, I took less than my allotted five minutes, and read only the following three verses: Deuteronomy 4:2, Prov. 30:5,6, and Rev. 22:18,19. I then said that God's words are precious and we should desire to keep them – all of them!
The Bob Jones graduate then came up to the podium and said, "The 1909 and 1960 are the preserved word of God in Spanish." But then he said, "But they do contain some errors in them in my opinion, for example using 'hades' instead of the word 'infierno.'"
If that weren't enough, he continued by saying that the word of God was inspired and then preserved, but it was only preserved in the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts, and that a translation of them can never be perfect. He then confessed that the 1909 and 1960 were not perfect, and that no perfect translation from the pure preserved texts in the original languages could ever exist.
He continued by saying that both the 1909 and 1960 came from the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Texts, and that because of this, they were the WORD OF GOD in Spanish. (Which of course is a half truth, as both the 1909 and 1960 come from both the Textus Receptus and the critical texts of men, of which he supposedly rejects).
I then was given my twenty minutes, in which I did my best to show the history of the Spanish Bible, and how both the 1909 and 1960 contain some of these Critical Text readings. I then gave them some examples of doctrinal attacks in the 1960, showing how many of these were corrected in the less corrupt 1909, and I closed by being careful to tell them about the 1602 Purified from Monterrey, which was really based completely on the Textus Receptus. (I handed out a lot of these to Pastors after the debate).
As we started our question and answer session, he began with, "Do you believe that the King James Bible is inspired and perfect?" This I refused to answer, as our debate was about the Spanish Bible Issue. He then asked if I believed if the italicized words in the KJV were inspired, and I also refused to answer, as this debate is not about the English, but the Spanish versions. I could tell his intention behind this line of questioning make the crowd think that I only would accept a Bible in Spanish based entirely on the King James, and not the Textus Receptus.
Then came my turn to ask questions. I started with "Do you believe that a translation can be inspired or perfect?"
His answer was a dogmatic "No!"
I then asked him, "Where is the perfect and complete word of God today?"
He replied, "In the Hebrew Masorectic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus."
I then asked, "If you use the King James in English because it is from the right texts, why don't you use a version in Spanish that comes from the same texts, rather than from the Critical (wrong) texts?"
His answer was a lie. He said that the 1960 and 1909 come entirely from the Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masorectic Texts, and not from the Critical Texts at all.
I went on, asking, "Do you speak Hebrew or Greek?"
His answer was "No!"
I then asked, "Dear sir, if you believe that the Greek TR and Hebrew MT are the pure preserved words of God, and that there can never exist a pure and perfect word of God translated from them, why then don't you learn Hebrew and Greek and teach it to others so they can read the word of God?"
This set the crowd on edge. I watched several men shake their head in approval of the question.
I then continued, "Would you use a Catholic Bible?" This one really hit home with the crowd, as most of them were Catholic before they were saved, and are very anti-Catholic.
His reply was, "I have and I will!"
This upset some of the brethren. I pressed on with, "Are you ready to change to a purer Bible, and if not, why not?" (I do not remember his response on this one). My final question was, "Do you think that God would be happy with a version of the Bible that contains Critical Text translations?"
He would not answer, and then tried to ask me, "Would you reject a Bible if it only had one Critical Text in it?"
I reminded him it was my turn to ask questions, not his, and I countered with, "Would you drink a glass of water if it had only one drop of poison in it?"
That was the end of the debate. I then came to the conclusion that this man is an apostate liberal, who's not interested in having God's pure words, settling only on reliable translations (which he claims can never be perfect). I noticed some of the people in the crowd were in agreement with me, as they came up to speak with me afterwards. One Pastor said, "He claims that a translation can never be perfect, and that the only perfect word of God preserved today is in Hebrew and Greek, which he can't read. Thus he doesn't have a perfect Bible, nor can he read it!"
After the conference, I spoke with my opponent again, and another debate quickly ensued. He blamed Dr. Peter S. Ruckman for all the confusion about the Bible in English and Spanish, saying that he is the one that began making people think that a translation in another language should read like the King James Bible.
He said, "If he hadn't started preaching that the King James in English was a perfect, inspired translation, we wouldn't have any of these problems. Thus, it's all his fault, and the fruit of his ministry is to only cause division among brethren." 171 (Yet he was the divider, recommending two versions, the 1909 and 1960, which he didn't even think were perfect!)
So, that was my first debate. I felt this Bob Jones graduate did a much better job than I did or ever could of exposing himself as an apostate Bible Corrector. He also showed the people that he doesn't have a Bible, and has nothing to offer the people but his own opinion (controversy), which is: they should use either the 1909 or the 1960. Both of these he calls the word of God in Spanish because they came from the right texts (a lie, because they have many critical text insertions).
This concludes my book about the History and Truth of the Spanish Bible Controversy. I've done my best to present the FACTS about the issue, rather than just give my opinion. I hope these facts will convince others to take a stand for a pure word of God in the Spanish tongue.
My stand will always be the same. I am a King James Bible Believer. I know I have a perfect Bible in English, because it came from God's preserved texts, and not from man's critical readings. But in Spanish, that's another thing. The history of the Spanish Bible has been one of much corruption with Catholic versions (containing man's critical text readings) seeing the most production. Instead of a pure Spanish Bible based entirely upon pure texts, Hispanics have instead been given Catholic translations or Catholic-Protestant hybrids. Most of these came from Bible Societies, who today not only print Catholic Bibles, but work along side Catholics in producing new Critical Text perversions of the scriptures.
Although the 1909 contained a very small amount of critical texts readings, it still became the standard Spanish Valera Bible among Spanish Speakers for over fifty years. Sadly, it was replaced by the 1960 revision, which is far worse. Only a hand full of people are now starting to wake up to the fact that the '60 is not perfect. Others are changing from the 1960 to even more perverted versions (like the RV 1995 and Spanish NIV), believing the lie that they are better and more reliable.
Instead of Fundamentalists joining together to fight apostasy and the corrupt, ecumenical Bible Societies, we find them fighting amongst themselves, and attacking one another. Even those who are diligently seeking a pure Spanish Bible can't even join together toward the same goal.
Will the Spanish-speakers ever have a pure translation in their language? This remains to be seen. To date, I believe the purest Spanish Bible out there is the 1602 Purificada, by Iglesia Biblica Bautista de Gracia, in Monterrey, Mexico, who diligently completed both Reina and Valera's desire to purify their work with a group of pious Spanish-speakers using the correct texts.
