Who's Who in the Spanish Bible Controversy?

By Robert Breaker III


© 2012








Today there are several groups who are defending various different versions of the Bible in Spanish. Who are these groups?  The majority of them are either Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and/or Independent Baptists.  Why is this?  It is because of the sad history of the Spanish Bible.  The truth is very few people know there is a problem with the Spanish scriptures. Thus, most have been duped into using a version that's not pure.  And sadly, there are many today still using and defending versions in Spanish that aren't perfect.


When those courageous Spaniards of old attempted to translate the Bible into Spanish, they either didn't have all the right texts, or they didn't do a thorough job.  Thus, their Bibles were not perfect like our inerrant, infallible King James Bible in English.  This led to the need for further revisions of the Spanish Bible.  And it has been revised over and over and over again.  But before looking at those revisions, let's look at the early versions themselves, and then we will look at those revisions of them, for a virtual "Who's Who" of the Spanish Bible, it's various revisions and Revisers, and those who defend them today.


The first New Testament Spanish Bible was that of FRANCISCO DE ENZINAS, who's work was published in 1543.  His New Testament was very good, and when it came to verses which spoke about salvation by faith alone, he made it a point to capitalize the letters in entire verses (see Rom. 3:28 as an example) for emphasis, as a short of "in your face" to the Catholics who did not believe that salvation was by justification through faith alone.  (They believed works were involved).  Francisco de Enzinas presented his Bible to the Duke of Ferrara, and was immediately put in jail thereafter by the Catholic priest Pedro de Soto for his "sin" (in those days the Catholic church prohibited the translation of the Scriptures into Spanish) of translating the word of God into Spanish in the New Testament.  Thankfully, Enzinas escaped, and made his way to England.  Some say that his New Testament was later revised by Catholics, and made to read more in line with the corrupt Latin Vulgate.  Yet, others claim that they have copies of the original Enzinas just the way it was produced in 1543. 


The next whole New Testament was that of JUAN PEREZ DE PINEDA, who published his own New Testament version in 1556.  Juan Perez de Pineda did an excellent job of translation and he did not dedicate his work to man (which was the practice during that day, of dedicating one's work of translation of the scriptures to earthly nobility), rather to God!  His New Testament was smuggled into the monastery in Seville, Spain called San Isidro del Campo, in which both Cassidoro de Reina and Cipriano de Valera were both monks.  This lead to their salvation, and their eventual need to flee the Spanish Inquisition.  Note, therefore, that it was this New Testament that helped cause the reformation in Spain and led to the salvation of many souls!


Juan Perez de Pineda's New Testament is an excellent translation, but was never widely circulated or available, as the Catholic church burned as many copies of it as they could.  Upon his death, Juan's desire was that all his earthly goods be sold and the money be used to print the scriptures in Spanish, most likely his New Testament.  However, after his death his goods were seized by the authorities, and after several years in court, it was decided that the money from the sale of his earthly possessions be given instead to Cassidoro de Reina for the printing of his whole Spanish Bible.  This is sad, as the N.T. of Juan Perez de Pineda seems to be very good, and possibly even better than the New Testament of Reina.


CASSIDORO DE REINA produced the first entire whole Spanish Bible and saw its printing of 1500 copies in 1569.  His Bible, however was flawed, and he even said in the preface of his work that he did not have access to the pure texts.  He confessed he used the Catholic Latin Vulgate (which he called corrupt and full of "errors"), and the Catholic text of Santes Pagnino.  Therefore, Reina's whole Bible was in great need of revision, something that Reina even asked be done in the preface of his work.

Further, Reina was both Catholic and Spanish before his conversion and departure from the Roman church.  Because of this, he retained a great dislike for the Jews, and in his translation he confessed to using the word "Jehova" for the reason that he held the Jewish people were "superstitious" for not writing the word out as a transliteration.  He, thus, chose to do so just to spite them.  However, he did state that if others did not agree with his anti-Semitism, then they could most certainly read "Señor" in place of "Jehova" every time they came across the word in his Bible.  (Note:  Reina's use of the word Jehova instead of Señor (Lord), has lead to the increase of the Jehovah Witness movement throughout Latin America.  If only he had used Señor like the King James Bible translators did in their version, this would have helped to keep this from happening.  Today, the only Spanish Bible that reads "SEÑOR" is the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible.)


CIPRIANO DE VALERA did not make a new version of the Spanish Bible.  Rather, he only revised the 1569 version of Reina, claiming to have taken 20 years to complete this task.  However, Valera did not do a thorough revision of Reina's Bible, claiming in the preface of his edition that further revision should take place.  He also mentioned the word "Jehova" and why he chose to leave the word in the Bible, rather than using "Señor," which most Protestant versions used before Reina's Bible.  (For example Juan de Valdes in his 1541 translation of part of the Psalms used "Señor" and so did Juan Perez de Pineda in his entire translation of the Psalms).


Valera in his preface also questions the use of the word "Jehova" in his revision, asking if we are even pronouncing that word correctly. Thus, he caused doubt on whether that word should have been used.  Yet he kept it for the same reasons that Reina wanted to use it (i.e. anti-Semitism).


Valera's revision of the whole Bible in Spanish was printed only a few times and in relatively very few numbers.  It was later revised time and again by various Protestant Bible Societies.  But rather than revising it with those texts underlying the King James Bible, it was revised with the Catholic texts (the corrupt Latin Vulgate), and later with the corrupt Critical Texts.


Note:  The Cipriano de Valera text was a Protestant Spanish Bible.  And after it came out, it quickly became known as the "Valera" Bible.  Why?  Because many Protestants chose to forget Reina for his pro-catholic tendencies and anti-semitism.  Thus, many Protestant Bible Societies that revised the Valera Bible, always referred to their revisions only as "Valera Bibles."  However, they were not true Valera versions.  Rather, they were MIXED with the catholic Spanish Bible to appear to be more catholic, so they would not be burned by catholic Inquisitors.


FELIPE SCIO DE SAN MIGUEL was the first Catholic to translate the entire Bible into Spanish.  He did so directly from the Roman Catholic Vulgate and published his work in 1793.  It was permitted by the Catholic church.  This is important to note, as translations into Spanish by Protestants were prohibited by the Papists, and usually during the Spanish Inquisition ALL Protestant Bibles discovered by catholic priests and inquisitors were immediately burned.

The Scio version (as Felipe Scio de San Miguel's catholic version is now called) was the first Spanish Bible to use the term "Verbo" in Spanish in reference to Jesus Christ (from the latin Vulgate word "Verbum) in John 1:1, rather than the Protestant word "Palabra." 


An important note about Scio's text is that it later was taken by so-called Protestant Bible Societies and used by them in their revisions of the Valera Bible in the 1800's.  Their reasoning for mixing the Catholic Scio with the Protestant Reina-Valera text was to make a version that appeared "Catholic" to Hispanics in Spain and Central America.  This was in the hopes that it would not be burned and thus allowed to exist for Hispanic people to be able to read the Bible.  What they produced, then, were "HYBRID Spanish Bibles," part Protestant (Valera) and part Catholic (Scio).  And what these Protestant Bible Societies did was the OPPOSITE of what both Reina and Valera desired be done to their Bibles.  They wanted their versions rid of Catholic readings, not have catholic readings ADDED to their Bibles).


Click here to look at eight different Spanish Bible versions and see clearly that it was the CATHOLIC Scio text that was the first to use "Verbo."


