by Robert Breaker III

copyright 2008


* 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

Click here to buy the revised and updated printed version of this book.



 Before starting our study on the Gomez Bible, allow me to introduce myself, and state who I am and what I believe.  My name is Robert Breaker III, and I'm an independent Baptist.  More specifically, I'm a King James Bible Believing Christian who holds firm to the old time way and dogmatically preaches against sin, apostasy, and ecumenicalism! 

God saved me on July 29th, 1992 when I read Romans 3:25, and put my complete faith and trust in the SHED BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST.  I later graduated Bible School in Pensacola, Florida, in 1998, and have been active in the ministry ever since.  As a missionary in Honduras for seven years, God used to me to plant several churches.   I'm now working as a Missionary Evangelist to the Spanish Speaking People.  So the issue of the Spanish Bible is very dear to my heart.  I want all Hispanics to have a PURE BIBLE in their own language! 

            When it comes to the word of God in English, I read from, preach from, and believe in the blessed old KING JAMES BIBLE.  I believe God's word is not only INSPIRED (as most modern Fundamentalists do) but also pure, perfect, and infallibly PRESERVED (which most Fundamentalists don't believe) in our King James Bible.   It's not just a good translation, but God's only translation for English Speaking people!

Further, I use the King James out of CONVICTION, not just compromise or convenience (as most apostate fundamentalists do), believing it to be the very words of God in the English language. 

I'm not one to use modern versions of the scriptures that make attacks on the deity of Christ, take out sound doctrinal words like hell, and remove over 60,000 words (like the modern NIV).  I stand firm on my conviction.  In English I have a pure, perfect, and preserved Bible given me by God himself!

            In Spanish the issue is vastly different.  There has been no King James Bible in Spanish, that is to say a pure and perfect authorized bible.  The Spanish have been hindered from getting a pure word of God, as their early versions were either based on corrupt catholic texts, or mixed with critical text readings.        

Because of the lack of a good, sound Spanish Bible, Independent Baptists are divided on the issue, and use a variety of different versions.  Unfortunately, the majority uses the 1960 Spanish Bible, which reads along with the English RSV on many occasions and is riddled with critical text readings, errors, and omissions.

            On deputation, I tried to tell others about the problems in the popular 1960, but my cries fell upon deaf ears.  I felt like "the voice of one crying in the wilderness," with no one to listen.  I found most missionaries were happy with the liberal 1960, and refused to face the problems in it, desiring "not to make any waves" or "rock the boat," while most English Speaking pastors didn't care about the issue.

            I soon found out that the Spanish Bible Issue was not about truth but rather politics.  "Groupism" had formed a unified alliance of deliberate ignorance, and many missionaries confessed to me that they used the 1960 even though they knew it had errors, (and I quote), "Because that is the version our group uses." 

            It wasn't about finding and distributing a PURE SPANISH BIBLE, but rather getting along with others, and using the version they used in order to brag upon numbers, fellowship, unity, and cooperation.

            I soon found that the Independent Baptist movement (those I thought stood with me against apostasy) had apostasized over the subject of the Spanish Bible.  Those same men who preached against the RSV in English were supporting those who use a Spanish Bible (the 1960), which reads along with the English RSV in many places.  In fact, the following quote will suffice to prove that the 1960 translators used the RSV in their translation work, many times even preferring it over the Textus Receptus:



                                                                                                                             -  From book "El Texto del Nuevo Testamento," by Jose Flores, published by CLIE, 1977 page 232,


            Bewildered, and aghast, I realized that to do the work of the Lord, and not sin against my own conscience, I had to separate myself from the majority of most Spanish speaking Independent Baptists, and find others like myself that were willing to search out and sacrifice for the pure word of God. 

            As I did deputation, "groupism" showed it's ugly head time and again, when pastors and other missionaries would continually ask me, "What group are you in?

            My answer was always the same, "I'm without the camp with Jesus, and that's right were I want to be!"

            I'm convinced that God is not always on the side with the numbers.  As the old saying goes, "God and one man who stands for truth is the majority!"

            God is not looking for people who are willing to compromise just to get along with others by using a corrupted Bible.  He's looking for men who earnestly seek and are willing to die for the pure word of God in any language.

            After three years of deputation, I had my support and was ready to go to the mission field, but I had no pure Spanish Bible (at that time I used the 1909).  After much prayer and fasting, God lead me to Bro. Bob Adams, of W.I.N.G.S. Bearing Precious Seed who told me about a small church in Monterrey, Mexico that had a burden for the pure word of God in their language.  They had been working on fixing the old Valera 1602 Spanish Bible, comparing it with the Hebrew Masoretic, the Textus Receptus, the King James, and all other Protestant Spanish Bibles before 1602.  They desired a pure Spanish Castellan Bible.

Their first edition New Testament had just been printed at that time, and I traveled to their church to find out more.  What I found was exactly what I'd been looking for: A PURE SPANISH BIBLE based on the right texts with no doctrinal errors and no critical text readings!

Their whole Bible is now finished, and is called the 1602 PURIFICADA (Purified) or the 1602P. It reads right along with my King James Bible in English, while still holding the Castellan flavor of the old Reina-Valera Spanish Bible. 

With this version, I started several churches, won many souls, started a Spanish Bible Institute and more.  And I'm seeing God bless the more I defend his pure word, just as he promised he would in Luke 11:28, "...Blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."

But my stand has not been without heartaches, however, as attacks have come from every side, especially from those that use the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible.  My unwavering attitude against compromise has hindered me greatly, and I've even lost friends, support, and more.  Yet, I know if I continue to serve the Lord with the right motive and a pure heart, he'll bless and meet my needs in spite of their bickering, and Phareseeical attitudes.

All I really want is the pure word of God in any language, and I'm willing to do what it takes to get it out to others, not matter what the cost.

I also want others to know about the Spanish Bible Issue and hear the truth and understand which Spanish translation is the purest and best.

This is why I've written this book.  My motive is not to attack or put down the Gomez Bible.  I only wish others to see what it is, where it came from, and where it's going.  I also desire others to know about the 1602 Purified and where they can get a copy to compare it with the KJV, Hebrew Masoretic, and Greek Textus Receptus.  (And even with the Gomez).

We live in a day and age where many claim to be Bible Believers, but very few are Bible Readers.  This ought not so to be!  I strongly recommend those of you who are truly interested in finding and defending the pure word of God in Spanish to read and study this issue out for yourself.  Make sure what I'm saying is true.  Don't just take my word for it, "STUDY TO SHEW THYSELF APPROVED UNTO GOD!"

Modern Fundamental Independent Baptists have been wrong before (in using the 1960).  They could be wrong again (in accepting another tainted version).  So don't use a version just because one crowd or another does.  Study that version out for yourself.  Read the whole thing!  Make sure it does line up with the infallible KING JAMES word for word.  Make sure it's not a modernistic version.  Make sure it gives honor to God and not man!

Let me close by saying, "Thank God many who used the corrupt 1960 are changing to a purer version, including the 1909, the 1602 Purified, and even the Gomez!" 

But make sure the version you use has no critical text errors, and is the purest word of God!  For one day you'll give account to God! 


            When God called me to do the work of a Missionary in 1997, I knew very little about the Spanish Bible Issue.  But God quickly gave me a crash course on the Mission Field in Honduras in 1998.  I started by buying a 1960 Spanish Bible, and I read through the entire New Testament in just three months.  What I found was appalling!  It read with the English RSV in many places, and was full of mistakes, mistranslations, attacks on the deity of Christ and much more.  I could not in good conscience use it. 

So I studied all I could find about the history of the Spanish Bible, and found an older translation of it done in 1909, called La Version Antigua (The Old Version).  Although it was much closer to the King James and original 1602, I found doctrinal errors and many critical text readings.  This left me bewildered and stupefied.  How could Spanish Bibles read so badly?

I eventually obtained a facsimile of the both the original 1569 Reina and 1602 Valera Spanish Bibles.  As I read the 1960 and 1909, I found that when they both read with the critical texts, both the 1569 and 1602 read much closer to my King James (with some exceptions).  I even found them easier to understand, as they were Old Spanish, and not modern Spanish like the new 1960 translation (which changed many words with the excuse that they were "archaic," while changing others with the diabolical "dynamic equivalence" method).          

As I studied the Spanish Bible Issue more, I learned of the catholic connection, and how most Reina-Valera revisions were nothing more than PROTESTANT-CATHOLIC HYBRID BIBLES, produced by Bible societies in the late 1700 and 1800's.  These versions claimed to be based on the OLD VALERA, but they were changed in many key passages with the Miguel Scio Roman Catholic version in order to be passed out in Spanish Speaking countries, which were still under the Inquisition, (for any Bible that didn't read with the Latin Vulgate at that time was rejected).  

These Protestant Bible Societies did a sneaky thing—they changed verses to make their Bible look more Catholic, while claiming they were indeed Valera PROTESTANT Bibles.  The word Verbo is a good illustration of this.  Used in the 1865, 1909 and 1960 versions, Verbo comes from the Latin Vulgate reading of Verbum.  But the original Spanish Bibles (1543 Enzinas, 1556 Perez, the 1569 and 1602) used Palabra.  Should we as Bible believers use a catholic word like verbo from a Catholic text? 

            Faced with the knowledge that most Spanish Bible versions read many times with Catholic versions, or had many critical text readings, I worried what to do, as no one seemed to care about or want a pure Bible in Spanish.  They were either content with the 1909 or the 1960, and ignored the issue.

A friend later introduced me to the 1865 American Bible Society Spanish revision by Mora and Pratt, claiming it was the very word of God in Spanish without error.  But as I studied this version, I found it to be nothing more than a Catholic-Hybrid Bible, using many Catholic words (like verbo).  Although it read closer to the King James in many key verses, it read against the Textus Receptus and KJV in many others. 

I then found that Pratt, who worked on the 1865, later produced a new revision entitled, La Version Moderna, based entirely upon the critical texts. With this in mind, I chose to stick with the 1909, that is until I could find a purer Spanish Bible.


            While on deputation in 2000, I met Bro. Bob Adams, of W.I.N.G.S. Bearing Precious Seed, a ministry whose sole purpose is to distribute PURE BIBLES in any language.  He told me about the 1602 Monterrey Project, in Monterrey, Mexico, and how a native FUNDAMENTAL INDEPENDENT BAPTIST CHURCH there was purifying the original 1602 Spanish Bible, using all Spanish Bibles before 1602, the King James, the Textus Receptus, and the Masoretic Hebrew Text.  Their goal was to produce a PURE SPANISH BIBLE with NO CRITICAL TEXT READINGS, which honored and remained true to the old Reina-Valera Castellan Spanish. 

The church is called Iglesia Bautista Biblica de la Gracia (Grace Baptist Bible Church), and the pastor is Raul Reyes.  (I am a member of this church, sent out and ordained by it.  I joined in 2006, as I wanted to be sent from a church that loves God's word and wants a pure Spanish Bible).

            In the summer of 2001, after having finished deputation, I visited the church in Monterrey while they held a Spanish Bible Conference.  I soon learned about their project and found what I'd been looking for.  A pure Castellan Bible based on the OLD VALERA and the RIGHT TEXTS, and not a HYBRID- CATHOLIC BIBLE SOCIETY TRANSLATION, corrupted with critical texts!

            At that time, they had only finished the New Testament.  I immediately began calling it the 1602 TR (for Textus Receptus).  But others called it the 1602R for Restored, or the 1602 Monterrey. (Today it's known as the 1602 Purificada or Purified).  But whatever you wanted to call it, it fixed all the doctrinal errors in the Spanish Bible, and read entirely with the right texts, which our blessed King James is based upon!  There were no errors or critical text readings in their Bible! 