Yet I'm not against the Guerrero or Gomez that are now being produced. To me, the Spanish-speaking world is like the English one prior to the King James. There existed the Geneva, the Bishop's Bible, the Matthew's, The Great Bible, the Coverdale, and more. These were all Textus Receptus translations. But God overlooked them all, making the King James 1611 Bible the standard, and perfect English Bible. Maybe these are the same as those versions prior to the KJV, and God will use these in the work of collation to bring about a perfect Spanish bible in the future.
All I know is that my desire is to tell people the truth about the Spanish Bible Controversy, and expose the liberal apostate agenda of bringing modern Christianity to Rome through ecumenical liberal translations. I just want to get the purest word of God into the hands of the Spanish-speaking people, regardless of what others do. They'll give account to God for their actions, just as I will. And I want to be able to stand before God at the Judgment Seat of Christ, knowing I followed my conscience, and did the best I could to get the purest Spanish Bible into the hands of the Hispanic people. Do you, dear reader, share my same desire? How precious are God's words to you? Do you share Valera's sentiments, "For it is not good to confirm the certain with the uncertain, the word of God with the words of men."
JUST SOME ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS IN THE ORIGINAL 1569 BIBLIA DE OSO
Gen. 46:20 Reina adds words from the LXX in italics (Valera removes them).
Exod. 2:22 Reina adds words from the LXX in italics (Valera removes them).
Lam. 1:1 Reina adds this entire verse from the LXX, not in italics (Valera removes them).
Psalm 14:3 Reina adds words from the Vulgate in italics (Valera removes them)
Proverbs 14:21 Reina adds "El que cree en el Señor ama la misericordia" in italics from Vulgate (Valera removes it)
Matthew 21:46 Entire verse omitted
Rom. 3:28 Words "by faith" omitted
Hebrews 12:29 Entire verse omitted
SOME PLACES IN PROVERBS WHERE THE ORIGINAL 1569 READS WITH THE VULGATE AND LXX
Proverbs 4:27 Reina adds "Porque los caminos que son a la diestra conoce el Señor. Mas los que son a la siniestra, son perversos: Mas el hara derechas tus carreras: y tus caminos guiará."
Proverbs 5:2 Reina adds "No mires al engaño de la mujer." (sounds Catholic).
Proverbs 7:1 Reina adds "Hijo, honra al Señor, y valdrás: más fuera de él no temas otro, ó ajeno."
Proverbs 9:18 Reina adds "Porque el que se llegare a ella, decendirá a los infiernos: y el que de ella se apartare sera salvo. (Salvation by running away from a woman? Sounds Catholic).
Proverbs 10:4 Reina adds "El que estriba en mentiras, apacienta a los vientos: y el mismo sigue las aves que vuelan."
Proverbs 12:1 Reina adds "El que es suave en los detenimientos del vino, en sus fortalezas deja afrenta."
Proverbs 13:13 Reina adds "Las almas engañosas erran en pecados, mas los justos son misericoridiosos y han compasión."
Proverbs 14:15 Reina adds "El hijo engañoso ningún bien habrá: mas el siervo sabio tendrá buenos hechos, y su camino será enderezado."
Proverbs 15:2 Reina adds "Por la misericordia y fe se purgan los pecados: y por el temor del Señor todo se aparta del mal."
Proverbs 15:5 Reina adds "En la justicia abundante hay gran virtud: mas los pensamientos de los ímpios serán desarraigados.
Proverbs 16:5 Reina adds "El principio de buen camino hacer justicia, y acerca de Dios es mas accept que sacrificar sacrificios.
Proverbs 17:16 Reina adds "El que hace alta su casa busca la caída: y el que evita el aprender, caerá en males."
Proverbs 18:8 Reina adds "Al perezoso abate el temor, y las almas de los cobardes habrán hambre."
Proverbs 18:22 Reina adds "El que echa la mujer buena, echa el bien: mas el que tiene la adultera, es loco y necio. "
Proverbs 22:9 Reina adds "Victoria y honra ganará el que da dones: mas quita el alma de los que toman."
Proverbs 24:32 Reina adds "hasta cuanto perezoso dormirás? Cuando te levantarás de tu sueño?"
Proverbs 25:10 Reina adds "La gracia y la amistad libran, las cuales guarda para ti, porque no seas zaherido."
Proverbs 25:20 Reina adds "Como la polilla a la ropa y el gusano a la madera, así tristeza del varón daña al corazón."
Proverbs 27:21 Reina adds "El corazón del iniquo inquiere malas cosas, mas el corazón recto inquiere la ciencia."
Proverbs 29:27 Reina adds "El hijo que guarda la palabra, fuera de perdicion sera."
A FEW PROBLEMS WITH THE ORIGINAL1602 REVISION BY VALERA
Matthew 1:1 Inserts the words "a Ioacim. Y Ioacim engendró" in brackets (as the 1569 also).
Matthew 5:1 Inserts the word "Jesus" which is not in the TR.
Matthew 7:14 The text has verse 14 as verse 13.
Matthew 14:36 Says a person was saved (salvo) by simply touching Christ's garments. Big error!
Matthew 24:2 Changes the word "Jesus" to "el"
Mark 6:44 Lacks the word "como" (like).
Luke 9:43 Lacks the word "Jesus." Follows the Vulgate and Aleph and B here.
Acts 17:26 Omits the words "una sangre" (one blood), although it's in the footnote.
Romans 1:16 Lacks the words "de Cristo" (of Christ).
Romans 15:29 Lacks the words "del evangelio" (of the gospel).
1 Peter 2:2 Keeps in the words "en salud" that come from the Latin Vulgate version (in salutem).
THE LIST GIVEN ME BY JEFF McCARDLE IN JANUARY 2001 OF TEXTUS RECEPTUS WORDS FOUND IN THE 1865 SPANISH BIBLE WHICH ARE LEFT OUT OF OTHER SPANISH VERSIONS
Mark 2:17 "Arrepentimiento" found in text
Luke 17:36 "hombres"
Luke 24:40 "sus" Whose hands and feet are they, anyhow? (But these words are italicized).