ANGEL DE MORA AND H.B. PRATT were two men who worked on one of these Hybrid Spanish Bibles, produced by the American Bible Society in 1865.  Mora was a Spaniard who looked at the text and read it for it's grammar and the beauty of the Spanish language.  He greatly loved the Valera Bible and wanted to have a version as close to it as possible.  Mr. Pratt was a Presbyterian missionary to Columbia, who was more in favor of the "critical texts" (i.e. nothing more than the corrupt Catholic texts of old messed with by modern scholars who corrupted the text even more).  According to the minutes of the American Bible Society, the 1865 Spanish translation was made to make the Spanish Bible read more in line with "critical accuracy."   And if one studies the 1865, they will find that although in many places it does indeed read closer to the King James Bible, in others it reads with the old Latin Vulgate and with the modern critical texts. 


(Note: The original version of the 1865 had the word "Palabra" in John 1:1 in speaking of Jesus Christ, as all the old Protestant Versions did, but was later (in 1868) changed to the Scio reading of "Verbo," most likely to make it appear to be a more catholic translation so it would be more accepted among Spanish Catholics).


When the 1865 came it out was not readily available and not widely accepted.  The A.B.S. in their own writings even tell us that because it was frowned upon by the Spanish Protestant community this lead to the desire to get one standard Spanish Bible, and because of this, the American Bible Society joined with the B.F.B.S. (the British and Foreign Bible Society of England) to produce a standard Spanish Bible, which eventually led to the formation of the 1909 Spanish Bible.


THE 1909 AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY AND BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY SPANISH TRANSLATION became the standard Bible among Spanish Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Protestants when it came out, and remained such up until way after the popular 1960 version (of which we shall speak next).  However, those men who worked on the 1909 Spanish Bible used the critical texts in their translation work.  And although they were well known Fundamentalists who wanted to get back as close as possible to the original 1602 of Valera, they could not resist changing Valera's work with the corrupt critical texts.  (In other words they inserted catholic readings rather than taking them out.  Reina and Valera would not be pleased!)  This led to a lot of false readings, errors, and even outright lies within the 1909 text.  But even with all these problems, the Spanish-speaking world readily embraced this text.  And this 1909 Spanish Bible became the standard Spanish Bible text for many years among Spanish-speakers.


THE 1960 AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY SPANISH VERSION was the next Spanish Bible put out by so-called "Protestant Bible Societies."   EUGENE NIDA, the head of the American Bible Society, was behind the idea of making this new Spanish Bible revision.  With his idea of "dynamic equivalence" rather than "formal equivalence," Mr. Nida produced many different modern versions of the Bible in many different languages, each one becoming more corrupt, as they were designed to read closer to the corrupt critical texts.  Without going into great detail into the translation method of the 1960, the preferred texts used were the English RSV and others.  And critical text readings were inserted time and again, and the 1960 Spanish Bible became so bad, that in 2 Sam. 21:19, the 1960 said that "Elhanan" killed Goliath, even though we know biblically, and historically that it was David, and no one else. 

When it was first printed, the 1960 was not popular to anyone except Catholics, who bought it in Spain to use in their catechisms.  But with the insertion into the text of the Scofield notes, it quickly became a hot commodity among the Protestant and Evangelical world and today it is the most used and loved Spanish translations among Spanish-Speaking Christians. 


Sadly, it's full of errors, mistakes, lies, mistranslations, and more.  And the reason for it's translation, according to Mr. Nida, was to bring together Protestants and Catholics. The 1960, therefore, is an ECUMENICAL BIBLE!


For the next forty years after the 1960, very few Spanish-speakers even questioned the problems with the Spanish Bible. It's hard to understand why, for if they actually read the text they couldn't help but see the plethora of errors in it.  But they didn't speak out against it.  That is until around the 1990's, when it seemed the only group to see the errors in the Spanish Bible were those among the Independent Baptist denomination, and more specifically, those who were King James Bible Believers in English.  However, those that spoke out on the subject, (myself included), were quickly spoken against, for at the time the whole Spanish-speaking world used the 1960 Spanish Bible, errors and all, and were quick to cry aloud against anyone who said anything against that modernist translation.


THE KING JAMES NEW TESTAMENT TRANSLATED INTO SPANISH.  The next Spanish translation that you should be aware of is the McVEY NEW TESTAMENT.  Seeing the errors in all the Spanish Bible, Bernard McVey, a Fundamentalist Baptist Missionary to Central America, undertook the task of translating his own New Testament directly from the King James Bible word for word.  His desire was good, but the text turned out to be hard to read by most Spanish-speakers, and therefore was quickly rejected, being harshly ridiculed by many. It was indeed a King James in Spanish, but the syntax was not perfect Spanish grammar, and the word choice of Mr. McVey was not the old words of Reina and Valera, nor were they modern words like the 1960.  Many were words that were not used and not easily understood to Spanish-speakers.


For many years, Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Independent Baptists were divided into two groups:  Those who used the 1909 Antigua Version (Antigua means "Old") and those who used the more modern 1960 ecumenical version (which is now called the "Crown Version" in Spanish by it's progenitors).  That was it, there was nothing more.


But God worked on the heart of a man named Raul Reyes, an Independent Baptist Pastor in Monterrey, Mexico to do so something about this.  He and his church with the help of a  Missionary named William Park, began their own translation way back in the early 1990's.  And they produced THE VALERA 1602 PURIFIED SPANISH BIBLE.  We shall look at them and this version shortly. But, let us now look first at a newer translation known as the "Gomez Bible."


HUMBERTO GOMEZ is the name of the man who has lately come out with his own translation of the Bible known as the REINA-VALERA GOMEZ 2010 Spanish Bible.  Mr. Gomez is an Independent Baptist Missionary to his native country of Mexico.  What Mr. Gomez did was use the 1909 Spanish Bible (a corrupt version) as well as the modern ecumenical 1960 (an even more corrupt version) and revised those versions.  He supposedly went verse by verse from the King James Bible, but careful study of his finished work shows he was far from thorough.  He also claims to have used the Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic text in his work, however this is interesting, as he confessed to not knowing any Hebrew or Greek.  Proponents of his work are quick to point out that the honorable Dr. Donald Waite, a Hebrew and Greek Scholar, also worked on this revision, but in recent correspondence with the man, he told me that he didn't do much on the project.


But was it Reina and Valera's desire that their translation of the scriptures be messed with by compromising and ecumenical Protestant Bible Societies and then have those versions used as the basis of a good, modern revision of the Spanish Bible?  Or would it not have been better to start with the original 1569 of Reina and 1602 of Valera and use them as the basis for a revision of the Spanish Bible?  In fact, wouldn't it even have been better to go back to the older Spanish Protestant Bibles and use them as well?


Although the Gomez did use the pure texts underlying the King James Bible in his work, he did not go back to the original 1602.  The only Spanish Bible revision today that has done that is the Valera 1602 Purificada (Purified).


THE VALERA 1602 PURIFICADA (or Valera 1602 Purified or just the 1602 P for short) is the work of Pastor Raul Reyes and his church Iglesia Bautista Biblica de la Gracia in Monterrey, Mexico, and Independent Baptist Church.  As a church they prayed and fasted as they diligently went verse by verse through the following Spanish Bibles:


1543 Enzinas New Testament

1556 Juan Perez de Pineda New Testament

1569 Reina whole Bible

1602 Valera Spanish Bible

1865 Spanish revision

1909 Spanish Bible

1602 King James Bible

and more!


They also as a church learned Hebrew and Greek, and with the help of Missionary William Park (who only helped them work on the project) they went verse by verse through the New Testament Greek Textus Receptus and the Old Testament Hebrew Masoretic (those pure texts underlying our King James Bible), and they produced what is probably the best Spanish Bible version available today.  (Note:  Their New Testament is finished.  However, they are still currently working on the Old Testament.  A whole Bible is available, with the understanding that the O.T. is not finished and still under revision).