            Their work of Bible revision did not come without a price though, as most fundamentalists, which defended the corrupt 1960 translation attacked them vehemently, even calling Pastor Raul Reyes a homosexual, and other derogatory remarks.  (Isn't it interesting that the Catholic enemies of the pure word of God in English called King James the same?)

            But they continued on, desiring a pure Spanish Bible with no critical text or catholic readings, which reads with the old Valera Spanish Bible in true Castellan Spanish. 

They continually prayed and fasted, as they did the work of "REVISION," by diligently studying the Greek and Hebrew texts, and the English KJV, while COMPARING older versions in Spanish verse by verse to find the most meaningful and most consistently used Spanish Castellan word.  Their work focused on fixing doctrinal errors and making sure no words were omitted, subtracted or mistranslated.  They also made sure their Bible read along with the original 1602 as much as possible, honoring the beauty of the OLD CASTELLAN Spanish language.  They did not want an updated Spanish Bible (like the 1960).

            Just some of the many Bibles they used in their work were:

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 (Mateo, Romanos, and 1 Corintios.  Also Salmos 1-41)

1543 Fransico de Enzinas New Testament

            1556 Juan Perez de Pineda 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

Jewish TANAKH 1917 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

            1960 corrupt Spanish modern Bible put out by Eugene Nida    

            The Alameida Portugese Trinitarian revision

            and many more

            Quietly they worked amidst much opposition from the 1960 crowd (then a majority of Modern Fundamentalists), which attacked them from all sides.  Men in the church learned Hebrew and Greek and taught it to the other members.  They also read and reread their work time and again, working together as a priesthood of believers towards their goal of a pure Castellan Spanish Bible.

            This is the version I preach from, and can hold up and dogmatically say, "Thus saith the word of the Lord!"

            I had finally found my pure Spanish Bible!  (To obtain a whole 1602 Purifed Bible for yourself, contact me at the address at the back of this book).

            The biggest criticism against the 1602 Purified was that it wasn't readily available, (the whole Bible has only recently begun being printed in 2007), the church being small and unable to attain funds to print large quantities.

            Sadly, those who use and push the new Gomez Bible attack the 1602 Purified for several reasons.  First, they claim the work was done in secret, and not openly, and no one else within the body of Christ was allowed to be a part of the work.  The truth of the matter, is the church was tired of being attacked so much by the apostate Fundamentalist 1960 crowd, that they cut off contact with them, in order to give more time and careful attention and prayer to the work.  As Pastor Raul once said, "Answering emails and writing back those that threaten, attack, and ridicule you could be a full time job!"

            Second, many claim the Monterrey Project took too long, and it should have been made available sooner.  But the church desired to make sure their work was as thorough as possible.  Translating the Bible, and even comparing it with the original languages and old Spanish versions to make sure the oldest, best, and most understandable Castellan word is used, is a tedious task, requiring years and years of work.  You don't undertake such a task expecting to finish in a year or two or even four or five. 

            Francisco de Enzinas worked only 18 months on his New Testament (printed in 1543) and it contained errors and omissions.  Juan Perez de Pineda's 1556 New Testament was the work of twelve years.  It was a good translation (good enough for both Reina and Valera to get saved while reading it!).  Cassidoro de Reina spent twelve years in his translation, and even then he recommended it be revised.  And finally, Cipriano de Valera took twenty years revising it before printing his revision in 1602. 

            Thus, the work of translation, collation, comparison, and revision are not easy tasks, and not something to be taken lightly, or finished quickly.  As the old saying goes, "Good things come to those who wait!"

            No, the church in Monterrey would settle on nothing less than perfection, and that's why they took their time, beginning in 1994, and working hard to get out their first edition New Testament in 2001.  The Second edition came out in 2002 (exactly 400 years after the 1602 Valera).

The church in Monterrey adapted the clear Biblical teaching that the word of God should be translated, copied, guarded and protected by the CHURCH and not by liberal scholars (many of whom aren't even saved) and BIBLE SOCIETIES (in bed with the Vatican) who use the corrupt, critical texts of man based upon the Alexandrian texts.  They stated time and again, "Nuestra obra de revisión es por y para la iglesia local" ("This our work of revisión is by and for the local church").

This isn't to say they were against getting it out to all Spanish Speaking people.  Their finished whole Bible is available to all who want it, and anyone is allowed to print and distribute it FREE OF CHARGE as long as they make no changes.  (I can send a CD of the whole Bible on Adobe Format to all who request it).

Nor did they leave others out of their work entirely.  They asked other pastors, missionaries, and scholars to help on the project, who also desired a pure word of God in Spanish.  I was even given part of Psalms to go through as a consultant, checking it with the King James and the older Spanish Bibles. 

            The whole 1602 Purified is a pure, anti-catholic, anti-critical text, true Castellan Spanish Bible.  They sacrificed much to give the Spanish Speaking world a pure Bible, receiving most of their opposition not from the lost, dying world, but other Christians, mostly apostates that used the 1960 Spanish Bible.  Not wanting to get involved with "groupism" and not willing to compromise and use a corrupt version just because everyone else was, they shunned their attackers and worked tediously and faithfully, honoring God and making sure the Spanish speaking world could have a PURE SPANISH BIBLE in the Castellan tongue.  They sought neither honor nor glory from man, but rather blessings and strength from their creator.

            Now let's compare their struggle and sacrifice to the modern Gomez Bible. 


             In these last days, Fundamentalists are just starting to wake up, realizing that the 1960 Spanish Bible has errors and critical text readings that can no longer be denied.  Some are seeking a purer Bible.  Some have changed to the 1909.  Others have resurrected the American Bible Society translation of 1865.  I've even heard of a small group that began printing the 1543 Enzinas New Testament, claiming it to be the best.

            And, some are using the 1602 Purified (or the 1602P for short), even printing it in Tennessee, Washington State, Kansas, and other places.  Yet, others have changed to the Reina-Valera Gomez translation by Mr. Humberto Gomez.           

But, who is Humberto Gomez?  And why did he feel the need to produce a new Spanish Bible translation?  Especially when the church in Monterrey had already spent over fourteen years working on revising the Old Valera with the Masoretic Hebrew, the Textus Receptus, the KJV and more?

            Dr. Humberto Gomez Caballero was born in the heart of Tex-Mex country along the border of Texas and Mexico.  He is an Independent Baptist Missionary to Mexico sent from Charity Baptist Church in Beavercreek, Ohio. 

            Taken from his website, we read the following intro about Mr. Gomez, who he is, and what he's done:

"Dr. Humberto Gomez has had a great part in evangelizing Mexico.  After leading his brothers to the Lord and their surrendering to the ministry, as well as a number of nephews, they have started over 75 churches, and have flourishing works in nearly every state of Mexico.  Dr. Gomez has one of the first pioneer works among the ancient Aztec Indians of the central mountain regions.  In 2002, Dr. Gomez began translating the Word of God into a pure, error free, Spanish translation of the Bible.  Now it is available to every Spanish Speaking culture in the world!"

            Here we read that Mr. Gomez is very active in evangelizing, church planting, and soul winning.  But with so much to do, how did he find time to do a thorough revision of the Spanish Bible?  And what led him to feel he was capable of doing this?



            In September of 2002, a small miracle happened, (at least I thought so at the time).  In Haines City, Florida, Dr. Mickey Carter of Landmark Baptist Church invited many Independent Baptist Fundamentalists who desired a pure Spanish Bible to a Spanish Bible Conference.  Represented were those who used the 1909, the 1865, and more.  Pastor Raul Reyes was also there with the 1602 Purified, and most of those present were impressed with the work, as no other Bible Believer had taken the initiative to do such an exhaustive and extensive revision.

            Mr. Jeff McCardle, who dogmatically defends the 1865 was there, and said of the 1602 Purified, "In my estimation, it is almost perfect!"

            I attended the meeting myself (even sitting next to Pastor Raul Reyes), and enjoyed the fun and fellowship, and witnessed what seemed to be a spirit of unity.  I also found myself excited, thinking, "Now we will certainly get together!  We'll all work together for a pure Spanish Bible!"

            But, being good Baptists, this is exactly not what happened.  The old saying is, "The only way Baptists start churches is by church splits!"

            Instead of working together, they all went their separate ways, each one defending their version even more vehemently. 

            Also present, was Mr. Humberto Gomez.  In fact, he preached the opening night of the conference.   During the meeting, Mr. Gomez was given a copy of the 1602 Purified New Testament, but he seemed to hold it in disdain.  As I sat in the crowd, I personally heard him say from the pulpit a day or so later, "I could do a better job than they did!"

            He then left the meeting, with what I interpreted as a haughty spirit, with Bro. Paco Guerrero, intending to produce their own revision. (I later learned that they split up, each one determined to do his own translation).

            Many at the meeting were impressed with the 1602 Purified, but most could not wait for it to be finished.  They wanted a whole Spanish Bible and they wanted it then.  When Pastor Raul told them they were working hard, but did not want to rush, as they wanted to make sure they did a thorough and error free job, most of those present decided they could no longer wait and decided to use the version they were using before, or started one themselves.

Mr. Gomez himself says on his website, "Years back I heard about somebody making a revision that was going to solve the issue and I was very happy to hear about it!  ...We waited, and waited with much prayer until finally we could wait no longer... in the year 2000 we ventured to do a revision of our Spanish Bible.  This was a very difficult decision because we feel that we are not worthy of such a sacred task, or equipped to do a job of such great magnitude."

            Could Mr. Gomez be talking about the 1602 Purified here?  Well, I won't put words in his mouth.  But as you read the quote, you'll find something interesting.  Here he says he started his translation work in the year 2000.  But in the quote on his website given earlier, he said he began in the year 2002.  Why did he set it back two years?

            The truth is the first edition of the Gomez Bible came out in 2004.  This means he did his work in only two years (or four, depending upon which date you choose to believe).  Did he do a thorough and complete job in only two (or four) years?  We'll look at the first edition of the Gomez Bible a little later, and you can decide for yourself. 

            Now, let's turn our attention to the revising method that Mr. Gomez used in his work.



Before looking at the method Mr. Gomez used in his work, lets back up a bit, and look at what should be done in revising the Spanish Bible.  The first whole Spanish Bible of Cassidoro de Reina, printed in 1569, was not perfect.  Even Cassidoro de Reina himself encouraged revision of his work, as he confessed he used the LXX and the corrupt Latin Vulgate.  Cipriano de Valera spent twenty years revising the 1569, and in 1602 printed his work.  However, he too speaks in his preface of his desire to have others, "learned in Hebrew and Greek," to sit down with all the texts and do a full revision based upon the TR and Hebrew Masoretic.

            I quote Valera's preface of his 1602 revision:

 "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."

             Sadly, pious men, learned in Hebrew and Greek never came together to revise the Spanish Bible comparing it with the pure Hebrew and Greek texts, to give us a pure, perfect, and authorized Spanish Bible. Almost all revisions of the Valera were done by COMPROMISING BIBLE SOCIETIES, which used Catholic versions to produce the afore-mentioned HYBRID Bibles.  And all these were done by one MAN or only several men (liberal scholars) working together.  None of them were pious, as they couldn't resist mixing in the critical text readings, and roman catholic words.

            The church in Monterrey were the only ones who took Valera up on his word, believing that the job of translating the Bible belongs to the local church, and not corrupt Bible societies who undermine the pure word of God, changing it to read more in line with catholic texts. 