Acts 10:6 English – oughtest; Spanish – debes (no other Spanish Bibles have debes)
Acts 23:9 English – fight; Spanish – pelear
Romans 1:16 "de Cristo"
1 Cor. 1:18 "predicaccion"
Ephesians 3:9 "por Cristo" (1602 in brackets)
Acts 20:28 "la iglesia de Dios, la cual el ganó con su propia sangre"
Daniel 3:25 "hijo de Dios"
2 Timoteo 2:15 "que distribuye bien la palabra de verdad"
LIST OF VERSES FROM JEFF McCARDLE SHOWING THE VALERA 1865 & 1602 AGAINST THE 1909 AND 1960
Matthew 15:8 "Este pueblo con su boca se acerca a mi."
Mark 9:24 "Señor"
Mark 11:10 "que viene en el nombre del Señor"
Luke 11:29 "profeta"
Acts 7:30 "angel del Señor"
1 Cor. 7:5 "ayuno" (fasting)
2 Cor. 4:10 "Señor Jesús"
2 Cor. 5:18 "Jesús"
SOME ERRORS AND CRITICAL TEXT READINGS I'VE FOUND IN THE 1865 SPANISH BIBLE (1st Edition)
Leviticus 17:11,14 Changes vida to alma. This is a blaring error.
Ps. 12:6,7 Says the people of Israel are preserved, not the words of God. Does away with Doctrine of Preservation
Ezek. 28:15 Changes perfecto to acabado, making it easy for apostates to preach that Satan is finished.
Matthew 5:1 Says "Jesus" (as does the original 1602), but this is not found in TR or any Greek Text.
Matthew 8:1 Adds Jesus in italics although its not found in TR or any Greek Text.
Matthew 14:36 Says people were saved (salvos) by simply touching Christ's garments. Big doctrinal error!
Matthew 16:13 Fails to translated the Greek word me (soy yo in Spanish. The 1602 original has this in margin)
Matthew 24:2 Omits the word Jesus, following the Vulgate.
Mark 1:41 Adds the words "de él" which are not found in the TR, but are in original 1602.
Mark 6:44 Omits "como"
Mark 8:25 Adds "de lejos"
Mark 15:3 Removes "mas el no respondió nada" as does the original 1602. (Follows Vulgate).
Mark 11:19 Follows original 1602 in changing "he" to "Jesus" (Jesus is not in any Greek text).
Luke 2:9, 15 Changes Lord to God
Luke 9:43 Omits the word Jesus, as do Aleph, B, and the Vulgate.
John 1:1,14 Retains the Catholic word "Verbo" instead of the true Reina-Valera word "Palabra."
John 10:11 Says that Jesus gave his alma (soul) instead of his life for his sheep.
John 14:28 & 16:10 Changes "mi padre" to "el padre" as do Aleph, B, and the Vulgate. (See also 16:25 & 8:28)
Acts 8:16 Omits Señor.
Acts 8:25 Changes Señor to Dios.
Acts 16:10 Changes Señor to Dios, following the Vulgate, Aleph, and B. (It does the same in 17:27)
Acts 22:16 Removes the words "El Señor" (the Lord), reading with the Vulgate and Critical Texts.
2 Cor. 10:18 Changes Señor to Dios, following no text on Earth! (The same is done again in 2 Tim. 4:14)
1 Tim. 6:1 Changes Dios to Señor, with no textual basis. No Greek text reads Señor.
Hebrews 4:8 Has "Josue" (Joseph) instead of "Jesus."
James 1:12 Changes Señor to Dios, following the Latin Vulgate reading.
1 Peter 1:5 Adds in italics alcanzar making it seem that a person can attain their salvation by works.
1 Peter 1:23 Change in the wording makes it seem that God abides for ever, rather than his word.
Isa. 14:12 vs 2 Peter 1:19 Like every other Spanish Bible, except the 1602 TR, it calls Jesus Christ Lucifer (Lucero)
2 Peter 1:21 Says the men were inspired instead of the words, damaging the Doctrine of Inspiration
Rev. 19:8 Reads "las justificaciones de los santos," making it look like men were saved by their own righteousness.
SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE 1909 REINA-VALERA REVISION
Deut. 17:18 Adds the words "del original."
Matthew 7:24,25 Reads "peña" instead of the better "roca." (Also does the same in Luke 6:48)
Mark 9:43-47 Changes "infierno" to "gehenna."
Matthew 16:18 Calls Jesus a "piedra" (stone) instead of a "roca" (rock).
John 11:49-51 Says the Catholic words "sumo pontífice." (Also does this in Mark 2:26 and 14:47)
Romans 16:1 Changes "hermana" (sister) to "diaconisa" (woman deacon).
SOME PROBLEMS WITH BOTH THE 1909 AND 1960 SPANISH REVISIONS
Mark 1:2 They say In Isaiah the Prophet. But the context is a quote of two prophets.
Mark 2:17 They take out repentance (arrepentimiento).
Mark 10:51 They exlude the word Señor (Lord).
Acts 15:11 They omit the word Christ.
Acts 20:28 They change "God" to "The Lord," which some claim attacks the deity of Christ.
Acts 21:20 They remove "The Lord."
1 Cor. 7:5 Take out ayuno (fasting).
2 Cor. 5:18 They subtract the word Jesus.
Eph. 3:9 The words by Jesus Christ are missing (they were in brackets in the 1602 and 1569).
Eph. 5:29 El Señor is changed to Cristo.
1 Peter 1:18 They subtract the words por tradicción (by tradition).
SOME DOCTRINAL ERRORS IN BOTH THE 1909 AND 1960 SPANISH REVISIONS
Acts 7:45 They change Jesus to Joshua. However, all Greek text say Jesus. Why? Cause it refers to Jesus!
2 Cor. 4:14 Says that Christians will rise with (con) Jesus instead of por (by) Jesus. Leaves Christ in the grave!
2 Tes. 2:2 Change "dia del Cristo" to "dia del Señor." These are not the same thing biblically.
Isa. 14:12 vs 2 Peter 1:19 Both say that Jesús Christ is Lucifer (Lucero).
PROBLEMS WITH THE 1960 SPANISH REVISION
Gen. 4:8 The words "ellos en el campo" are omitted.
1 Chron. 11:20 Changes "three" to "thirty."
Job 21:13 "In a moment" is changed to "in peace" (en paz).