The desire of those in Raul Reyes' church was to have a true Castilian Spanish Bible revised from the pure texts from the Protestant Reformation which underlie our King James Bible.  They were not happy with Reina's use of the Vulgate, so they sought to rid the Spanish Bible of those readings.  They did not appreciate the many hybrid versions in the 1800s done by so called Bible Societies that mixed in many Catholic Spanish words into their texts.  Nor did they accept the insertion of critical texts into the more modern 1909 and 1960 Spanish Bible.  Nor did they desire someone to do what Gomez did, which was to start with the corrupt 1909 and ecumenical 1960, and use those as his basis, seeking to purify those.  They wisely saw that the only way to fix the problem of the Spanish Bible was to go back to those early Protestant Spanish Bibles from the 1500s to the 1600s, and use them as their starting point, making sure to be careful to keep the grammar and beauty of the old Castilian Spanish, while making sure to use the 1611 King James Bible to correct the Spanish text and any deviations from it.  They wanted a SPANISH Bible, but not any Spanish Bible, but one that preserved as many words as possible from the old reformation Spanish texts, words which God used in Spanish and preserved for hundreds of years.  Words that do not help modern cults and sects, but words that point people to Christ Jesus and away from the corrupt catholic church.


Thus, they rejected "VERBO" in favor of "PALABRA."  The also chose to follow the KJV in using "SEÑOR" rather than "Jehova" and much more.  And what they produced, in my estimation is the best Spanish Bible to date.  However, those who use those corrupt, tainted, ecumenical Bibles mentioned above think otherwise, and are outspoken in their opposition of the Valera 1602 Purified, something that I still can't understand, as they claim to be King James only in English.  Why are they KJV only?  Because our King James Bilble came from the time period of the Protestant Reformation, from the pure texts, and in a time when the English language was the most beautiful. Why, then, would they not want a Spanish Bible that came from the pure texts underlying the KJV that also comes from the time of the Protestant Reformation, and is Castilian Spanish, which came from a time with the Spanish language was the most beautiful?   




This is possibly the the saddest part of the story.  For when God worked in the times of the Protestant Reformation to produce Spanish Bibles, it was through much PERSECUTION.  Enzinas went to jail for translating the scriptures into Spanish.  Juan Perez de Pineda went into exile for his work, and most of his New Testaments were burned by the Papists.  Both Reina and Valera did their work in exile fleeing the Roman Catholic Inquisitors who wanted to burn them at the stake for their heinous crime of translating the Bible into the language of the common man.  But all that changed in 1793, with the catholic translation of SCIO.  And because Protestant Bible Societies had no guts to trust in God and purify the Valera, they butchered it by mixing it with the very catholic texts that both Reina and Valera pleaded be taken out of their versions.  After that persecution ceased, then came the 1865, the 1909, and the 1960. 


But then we see persecution once again coming in when in the 1980s and 1990s when men began to question the veracity of the modern Bibles, and point out the fact that they read with the critical texts time and again, and were full of errors, lies, and mistakes.  What happened?  They were ridiculed, attacked, and preached against by those who defended those corrupt translations, and a kind of "Protestant Inquisition" took place, in which Evangelicals, Protestants, Independent Baptists and more with the same spirit as those Catholics of yore chided and mocked anyone who sought to point out the sad truth about the errors in the Spanish Bible.  The truth is that it has never been perfect, and rather than PURIFY it, it's only been CORRUPTED more and more.


Then in the 1990's a Missionary took the task in hand and did something about it.  McVey translated the entire New Testament into Spanish.  But was it accepted?  No, rather it was attacked.  However good or bad his text might have been, his motive was pure.  He wanted a pure Bible in Spanish, like he had in his pure King James in English.  But those who looked as his work only ridiculed him and called his effort "worthless."


Also in the 1990's a native Spanish-speaking church in Monterrey, Mexico under the leadership of Pastor Raul Reyes ("rey" is the spanish word for "King") also sought to do something about it. So they began working on a pure Spanish Bible, going BACK instead of FORWARD (like the Gomez did in using the 1909 and 1960) to begin their revision. And they printed their edition in 1999.  However, because it had many printing and spelling mistakes, their better version was printed in 2002, exactly 400 years after the original 1602 of Valera.  (Look up 400 in the Bible and see if you don't get goose bumps on how God works every 400 years in doing something!)


Yet the entire time they worked, they were constantly and viciously attacked by 1960 defenders who were already in apostasy and had taken the position that their 1960 was the word of God in Spanish. Yet they ignored the many attacks and worked on what they knew to be the right thing to do, purifying the Spanish Bible with the KING JAMES and those Hebrew and Greek texts underlying it.   They worked for over 15 years and all they had to show for it was the New Testament, but what they produced was awesome!  Being rushed by those who wanted a whole Bible they did some revision in the Old Testament and allowed it to be printed with the understanding that the Old Testament was still a work in progress. 


So where is their work today?  Good question.  There are very few copies of the Valera 1602 Purified available today.  Why is this?


The answer is because of the constant bickering, attacking, and debating among modern Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and so-called Protestants who do not wish to face the truth, but rather only defend their own versions of the Spanish Bible.  And because they've joined themselves in groups, and are so adamant that they are right and everyone else is wrong, they will not even tell others about the Purified, and if they do, they only hold it in a negative light.  They have gone so far to defend their versions that they have had to deny the truth.  It's common now to hear people defend the 1865, the 1909, and the 1960, or revisions of those editions (like the modern Gomez 2010), claiming that its okay to have revisions based on those versions.  But they don't want to go back to the old Protestant Spanish Bibles for a revision based upon those older, better Bibles.  (The Valera 1602 Purified is the only revision that did this).


Today, there are now five groups of Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Protestants and/or Independent Baptists who use and defend a specific Spanish Bible:


            1.  Those who use the 1909

            2.  Those who use the 1960

            3.  Those who use the 1865

            4.  Those who use the Gomez

            5.  Those who use the Valera 1602 Purified


Yet all of these, except the last one, have one thing in common.  They all either ignore or attack the Valera 1602 Purified.  For this reason it's hard to get it printed.  But that's no reason to ignore it.  Rather it's an incentive to explore it.  People should seek it out and study it for themselves.






My name is ROBERT BREAKER, and I've been in this battle for the Spanish Bible for many a year.  I started the ministry in 1998 as a Missionary to Honduras, and now I'm working as a Missionary Evangelist to the Spanish-speaking people.  Although Spanish is not my first language, I have learned it, and used it quite often in preaching and teaching (sometimes in upwards of 13 or 14 times a week!) as I planted several churches in Honduras.  I've also helped start a Bible Institute in Honduras, and taught courses in it as well.


So, unlike some of my cohorts who claim to defend a certain version in Spanish without knowing any Spanish at all, I have used and do have a working knowledge of the Spanish language.  I also have a vast library of many old Spanish Bibles, and have studied them extensively.  My desire if for people to quit attacking and simply sit down and look at all the facts.


During my time in the ministry, I have accumulated and studied almost all of the Spanish Bibles and the history about those old Spanish men behind its translation and I have written four books about the Spanish Bible and its History.  And, I've been constantly attacked and lied about for doing nothing more than simply giving the facts about the Spanish Bible Issue and Controversy.  Yet, I will continue to present the facts, ALL OF THEM, whether they help or hurt my cause.  For I believe the FACTS are what is needed, not a haughty spirit.


My desire is not to attack, ridicule, put down, name call, slander, libel, or retaliate against anyone or their version of the Bible.  I simply want all the facts to be presented plainly and clearly.  And I desire people to make up their own minds themselves about which Spanish Bible they should use.  I believe people are smart enough to come to their own conclusions based upon facts, and I'm certain that if they practice discernment, they will come to the same logical conclusion that I have:  that over all, the Valera 1602 Purified is the best Spanish Bible available to date. 