As PIOUS MEN, the church in Monterrey studied and learned Hebrew and Greek (Greek clases were taught to members in the church, and a Hebrew scholar taught classes in the church on Hebrew), and they spent much time in PRAYER AND FASTING during their over 14 years of diligently scrutinizing all the different versions with the King James, the Greek Textus Receptus, and Masoretic Hebrew.  They finished the New Testament and began printing it in 2001, and the whole Spanish Bible in 2008 under the title of THE 1602 PURIFICADA (the 1602 Purified).  They were so thorough, they even called professors in Spain on many occasions for their input on the meanings of Spanish words!

            Their work speaks for itself, and reads along with the beautiful Valera in Castellan Spanish, and also the beautiful King James.  It also contains no critical text readings, and is the purest word of God in Spanish! 

            Sadly, most fundamentalists today who have turned from the 1960 to a purer Spanish Bible, don't even talk about the 1602 Purified, or give it the time of day.  As most of them are "Groupies" they've decided to follow a newer version called the GOMEZ BIBLE, which is quickly being exalted as the FUNDAMENTALIST BIBLE that all fundamentalists must have.  But what were the principles of translation of the Gomez Bible, and does it compare to the 1602 Purifed?



             In Honduras as a Missionary for several years, I lost contact with the way modern Fundamentalism was headed in America.  And I knew nothing of the growing popularity of the modern Gomez Spanish revision.  It wasn't until I went to Guatemala in 2005 to visit another Missionary that I learned about the new version called The Reina-Valera Gomez, the work of Humberto Gomez.

            I was curious about Mr. Gomez' work and wondered why he felt we needed another Spanish translation, when we already had one in the 1602 Purified, that I had been using to preach, plant churches, and win souls.  So I looked up his website and read the following words:

            "...All our Bibles in Spanish have textual problems, some more than others. Unfortunately most of our Spanish preacher friends are in denial concerning the several mistakes that we have in our Spanish Bibles. One of the reasons why they are in denial is because they feel that they have been insulted and attacked, and in some instances they are right. Painfully there have been attacks from one side, and retaliations from the other. For us to reconcile (which we must do, and we will, I hope), it will take from all of us Independent Baptist preachers: time, willingness, and something that we all have lack of - "Humility". We must humble ourselves for the cause of Christ, for the good of our people and for the salvation of this lost and dying world.  But we felt that it would take more than that in order to solve the issue. We had to produce: "A good, solid translation or revision of our Spanish Bible," one that will rise to the challenge; that has to be better than all the revisions we now have; a Bible pure to the text, and also, perfect in our language.  One that will make us stand tall and proud, one that will allow us to say without an apology: "These are the Words of God in Spanish," an accurate Spanish translation of the inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved, and perfect Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that underlie it. A revision that will unite us.  By the Grace of God we believe we have produced one."

             This all sounded good at first, so I read more.  Mr. Gomez continues by telling how he did his work:

             "To accomplish this work...we have gone verse by verse making sure first of the purity of the text and then comparing the 1909 with the Authorized KJV.  Every single verse that did not line up the TR or the KJV we have immediately corrected..."

             I thought this was good, but I wondered if he used the older Spanish Bibles, like the 1602 Purified group in Monterrey, to find the right Castellan word?  Gomez didn't say.

            Finally he stated, "We have attempted to correct every mistranslation.  We have attempted to correct every verse that was not in line with the TR and the KJV.  We added all the words that were omitted, and we have removed all the words that were added, and we feel we have a perfect text."

             With this in mind, I eventually contacted Mr. Gomez myself, calling him on the phone, and asking him to tell me more about his translation.


            As I learned more about the Spanish Bible Issue, I wrote two books on the subject, and several churches asked to print and distribute them.  They must have gone far and wide, as eventually, people were emailing me all the time about the Spanish Bible Issue.  Much of my support in Honduras went to mailing out two to three 1602 Purifed New Testaments every week to people all over North, South and Central America, desiring a pure Bible in Spanish.  I even received phone calls in Honduras from people in America asking me where they could find a pure Spanish Bible.

            Eventually, a mutual friend told me that Mr. Gomez had heard of me, and wanted to speak with me about his bible.  So, I called him on the phone with interest and asked him details about his version.

            When I asked him who did the revision, he told me, "I was the final authority on the project, making all the changes myself."  (I didn't like this, as this isn't what Valera desired in his preface).  Although, he confessed he had help from others who emailed him suggestions for changes.

            When I asked him if he knew Hebrew or Greek, he replied, "No."

            Mr. Gomez further continued, by telling me he wished to have a pure Bible in Spanish, and if his wasn't pure enough, and others desired to turn to a purer Bible in Spanish, then he would change as well, even going to the 1602 Purified if others thought it was the best.

            He seemed humble and nice, and I enjoyed speaking with him.  But I was anything but impressed with his translating methods.  How could he translate the Bible if he didn't know Hebrew or Greek? (Isn't that what Valera wanted)?  And how was he doing it?  And how could one man, as the final authority on the work, qualify as pious MEN?

            Before hanging up, I asked Mr. Gomez to tell me if his translation was perfect.  He wouldn't answer.  But on his website, I read his following words about his version: "...What I am presenting to you, in my opinion, is the perfect word of God."

            Is the RVG the perfect word of God in Spanish?  Does it contain error?  Did it go verse by verse with the Greek TR?

            With all this in mind, I obtained a copy of the first edition of the Gomez Bible, and began studying it, to see if it did indeed read along with the King James, and if it followed the right texts.  What I found was astonishing, if not shocking! 



             As I read the first edition of the RVG, I found a plethora of errors, mistakes, and problems.  Because it was only a work of two years, I chalked up many of the spelling mistakes as the rush to get it to the printer. 

But there were many things in the first edition of the Gomez Spanish Bible that I could not accept, much less believe, that are far worse than just spelling mistakes.  I'll let you be the judge, as I give just a few examples below:



            In John 2:10, I found what I think is the most ridiculous Bible reading I've ever seen in any Bible.  I can't believe this was even printed in the Gomez Bible.  For in the Gomez we read:

"Y le dice: Todo hombre sirve primero el buen vino, y cuando ya están borrachos, entonces el que es inferior mas tú has guardado el buen vino hasta ahora."

            This verse says that those at this marriage party were DRUNK, and not with new wine.  This verse literally says they were wasted, inebriated, smashed, soaring, two sheets into the wind, liquored up, boozed, full of alcohol, etc.!

            The verse in English is: "And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now."

            In KJV here uses the word DRUNK, but this means they were full, or satisfied with what they drank.  This verse is not saying that that the men of the party were drinking liquor!  But in the Gomez, they used the word for being intoxicated!

            No Spanish Bible makes this mistake!  (Except the Enzinas, which reads embriagados.  I know as I checked them all!)

            The original 1602 says:  "Y dizele, Todo hombre pone primero el buen vino: y quando ya eftan hartos, entonces lo que es peor: mas tu has guardado el buen vino hafta ahora.

            Notice it says they were hartos, which means full or satisfied.  And in the margin of the original 1602 we read, "Han bien bebido" (They had drunken well), showing that even Valera didn't think the men were intoxicated!

    (Note:  The 2nd Edition of the Gomez fixes this.  But the question needs be asked, How could this have ever gotten printed in the Gomez Bible to begin with???)



             In Matthew 1:22, Mr. Gomez' changing of one word in the Spanish language causes a great problem.  Let us look at the verse in the original 1602, the 1909 the 1602 Purified and the Gomez

 Original 1602:  "Todo efto aconteció paraque fe cumplieffe lo que fue dicho por el Señor por el Propheta que dixo."

 1909:  "Todo esto aconteció para que se cumpliese lo que fue dicho por el Señor, por el profeta que dijo."

 1602 P:  "Todo esto fue hecho para que se cumpliese lo que había hablado el Señor, por el profeta que dijo."

 GOMEZ:  "Todo esto aconteció para que se cumpliese lo que fue dicho del Señor por el profeta que dijo."

             By changing "por el Señor" or "lo que había hablado el Señor" to "del Señor," we lose the fact that it is THE LORD (el Señor) that spoke these words.  In the Gomez version, the prophet is speaking only of something spoken ABOUT THE LORD.  While in the other versions, it's the LORD WHO SPOKE by his PROPHET'S MOUTH.  Great error.  Why the change?

       (Thank God this is fixed in the 2nd Edition, but why was it even in the first?  Was Mr. Gomez responsible for changing it to begin with?  He must have, as he's the final authority?  Who changed it back?)



             In John 1:9, Gomez adds the italicized word, "De," making the verse about Jesus read, "De aquel que era la Luz."  

            This reads, "Of THAT ONE that was the light," instead of the correct King James reading, "That [Jesus] was the Light."

            So which is it?  Is Jesus the Light, or is he OF that one which was light?

            The 1602, 1909, and 1602 P all get it right with "Aquel era la Luz."

         (Why was this word added in italics in the first edition?  Thankfully it's fixed in a later edition.)



             In Romans 6:4 we find a great error when we see Mr. Gomez changing "por" to "para."

 Original 1602:  "Porque fomos fepultados juntamento con el a muerte por el baptismo, paraque como Christo refufcitó de los muertos a gloria del Padre..."

1909:  "Porque somos sepultados juntamente con el a muerte por el bautismo; para que como Cristo resucitó de los muertos por la gloria del Padre..."

1602 P  "Porque somos sepultados con él en la muerte por el bautismo, para que como Cristo resucitó de los muertos por la gloria del Padre..."

GOMEZ:  "Porque somos sepultados con Él en la muerte por el bautismo; para que como Cristo resucitó de los muertos para la gloria del Padre..."

            Here, we find the first three versions in agreement that when Jesus rose again it was BY (KJV reading) the GLORY OF THE FATHER.  But the Gomez version says that Jesus didn't rise again BY the glory of the father, rather just FOR the glory of the father.  In other words, the resurrection wasn't by the glory of God's power, rather Jesus just resurrected to give God glory. 

    (To whom do we look for this change?  Thank God it's changed back in the 2nd Edition.)



           In 1 Corinthians 7:36, we have a great doctrinal error in the Gomez first edition, and a private interpretation added into the text.  In the Gomez we read:

Mas si a alguno le parece mal en su hija virgen, que pase ya de edad, y necesita así hacerlo, haga lo que quiera, no peca; que se case.

            The King James says, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry."

            Notice that nowhere do we find anything about a daughter (the word hija in the Gomez version) in this verse.  This is an interpretation of the verse, of which there are two:

1.      The verse speaks of the father behaving badly towards his virgin daughter

2.      The verse speaks of a young man who's engaged behaving badly towards his fiancé

         Now, the right interpretation here has been debated time and again.  But notice how the Gomez ADDS the word daughter in order to make us think that we must take the first interpretation.

         Further, the verse makes one think of incest, as the Gomez has it!  As it paints a picture of a father behaving badly sexual with his virgin daughter!  How awful!

(How could this have gotten into the first printed edition of the Gomez?  Thank God it's corrected in the 2nd Edition, but does this give us a window into the mindset of the translator?)



            All Spanish Bibles (except the Monterrey 1602 Purified) use the same word for Lucifer as they do for Jesus.  This word is "lucero," and in Isaiah 14:12 it's used in reference to Satan, while in 2 Peter 1:19 it's in reference to Jesus Christ.  This is horrendous, and has been a great reason why there is a need for a pure Spanish Bible.  However, the Gomez Bible did not fix this problem.          

In the first edition of the Gomez, I looked up Isaiah 14:12, and I found the word lucero changed to Lucifer.  I was elated!  That's what the KJV says, and that's a good Spanish word for Satan.  However, when I looked up 2 Peter 1:19, I was extremely disappointed, and became quite angry.  The word lucero had been changed to Lucero.  This capitalization of the "L" made it a proper name, and this meant I had to take the passage as literally applying to Lucifer or Satan, which is called Lucero (with a capital "L").   This ought not so to be!