Daniel 3:25 "hijo de Dios" changed to "hijo de los dioses"
Matthew 22:13 Takes out "tomadle."
Luke 2:15 "Dones" (gifts) is changed to the Catholic words "ofrendas votivas."
Acts 19:27 Uses the Catholic word "venerar" instead of "adorar."
Romans 10:15 The words "evangelio de paz" are removed.
Hebrews 3:16 Questions if all the Israelites went out. (Follows the English RSV).
Hebrews 5:7 Adds the word "Cristo" following the Catholic Bible.
1 Peter 3:21 Inserts the word "aspiration."
Jude 15 Removes "entre ellos"
Rev. 14:1 Makes these mentioned have two names instead of one (Following the Critical Texts and RSV).
Rev. 22:14 "Guardan sus mandamientos" changed to "llavan sus ropas" (Following the English RSV).
SOME DOCTRINAL ERRORS IN THE 1960 SPANISH REVISION
2 Sam. 21:19 Says that "Elhanan" killed Goliath, but we know it was David in 1 Sam. 21:8,9.
2 Kings 10:25 According to the added word "santo," the '60 makes the pagan God Baal holy.
Job 11:12 Says that donkeys can give birth to a human beings. (Bestiality?)
Jeremiah 5:17 A verse telling Israel to eat their children. (Cannibalism)
Matthew 5:22 Removes the word "locamente" or "sin razon," thus making Jesus in danger of judgment for getting angry in Mark 3:5.
Luke 2:22 By changing "ella" to "ellos," it makes Jesus a sinner that needed a sacrifice for his sins.
John 18:36 By removing the word "ahora" (now), the 1960 teaches that Jesus will never reign on the earth.
Acts 16:31 By removing a comma, a this verse teaches that when the head of a household gets saved, the whole rest of the family is automatically saved as well.
Romans 10:9 Changing in wording from the 1909, makes the verse teach that a person is saved just by just confessing Jesus is Lord. But one day Satan will say this (Filp. 2:9-1, Rom. 14:11).
1 Cor. 9:27 By changing "reprobado" to "eliminado" this verse can be used to teach on can lose their salvation (Teaches salvation by faith and works).
2 Cor. 2:10 By changing "en la persona de Cristo" to "en la presencia de Cristo" this verse teaches that a person doesn't have to forgive here on earth, but rather in heaven.
Gal. 5:4 By using the words "os desligasteis" this verse teaches that someone can lose their salvation.
Gal. 5:12 This verse teaches it's okay to want someone to be "mutilated."
1 Tes. 4:4 Changing "vaso" to "esposa" gives a man the right to discipline his wife.
1 Peter 2:2 Says a person must grow up in salvation (Teaches works for salvation)
1 Peter 3:21 By removing the words "A la figura de la cual," this verse can be used to teach baptismal regeneration.
Rev. 19:8 By changing "las justificaciones de los santos" to "las acciones Justas de los santos" the '60 teaches salvation by works.
MARKS OF DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE IN THE 1960 SPANISH REVISION
Numbers 23:22 "Unicorn" translated as "buffalo" (See also Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Ps. 92:10, etc).
1 Sam. 5:6 "Hemorroids" changed "tumors."
Ezra 2:58 " Nethinims" is changed to "servants of the temple."
Luke 2:26 "Christ" is changed to only "the anointed of the Lord."
Titus 3:10 "Heretic" changed to "a man who causes division."
2 Peter 1:13,14 "Tabernacle" is changed to only "body" (cuerpo).
SOME PLACES WHERE THE 1602 MONTERREY (or 1602 Purified) CORRECTS ALL OTHER SPANISH BIBLES, BY READING WITH THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS
Matthew 2:12 "por Dios"
Matthew 6:44 "como"
Matthew 15:8 "Este pueblo con su boca se acerca a mi."
Matthew 16:13 "soy yo"
Matthew 24:2 "Jesus"
Matthew 26:60 "no lo hallaron"
Mark 1:2 "los profetas"
Mark 2:17 "a arrepentimiento"
Mark 9:16 "al los escribas"
Mark 9:24 "Señor, yo"
Mark 11:10 "en el nombre del Señor"
Mark 11:19 "él"
Mark 15:3 "mas el no respondió nada"
Luke 2:9 ,15 "Señor"
Luke 2:40 "del Espíritu"
Luke 4:41 "Cristo"
Luke 6:10 "como la otra"
Luke 8:54 "echados todos fuera"
Luke 9:43 "Jesús"
Luke 11:29 "profeta"
Luke 17:36 "hombres"
Luke 23:42 "Señor."
John 1:1 "La Palabra"
John 6:65 "mi Padre"
John 10:11 "su vida"
John 14:28 "mi Padre" (also "mi Padre" in John 16:10, 25; 8:28)
Acts 2:41 "con gusto"
Acts 7:30 "angel del Señor"
Acts 8:16 "Señor"
Acts 8:25 "Señor"
Acts 9:5 "Y el Señor dijo"
Acts 16:10 "Señor" (also Señor in 17:27)
Acts 17:26 "una sangre"
Acts 20:28 "Dios"
Acts 21:20 "al Señor"
Acts 22:16 "el Señor"
Romans 1:16 "Of Christ"
Romans 8:32 "gratuitamente"
Romans 15:29 "del evangelio"
1 Cor. 1:18 "predicación"
1 Cor. 7:5 "en ayuno"
2 Cor. 4:10 "Señor Jesus"
2 Cor. 5:18 "Jesús"
2 Cor. 10:18 "Señor"
Philippians 4:2 "la misma mente"
1 Tim. 6:1 "Dios"
Hebrews 4:8 "Jesús"
James 1:12 "el Señor"
A FEW MORE THINGS ABOUT THE 1602 PURIFIED MONTERREY SPANISH BIBLE
2 Tim. 2:15 Says "Estudia" (reads with King James)
2 Peter1:19 "la estrella de la mañana" (This is the only Spanish Bible that doesn't call Jesus Lucifer!)
The book of Acts in the 1602 P is "Actos" not "Hechos." (following the original 1569 and 1602)
The book of Revelation in the 1062 P is not the Latin Catholic "Apocalipsis" but rather "Revelation" (like the 1569 & 1602)
The book of James is not the Catholic "Santiago" but "Jacobo" just as it is in Greek, and closer to KJV (James).