Now that you know the "Who's Who" about the many Spanish Bible versions, I'm now going to give you the names of the main defenders of these various versions and what they teach about it.  And, I'm going to present their websites and ENCOURAGE you to study them for your self.  For as you study them, you'll find that many of them are very inconsistent on their beliefs.  They claim to be KJV only in English, but when their Spanish Bible reads differently, they take a different position in Spanish, against what they claim to dogmatically believe in English. This is not only illogical, but unfathomable.  Yet, they like to explain it away by saying thinks like, "Oh, you are just comparing apples to oranges," or "Spanish and English are different so they don't have to say the same thing."  But if the KJV is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, then shouldn't the Spanish Bible read like it does?  And wouldn't the Spanish Bible be WRONG if it reads against the King James?


Below, I'm going to give the names of those defenders of those five versions listed above, and what they believe.  This will be the real "Who's Who" of the Spanish Bible controversy, for now you know the HISTORY about the versions, and shortly you will know the MEN who are defending those versions and why.  I consider myself blest to have either met or corresponded with these men personally, having spoken face to face and/or corresponded with them, and been able to discern their reasons for choosing their version of the Spanish Bible.  I don't know why God put me in such a place to see firsthand the Spanish Bible Debate and Controversy unfold, but I've been there every step of the way watching these men.  And to me as one who likes to be on the outside looking in, all I see is a lot of yelling and putting one another down, vehemently attacking one another, rather than simply looking at the texts.  Why can't they just stop, and look at the facts, all of them, and come to an agreement and have one pure Spanish Bible?   I believe it's because they are all motivated by one or more of the following five things:


            1.  Fame

            2.  Money

            3.  Prestige

            4.  Flesh

            5.  Love for the word of God


And it appears very few are motivated by the last one.  And, unfortunately, they all seem to be in the FLESH when they deal with others, as they have an emotional attachment to their own version of the Spanish Bible.  For this reason, I desire not fame, money, or prestige, and because I love the word of God, I want a pure word of God in Spanish.  This is my motive for presenting the facts.  And, it's my desire not to get in the flesh, and with anger, malice, hatred, or any other carnal motive spend my time attacking others.  Again, I only desire to present the facts in an orderly fashion and I pray you will discern them in the Spirit of Christ, not in the flesh.  I've had many people contact me and say things like, "Bro. Breaker, thank you so much for your website.  I tried to find out more about the Spanish Bible, and was appalled at all the name-calling and even cussing by those defending their own versions.  I appreciate your not going down to their level!  Thanks for simply giving the facts."


The Spanish Bible is very dear to my heart, as I've been there all along the way watching since the late 1990's the rise and fall of many different versions and their defenders.  It is for the pure word of God in Spanish that I seek, and it's for this reason that I present the facts and hope that someday people will love the words of God in Spanish enough to lay aside their petty differences and seek the purest Spanish Bible available.  If that doesn't happen, I at least pray they can agree to disagree in the spirit of Christ, in the spirit of meekness, and not in that hateful spirit of malice of old which the Spanish Inquisitors held and tapped to help them in their anger to assassinate others.  For even though today we don't have a physical Inquisition and the actual burning at the stake of individuals, we do see much character assassination among "the brethren" who defend their own versions so much as to be willing to ridicule, downgrade, pummel, and verbally attack others who claim to be Christians just as they do.  This is not the Spirit of Christ, rather of the flesh.  And what is needed is a cool head and a warm heart as we come together in the spirit of meekness, turning to the scriptures, and not one another's own personal opinions.





Back when all that was available was the 1909 and the 1960, there were many who defended the 1909 over the more corrupt 1960.  But they were far from being the majority.  And as the 1960 gained popularity, the 1909 dwindled and lost much availability.  Today, many modern Bible Societies and printing presses have turned from the 1909 and have stopped printing it.  It's almost impossible today to find anyone who prints the 1909 Spanish Bible.  And it's even harder to go into a modern Christian Bookstore in Spanish and find a 1909.  They are going out of style and are looked up as outdated.  The 1909 has been replaced by the 1960.  And those who once defended the 1909 now have changed to either the 1865, the Gomez, or the Valera 1602 Purificada.  Thus, it's hard to find anyone today who defends the old 1909 Spanish Bible. 

Online, I found only one website that does.  It is: 


http://www.valera1909.com/   (Note:  This site is in all Spanish).


If you defend the 1909, or know anyone who does, please email me and I would love to post here your site in defense of the old 1909 ABS Spanish Bible.  At one time I knew of an Independent Baptist group that did defend the 1909, and their website said something to the effect of:  The 1909: The Word of God in Spanish.  But this site is no longer online, or at least is not found.  So please, if you do have information by anyone who still stands on the 1909 as the word of God in Spanish, please let me know.  I'd love to let them get their say and post their link here for all the world to see.


What's wrong with the 1909?  A lot actually.  Although it's not as bad as the 1960, it does have some errors.  Click here for a few errors in both the 1909 and 1960





Although a lot of Independent Baptists have moved away from the 1960, there are still many who use it and adamantly defend it.  Among these in that denomination, probably the foremost defender is a man named Calvin George.  He has written two books defending that version.  His titles include:  "The Battle for the Spanish Bible" and "The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible."


Mr. George is a user of the King James Bible, but according to my correspondence with him in the early days of my ministry (and his), he told me that he believes more in the "Greek" than in the KJV.  That is, he believes that there are "errors" in the King James Bible.  (Let me be clear.  Personally, I believe there are NO errors in the KJV.  I believe it to be the PERFECT, inerrant, infallible, inspired, word of God.  Calvin George, however, believes it is just a reliable translation, a good translation, but not perfect.)


In Mr. George's first book, "The Battle for the Spanish Bible," he goes to far as to defend the 1960 even when it goes against the KJV. 


I encourage people to get this book and read it.  If I knew where it was online, I would post a link to it here.  I think you have to buy it in order to read it.  You know, fork out the $ in order to see what he says. 


(Note:  All of my books are available online for you to read WITHOUT COST.  I do, however sell them online too for those who desire a professional looking soft back printed copy. I'm not interested in money, for I've gotten hardly any through the years.  I'm interested in the facts and the truth, and that's why I want people to have access to them).


There is however, online a link to a rebuttal of Mr. George's first book by a man named Dr. Bill Bradley.  You can find his work in .pdf form by clicking below:


The words are Different, and So is the Meaning 


In Mr. George's second book, "The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible," Mr. George gives the history of that version and the men involved.  He also tells more about the modernist and liberal (others call him HERETICAL) Eugene Nida, the man who started the "dynamic equivalence" theory of Bible translation which makes a translator the FINAL AUTHORITY and allows him to translate not the actual words, rather only the idea behind the words.  And in his book, Mr. George presents this man Nida in a fashionable and pleasant light.


Mr. George also pertains to the Independent Baptist Movement, which is interesting, for this is the same movement which years ago used to be unanymous AGAINST the English RSV, a version full of errors and critical text readings.  And, it's even more interesting that the Spanish 1960 committee used preferentially the RSV and other corrupt English translations translated directly from the critical texts in their translation work.  You can click below for a quote from Jose Flores, who was a consultant on the 1960 revision committee, and see for yourself what he said the rules were in translating the 1960.


Jose Flores Quote  


How odd then, that Mr. George defends a version in Spanish (the 1960) that contains readings from a version in English that his denomination once cried loudly against!  (Note:  There are KJV Bible Believers in the Independent Baptist Movement today who believe the KJV is perfect, and there are others who believe it's not, however they use it anyway.  These people use the KJV, but don't believe the KJV.  Those who don't believe in the KJV, we should then refer to as apostates for their movement once believed only in the KJV, but they themselves have fallen away from this belief and teaching).