I've since heard that the 2nd Edition changes the verse in 2 Peter to lucero.  But why not change it to "la estrella de la mañana" (day star) as the 1602 Purified did in order to avoid error?  (Isn't that the King James reading?  And didn't Mr. Gomez state, "Every single verse that did not line up the TR or the KJV we have immediately corrected?")



             All of the above-mentioned errors in the Gomez have been fixed in the newer editions of it.  (As I write this, I've been told the Gomez is about to be printed in its fourth edition).

            However, one must ask, "How on earth did such blazing doctrinal errors get into the first Gomez edition to begin with?"

            And, does this give us a look at the scholarship of Mr. Gomez (who claims he knows no Hebrew or Greek)?

            Through my correspondence and speaking with Mr. Gomez, he told me he was the final authority in his translation, making all the final changes himself.  But I also learned he allowed others to help in his work, exclaiming on his website, "We have gathered the priceless opinions of many men of God concerning the language in their country, and have taken every opinion into consideration."

            I've since learned that Dr. Donald Waite worked on the project, a man very ample in the knowledge of the Greek language.  But who else worked on the Gomez Bible?

            Mr. Gomez's preface of his first edition tells us:

 "In this holy work of revision we have noted the most valuable collaboration of a great number of men of God, coming from different countries of the Spanish Speaking world."

             But who are the "we?" Mr. Gomez  brags of being the "final authority" on his project, even naming the Bible after himself, but who exactly are these others?  We are not told.

I've personally heard from several witnesses that most of the ideas for the revision of the Gomez Bible came from English Speaking Missionaries to Hispanic countries.  And most of these men emailed Mr. Gomez places they thought should be fixed.

            One source, who wishes to remain anonymous, even told me, "I've heard first hand from several people that most of these American missionaries do not have Spanish as their first language, but are married to Hispanic women, and many times they'd turn towards their wives and say things like, 'What do you think this verse should say, so I can send your suggestion to Gomez?'"

            Now there is no need to explain what happens when a woman gets involved with the translating process! For further particulars, see Eve in Genesis chapter three. 

            As I studied the first edition of the Gomez Bible, first printed in 2004, I found error after error.  Luckily, these were fixed in newer editions.  I suppose those who contacted Mr. Gomez via email showed him the errors and he (as the final authority) fixed them.  But before they were corrected, the following are just a few errors that appeared in the RVG '04 first edition:

             John 6:49     Gomez says "estan muertos," whereas the 1602 and 1602P have "son muertos."  Now, as a Spanish Speaker, I don't have to explain the difference between ser and estar. Or do I?  Ser applies to condition and locationEstar is used in characteristics and things that can change.  For example if you are sick, you say, "Estoy infermo."  Why? Because your state could change tomorrow, and you could be well.  But when it comes to DEATH, a person cannot change that.  They are either DEAD or they aren't.  In Spanish, a person es muerto (sing.) or son muertos! (plural).  The verb SER is used, like in the original 1602.

             John 15:15   The Gomez says "recibí." Why?  No one knows.  The 1602 and 1602 P both say, "que oí de mi padre" (that I HEARD from my father).  The Greek TR has the word hkousa, which means which I heard."  Why did the Gomez change something HEARD to something RECEIVED.  You can receive something without hearing it.  But you can't hear something without receiving it.

             John 19:19   Gomez has "Jesus Nazareno" (Jesus the Nazarene).  The old 1602 says the same.  KJV says "JESUS OF NAZARETH," and the 1602 Purified has it correct with Jesus de Nazareth.

             1 Cor. 11:25   Gomez uses "pacto" instead of testamento, as do the KJV, 1602, and 1602 Purified.

             1 Cor. 15:38   Gomez reads "dignos de lastima" (worthy of being hurt or shamed), instead of 1602 and 1602 P rendering of miserable (KJV says miserable.)

             1 Cor. 16:4     Gomez uses word "amerito" which is a word only used in Latin America, according to the Oceano dictionary, and not a CASTELLAN WORD!  1602, and 1602 P both use digno.  KJV says meet.

             2 Cor. 3:6       Again Gomez uses "pacto" instead of testamento, as the KJV, 1602, and 1602 P have it.

             Remember Mr. Gomez's words about his first edition, "...What I am presenting to you, in my opinion, is the perfect word of God."

            Did he write these words before or after he made changes to the above mentioned verses?  As I write this, the Gomez Bible is now going into its fourth printing.  And it's continually being revised.

            I was told the latest version of it can be found on the internet at:

            So I've been visiting this site, and checking the first edition Gomez Bible I have, with the new version on the internet.  To date, I've found many changes. Obviously, it's not the perfect word of God, if they are still perfecting it.

The pick and choose method of changing verses based upon someone emailing suggestions is reminiscent of how the 1960 Spanish revision was started.  Below is a quote from a source on how the modernistic, liberal 1960 Spanish Bible revision project was started:

"These two Bible societies decided that they would find out if there was a need for a new revision of the Reina Valera Bible.  They started by cutting pages out of printed Spanish Bibles, and taping them to larger sheets of paper.  Then, they sent these out to people of all classes, both highly educated pastors and barely literate laymen, and asked them to write in the margins any and all changes which they felt should be made.  They were surprised by how many people responded.  They received more than 1,700 marked up pages, and lists of proposed changes.  With this information, the Bible Society decided to go ahead with the project." 

The 1960 is not God's Bible in Spanish, rather Man's Bible, as many changes were made to appease men.  Further, many critical texts were added, and many new words (which don't read with the old Reina-Valera Castellan Spanish) were introduced.  Under the guise of Dynamic Equivalence, many words were changed, and many synonyms were added, changing the Reina-Valera from Old Castellan to modern Spanish.  Could this have happened in the Gomez Bible? 

Mr. Gomez confesses he took into consideration the many emails sent him by missionaries and native pastors, asking for their changes.  But, as before stated, Mr. Gomez knew no Hebrew or Greek, and he was the FINAL AUTHORITY for all of the changes. 

Did Mr. Gomez only change those passages sent to him by email?  Did he do a complete revision verse by verse?  How thorough was he? 



             Again, I quote Mr. Gomez:

 "We have gone VERSE BY VERSE making sure first of the purity of the text and then comparing the 1909 with the authorized KJV.  Every single verse that did not line up with the TR or the KJV we immediately corrected."

             According to this, Mr. Gomez says he went verse by verse, checking each verse with the Textus Receptus Greek.  But did he do so?  If he did, then we would not be able to find any differences, right?

            Further Mr. Gomez says:

 "We have attempted to correct every mistranslation.  We have attempted to correct every verse that was not in line with the TR and the KJV.  We ADDED ALL THE WORDS THAT WERE OMITTED, and we have REMOVED ALL THE WORDS THAT WERE ADDED, and we feel we have a perfect text."

             Having studied Greek for three years myself, and having my Textus Receptus handy, I went through the Gomez comparing it with the KJV, the TR, the 1602 Purified, the 1909 and more.  And what I found was that the Gomez was NOT AS THOROUGH a work of revision as the 1602 Purified.  Could it be because Mr. Gomez didn't know Greek?

            Below I will give some examples in the Gomez Bible just from the book of John, proving he did not give careful attention to each Greek word, many times omitting, adding or changing some words that both the Monterrey 1602 Purified revisors and King James translators did not overlook:

             John 5:33     The original 1602 and the 1602 Purified say "a la verdad" (like the KJV rendering to the truth).  The Gomez changes this to "de la verdad" (of the truth, like the 1960).  The Greek has ta alatheia, which means TO THE TRUTH.  Why the change?  Why doesn't it follow the KJV and TR here?

             John 5:34     The 1602 Purified corrects the original 1602 with the KJV reading of "estas cosas," (these things) which is of course the Greek word tauta.  However, the Gomez translates "esto," (like the 1960), which in English is, "this."  There is a big difference between these and this.  One is plural the other is singular. 

             John 5:43     Here Gomez uses the word "esté," or this in English. (As I learned in Spanish class in High School, this and these have the "t's" in Spanish, that and those don't!)  The Greek TR word is ekenon, which means THAT or THAT ONE.  The 1602 and 1602 P use aquel, which also means that one!  Is it okay to use that and these interchangeably?  Or should the Greek word be translated literally?

            (Note:  This verse has been corrected in the Gomez in a later edition and changed to ese.)

             John 6:21     Gomez omits translating the Greek word eutheos, or immediately, as it's translated in the King James.  Fortunately, the 1602 Purified caught that this was left out of the original 1602, and added the word inmediatamente into the text.  But why did the Gomez miss this, if it went verse by verse and claimed to have ADDED words that were missing?  

By leaving this out, we have a DOCTRINAL ERROR?  For if the word in Greek is immediately, then this would be another miracle that Jesus did.  As soon as he entered the boat, he IMMEDIATELY was on the shore with his men.  See the importance of knowing Hebrew and Greek, so you can translate every word?

             John 6:22     The Greek word ommited in the original 1602 and the Gomez is estakos, which means standing, as it's translated in the King James.  The 1602 Purified, caught that this word was not translated in the 1602 original and added the words de pie in their version.  How come the Gomez missed this?  And why does it miss it again in John 11:56 also?

             John 6:63     The Gomez has the wrong verb tense when it says os he hablado (I have spoken to you).  The KJV says "I speak" (present tense).  1602 and 1602 P say "hablo" (I speak).  In the Gomez, truth is what Jesus SPOKE, not what he SPEAKS today!  The greek word is lalo, and of course is in present tense.  Interestingly enough, the Gomez here follows the 1960 and NIV in making it past tense.

             John 7:44     The Gomez has "mano" (singular).  The Greek words are tas xeiras, which are plural.  The KJV translates it hands, and so do the 1602 original and the 1602 Purified.  Why doesn't the Gomez follow the TR and the KJV here, as it's supposed to?               

             John 7:49     The Gomez has "es" (interestingly enough just like the 1960 reading) instead of "son" like the KJV reading (are).  The Greek word is eisi, which is plural.  The word should be son just like the original 1602 and the 1602 Purified have it.  Even a first year Greek Student would not make such a mistake!

             John 8:6,8    The Gomez says, "inclinando al suelo" (bending down to the ground).  The Greek words are kato kufas, meaning bending down, as the KJV says.  There is no mention of the word suelo (floor).  This is an addition in the Gomez but not taken from the Greek.  The 1602 and 1602 Purified match the KJV with inclinando hacia abajo.  Interestingly enough, the 1960 reads like the Gomez here.

             John 11:27   Here the Greek word is legei, which means he says (in present tense).  Sadly, the Gomez translates it "dijo" (past tense as he said).  The 1602, and 1602 Purified get it right with the present tense dice, like the KJV.  This happens time and again in the Gomez, where he follows the 1960, and changes the present tense he says to he said.  Just a few other places are John 11:39 and 44.  But shouldn't the Greek word be translated EXACTLY AS POSSIBLE?  And shouldn't the tense be important?

             John 11:56   Gomez leaves off translating the Greek word estakotes, which means standing.  The 1602 P has it!  It's translated as de pie.  The Gomez omits translating this word in John 12:29, John 18:5,16,18,22, John 19:25, John 20:26, and many more times in the book of John.  But I thought he said he went VERSE BY VERSE and ADDED omitted words?

             John 12:22   Gomez changes "dicen" (1602, 1602P and KJV), the present tense word from the present tense Greek word legosi, to the past tense word "dijeron."  Why?  The Gomez does this all to often, just a few more places are John 13:21, 14:6, 18:26,38,

            John 13:21   Gomez says "diciendo" (saying).  Greek word is PAST TENSE, so it should be dijo (said), just like the 1602 and 1602 P have it!