THE GOMEZ BIBLE
After having written this book, the author has learned more about the Gomez Bible. An internet site tells that Mr. Gomez spent 8000 hours working on his project. Having spoken to Mr. Gomez myself on the telephone, he said that he was the final authority on the project and he himself made all the changes, although he took into consideration the suggestions of others. He also stated that he didn't know either Hebrew or Greek.
Compare this to the Monterrey 1602 Purified, which was the work of a whole church learned in Hebrew and Greek, which through much prayer, fasting, and collation, have spent over 12 years working on the Spanish Bible.
NOTE: It must be noted, that the Gomez Bible still calls Jesus Christ Lucero (or Lucifer) in 2 Peter 1:19. While it changes Lucero in Isaiah 14:12 to Lucifer in Spanish, Mr. Gomez capitalizes the word Lucero in 2 Peter 1:19, thus making it a reference to a proper name rather than an object. This makes it even more of a reference to Satan! All other Spanish Bibles have the word beginning with a lower case as in lucero. Thus, the Gomez Bible aggravates the problem of calling Jesus Lucifer even more. One could only hope Mr. Gomez would change this as the 1602 Purified did so that there is no confusion.
After having written this booklet, the author was given a copy of the 2nd Edition 1865 Spanish Bible, revised in 2005. This new revision contains a list in the back of 50 changes made in the revision process. They include:
1. Genesis 2:18 "de gracia" added
2. 2 Sam. 21:19 "al hermano de" added
3. Job 32:1 "propios" added
4. Psalm 139:24 "eterno" added
5. Prov. 8:17 "de mañana" added
6. Prov. 21:2 "propia" added
7. Matt. 24:2 "Jesús" added
8. Mark 6:44 "como" added
9. Mark 7:14 "a sí" added
10. Mark 8:19 "le" added
11. Mark 10:14 "a mi" added
12. Luke 2:4 "también" added
13. Luke 6:44 "propio" added
14. Luke 8:36 "también" added
15. Luke 9:43 "Jesús" added
16. Luke 13:34 "O" added
17. Luke 13:35 "de cierto" added
18. Luke 14:26 "propia" added
19. John 8:28 "mío" added
20. John 10:17 "mío" added
21. John 14:28 "mío" added
22. John 16:10 "mío" added
23. Acts 1:1 "en el primer libro" added
24. Acts 7:55 "parado" added
25. Acts 7:56 "parado" added
26. Acts 8:16 "el Señor" added
27. Acts 13:22 "también" added
28. Acts 17:26 "antes" added
29. Acts 19:37 "de iglesias" added
30. Acts 20:8 "alto" added
31. Acts 22:16 "del Señor" added
32. Acts 23:14 "nos" added
33. Acts 25:4 "mismo" added
34. Acts 27:11 "de la nave" added
35. Acts 27:19 "propias" added
36. Rom. 9:21 "sobre el barro" added
37. Rom. 11:24 "propia" added
38. Rom. 14:4 "propio" added
39. Rom. 15:17 "Jesu" added
40. Rom. 16:18 "propios" added
41. 1 Cor. 2:12 "de gracia" added
42. 1 Cor. 7:2 "propia" and "propio" added
43. 1 Cor. 15:23 "propio" added
44. 2 Cor. 11:33 "en una espuerta" added
45. Filipenses 2:25 "de milicia" added
46. Tito 2:7 "sinceridad"
47. Heb. 12:2 "capitán" changed to "autor"
48. James 3:6 "gehenna" changed to "infierno"
49. 2 Peter 1:20 "privado desatamiento" changed to "particular interpretación"
50. 2 Peter 2:4 "tártaro" changed to "infierno"
Note: I've recently heard that those printing the 1865 desire to undo these changes, and print the original 1865 as it was, without these changes. This is sad, as many of these changes were for the good, going against critical text readings. Thus, if they undo these changes, the 1865 will be an even more critical text bible.
1. Flores, Jose. El Texto Del Nuevo Testamento, Editorial CLIE, 1977, ISBN 84-7228-287-2, pg 232.
2. Levell, Alfred. The Old is Better, ISBN 0-915923-00-9, page 17.
3. "Radio-Televisión Evangélica Neerlandesa." El Origen de la Biblia, ISBN 90-70-100-215, pg 46.
4. Fuller, David Otis. Which Bible, ISBN 0-944355-24-2, page 112-113.
5. Moorman, Jack. Forever Settled, A survey of the Documents and History of the Bible, The Dean Burgon Society Press, 1999, page 9.
6. Moorman, Jack. Forever Settled, A survey of the Documents and History of the Bible, The Dean Burgon Society Press, 1999, page 15.
7. Moorman, Jack. Forever Settled, A survey of the Documents and History of the Bible, The Dean Burgon Society Press, 1999, page 26.
8. Burton, Barry. Let's Weigh the Evidence, Chick Publications, 1983, page 58.
9. "Moorman, Jack. Forever Settled, A survey of the Documents and History of the Bible, The Dean Burgon Society Press, 1999, page 112.
10. "Moorman, Jack. Forever Settled, A survey of the Documents and History of the Bible, The Dean Burgon Society Press, 1999, page 114-115.
11. Riplinger, Gail. New Age Bible Versions, A.V. Publications, 1993, pages 397-415.
12. Stringer, Phil. The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy, transcript of a message preached at the GraceWay Bible Society, Oct. 27th, 2001 in Brampton, Ontario, Canada, pgs 17-20.
13. Ray, Jasper James. God Only Wrote One Bible, page 29.
14. Dallis, Floyd. The Spanish Bible: Still Bearing Precious Seed, Charity Publications: 1506 N. Fairfield Rd. Dayton, Ohio, 45432, pg 25.
15. Earle, Ralph. ¿Cómo Nos Llegó la Biblia?, Casa Nazarena de Publicaciones, Kansas City, Missouri, pg 79.
16. Earle, Ralph. ¿Cómo Nos Llegó la Biblia?, Casa Nazarena de Publicaciones, Kansas City, Missouri, pg 80.
17. Puigvert, Pedro. ¿Cómo Llegó la Biblia Hasta Nosotros?, 1999, Editorial CLIE, Galvani, 113, 08224 Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain, ISBN 84-8267-131-6, pg 210.