Now, when I was starting my ministry in the late 1990's, I wrote a book entitled, "A Brief History of the Spanish Bible."  And wouldn't you know it, Calvin George read my book and wrote against me and it.  And, at one time, Mr. George had a website devoted to defending the 1960.  On that website, he made a list of those who he said were "attacking" the 1960 Spanish Bible.  Care to guess who was number 1 on his list of those "attacking" his version?  His list can be seen by clicking on the link below:


Mr. Calvin George's Website of those attacking the 1960


Because of this "publicity." People began to question who this "Robert Breaker" guy was and look up my site.  And they began to discover the truth about the 1960 Spanish Bible, and how bad it really is.  So Thank You!  Mr. George.  You have done much towards showing people the truth about the errors in the 1960 Spanish Bible!


Finally, Mr. George and others who still adamantly defend the 1960 Spanish have come out with their own version of the 1960 Spanish Bible.  They call it the "Reina-Valera Revision 1960 Edición Bautista Fundamental"  or in English the "Fundamental Baptist Edition of the Reina-Valera 1960."


Oddly enough on the first page of this Bible, we find the strange three pointed star that's on the New King James, a symbol that according to some is a symbol of "witch craft" and the occult, and represents the Satanic Trinity.  Why put such a symbol in a Bible? 


Click here to see that symbol for yourself


People are now beginning to see the problems in the 1960 and are turning away from it in droves.  For this I am thankful for true Spanish-speaking Christians have been duped for years into using this ecumenical, pro-catholic, critical text, modernist version full of errors and mistakes.


Click here for some mistakes in the 1960 Spanish Bible





Jeff McCardle is a graduate of the Pensacola Bible Institute, and a Pastor in South Florida.  He also claims to be a Missionary to Cuba.  In January of 2001 he and some of his fellow students at the Pensacola Bible Institute held a meeting in which they presented their case of why they thought the 1865 Spanish Bible is the right Bible in Spanish.  Upon their invitation, I attended this meeting and listened to their reasons of why they thought it was the word of God in Spanish. 


Mr. McCardle has a peculiar teaching in which he uses to defend the 1865.  His teaching that the 1865 is the only Spanish Bible that should be accepted is based on his understanding of the book of Revelation and the seven churches listed in chapters 2 and 3.  Although LITERALLY these seven churches were seven LITERAL churches in the time of the apostle John, McCardle spiritually applies these churches to the church age.  (Something that you can do SPIRITUALLY, but not LITERALLY!)  And because the 1611 King James Bible came out in what McCardle calls the Philadelphia Church Age, which he says starts somewhere around the late 1500s to the late 1800s, McCardle teaches that for a Bible to be the pure and preserved of God, it can ONLY come during this Philadelphia church age.  (Which he claims ended in 1881 with Westcott and Hort's introduction of their Critical Greek Text).  Because of this teaching by McCardle, he proclaims that any Bible or revision of a Bible that comes out after 1881 can NEVER be true word of God.  He therefore calls it a LAODICEAN "apostate" version.


Now, what's interesting and this is how I come into the story, is that Mr. McCardle has since revised his 1865 Spanish Bible in the year 2005, and by so doing, by his very own teaching, wouldn't that make his revision an APOSTATE LAODICEAN Bible?


I personally presented Dr. Peter S. Ruckman in his office while with Jeff McCardle a list of about 40 or 50 places in which the 1865 Spanish Bible read with either the critical or Vulgate texts, or it was just simply in error, as it didn't read with the King James.  Mr. Ruckman said, "Oh, boy, oh, boy!"  He then asked McCardle, "Are you going to change those places?"  Jeff McCardle responded, "I'm going to make some changes."  And he did.  Interestingly enough, many of those 50 places in which McCardle REVISED his 1865 were those places I wrote down on a list and handed to Dr. Ruckman.  All this happened after Dr. Ruckman allowed Jeff McCardle to write an article in his "BIBLE BAPTIST BULLETIN" in which McCardle defended the 1865, claiming that "EVERY WORD" in that translation should be defended.


Now, here's the kicker.  After Jeff McCardle made his revision of the 1865 in 2005, people began to ask, "Why do you call it an 1865 still?  Isn't it now a 2005 edition, since you REVISED IT in 50 places?"  Seeing how this no longer matched up with his teaching that a Bible translation can only be given by God before 1881, Jeff McCardle has since REMOVED those 50 changes in his revision and gone back to printing the original 1865 as it was before he made the changes.  For this reason, he has lost much credibility.  For weren't his CHANGES of 50 places a CONFESSION that they were indeed in ERROR?  And to change them back, wasn't that a confession that he was "wrong" in changing them in the first place?  (So which is better?  The 1865 original, or the revised 2005, especially since the 2005 was for the better against the catholic text and in favor of the KJV?)


At any rate, I've heard since that Jeff McCardle has told people that Robert Breaker made him look like a "fool" in front of Dr. Ruckman by pointing out those errors in the 1865 in his office in front of Dr. Ruckman.  This was not my intention.  In fact, I simply pointed out the FACTS, and Mr. McCardle. did a good job of looking like a fool by his own actions.


Jeff McCardle still continues to defend his 1865 Spanish Bible at any cost, and by so doing he is exposing himself and the fact that he does not believe the King James Bible is the perfect, inerrant, inspired, infallible word of God in English.  Some examples will suffice:


Psalm 12:6,7  Mr. McCardle says that in English (KJV) the passage does in fact speak of the words being preserved.  Yet in his 1865, the passage is perverted, making the generation or the people being those who are preserved, not the words.  How does Mr. McCardle logically defend this?  He says the KJV is right, but the 1865 is right also, for it's true in ENGLISH that the words are inspired, but it can be different in Spanish, and it can be right in applying to the people in Spanish.  But shouldn't it be the same in both languages?  Truth is truth in any language!


In John 1:1, Mr. McCardle says that the word "Verbo" in his version is correct, and the old Protestant word "Palabra" is incorrect. However, we are immediately presented with a problem.  For, according to the minutes of the American Bible Society, they claim that the original 1865 of Mora and Pratt had the word "Palabra."  It was in 1868 that the committee met and decided to change it to Verbo.  This puts in doubt the fact that what Mr. McCardle calls the 1865 is in fact the 1865 at all, rather an 1868 reprint of the 1865 that has been revised.  (So which version does Mr. McCardle really defend?  The 1865 or the 1868?)


Yet, Mr. McCardle defends the word "Verbo" by calling it an "advanced revelation" in the 1865 (1868?) Spanish Bible.  (So God used a corrupt Protestant Bible Society to give us an "advanced revelation?)  But if you study the history of the word "verbo" you find it has its roots in catholicism (the SCIO Catholic Spanish Bible) and the OCCULT (the Kabballah).  We must then ask, "Did GOD allow a catholic to give us an advanced revelation?"


Click below for more on Verbo vs. Palabra...


Verbo vs. Palabra


Finally, Mr. McCardle is known far and wide for his use of strong language, and even CUSSING in his correspondence and teaching about the Spanish Bible.  He also attacks and continually uses "name-calling" against those with whom he disagrees, often going so far as to use hateful, and dirty words.  Is this the Spirit of Christ? 


Mr. McCardle has written a book entitled, "The Elephant in the Living Room."  I strongly recommend you contact the Bible Baptist Bookstore in Pensacola, Florida to obtain a copy.  For it contains some good information.  But it also shows McCardle's brash and contentious spirit.


To find out more about Jeff McCardle, his writings, his teachings, and his Valera Bible Society which defend the 1865 (er, um, 1868?) Spanish Bible, please visit his website at:


Valera Bible Society  (www.valera1865.org)


Also, please read the article by Manny Rodriguez in which he exposes much about Mr. McCardle's illogical teachings, sayings, and beliefs.  It can be found at:


The Valera Bible Societies Struggle for Survival  (If this link does not work, it can be found at:  www.biblefortoday.org).