             John 20:2     Gomez says "corrió y vino" (past tense).  Greek is in present tense.  KJV says runneth and cometh1602 P says corre y viene Original 1602 has it in past tense. 

             John 20:27   Gomez reads "dijo" when others say dice (present tense) for the PRESENT TENSE Greek word.  (Gomez does the same in verse 28, as well as in John 21:3,9,12,15).

             Some people would not be bothered by the few examples given, stating those are just a few places, and they have no doctrinal baring upon the Bible.  But doesn't the word of God say in Proverbs 30:5,6, "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.  Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

            If every word of God is pure, and something to trust in, shouldn't we have EVERY WORD OF GOD translated as faithfully as possible, with no omissions, no additions, and no changes in verb tense?  And doesn't a translator need to know Hebrew and Greek so he doesn't make such blatant mistakes?

            The Gomez Bible, as I read through it with the Greek TR and the KJV continually departs from the Textus Receptus and the King James.  Often times, the Gomez changes a good Spanish Castellan Valera word used in the original 1602 to a new word, a synonym, that is many times farther away from the King James.  Why does it do this?  You'll have to be the judge of that! 



             I've heard it stated by several missionaries, that their opinion is Mr. Gomez, not knowing Hebrew or Greek, just copied the 1602 Purified Spanish Bible, and changed many words to synonyms to make it look like his work.  As this statement cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, this charge cannot be made against the Gomez.

            However, as I read through the Gomez Bible myself, I found that it is NOT ALWAYS TRUE TO THE OLD VALERA TEXT, and THERE ARE MANY SYNONYM CHANGES, which make his version read even farther away from the King James and Textus Receptus than the old Reina-Valera. 

            For some unknown reason, Mr. Gomez was not happy with the Old Valera word choice, so he makes many changes with words that don't even exist in any Spanish Bible.  I guess, as the final authority in his work, he felt he had the right to choose which word he wanted to use. 

            I'll only give a few of the many thousands of examples of words not used in the original REINA-VALERA, nor in any Spanish Bible, which are unique synonyms found only in the Gomez:

             Prov. 25:11   The word "figures" is changed to "adornos" (ornaments)  Why?  The English word is "pictures."  The 1602, 1865, 1909, 1602 P and even the 1960 have FIGURAS!  Why change it?

             Matt. 3:4       The Valera word is "cinta" which means belt.  So why did the Gomez change it to "cinto" which means absolutely nothing in Spanish? 

             John 4:36     The word "recoge" is added, and replaces the Valera word "allega."  Why?

John 9:40     Gomez adds the word "acaso."

             John 12:3     Gomez changes "olor" (1602, 1602P word) to "fragrancia."

             John 12:33   Gomez says "indicando."   

             John 13:4,12 Gomez word is "tunica."  Valera 1602 and 1602P word is ropa

             John 16:20   Gomez reads "se convertirá en alegría."  1602 and 1602P read se vuelta en gozo.

             John 16:25   Gomez says "parábolas."  But KJV says proverbs.  1602 and 1602P also say proverbios.  This is a DOCTRINAL ERROR, as Jesus only spoke to the PHARISEES in parables so they wouldn't understand.  But here Jesus is speaking to his DISCIPLES, so they would understand!

             John 18:27   Gomez says "en seguida."  KJV says immediately.  1602 P says al instante.

             John 19:13   Gomez reads "Enlosado."  What?  KJV says pavement.  1602 P says pavimento.

             1 Cor. 5:2       Gomez says "tristeza" while 1602 and 1602 P use "luto."  KJV says mourned.

             1 Cor. 6:15     Gomez says "¡Dios me libre!" (Which means God set me free, or God free me!).  What is this?  KJV says "God forbid!  1602 says Lejos sea.  1602P reads ¡No lo permite DiosThe Gomez reading here makes it sound like Paul is a FORNICATOR, asking God to free him from his sin of fornication in context of the verse.

             1 Cor. 14:35   1602 and 1602P say deshonestaGomez uses "vergonzoso."

             1 Cor. 16:1     Gomez uses "la ofrenda. KJV says the collection.  1602 and 1602 P read la colecta.

             1 Cor. 16:5     Gomez uses "adictos" to make it closer to the KJV.  But this makes one think of a drug addict in Spanish.  The 1602 and 1602P have dedicados.

             2 Cor. 2:14     Gomez reads "fragrancia."  1602 and 1602P read olor. KJV says "savour."

             2 Cor. 3:7       Gomez says "fenecer."  KJV reads done away.  1602 reads perecer, while 1602P uses acabar.

             2 Cor. 7:7       Gomez changes vuestro lloro (1602 and 1602P reading) to "vuestras lagrimas."  KJV says "your mourning."

             2 Cor. 8:20     Gomez reads "difame."  1602 and 1602 P read "vitupere."

             2 Cor. 10:9     Gomez uses the strange word "mezquindad."  1602 and 1602P say avaricia.  KJV reads coveteousness.              (Note: Because of so many synonyms in the Gomez, some have called it "A MEXICAN BIBLE." I'll not call it this, but you must admit.  The word mezquindad does sound a lot like the word Mexican.)

             Gal. 1:14     Gomez uses "adelantaba" instead of 1602 and 1602P word "aprovechaba."

             Gal. 6:12     Gomez says "padecer."  Why?  1602, 1602P read "sufrir."

 Eph. 4:1,4    Gomez uses "llamamiento," while 1602 and 1602P have "vocación."

 Eph. 3:20     Gomez uses "opera" (operates) instead of 1602 and 1602P word "obra." (KJV says worketh).

             Eph. 4:8       Gomez uses "las alturas" (plural).  1602 and 1602P use "lo alto" (sing.), as the KJV says on high.  If there is any doubt, the Greek word is the SINGULAR word huphos.

             Eph. 5:2       Gomez says "dulce fragrancia. KJV says "sweet smelling savor."  1602 and 1602P read olor suave.

             Eph. 5:11     Gomez reads "reprobadlas."  KJV is "reprove."  1602 and 1602P read "reprended."

             Phil. 2:16     Gomez uses "reteniendo." KJV says "holding forth."  1602 and 1602P read "manteniendo por delante."  Greek word literally translated means holding forth.  "Reteniendo" means to retain and keep, not necessarily hold or keep in front of someone.  Big strike for the Gomez!

             Phil. 4:18     Gomez says "perfume de dulce fragrancia."  1602 and 1602P say "olor de suavidad."  King James reads "odor of a sweet smell."

             Col. 1:29     Gomez uses "trabaja...luchando" instead of 1602 and 1602P rendering of "obra...combatiendo."

             Col. 2:14     Gomez reads "el manuscrito."  KJV says "handwriting of ordinances."  1602P says "la escritura."  When the Gomez uses manuscript, why does it do so?  No other Spanish Bible does.  It almost paints a picture in your mind of the original autographs or the original manuscripts being literally nailed to the cross.

             1 Thes. 2:7            Gomez adds "trata con tenura."

             1 Thes. 2:10            Gomez says "condujimos."  1602P reads "portabamos."

             2 Thes. 1:8            Gomez reads "cobrar venganza."  KJV says "taking vengence."  1602P reads "tomando venganza."

             2 Thes. 2:7            Gomez says "opera."  1602 and 1602P read "obra."  KJV says "work."

             2 Thes. 3:12            Gomez says "requerimos" (we require).

             1 Tim. 3:3       Gomez uses "rencilloso."  KJV says "no striker."  1602 and 1602P read "no heridor."

             1 Tim. 5:13     Gomez reads "indiscretas."  KJV says "busybodies."  1602 and 1602P say "curiosas."

             2 Tim. 2:14     Gomez has "perjudican."  1602 and 1602P read "trastornar."

             2 Tim. 3:2       Gomez uses big word "malagradecidos," instead of small word "ingratos" (1602 and 1602P word).  Why?  Shouldn't smaller words be better, especially if they mean the same thing, and the smaller word is the old CASTELLAN VALERA WORD?

             2 Tim. 3:4       Gomez says "engreidas."  1602 and 1602P read "hinchados."

             1 Peter 2:19     Gomez reads "loable" (praiseworthy).  KJV says "thankworthy." 1602P reads "agradable" (thankful).

             1 Peter 4:8       Gomez changes "caridad" (1602 and 1602P word) to "amor."  But charity is love with sacrifice. 

             2 Peter 2:14     Gomez reads "dejar de pecar."  KJV reads "cease from sin."  1602 and 1602P read "cesar de pecar."

             2 Peter 2:15     Gomez uses "paga."  1602 and 1602P read "premio."

             This is just a brief list of synonym changes in the Gomez, which come from the mind of Gomez, and don't read with any Spanish Bible.  As you peer over this list, you'll see many times the 1602 Purified is much closer to the original Valera and the King James. 

            Is it wrong to use "synonyms" in a new revision?  This is subject to debate.  And I'll be honest, there are some words that I don't mind being changed.  HOWEVER, when a person changes as many words as Mr. Gomez did, with no reason to do so, and they read time and again AGAINST THE VALERA 1602 original word, then we have a problem. 

            One can go too far with synonyms!  So far that he gets away entirely from the original 1602 Valera.  I feel this is exactly what Mr. Gomez did in his version. 

            Not only did Mr. Gomez substitute old Valera words with his own synonyms, but he also changed old Castellan words using modern versions.  These we shall see a little later.



 On Mr. Gomez' website, we are made to think that only the KJV, TR, and 1909 Spanish Bibles were used in his translation process.  Once again he states:

"To accomplish this work...we have gone verse by verse making sure first of the purity of the text and then comparing the 1909 with the Authorized KJV.  Every single verse that did not line up the TR or the KJV we have immediately corrected..."


            But the first edition of the Gomez, I read the following words of confession in the preface to his work:

"Each and every one of the words has been painstakingly revised taking as the base the Hebrew Masoretic and Aramaic text of the Old Testament, the original Greek Textus Receptus, called en Castellan "Received Text" for the New Testament, compared with the King James Bible, and ALL REINA VALERA VERSIONS." (emphasis added is mine).

            When I read this, I thought nothing of it.  That is until I bought the second edition of the Gomez Bible, and I saw the second edition preface had been changed:

"Each and every one of the words has been painstakingly revised taking as its base the Hebrew Masoretic and Aramaic, called the 'Masoretic Text' for the Old Testament, and the Greek 'Textus Receptus' called the 'Received Text' for the New Testament, and compared with the King James Bible.

            Notice in the second edition, Mr. Gomez OMITTED the fact that he used ALL REINA VALERA VERSIONS in his first edition.  Why would he do this?  There are many Reina-Valera versions.  The 1960 is a Reina-Valera revision, (and there is even a 1995 too)!  Could Mr. Gomez have used the 1960 in his work?

            The fact of the matter is he did.  And I will prove it.



            As I read through the Gomez Bible, I read it with my King James, my Greek Textus Receptus, the 1909, the 1960, the original 1602 and the 1602 Purified.  What I found shocked me!  The Gomez Bible reads along with the 1960 far too many times for it to be mere coincidence.  Why?  Mr. Gomez is supposed to be against the liberal 1960 Spanish Bible.  So why then does his Bible read with the 1960 on so many occasions?  The 1602 Purified did not use this liberal translation in its work, as they did not want to be identified with an updated modernistic Bible.

            Let's look at some examples of where the Gomez follows the 1960 Spanish Bible:

             Psalm 1:3            Changes the word VALERA WORD arroyos to "corrientes" as does the 1960.  