18. Ibid., pg 211.
19. Greenslade, S.L. The Cambridge History of The Bible, Cambridge University Press, 1963, pg 126.
20. Ibid., pg 126.
21. Puigvert, Pedro. ¿Cómo Llegó la Biblia Hasta Nosotros?, 1999, Editorial CLIE, Galvani, 113, 08224 Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain, ISBN 84-8267-131-6, pg 213.
22. Greenslade, S.L. The Cambridge History of The Bible, Cambridge University Press, 1963, pg 127.
23. Ibid., pg 127.
24. Reyes, Raul. From my notes taken from a Lecture by Pastor Raul Reyes, during the 5th Annual Inspiration and Preservation conference in August of 2003 in Monterrey, Mexico.
25. Puigvert, Pedro. ¿Cómo Llegó la Biblia Hasta Nosotros?, 1999, Editorial CLIE, Galvani, 113, 08224 Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain, ISBN 84-8267-131-6, pg 213.
26. Kinder, A. Gordon. La Biblia del Oso, Sociedad Biblica, Santa Engracia, 133, 28003, Madrid, Spain, 1990, pg 6.
27. Kinder, A. Gordon. Cassidoro de Reina, Spanish Reformer of the Sixteenth Century, 1975, Tamesis Books Limited, London, England, pg 55-56, ISBN 0-7293-0010.
28. Kinder, A. Gordon. Cassidoro de Reina, Spanish Reformer of the Sixteenth Century, Tamesis Books Limited, London, England, pg 119-120.
29. Lozano, Carlos Lopez. La Biblia de Valera, Sociedad Biblica, Santa Engracia, 133, 28003, Madrid, Spain, 1990, pg 8-9.
30. Lozano, Carlos Lopez. La Biblia de Valera, by Carlos Lopez Lozano, Sociedad Biblica, Santa Engracia, 133, 28003, Madrid, Spain, 1990, pg 7-8.
31. Holland Th.D., Thomas. "The Spanish Fountain: A history and Review of the Reina-Valera Version," Available online at: www.biblebelievers.com/Holland2.html. Author's email: email@example.com.
32. Lozano, Carlos Lopez. La Biblia de Valera, by Carlos Lopez Lozano, Sociedad Biblica, Santa Engracia, 133, 28003, Madrid, Spain, 1990, pg 9.
33. Greenslade, S.L. The Cambridge History of The Bible, Cambridge University Press, 1963, pg 354.
34. Puigvert, Pedro. ¿Cómo Llegó la Biblia Hasta Nosotros?, 1999, Editorial CLIE, Galvani, 113, 08224 Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain, ISBN 84-8267-131-6, pg 216.
35. Earle, Ralph. ¿Cómo Nos Llegó la Biblia?," Casa Nazarena de Publicaciones, Kansas City, Missouri, pg 81.
36. Doney, Meryl. ¿Cómo Nos Llegó la Biblia?, Sociedades Biblicas Unidas, Spanish Edition, copyright 1998, Santa Engracia, 133, 28003, Madrid, Spain, ISBN 84-8083-059X, pg 14.
37. Greenslade, S.L. The Cambridge History of The Bible, Cambridge University Press, 1963, pg 354.
38. "Chronological Synthesis of the Various Revisions Made to the Reina-Valera Bible," printed off the Internet from a now unknown site. The subtitle read, "Furnished by Miss Margaret T. Hills, Librarian of the American Bible Society, new York, September 23 of 1954."
39. Greenslade, S.L. The Cambridge History of The Bible, Cambridge University Press, 1963, pg 354.
40. Puigvert, Pedro. ¿Cómo Llegó la Biblia Hasta Nosotros?, 1999, Editorial CLIE, Galvani, 113, 08224 Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain, ISBN 84-8267-131-6, pg 216-217.
41. Kincaid, Bill. "The Real Spanish Reformation," taken from Internet on Nov. 14, 1998, from the following address: www.west.ga.net/~ForHim/wog/htmls/real_reformation.html.
42. Greenslade, S.L. The Cambridge History of The Bible, Cambridge University Press, 1963, pg 354.
43. Barrow, George. The Bible in Spain, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York, John Murray, London, 1908, pg xiii-xiv.
44. Doney, Meryl. ¿Cómo Nos Llegó la Biblia?, Sociedades Biblicas Unidas, Spanish Edition, copyright 1998, Santa Engracia, 133, 28003, Madrid, Spain, ISBN 84-8083-059X, pg 14.
45. Earle, Ralph. ¿Cómo Nos Llegó la Biblia?, Casa Nazarena de Publicaciones, Kansas City, Missouri, pg 81.
46. Earle, Ralph. ¿Cómo Nos Llegó la Biblia?, Casa Nazarena de Publicaciones, Kansas City, Missouri, pg 80.
47. Puigvert, Pedro. ¿Cómo Llegó la Biblia Hasta Nosotros?, 1999, Editorial CLIE, Galvani, 113, 08224 Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain, ISBN 84-8267-131-6, pg 217.
48. Greenslade, S.L. The Cambridge History of The Bible, Cambridge University Press, 1963, pg 354.
49. Dallis, Floyd. The Spanish Bible: Still Bearing Precious Seed, Charity Publications 1506 N. Fairfield Rd. Dayton, Ohio, 45432, pg 7.
50. "Chronological Synthesis of the Various Revisions Made to the Reina-Valera Bible," printed off Internet from a now unknown site. The subtitle read, "Furnished by Miss Margaret T. Hills, Librarian of the American Bible Society, new York, September 23 of 1954."
51. "Ilib., pg 1"
52. Greenslade, S.L. The Cambridge History of The Bible, Cambridge University Press, 1963, pg 354.
53. "Chronological Synthesis of the Various Revisions Made to the Reina-Valera Bible," printed off Internet from a now unknown site. The subtitle read, "Furnished by Miss Margaret T. Hills, Librarian of the American Bible Society, new York, September 23 of 1954."
54. Dallis, Floyd. The Spanish Bible: Still Bearing Precious Seed, Charity Publications 1506 N. Fairfield Rd. Dayton, Ohio, 45432, pg 7.
55. Ibid., pg 7
56. Ibid., pg 7
57. "Chronological Synthesis of the Various Revisions Made to the Reina-Valera Bible," printed off Internet from a now unknown site. The subtitle read, "Furnished by Miss Margaret T. Hills, Librarian of the American Bible Society, new York, September 23 of 1954."