There is also a man named Luis Vega who defends the 1865 Spanish Bible, and he has written an article about me.  You can find his work on the Valera Bible Society website under the heading of "silly gringo" (I guess that's directed at me) by clicking on the link below.


Silly Gringo Breaker


Click below to see my response to Mr. Vega's charges. 


Robert Breaker's response to Luis Vega's article


Mr. Vega's article speaks about the word "Verbo."  For those who want the REAL TRUTH about that word, please read Gail Riplinger's treatise on that word by clicking below.  Note, it is in .pdf format and might take a long time to load.


Gail's Essay on Verbo vs. Palabra


(Note:  It's my desire that people look at all the facts and practice discernment for themselves.  I am not, like some people, trying to hide facts, or present them in such a way that will make people believe something in a certain fashion, or make me look like I'm the only person that has the truth.  Rather, I want people to look at everything for themselves and let them come to their one conclusions.  Don't follow me, follow the TRUTH!   For this reason I'm giving the links above, and those that follow below in the rest of this article, knowing full well that there is information there which is in contrary to me and my position.  It's up to you, dear reader, to decide for yourself if what's written by others is true or not.  If it is, accept it.  If not, reject it.  Follow the truth wherever it may lead you!)




Lastly we must mention the Allen Sanchez connection with the 1865 Spanish Bible, for he has a website in which he gives his side of the story about what he calls being "defrauded" by Mr. McCardle, Mr. Ruckman, and others.  I do not know if his accusations are true.  All I know is that this man has been hurt greatly by these people, almost to the point of suicide on several occasions.  His website/blog can be visited at:




But I strongly caution people from reading his words and watching his videos for the much use of PROFANITY throughout.  I have personally spoken to Mr. Sanchez about this, and told him that he should not speak thusly.  He seems to have rejected my counsel.


I reached out to Allen Sanchez on several occasions, but found a man who's only interested in CUSSING, and EXPOSING, rather than truly working together to get a pure Spanish Bible and making a free online Spanish Bible Institute.  For it appears Mr. Sanchez is doing all he can to take McCardle to court.


I do not know exactly what transpired between Mr. McCardle and Mr. Sanchez, and it's my desire to NOT get involved with this situation, for I understand there are some kind of criminal proceedings or court dates upcoming.  That is between both parties.  I only present this information, as I get phone calls and emails often asking me if I'm connected with and or helping Mr. Sanchez.  I am not, nor do I have any desire to do so.  Again, my ministry is not to attack, rather only present the facts about the Spanish Bible Issue.





Faced with the errors in the 1865, 1909, and 1960, Mr. Humberto Gomez set about to make his own version of the Spanish Bible.  But rather than go all the way back to the Enzinas, Juan Perez de Pineda, Reina and Valera versions, he chose to begin with the corrupt 1909 and modernist 1960 perversions and try to purify those translations.  And as we look at his version and its many different editions we find some curious facts, as well as many questions that seem to be left unanswered.  We also find many presuppositions that are hard to swallow.


The first defender of the Gomez Bible is of course Mr. Gomez himself, who claims to have been the "final authority" on the project, however, he allowed people to "email" him suggestions and places in which they thought should be changed.  Mr. Gomez claims to have undertaken the task in either the year 2000 or 2002.  It's hard to tell, for Mr. Gomez on his website gave two conflicting dates of when he supposedly started his task.  So which one is it?  We don't know.  However, his first edition came out in 2004, and his version quickly took the name Reina-Valera Gomez 2004, or the RVG '04 for short. 


His RVG '04 was riddled with errors and mistakes.  Yet, for some unknown reason, those who defend the Gomez Bible today are careful not to mention that first edition, and have quickly swept it under the rug.  But doesn't the first edition give us a mindset into the translator?   


You might ask, "What was wrong with the first edition?" Several things, but probably the worst was the insertion of the word "hija" to the text not once, but twice in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, which allowed a man to marry is own virgin DAUGHTER!  (Yes, you read that right).


For more about this and other errors in the first edition of the Gomez as well as newer editions of it, click below on my book: "The History and Truth Of the Reina-Valera Gomez Spanish Bible."


History and Truth About the Reina-Valera Gomez


Obtaining a copy of this first version of 2004, I found so many errors and mistakes that I couldn't believe it.  But it was quickly changed and changed again.  Until if finally came out in what is now called the Reina-Valera Gomez 2010, and it is now being printed by and distributed through Chick Publications.  (Thank God it has been made better, but it still has some problems! A link to a comparison chart will be given a little later in this work, for you to see that it's not completely a TR version.)


How did Mr. Gomez do his revision?  Mr. Gomez stated on his website that he went "verse by verse" through the entire 1909 Spanish Bible, and that he "immediately" changed any verse that didn't line up with the King James, the Textus Receptus, and the Hebrew Masoretic Text.  However, as we read through his version we find that is far from true.  For there are many places that the Gomez does not follow the KJV, the TR, and/or the Hebrew Masoretic Text.  (Click on my book above for more).  Further, the Gomez reads closely with the modern 1960 Spanish Bible in many places.  Because people like myself pointed this out, Mr. Gomez eventually confessed that he did indeed use the 1960 in his work.  (Why didn't he mention this in the beginning?  Why did he make it appear like he only used the 1909 and the KJV, TR, and HMT?  Wasn't this a little misleading?)  


After having written my book about the History and Truth About the Reina-Valera Gomez, one Mr. Donald Heinz, a defender of that version wrote a rebuttal entitled, "Breaker's Broken Book."  You can read it by clicking below:


Breaker's Broken Book in .pdf format


In his article, Mr. Heinz does a great job of showing that he doesn't believe that it's important to have translated every word, and that to him, it's not important that a word is translated correctly (i.e. he thinks it's okay for singular words to be translated as plural words and vice versa).  To me, I believe that we should have EVERY word translated as closely as possible. And it's atrocious to translate words that are in plural to singular and vice versa.  But it obviously didn't bother Mr. Heinz, or Mr. Gomez.


What's interesting is that Mr. Heinz' article was originally a blog, and the above .pdf conveniently omits the comments page on that blog.  To read the blog yourself, and the many comments by both Jeff McCardle and Manny Rodriguez, you should click below:


Breaker's Broken Booklet


The comments given by these men reveal their thought pattern and continual attack mode mentality in which these men are constantly in.  I myself didn't know about this blog until way after it had been written, and it was interesting to me to see both Jeff McCardle and Manny Rodriguez in their comments constantly go back and forth on their own little tangents, without dealing with the issue itself.  You can see my comment on the end, after the debate appeared to be over. 


Another defender of the Gomez is Missionary Carlos Donate.  It was Donate and his church who printed the first edition of the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible. He has since jumped ship and switched to the Gomez Bible, which caused a split in his church.  What's interesting is that  Donate used to be against the 1960 and against the Gomez, but he appears to have "settled" on that version even though it doesn't say exactly what he thinks it should.


Of all the people I've personally met, I don't know anyone who was more against the 1960 Spanish version than Carlos Donate.  So how he could endorse the Gomez which reads so closely to the 1960 is very baffling to me.  However, I remember it was Mr. Donate who once personally told me, "The Spanish Bible Issue is not about TRUTH, it's about POLITICS."  And though it might be true for some, it's not for me.  I believe it should be about the TRUTH.


When I wrote Donate an email about how the Gomez reads so closely to the 1960, and it appeared to me that this was on purpose to get more 1960 users to switch to it, I found that

Donate responded with the attitude that if the Gomez sounded more like the 1960 then that was a good thing, as it would make those who once used the 1960 turn to that version even quicker, leading to even more numbers jumping on the bandwagon of the Gomez.  Regardless of what you think about the 1960, the facts prove that Mr. Gomez did avail himself of many words of that translation.  And it appears that because he did so, he is getting a large following, especially of those who once used the corrupt, ecumenical 1960 Spanish perversion.