             Psalm 3:6            Changes the word cerco to "sitio" like the 1960.

            Matt. 1:1       The King James and Valera word genealogia changed to the pro 1960 word "generacion."             

Matt. 4:12     The Valera words estaba preso is changed to "sido encarcelado."  Later in Mt. 5:25 the Valera word prision is changed to "carcel" (like the 1960).  Why?  What's wrong with the Valera reading?  Nothing!  Why favor the 1960 word then?  Especially when the KJV uses prision.

            Matt. 5:24            Changes ofrece to "presenta" (like 1960)            But even the KJV says offer.

            Matt. 10:27             Predicádlo changed to "proclamádlo," like the liberal 1960!  Even the English RSV says "proclaim."  But what's wrong with PREACHING?  Why change a strong, good word for a weaker word used in liberal versions?

John 1:27     The word zapato changed to "calzado" the 1960 rendering.  Why? KJV has shoe's.  1602, 1909, 1602P all say "zapato."  Why depart from the older text and word closest to KJV to follow the 1960?

John 2:2       The word llamados is changed to "invitados."  It's odd that only the 1960 says this.  The 1909, 1602, 1602P and others use llamados.  Even the King James says called. (Not invited!)

             John 2:17     The words me comió are changed to "me consumió."  How odd, as only the 1960 says this.  Even the KJV says hath EATEN me up.  Why the change?  I thought the Gomez changed every verse with the KJV?

             John 5:35     Gomez reads with 1960 with "por un tiempo." 1602 and 1602P say por un poco.

             John 5:38     The valera word permaneciendo, replaced with 1960 word "morando." 

             John 6:12     1602 and 1602P word hartos changed to 1960 word "saciados."     

             John 6:16     Se hizo tarde changed to 1960 reading of "al anochecer."

             John 6:17     1602 and 1602P use una nave, while Gomez and 1960 say "una barca."  KJV says ship.  A nave is a ship, while a barco is a boat.

             John 7:1       1602 and 1602P read procuraban de matarle.  1960 and Gomez leave out the "de."

             John 7:35     Gomez word is present tense with "hallemos," like the 1960 reading.  1602, 1602P read hallaremos (future tense).  KJV says shall we find (or hallaremos).

John 7:46            Changes Nunca (1602 and 1602P) to 1960 rendering of "Jamas."

 John 8:37     Valera word Lugar changed to "cabida" like the 1960.

 John 8:47     Por tanto (old 1602 and 1602P word) changed to 1960 word "por eso."

 John 10:22   Gomez changes hacíase (1602 and 1602P) to "se celebraba" (1960 reading).

 John 12:6     Valera word traia changed to 1960 word sustraia.

 John 16:2     Hace servicio changed to "rinde servicio" just like the 1960.

 John 16:6            Hinchido changed to 1960 word "llenado."

 John 18:20   The Valera words se juntan changed to 1960 words "se reunen."

 John 18:31   Gomez and 1960 say "dar muerte a nadie."  1602 and 1602P read matar a nadie.

 John 20:9     Era menester changed to "es necesario" like 1960.

 Rom. 4:15            Changes obra used by 1602, 1909, 1602P etc. to "produce," following the 1960.  KJV is of course is worketh or obra in Spanish.

 1 Cor. 1:19            Gomez/1960 word is "desecharé."

 1 Cor. 1:25     1960 and Gomez read "lo insensato."

 1 Cor. 2:5       Gomez and 1960 read "no me propuse."  KJV says I was determined1602P reads había determinado.

 1 Cor. 2:6       1960 and Gomez read "que perecen."  KJV reads that come to naught 1602 reads que se desechan.  1602 P reads que vienen a nadaAs Greek literally translated says being brought to nothing.

 1 Cor. 2:13     1960 and Gomez have "acomodando."  KJV says comparing.  1602P reads comparando.

 1 Cor. 3:10     Gomez uses weird word "perito arquitecto" (like 1960)  What is this?  IS THIS FREEMASONRY IN THE GOMEZ?  KJV says "wise master builder."  1602 and 1602 P say "sabio maestro."

 1 Cor. 4:12     Gomez and 1960 say "fatigamos trabajando."  1602, 1602 P read trabajamos, obrandoKJV says labour, working.

 1 Cor. 4:13            1602/1602P read basura...inmudicias.  Gomez/1960 read, "escoria...desecho."

 1 Cor. 4:18     Reads "envanecidos," like 1960.  1602/1602P say hincados.

 1 Cor. 4:21     Instead of vendré, RVG and 1960 read "iré."  KJV says I shall come.  There is a difference between coming and going!

 1 Cor. 5:2       Tal obra (1602, 1602P) changed to "tal acción" like 1960.  But the context is fornication, a wicked WORK (obra), and not just an ACTION.

 1 Cor. 5:13     Malo or malvado changed to "perverso" like the 1960!  KJV says wicked

 1 Cor. 7:19     La observación de los mandamientos changed to "el guardar de los mandamientos."

 1 Cor. 9:23            Changes partícipe to "copartícipe."

 1 Cor. 10:5     Gomez follows 1960 with "postrados."

 1 Cor. 11:34   Gomez uses 1960 word "fuere," instead of Valera word viniere.

 1 Cor. 12:25            "Desavenencia" used instead of Valera word disensión.

 1 Cor. 14:16   Uses "un simple oyente" like the 1960.

 1 Cor. 14:23            RVG/1960 say "indoctos."

 2 Cor. 1:17     Says "ligereza" in 60, RVG.  1602/1602P read liviandad.

 2 Cor. 3:9            "Justificación" instead of Valera justicia.

 2 Cor. 6:14     Gomez and 1960 say "unáis."  Valera word is juntéis.

 2 Cor. 8:11            Acabadlo (1602, 1602P) changed to "llevad también a cabo."

 2 Cor. 10:9            Espantar changed to "amedrentar."  Why? 

 2 Cor. 11:14   Good Valera words se transfiguran changed to 1960 "se disfraza."

 2 Cor. 12:4            Changes decir (1602, 1602P) to 1960 "expresar."  But you can EXPRESS something without SAYING it!

 Gal. 1:23     Reads with 1960 with "asolaba."  1602/1602P have destruía.  KJV says destroyed.

 Gal. 4:9       Valera reads volver a servir.  1960/RVG says "volver a esclavizar."

 Gal. 5:26            Changes no seamos codiciosos, provocandonos to 1960 "no hagamos vanagloriosos, irritándonos."  Why?  KJV says ...provoking.

 Gal. 6:2       Follows 1960 with "sobrellevad."

 Eph. 1:19     Follows '60 with "supereminente."

Eph. 1:23     Says "en todo."  1602 and 1602P say en todos.

Eph. 2:2            RVG/1960 state "corriente."  KJV says course1602P reads curso.

Eph. 2:21            Changes crece (present tense) to 1960 "va creciendo." 

Eph. 3:16            RVG/1960 read "fortalecidos," while 1602 and 1602P read corroborados.

Eph. 4:8       Gomez changes ceguedad (blindness like KJV) to "dureza" (1960).  1602 and 1602P both say ceguedad!

Eph. 4:19            Changes sentido to "sensibilidad."

Eph. 4:19     With 1960, Gomez says "toda clase de impureza."  One must ask, "How many types or clases of impurity are there???"  KJV says work all uncleaness with greediness.  1602P reads toda inmundicia con ansia.

Eph. 4:29     Follows 1960 with "corrompida."  1602/1602P says corrupta.  KJV says corrupt.

Eph. 4:31     RVG follows '60 with "gritería."

Eph 5:15            RVG/60 say "con diligencia."  1602/1602P read avisadamente.

Eph. 5:18            Changes emborrachéis to "embriguéis."  They mean exactly the same, so why reject the Valera word in favor of the 1960?

Phil. 1:10            Changes sin ofensa (1602/1602P) to "irreprensibles."  KJV says without offense.

Phil. 1:23     Reads along with 1960 with muchisimo mejor

Phil. 1:28     Reads with '60 as "espantados."

Phil. 2:12     Says "ocupaos."  1602, 1602P reads obrad KJV rendering is work out.

Phil. 2:24            Changes vendré to "iré."  Greek is eleusomai, which means I WILL COME (just like the KJV!)

Phil. 4:11            Changes necesidad to 1960 reading escasez.  KJV says want.

Col. 1:12     Says "aptos."

 Col. 2:15     Reads "los exhibió públicamente."  1602/1602P read sacoles a vergüenza en público.

 Col. 2:19     Says "asiendose" like 1960.

 1 Thes. 2:2            Copies 1960 with "gran oposición."

 1 Thes. 2:3            Follows 1960 with "impureza" instead of 1602/1602P inmundicia.

 1 Thes. 2:5            With '60 says "ni encubrimos avaricia."

 1 Thes. 3:3            Changes "conmueva" to "inquiete," following the 1960.   The 1909 says "conmueva." The 1602 simply says "mueva."  Of course the KJV says "moved."  So obviously the Gomez is not closer to the KJV and 1909 in this verse!

             1 Thes. 4:5            RVG/'60 reads "pasión."

             1 Thes. 4:15            Say "precederemos."  1602/1602P read no seremos delanteros.

             1 Thes. 5:4            The word "sobre coja" is changed to "soprenda" which only the 1960 and Spanish NIV use.  Sobre coja means to take up or grab or over take.    The original 1602 uses "os tome" (take you).  The 1602P uses "os agarre."  The King James says, "overtake."  So why does the Gomez change it to surprise (soprenda)?  Why read with the NIV and 1960?    Question, "Will the rapture take you or just surprise you?"  I know I'M GOING!

             1 Thes. 5:7            The Valera words estan borrachos, changed to se embrigen in RGV/'60.  Why the bias here towards the 1960?

            1 Thes. 5:13            1602/1602P read mayor estima (highest esteem).   RVG copies 1960 with only "mucha estima."

            1 Thes. 5:26            1602 and 1602P keep the words beso santo.  Gomez follows 1960 with the odd sounding "ósculo santo."  Why?  A new convert would need a dictionary to figure out what that word means!  KJV says simply holy kiss.

            2 Thes. 2:4            Follows '60 with "haciendose pasar por Dios."  1602 says haciendo parecer DiosKJV reads showing himself that he is God1602P reads mostrándose a sí mismo que él es Dios.

            This could easily be construed as a DOCTRINAL ERROR!  The antichrist does not just a pass himself off as God (as Gomez has it), rather he declares himself to be god in the tribulation, and that's why people follow him.

            2 Thes. 2:9            RVG and 1960 read "prodigios." 

            1 Tim. 3:1       Reads with 1960 with "anhela."  1602/1602P read apetece.

            1 Tim. 3:6       RVG copies 1960 with "envaneciendose."

            1 Tim. 4:14     Copies the '60 with "presbiterio."  1602/1602P read "los ancianos."

            1 Tim. 5:9       Says "marido."  KJV reads man.  1602 and 1602P read varón (man).

            1 Tim. 5:25     Gomez says "ocultarse," very close to the 1960 reading of pueden permanecer ocultas.  1602, 1602P read esconder (hide) like the KJV reading of hid.

            2 Tim. 2:10            Gomez/1960 say "obtengan."   1602/1602P read consigan.

             2 Tim. 4:5       Follows 1960 with "soporta las aflicciones."  KJV says suffer afflictions1602P reads sufre aflicciones Original 1602 uses other word, but in footnotes in margin says sufre.

             Tito 1:6       Copies the '60 with "rebeldía."  1602/1602P read contumaces.

             1 Peter 1:1            RVG/'60 say "expatriados."  Why?  1602/1602P read extranjeros (strangers).  Greek word translated to English literally is pilgrims.  Why then does the RVG 60 say they were expatriated people.  This is strange!