58. Dallis, Floyd. The Spanish Bible: Still Bearing Precious Seed, Charity Publications 1506 N. Fairfield Rd. Dayton, Ohio, 45432, pg 7.
59. "Chronological Synthesis of the Various Revisions Made to the Reina-Valera Bible," printed off Internet from a now unknown site. The subtitle read, "Furnished by Miss Margaret T. Hills, Librarian of the American Bible Society, new York, September 23 of 1954."
61. "Dallis, Floyd. The Spanish Bible: Still Bearing Precious Seed, Charity Publications 1506 N. Fairfield Rd. Dayton, Ohio, 45432, pg 8.
62. Ibid., pg 8.
63. Earle, Ralph. ¿Cómo Nos Llegó la Biblia?, Casa Nazarena de Publicaciones, Kansas City, Missouri, pg 81-82
64. Demaray, Donald E. Introducción a La Biblia, 1996, Editorial Unilit, pg 70.
65. Earle, Ralph. ¿Cómo Nos Llegó la Biblia?, Casa Nazarena de Publicaciones, Kansas City, Missouri, pg 81.
66. "Chronological Synthesis of the Various Revisions Made to the Reina-Valera Bible," printed off Internet from a now unknown site. The subtitle read, "Furnished by Miss Margaret T. Hills, Librarian of the American Bible Society, new York, September 23 of 1954."
73. Donate, Carlos A. La Restauración de la Antigua Biblia Versión de Valera," Stringer Publications, P.O. Box 1089, Haines City, FL, 33845, pg. 29.
74. Ibid., pg. 32
75. Puigvert, Pedro. ¿Cómo Llegó la Biblia Hasta Nosotros?, 1999, Editorial CLIE, Galvani, 113, 08224 Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain, ISBN 84-8267-131-6, pg 218.
76. Ibid., pg 218-219.
77. Ibid., pg 219.
78. Flores, Jose. El Texto Del Nuevo Testamento," 1977 by Editorial CLIE, printed in Spain, ISBN 84-7228-287-2, pg 15.
79. Earle, Ralph. ¿Cómo Nos Llegó la Biblia?, Casa Nazarena de Publicaciones, Kansas City, Missouri, pg 82.
80. Lightfoot, Neil R. Comprendamos Cómo se Formó la Biblia, 2005, Editorial Mundo Hispano, Apartado 4256, El Paso, Texas 79914, pg. 207.
81. Doney, Meryl. ¿Cómo Nos Llegó la Biblia?, Sociedades Biblicas Unidas, Spanish Edition, copyright 1998, Santa Engracia, 133, 28003, Madrid, Spain, ISBN 84-8083-059X, pg 14.
82. Puigvert, Pedro. ¿Cómo Llegó la Biblia Hasta Nosotros?, Editorial CLIE, Galvani, 113, 08224 Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain, ISBN 84-8267-131-6, pg 223.
83. Earle, Ralph. ¿Cómo Nos Llegó la Biblia?," Casa Nazarena de Publicaciones, Kansas City, Missouri, pg 82.
84. "The Bible Translator," Vol. 12, No. 3, July 1961, pg. 113.
85. Stringer, Phil. The Elephant in the Living Room, Landmark Baptist Church, Haines City, FL., pg. 43.
86. Flores, Jose. El Texto Del Nuevo Testamento, 1977 by Editorial CLIE, printed in Spain, ISBN 84-7228-287-2, pg 232.
87. George, Calvin. The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible, Morris Publishing, pg. 8.
88. Nida, Eugene A. "The Reina-Valera Spanish Revision of 1960," printed off on the internet at the following address: www.west.ga.net/~ForHim/wog/htmls/rvsr_1960.html
91. Nida, Eugene A. "The Reina-Valera Spanish Revision of 1960," printed off on the internet at the following address: www.west.ga.net/~ForHim/wog/htmls/rvsr_1960.html
93. "Meaning-full Translations," Interview by David Neff in Christianity Today, October 7, 2002, posted 9/16/2002 on Internet by Christianity Today.
94. Cloud, David. Dynamic Equivalency: Death Knell of Pure Scripture, Way of Life Literature, Port Huron, MI, copyright 1990, ISBN: 1-58318-040-0, pg 225.
95. Nida, Eugene A. Significado y Diversidad Cultural, coauthor William D. Reyburn, Suciedades Bíblicas Unidas, 1981, ISBN: 1-57697-672-6, pg 5.
96. "Meaning-full Translations Interview," from Christianity Today website, posted 9/16/2002 on Internet, published in Chrisitanity Today in October 7, 2002, by David Neff.
97. Mouldin, Dr. George. "The Bible Translator," Volume 30, #3, July 1979.
98. Aland, Kurt and Barbara. The text of the New Testament: an Introduction to the Critical Editions and the Theory and Practice of Modern textual Criticism, 1981, Eerdmans Publishing Co., pg 30-31)
99. George, Calvin. The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible," 2004, Morris Publishing, pg. 45-47.
100. Aland, Kurt. Text of the New Testament, 1989, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., ISBN: 0-8028-4098-1, pg 33.
101. George, Calvin. The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible," 2004, Morris Publishing, pg 46.
102. Nida, Eugene A. "Bible Translating: An Analysis of Principles and Procedures, with Special Reference to Aboriginal Languages," 1947, American Bible Society, pg 296.
103. Nida, Eugene A. "The Reina-Valera Spanish Revision of 1960," printed off on the internet at the following address: www.west.ga.net/~ForHim/wog/htmls/rvsr_1960.html
104. "Understanding Latin America," by the ABS, published in 1978.
105. Flores, Jose. La Historia de la Biblia en España, CLIE publishers, 1978.
106. Roe, James Moulton. "A History of the British and Foreign Bible Society 1905-1954, 1965, pg 436.
107. Aland, Kurt. Text of the New Testament, 1989, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., ISBN: 0-8028-4098-1, pg 35.
108. Flores, Jose. La Historia de la Biblia en España, CLIE publishers, 1978.
109. Flores, Jose. La Historia de la Biblia en España, CLIE publishers, 1978, pg 302
110. Interview with Carlos Donate, by the author. In answer to my question, "Why did so many people accept the 1960?" Missionary Carlos Donate replied, "Because it was printed with the Scofield Notes in Spanish."