As before mentioned, Mr. Gomez had help on his translation from people who "emailed" him suggestions.  So I thought I too would email Mr. Gomez a very important suggestion myself to see if he would indeed "immediately" change any verse that did not line up with the King James.  So I emailed him 2 Peter 1:21, as asked him to make it read with the KJV reading of "moved" with the Holy Ghost.   


The reason I had for doing this, was because years earlier Mr. Donate himself taught me that the Spanish Bible should read thusly, claiming, "Modern English Bibles read 'guided' because they believe that the men were inspired, and not the words."  So with this I emailed Mr. Gomez and asked him to change this verse to read with the KJV.  To this day, it's never been changed. (Check the 2010).  It still reads, "guiados" or "guided" by the Holy Ghost.  The only Spanish Bible to read with the King James in this verse is the Valera 1602 Purified, which has "movidos" or "moved" by the Holy Spirit.  But why hasn't Mr. Gomez changed this verse?  Especially when he boldly proclaimed to have "immediately corrected" every verse that didn't line up with the King James Bible? 


The last vocal defender of the Gomez is Emmanuel Rodriguez, an American born missionary to Puerto Rico who did not have Spanish as his first language.  Manny (his nickname) used to be a very good friend of mine, and we used to have a lot of fun together preaching on the street and talking about the Lord.  However, he's now turned on me for not following him in endorsing and defending the Gomez Bible. (Yet everyone who uses the Gomez always talks about how much it is "uniting" the brethren?  From my experience, it has caused much division!)


I remember a few years ago when Manny called me on the phone and told me, "I no longer want to be your friend, and I don't want to tell people about your or the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible!


Manny must have changed his mind, for he has recently turned against me even more, to the point of attacking me and falsifying information about me in his article entitled, "Is Gail Riplinger Right About the Reina-Valera Gomez Bible?"  In this 49 page thesis he attacks me, Robert Breaker, with the false accusation that I was kicked out of my old home church for, and I quote: "dishonest practices."  This is laughable, as the information he presents is from my website under the title of "Why we LEFT our own home church."  How could we have been kicked out if we left of our own accord?"  And as far as "dishonest practices," he gives no evidence, rather he gives a letter from Peter Ruckman to me in which many false accusations are made.  Accusations which I gladly welcome, for I tried to make my ministry as TRANSPARENT as possible, keeping a journal on my website of my entire time in Honduras as a Missionary, and you can still go there today and read it for yourself, proving what Mr. Ruckman accuses me of is completely false.  (Click here to go to my Honduran Journal and see for yourself if the accusations against me are true or false).  To this day, I have no idea what these so-called "dishonest practices" are that I'm accused of.  I would really like to know.  I have done nothing wrong.


Manny ends his article by saying about me, "Despite all of his efforts, he has no influence and hardly an audience, especially amongst Hispanic brethren.  No Hispanic Bible-Believer who understands the issues at hand takes him seriously."

If Mr. Rodriguez desires to convince himself of such a statement, that's fine.  My email inbox proves otherwise, and my telephone ringing off the hook from spanish-speaking people all over North, Central, and South America, with whom I can actually converse in Spanish, tells a very different story.  Email after email come to me from hispanic people who have started reading the Gomez, and compared it with the Valera 1602 Purified, and have come to a very different conclusion about the Gomez. 


To read Manny's article against Riplinger and myself, click below:


Is Gail Riplinger Right About the Reina-Valera Gomez Bible?


Gail Riplinger's clear, concise, and scholarly response to his article can be found below:


Gail's Response to Manny's article


To read about why we personally left our old home church of our own accord, please click below:


Why we left our old home church


Another interesting thing about Emanuel Rodriguez is the fact that when I knew him, he had no working knowledge of the Spanish Language, and he had just started deputation as a Missionary for the field of Puerto Rico.  If he has since learned, then praise the Lord. (I look forward to seeing his Youtube videos in SPANISH, as they are now all in English only).  But when I knew him, he did not speak Spanish.  He is from South Carolina, and though he looks like a Puerto Rican, he has a Southern Accent.  It's therefore interesting to me that he should lift himself up as the "authority" on the Spanish Bible Issue, having not been to the field yet and not speaking Spanish himself.


And for this reason, his evidence for why he thinks the word "Verbo" is correct should be looked at by true Spanish-speakers, for he argues "Palabra" is wrong because it's a "feminine" word and therefore it makes Jesus "effeminate" when the passage speaks of him as "ella."  True Spanish-speakers have no problem with this, as even though a word itself might be "feminine" the thing the word represents is not!


Probably the most important thing to look at about the Gomez Spanish Bible is what is now being printed on the cover of the Reina-Valera Gomez 2010 Spanish Bible printed and distributed by Chick Tracts.  It is there boldly proclaimed on the cover of that version that it is the "Las palabras preservadas de Dios en español"  (The preserved words of God in Spanish).  If this indeed be true, then we should all fall to our feet and thank God for Mr. Gomez, for God must have chosen him since the foundation of the world to be the ultimate decider on which words in Spanish are the right words for us today. And without him, we would never have those "preserved" words.


But this is exactly what it appears that modern followers of the Gomez believe.  Manny Rodriguez has even recently written a book entitled, "God's Bible in Spanish: How God Preserved His Words in Spanish Through the RVG," which is currently printed by Chick Tracts, in which Manny presents this very same line of logic.  If this be the case, we therefore owe a great amount of appreciation to Mr. Gomez, for without him, Spanish-speakers would never have the "preserved" words of God in Spanish. 


Or, we could look at it another way.  Maybe it's not the very preserved words of God in Spanish, but those who use it have attempted to defend it so strongly, that they have gone to the extreme of claiming to believe it to be such.  Should we allow them to dictate to us such an assertion?  


Those who use the Gomez usually won't mention or acknowledge the 1602 Valera Purified.  Notice in the following website what they say about the various Spanish Bibles and read the description.




Notice the Valera 1602 Purified is conveniently missing from their list of Spanish Bibles.   And their site claims the Gomez reads ENTIRELY with the TR, departing from it ZERO times.  Compare this with the following comparison chart to see for yourself that the Gomez does not read entirely with the Textus Receptus.


Comparison Chart of the Various Spanish Bibles which shows the Valera 1602 Purified is really the one that's closer to the TR


The Gomez further leaves the O.T. word "Jehova" in the text rather than using "Señor."  And it leaves in the catholic word "Verbo" rather than the Protestant Reformation word "Palabra."  And, because it reads so closely to the 1960, it also contains many words that are modern words from that modernist version, rather than the old long-standing Protestant words from the Protestant Reformation.  Thus, even though there are those now who accept and defend the modern Gomez, and claim it's the "preserved words of God in Spanish," we must ask, "Did God really preserve his words through SCIO, EUGENE NIDA, and compromising PROTESTANT BIBLE SOCIETIES???"  For many of the words in the Gomez come from these sources.


An interesting note is that the Reina-Valera Gomez 2010 has now been accepted by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, who chose to use that version for their new Study Bible.  Care to guess who's notes they chose to put into the text?  It is the notes of one Ellen G. White! Maybe you've heard of her?  I recently bought this Bible in leather just to see what it looked like, and on the front page it says the text is used "by permission."  That means Mr. Gomez gave permission to that church to use his text to insert their notes from a woman who did not believe in the deity of Christ.


If the 1960 was an ecumenical Bible, then what do we say of the Gomez?  Especially since many who adhere to that version proclaim it must be the word of God because of all the "numbers" of people who are turning to that Bible.  But could it be just another ecumenical Bible itself?