             1 Peter 2:6       Copies the '60 with "avergonzado."  KJV says confounded.  1602,1602P both read confundido.

             1 Peter 3:9       Follows the '60 with "devolviendo" instead of 1602,1602P reading of volviendo.

             1 Peter 3:14     1602 and 1602 P read temáisGomez reads with 1960 with "amedrentéis." Gomez chose a harder word, one that a new convert would have to look up in dictionary.  Why not use the older Castellan word, and why not stick with the easiest word?  Greek word translated is fear.  KJV says afraid.

             1 Peter 4:1       Follows 1960 with "terminó con el pecado."  1602/1602P have cesó de pecadoKJV reads ceased from sin.  Here the RVG 60 makes it sound like someone is completely finished with sin, so much so that he'll never be able to sin again.  But the context is suffering, and while a person is suffering, he's ceased from sinning during that time. Once again, following the 1960 makes the verse less clear!

             1 Peter 4:12     Gomez follows '60 with "Amados" instead of old Valera word carísimos.

             1 Peter 4:13            1602/1602P say afliccionesGomez and 1960 say "padecimientos." 

             1 Peter 5:2,3    Copies 1960 with "la grey."  Why? 


              I'm sorry this is such a long list, but I want you to get a flavor of the Gomez Bible for yourself.  The Gomez just doesn't read with the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible in a few places, but time and again.  This brief list is only about one-fifth of the many thousands of places Mr. Gomez chooses to insert the modernistic 1960 word over the old Castellan Valera word.             

           There is no doubt about it.  Mr. Gomez had the 1960 and used it preferentially in his work, while at the same time, he claimed to be against the 1960, using only the 1909 and KJV.  But for anyone who might doubt this, I'll give a little more evidence that Mr. Gomez used the 1960 in his work, as the words he used are more than just coincidence:

            John 6:52     Word order is changed in Gomez to follow the 1960, and even the Spanish NIV!

            John 9:1       the KJV, 1602, and 1602P have the word "su" in italics.  The Gomez leaves it out, and so does the 1960!  Hmmmmm!

            John 17:2     RVG changes the word order to read with the 1960!

             1 Cor. 2:1       Gomez changes word order to match the 1960!

             2 Cor. 4:8       RVG has estamos in italics just like the 1960 has it.  Why?  1602/1602P have somos.

             Eph. 3:10     Word order changed to read more like 1960.

             Col. 1:20     RVG changes word order to follow 1960.  Also, takes the BLOOD from the begging of the verse and puts it in the end.  WHY?  WHY MOVE THE BLOOD OF JESUS TO THE END OF THE VERSE?  This is awful!  KJV has the blood in the front, just like the 1602P!



             One of the greatest arguments against the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible is that Eugene Nida supported and encouraged the work to be done.  Mr. Nida is, of course, the founder of the DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE THEORY, which teaches that FORMAL EQUIVALENCE, or translating as literal as possible is not necessary.  Instead he taught a dynamic or liberal interpretation and translation should be made.  This damnable and satanic theory makes the translator the final authority, and allows him to change words as he wishes and translate any way he likes. 

            As Mr. Gomez followed the 1960 Spanish Bible, did he also follow Mr. Nida's DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE METHOD of translating?  I'll let you decide.  But below are a few examples of what appear to be dynamic equivalence in the Gomez.

             John 1:38     Gomez changes que declarado quiere decir (original1602) or que interpretado quiere decir (1602P) to "que se dice, si lo interpretares..."  Here the Gomez says literally, "Which means, if you interpret it..."  But what do the other, older versions say?  They say that INTERPRETED, it means...  Why does Gomez give you the choice to interpret the word or not.  The true Bible interprets itself!

             John 7:37            1602/1602 P read clamaba like KJV's cried 1960 and Gomez put "alzó su voz" (he lifted up his voice).  Why change this to match the 1960?  And why change it to make it a longer reading (more words).  Clamaba (he cried) is very concise and to the point!

             1 Cor. 6:12     King James says I will not be brought under the power of any1602/1602P say no me meteré debajo de potestad de ningunaRVG, 1960, and NIV all say "no me dejaré dominar por ninguna" (literally, I will not let anyone dominate me!

             1 Cor. 9:3       KJV says examine me.  RVG says "me preguntan."  Why?  Greek word emeanakrinousin means examine me.  1602P says me examinan.

             Phil. 2:5       RVG says "sentir," like original 1602.  KJV says let this mind be in you.  1602 P says it better with a command to be of la misma mente (the same mind). 

             Phil. 2:6       Gomez says "no tuvo por usurpación" (he did not hold it a usurpation).  KJV says thought it not robbery.  There's a big difference here.  The verse speaks of Christ Jesus and how he thought it not robbery to be equal with God.  Why does the Gomez say then that Jesus did not usurp God to be equal with God? 

             Phil. 3:2       RVG uses the word "mutilación" (mutilation).  Why?  The King James says concision. The 1602 original uses del cortamiento, and the 1602 P says concisión.  The 1960 and NIV both say mutiladores del cuerpo.   The verse is speaking about those of the circumcision, (the Pharisees) and warns of them.  Why would the Gomez choose to read with the NIV and 1960 and try to warn us of MUTILATORS?  Is circumcision mutilation? 

             Phil. 4:7       Gomez uses the NIV and 1960 word "pensamientos."  While 1602 original says entendimientosKJV uses minds, and 1602 P has mentes.  There is a big difference between minds and thoughts.

             1 Thes. 2:8            Gomez changes Valera word almas (1602/1602P) to "vida" following the 1960 and NIV.  But in the verse, Paul is speaking and saying he loves them so much that if it were possible, he would give his own SOUL for them.  Well guess what?  IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO GIVE ONE'S SOUL FOR ANOTHER, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE TO GIVE ONE'S LIFE FOR ANOTHER.  Why change this to follow the '60 and NIV?  The Greek word is the word for SOUL.  So the Gomez is very wrong here!

             1 Tim. 3:7       RVG follows 1960 and NIV with "descrédito.Original 1602 says verguenzaKJV reads reproch.  1602P says vituperio (reproach). 

             1 Tim. 3:8       Here the Gomez translates just like the 1960 with "sin doblez" (without changing).  The KJV says not double tongued.  Looking the word up in Greek, we find dilogous, which literally means double speaking.  The 1602 and 1602P both say no de dos lenguas. This is much better than the '60/RVG.

             1 Tim. 4:13     Gomez follows 1960 and NIV with the liberal rendering of "enseñanza," while the original 1602 uses enseñar.  KJV says doctrine, as does the 1602P.  The Greek word is the same word Gomez uses to translate DOCTRINE in other places.  Why not here?  I thought he was supposed to change his version to read more in line with the KJV!  This verse takes out the good, sound word DOCTRINE, and changes it to only enseñanza (teaching), like modern liberal Bibles do so often.

             2 Tim. 1:15     Gomez follows NIV and 1960 with the ridiculous reading of "me han dado la espalda" (they have given me their back, or they have turned their back on me).  Why?  I looked this up in the Greek, and it doesn't say this.  Literally translated, the Greek says all turned away from me.  KJV says turned away from me.  There is no mention of a back in Greek.  Why not translate literally?

             2 Tim. 2:3       RVG follows the 1960 with the weird reading of "sufre penalidades."  I looked this up in the dictionary, and it can mean hardness, like the KJV has it.  However, a "penal" is a penalty in soccer!  Would someone read this and think of soccer like I did when I read it?  Further, a penalty is something you get from DOING WRONG!  Yet hardships can come even when you are doing right.  Is the Gomez here telling us we should DO WRONG?

             2 Tim. 3:5       Gomez reads "eficacia" (like the 1960).  Greek word is dunamin, which translates power (like KJV).  1602P reads poder (power).  EFFICACY and POWER are very different.

             2 Peter 2:5       Gomez uses 1960 word "pregonero" in speaking about Noah.  This word means town crier, or proclaimer.  But the King James says PREACHER, and so does the 1602P.  Why would he take away the fact that Noah was a PREACHER?

             2 Peter 2:9       The old Valera and 1602P words are ser atormentados. RVG chooses the weaker words "ser castigados."  NIV is close to this with castigarlos.  Verse speaks about the day of judgment, and those who are not saved.  They will be punished (KJV reading) in Hell.  Castigados means chastised, while atormentados means tortured, a much stronger word based on the context.



I've shown how many times the word choice that Mr. Gomez chooses is the word used in the apostate, liberal 1960 Spanish Bible.  But it's interesting, if not sad, that many times the same word used in the 1960 just happens to be the same one the NIV Spanish Bible uses.  This means the Gomez reads closer to the 1960 and the NIV in many places than it does to the KJV and TR, which it's supposed to have been corrected with!

            Here are some places where Mr. Gomez' 1960 word choice makes his version read even closer to the corrupt Spanish NIV:

             Matt. 1:21,23            The word parirá changed to the NVI and 1960 reading of "dará a luz."

             Matt. 3:3       RVG changes veredas to "sendas" to follow the 1960 and NIV.

             John 3:33     The word verdadero of the 1602, 1909, and 1602P is changed to the NIV and 1960 rendering of "veraz."  But why go with the 1960 against the 1909 and 1602/1602P?

             John 5:17     The word obra in the 1602, 1909, and 1602P are changed to the NIV and 1960 word "trabaja."  Why?  Sure it's a synonym, but what's wrong with the OLD CASTELLAN WORD?

             John 6:28     Gomez follows 1960 and NIV with "para realizar las obras de Dios."

 John 6:55            Verdaderamente (1602/1602P) changed to "verdadera" (1960 and NIV!)

 John 10:8            Robadores (1602/1602P word) changed to 1960 and NIV word "salteadores."

 John 11:57   RVG, 1960, and NIV all read "orden," while 1602 and 1602P say mandamiento.

 John 12:11   Valera word iban changed to 1960 and NIV word "apartaban."

 John 14:2     Valera reads aparejar.  NIV, '60 and Gomez say "preparar."

 John 16:21   '60, NIV, and RVG all read "da a luz."  1602,1602P word is pare.

 John 17:26            RVG/60/NIV all read "dado a conocer."  1602/1602P say hice conocer.

 John 19:29            Hinchieron...llegaron (1602,1602P) changed to NIV/1960/RVG words "empaparon...acercaron."

 John 20:4            1602/1602P word presto changed to NIV/1960/RVG word "aprisa."

 Rom. 3:24     The Valera words por la changed to "mediante" jut like the NIV and liberal 1960.

Rom. 3:31     Gomez changes establecemos (KJV, 1602, 1909, 1602P word) with "confirmamos," a word used in both the 1960 and NIV.

             Rom. 4:4             Changes por to "como."  Follows word for word from the 1960 and NIV.

             1 Cor. 1:27     Follows 1960 and NIV with "avergonzar."  1602 original says the same.  KJV says confound.  1602 P says confundir.

             1 Cor. 3:8,14  Follows '60 and NIV with "recompensa."  Greek word is misthon, which means reward.  1602 reads salario.  1602P says galardon.

             1 Cor. 4:12     Gomez changes sufrimos (1602, 1602P) to "soportamos" like the NIV and 1960.  KJV says we suffer.

             1 Cor. 4:16     Says "sigáis mi ejemplo," following the NIV!  KJV says be ye followers of me.  1602 says imitéis.  1602 P says it right with seáis seguidores de mi.

             1 Cor. 4:19            1602/1602P follow KJV reading of I will come with vendré.  Gomez follows 1960 and NIV with iré (I will go).  But, there is a difference between COMING and GOING!