111. Puigvert, Pedro. ¿Cómo Llegó la Biblia Hasta Nosotros?, 1999, Editorial CLIE, Galvani, 113, 08224 Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain, ISBN 84-8267-131-6, pg 223.
112. Puigvert, Pedro. ¿Cómo Llegó la Biblia Hasta Nosotros?, 1999, Editorial CLIE, Galvani, 113, 08224 Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain, ISBN 84-8267-131-6, pg 224.
113. Doney, Meryl. ¿Cómo Nos Llegó la Biblia?," Suciedades Biblicas Unidas, Spanish Edition, copyright 1998, Santa Engracia, 133, 28003, Madrid, Spain, ISBN 84-8083-059X, pg 14.
114. Puigvert, Pedro. ¿Cómo Llegó la Biblia Hasta Nosotros?, 1999, Editorial CLIE, Galvani, 113, 08224 Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain, ISBN 84-8267-131-6, pg 221.
115. Ibid. pg 221
116. Ibid. pg 221
117. Ibid. pg 221
118. Ibid. pg 224
119. Ibid. pg 224
120. Ibid. pg 224
121. Ibid. pg 222
122. Sanchez, Edesio. Descubre la Biblia, 1998, United Bible Societies, ISBN: 1-57697-504-5, pg. 383.
123. Santa Biblia Reina Valera Actualizada, Editorial Mundo Hispano, Apartado 4256, El Paso, Tx, 79914, 1989, pg. vi.
124. Ibid. pg 225.
125. Ibid. pg. 226.
126. "La Biblia en Las Americas," No. 3 de 2003, Vol. 58, No. 264, United Bible Societies, pg. 21.
127. Santa Biblia Reina-Valera 1995, Copyright 1999, United Bible Societies, printed in Brasil.
128. Santa Biblia Nueva Version Internacional, copyright 1999 by the International Bible Society, published by Editorial Vida, Miami, Florida, pg. viii.
129. La Biblia Textual Reina-Valera, Sociedad Biblica IberoAmericano, copyright 1999, ISBN: 0-9710391-0-0, printed in Spain, pg 9.
130. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, copyright 1997 in Stuttgart, Germany, pg. XIII.
131. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Edition, copyright 1993, printed in Germany, ISBN: 3-438—5100-1, pg 44.
132. Ibid 45.
133. Nida, Eugene A. and de Waard, Jan. From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating, Thomas Nelson Publishers, copyright 1986, pg 12.
134. Aland, Kurt and Barbara. The Text of the New Testament: an Introduction to the Critical Editions and the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 1981, Eerdmans Publishing Co., pg 19.
135. Sagrada Biblia: Versión Crítica Sobre los Textos Hebreo, Arameo y Griego, translated by F. Cantera and M. Iglesias, copyright 2000, Madrid, Spain, ISBN: 84-7914-490-4.
136. Sagrada Biblia: Versión Crítica Sobre los Textos Hebreo, Arameo y Griego, translated by F. Cantera and M. Iglesias, copyright 2000, Madrid, Spain, pg. IX.
137. Sagrada Biblia: Versión Crítica Sobre los Textos Hebreo, Arameo y Griego," translated by F. Cantera and M. Iglesias, copyright 2000, Madrid, Spain, pg XI.
138. "Traducción en Lenguaje Actual," pamphlet by the United Bible Societies, pg 1.
139. Puigvert, Pedro. ¿Cómo Llegó la Biblia Hasta Nosotros?, 1999, Editorial CLIE, Galvani, 113, 08224 Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain, ISBN 84-8267-131-6, pg 220-227.
140. Park, William. A personal interview in September of 2003, who was also at the conference.
141. Dallis, Floyd. The Spanish Bible: Still Bearing Precious Seed, Charity Publications 1506 N. Fairfield Rd. Dayton, Ohio, 45432, pg 24.
142.Ibid., pg 21
143. George, Calvin. The Battle for the Spanish Bible, 2001, Morris Publishing, Kearney, NE, pg 54.
144. From my notes taken while in the Conference in Paul Garcia's house.
145.A Paraphrase of what I remember Jeff McCardle saying in his speech on 1/26/2001, as Paul Garcia's house.
146.Email from William Park in November of 2006. Interview with William Park in September of 2003 in my house in Honduras. He is a member of said church.
149. The Elephant in the Living Room: Seeing the Shadow of the RSV in Spanish, edited by Pastor Mickey Carter, pg 16.
150. Ibid., pg 23
151. Ibid., pg 24.
152. Ibid., pg 24-25.
153. Words of Jeff McCardle at the Spanish Bible Conference at Landmark Baptist Church in Haines City, Florida, in September 23rd, 2002, taken from the transcript of the tape recorded by Landmark Baptist Church.
154. Words of Jeff McCardle at the Spanish Bible Conference at Landmark Baptist Church in Haines City, Florida as heard by my own ears, while present in the conference.
155. "Bible Believer's Bulletin," Vol. 30, No.1, January 2006, pg 17.
156. "Bible Believer's Bulletin," Vol. 27, No. 8, August 2003, pg 11.
157.The Elephant in the Living Room: Seeing the Shadow of the RSV in Spanish, Edited by Mickey Carter, pg 29.
158. George, Calvin. The Battle for the Spanish Bible, 2001, Morris Publishing, Kearney, NE.
159. Ibid., pg 115
160. The Elephant in the Living Room: Seeing the Shadow of the RSV in Spanish, Edited by Mickey Carter, pg 139.
161. George, Calvin. The Battle for the Spanish Bible, 2001, Morris Publishing, Kearney, NE, pg 117.
162.Ibid. pg 42.
163. Ibid. pg 34.
164. Ibid. pg 114.
165. Email to me from Calvin George, on July 11th, 2002.
166. George, Calvin. The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible, 2004, Morris Publishing, Kearney, NE, pg 7.
167. Ibid., pg 127.
168. The Elephant in the Living Room: Seeing the Shadow of the RSV in Spanish, Edited by Mickey Carter, pg 10.
169. My Honduran Journal, entry from October 18th, 2004, taken from my computer, but also found at www.robertbreaker.com
170.Words of Mr. Phil Gagnon, as recorded in my daily journal entry of October 18, 2004.
171. Words of Mr. Bruce Martin as recorded in my daily journal entry found at www.robertbreaker.com