The modern Gomez Spanish Bible appears to becoming more of a CULT than a true Bible revision. (All so-called Christian cults exalt a MAN and place his name so close to the scriptures that he is looked upon as the only one who can "interpret" or in this case "translate" the Bible.  And in cults, the men are put as high as the word of God.  We must then question the name "Reina-Valera GOMEZ"  Why would he put his own name with such honorable and venerated men who suffered so much for the cause of Christ?")  For this version is quickly becoming a movement rather than simply a translation that can stand upon its own veracity and translation skills.  And when we look at the Gomez Spanish Bible and it's history, we find that the Gomez Spanish Bible sits on a throne of many inconsistencies. 


However, and let me say that again, HOWEVER, I'm not attacking the Gomez.  I'm only presenting the facts and asking the questions that many others will not.  And I'm glad people have turned from the 1960, the 1909, and even the 1865 to the much better Gomez.  Better they use the Gomez than those corrupt versions.  However, I don't believe it's the best Spanish Bible, and I know it's not for me.  I desire a better, purer version in Spanish.


Extra Note:  Manny Rodriguez has since attacked me again.  I wrote an article entitled: THE LIES ABOUT THE MODERN GOMEZ  To the which Manny replied the following rebuttal:  THE RANTINGS AND RAVINGS OF ROBERT BREAKER

To the which I've responded with: A RESPONSE TO MANNY RODRIGUEZ' ARTICLE AGAINST ME  This correspondence does well to show the attacking spirit of those who defend the Gomez, how they continually exalt and defend men, and how they do not deal with the issue at hand, the actual words in the text.





Before listing the last Spanish Bible revision, I must stop and mention the great work by Stephen Hite, who after having read all about the Spanish Bible Controversy, decided to do what he could to help people see the facts for themselves.  Having no working knowledge of Spanish himself, he decided to use that to his advantage, as he took the New Testament of eight different Spanish Bibles and put them into one two-volume set verse by verse, so that people could read and study them for themselves.  His work is available at:  www.octapla.com, and I highly recommend people to buy his work, for the Enzinas of 1543 and the Juan Perez de Pineda of 1556 are two versions in his edition that are not found anywhere else.  (That is they aren't for sale at any bookstore anywhere!)




Cipriano de Valera wrote the following words in the preface of his 1602 revision:


"Because it is not right to conform the certain with the uncertain, the word of God with the word of men...I again plead to our good merciful God and Father that He give you grace to hear Him and to know His will and that knowing it you will conform to it.  And so be saved through the blood of the Lamb without blemish that sacrificed himself on the altar of the cross to forgive our sins before God.  Amen.  So be it."


These words are just as powerful today as they were back then.  It is a wicked and heinous crime to mix man's words with God's words.  What we should want is a Spanish Bible that says exactly what God said, with no critical text readings, no doctrinal errors, and no omissions or additions.


Sadly, the history of the Spanish Bible has been nothing but taking either catholic or critical texts and mixing them with the pure word of God, leading to confusion.  But God is not the author of confusion!


So what's needed to find a pure Spanish Bible?


Valera gave us the answer to that question in his preface, when he wrote:


"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."


Guess what happened?  In 1603 King James of England came to the British throne and one year later, he commissioned an AUTHORIZED Bible for the English people.  It was finished in 1611, and is the greatest Bible anywhere in any language!  However, it's only in English.  If only King James had authorized his scholars to do the same in Spanish, French, German, Italian, Russian, etc.  But alas, he did not.  So for a pure Spanish Bible, we need to use as our basis the King James Bible.   But that's not all.  We should also go back to the Protestant Reformation and those old Protestant Spanish Bibles from the 1400s and 1500s.  And this is exactly what those behind the Valera 1602 Purificada did.  Below is a list of just some of the texts they used in their revision:


15th and 16th Hebrew Translation of the Masoretic text into Spanish; Escorial; Contantinople – Salonica; Ferrara; Ms 87; Ms 10.208 and others.

1537 Juan de Valdés Spanish version (Mateo, Romanos, and 1 Corintios.  Also Salmos 1-41)

1543 Fransico de Enzinas Spanish New Testament

            1556 Juan Perez de Pineda Spanish New Testament and book of Psalms

            1553 Ferrara Spanish Old Testament

            1611 The King James in English

1813, 1817, 1831, 1862, and 1869 Valera Spanish Revisions

            1865 American Bible Society Spanish Revisión

            1909 Antigua Spanish Bible

1917 Jewish TANAKH edition which is the Masoretic text of the Jacob Ben Chayim published by the Jewish Publication Society

            McVey Spanish Bible translation directly translated from the King James 1611

            The Alameida Portugese Trinitarian revision

            and many more


With this versions they went through them verse by verse, studying them all. This is what the King James translators did as well, for they had all the texts on the table, even the corrupt Latin vulgate.  But they had enough wisdom to know which versions were pure and which were not, and through the process of comparison and collation, they arrived at the pure word of God in English.  Thus, shouldn't this also be the right method for finding the pure word of God in Spanish?


This is exactly what those behind the 1602 Valera Purified did.  Their work took them over 15 years to complete the New Testament.  (Compare this to the GOmess, which if started in 2002, or was it 2004, was the work of only about 8 to 10 years).  They are also working hard at trying to finish the Old Testament.  After having looked long at hard at all the Spanish Bibles and Spanish revisions, I believe theirs to be the best to date.  But I'm not the only one.  There are many others.  Care to guess who they are?  They are SPANISH-SPEAKERS!


It's sad, if not downright embarrassing to me to see that the vast majority of those who are involved in the Spanish Bible Debate are not native Spanish-speaking people (my self included).  You would think that Spanish-speaking people would be the ones who are trying to fix the problem and who are telling others about the importance to have a pure Spanish Bible.  But in the 1980's when people began to wake up to the fact that all Spanish Bibles had problems, it was the native-English speakers who were the ones who saw it and who pointed it out.  Since then, you have many men going around in English trying to convince other men in English (most of which don't speak Spanish) about which Spanish Bible is the best.  But how do we know if they are telling the truth?  How can anyone who doesn't speak Spanish know which Bible in Spanish is the right one?


That's easy!  Get a Spanish-English dictionary, and go verse by verse through the Spanish Bibles with the King James and the old Spanish Reformation Bibles.  Then you can see for yourself what's what.  That's why there are comparison charts.  You need to study!  If you don't speak Spanish, so what.  You can at least read it.  Don't just take a man's word for it that such an such a Bible is the best one.  FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF!  Diligently S-T-U-D-Y out the issue for yourself to see what's true.  For there are guys out there who are trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or trying to hide facts on purpose from you.  And you owe it to the Spanish-speaking people to find out which Spanish Bible truly is the best one.


Know you know the Who's Who of the Spanish Bible.  I tried to present the facts without giving you the What for.  Rather, I presented as plainly as possible what the versions are, where they came from, and who's defending them.  I attempted to also give a few reasons of WHY they appear to be defending them.  However, I could be wrong.  I do not profess to have the gift of seeing into men's heart and knowing their motive.  However, BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM!  And I do look at several things to see if a version is a pure Spanish Bible:


            1.  The Translators

            2.  The Text Itself

            3.  The Title (to whom does it give honor and glory?)

            4.  The Trueness to the original reformation texts (does it read with the old Spanish?  or is it based on a modern version?


After having studied the Spanish Bible Issue, Controversy, and seeing the facts, I've personally come to the conclusion that the Valera 1602 Purified is the best.  Is it perfect?  No, it still needs some revision, and they are working on that.  But from all the ones available today, that's the only one that has the most scholarship, the best text, the most clear title to what it really is, and to the trueness to the reformation texts.


Click here to go to the Spanish Bible Blog