             1 Cor. 7:10            1602/1602P say no se aparte.  1960, NIV, and Gomez say "no se separe."  KJV uses depart. 

             1 Cor. 7:31            RVG/1960/NIV all say "disfrutan" instead of 1602/1602P word usan.  KJV says use.

             1 Cor. 9:5,6    Follows '60 and NIV with "tenemos derecho."  1602/1602P say tenemos potestad.

             1 Cor. 9:11     RVG reads with NIV and 1960 with "lo material." 

             1 Cor. 9:12     Reads with '60 and NIV with "obstáculo."

             1 Cor. 9:12     Follows NIV and '60 with "recompensa." 

             1 Cor. 9:26            RVG/1960/NIV all say "golpea," which 1602, 1602P say hiere.

             1 Cor. 11:33   1960 says with Gomez "reunís."  NIV says reunan.  1602/1602P is juntáis.

             1 Cor. 12:11            RVG/'60/NIV all read "hace."  1602, 1602P say obra.  KJV has worketh.

             1 Cor. 14:11   Follows 1960 and NIV with "extranjero."  KJV says barbarian.  1602/1602P read bárbaro.

             1 Cor. 14:13   Gomez follows '60 and NIV with "pida" instead of 1602,1602P word ore like KJV word pray.

             2 Cor. 6:5       RVG agrees with 1960 and NIV with "tumultos."  1602/1602P read alborotos.

             Gal. 1:13     Follows NIV and 1960 with "conducta."  KJV/1602/1602P read conversación.

             Gal. 4:27     RVG adds "jubilo" just like the '60 and NIV.

             Gal. 5:7       RVG reads along with NIV with "estorbó." 

             Gal. 5:26     RVG says "pasiones y deseos," like 1960 and NIV!  1602,1602P read afectos y concupiscencias.  KJV says affections and lusts.

             Eph. 4:14     Follows 1960 and NIV with "las artimañas del error."

             Eph. 5:17     RVG reads with 1960 and NIV with "insensatos."  1602/1602P say imprudentes.  KJV says unwise.

             Phil. 1:3       Reads with NIV and '60 with "me acuerdo."  1602,1602P say toda memoria.  KJV says every remembrance.

             Phil. 2:3       Follows NIV and 1960 with "superiores."

             1 Thes. 5:15            RVG reads with NIV and 1960 with "pague."  Strange reading, as it literally says pay evil for evil. KJV says render evil for evil.

             2 Thes. 1:3            Follows 1960 and NIV with "amor," instead of Valera word caridad.

             2 Thes. 2:1            Reads with NIV/'60 with "reunion."  1602/1602P say recogimiento.  KJV says gathering.

             2 Thes. 2:6            RVG follows 1960 and NIV with "detiene."

             1 Tim. 1:1       Reads with 1960 and NIV with "por mandato." 

             1 Tim. 4:3       Gomez chooses to follow 1960 and NIV word "alimentos," instead of 1602,1602P word viandas.  But alimentos can be ANY KIND OF FOOD, while vianda is usually only MEAT.

             1 Tim. 4:10     Follows '60/NIV with "oprobios."  KJV says reproach.  1602P says vituperios.

             1 Tim. 5:6       RVG reads with 1960/NIV with "placeres."            1602/1602P say delicias.

             1 Tim. 5:23     Valera word continuas (1602/1602P) replaced with 1960/NIV word "frecuentes."

             1 Tim. 6:9       Follows NIV/1960 with "hunden," instead of 1602/1602P reading of anegan.

             1 Tim. 6:17     Reads with NIV/'60 with "disfrutemos," instead of valera word gocemos.

             2 Tim. 1:16     RVG follows NIV and 1960 with "mis cadenas" (plural).  KJV says my chain.  1602, 1602P read mi cadena.  And the Greek word is also SINGULAR!

             2 Tim. 3:9       Gomez follows NIV/1960 with "insensatez."  1602/1602P read locura.

             1 Peter 3:19     RVG copies NIV and 1960 with "encarcelados."  1602/1602P reads en prisión.

             1 Peter 4:12     Gomez follows 1960 and NIV word "extraña."

             2 Peter 2:4       RVG goes with 1960/NIV word "arrojándolos. 1602/1602P read habiéndolos despeñado.  KJV says cast them down.

             2 Peter 2:9       Uses 1960/NIV word abrumado.

             Are all these changes necessary?  Most are just synonyms, but why CHANGE the old VALERA in favor of words used in apostate modern versions (like the NIV), which most Fundamentalists are against?



            Time would fail to give a complete list of every time the Reina-Valera Gomez follows the 1960 Spanish Bible and the NIV, instead of the Old Valera, the King James, the Textus Receptus, and the 1909 like Mr. Gomez said it should.  Instead of being closer to the Textus Receptus, as it claims to be, the facts prove the Gomez continually reads AGAINST the TR. 

            Aside from the many examples given above, here are just a couple more showing Mr. Gomez did not go verse by verse with the Greek, or if he did, he did not know Greek enough to correct the following mistakes:

            John 8:6,8    The Gomez translates "inclinando hacia el suelo" (like the 1960).  The Greek words are kato kophas, which mean only bending down (like the KJV).  The 1602/1602P say inclinando hacia abajo Here the Gomez has an ADDITION to the KJV and TR by inserting the words el suelo into the text.

             2 Cor. 4:15     Gomez ADDITION of the words "por amor."  Why?  It's not in the Greek.  But the 1960 adds these too.

 Eph. 1:10     The Gomez (like the original 1602 and 1960) omits translating the Greek words en auto from the TR.  The KJV has them, and so does the 1602P.  Why leave out "in him?"  This is an OMISSION in the Gomez.

             Col. 2:11     RVG changes 1602/1602P rendering of de los pecados (plural) to '60 reading of "del pecado" (singular).  Greek word is plural.  This is a MISTRANSLATION in the Gomez.  KJV has stir up (like one stirs up a fire).

             Col. 4:12     Gomez follows NIV with "oración" (singular).  1602,1602P, and KJV all have the word in plural with oraciones (prayers).  Why does Gomez change this?  The Greek word of course is in plural form.  THIS IS WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW HEBREW AND GREEK TO DO A BIBLE REVISION! 

             2 Tim. 1:6       RVG and original 1602 both say "el don."  However, the TR words, literally translated say el fuego del don.  The 1602P has it right with el fuego del don.  This is an OMISSION in the Gomez.

             2 Tim. 1:9       Greek TR literally says before times eternal.  KJV says before the world began1602P reads antes de los tiempos eternos (before the eternal times).  Gomez says "antes del principio de los siglos." (Before the beginning of the ages).  Here's a MISTRANSLATION in the Gomez.



Again I quote Mr. Gomez' words from his webpage:  "Every single verse that did not line up the TR or the KJV WE HAVE IMMEDIATELY CORRECTED..."

            Yet, as we have seen, many verses do not line up with the Greek Textus Receptus.  So the question must then be asked, "Does every verse line up with the King James?"  Let's see.

            Below are just a few of the many thousands of places where the Gomez does not line up with the KJV.  I'll also give some places where the 1602P reads closer to the KJV than the Gomez:

             Prov. 6:35     The word redencion or rescate (KJV = ransom) is replaced with "restitucion" 

             John 1:29,38            Here Gomez uses "dijo" (past tense).  But the Greek word is in the present tense and read "dice" in the 1602, 1909, and 1602 P.  Even the KJV says it right with "SAITH."  Gomez consistently translates this way, giving no regard whatsoever for the present or past tenses.  But shouldn't we know EXACTLY what Jesus said?  Shouldn't we know if he's past or present tense?  (Thank God for the 1602 P which showed careful attention to making sure the verb tense is translated right!)

John 6:1       KJV puts "the sea of" in italics.  The 1602P adds this in italics also.  Why?  Because the sea of Galilee is the sea of Tiberias.  Why doesn't the Gomez do the same?  His version makes the sea of Galilee all the land of Tiberias.

             John 11:38   Gomez reads closer to 1960 and NIV with "conmoviendose."  KJV says groaning.  1602P has gimiendo.

             John 16:33   Gomez reads with 1960 and NIV with "aflicción."  1602P reads tribulación, like the KJV reading of tribulation.  One could argue this is a DOCTRINAL ERROR, as Jesus is speaking to JEWS who will not only go through physical tribulations (suffering) in their service for Jesus, but doctrinally will pass through the great tribulation after the rapture!

             John 21:8     RVG uses "trayendo" (bringing) like the original 1602.  KJV says dragging, for the Greek word surontes, which literally translates dragging.  1602P uses arrastrando (dragging).

             1 Cor. 4:1       Gomez says "admisistradores" (like 1960).  KJV uses stewards.  1602P reads mayordomos (stewards).

             1 Cor. 11:10   RVG uses 1960 and NIV word "autoridad" (authority).  KJV, 1602, and 1602P all use poder (power).  This could be argued as a DOCTRINAL ERROR in the Gomez, as the verse speaks of women having POWER on their heads (King James reading).  Giving a woman AUTHORITY on her head (like the Gomez does) sounds pretty close to the feminist movement, which God is against in the Bible.  Woman are not to usurp AUTHORITY over men (1 Tim. 2:2).

             1 Cor. 12:24   RVG says "ordenó" (like 1960 and original 1602).  KJV says hath tempered.  1602P reads templó.

             1 Cor. 14:2     Gomez omits the italicized word "desconocida" (unknown in KJV).  1602P has this word in italics.  Leaving this word out strengthens the Charismatics in their false tongues doctrines.

             1 Cor. 15:51   Gomez says "transformados" (like original 1602, NIV and 1960).  KJV uses changed1602P reads cambiados(Same thing in verse 52).

             2 Cor. 3:2       Gomez uses "sabida" instead of more correct "conocida" (1602P reading), as it speaks of knowing SOMEONE instead of knowing SOMETHING.  The KJV says known in the sense of being known by all men.

             2 Cor. 11:17   Gomez reads "con esta confianza de gloria"             like the 1602 original.  KJV says in this confidence of boasting (literally what the Greek TR says).  1602P reads en este atrevimiento de jactancia.

             2 Cor. 11:25   RVG removes italicized words in 1602/1602P de la mar, and replaces it with only "las profundidades.  KJV says in the deep.  1602P reads more clearly del profundo de la mar (the last three words being in italics).

             Gal. 1:8       Gomez, 1602 and 1960 all say "anatema."  But this is a transliteration of the Greek word, not a translation.  KJV says accursed.  1602P reads maldito.

             Gal. 3:9       RVG translated just like the 1602 and 1960 with the erroneous "creyente Abraham."  This can't be right for two reasons.  1. Abraham wasn't a believer in the sense that we are today in the church age, and 2. The Greek word is faithful.  (But in all fairness, the Greek root word is the same used for believing).  The 1602P reads exactly with KJV with fiel Abraham (faithful Abraham).

            Eph. 1:14            RVG reads with the 1960 again with "posesión adquirida" (aquired possession).  The King James says purchased possession, and the 1602P follows it with posesión comprada.  This is important, and could be construed as a DOCTRINAL ERROR in the Gomez, as taking away the fact that a person's soul is PURCHASED by the blood of Jesus (Acts 20:28) is a horrible thing to do!

             Eph. 2:12     Gomez reads with 1960 once more with "ciudadanía" (citizenship).  The 1602 and 1602P read Republica.  KJV says commonwealth REPUBLICA is much better as the word in Greek is politeias, the same word is translated as REPUBLIC in Plato's work The Republic.    Republica is clearer, as the verse is speaking of the NATION of ISRAEL in the passage, and those under THE LAW.  In a republic, the LAWS GOVERN!  A Jew is governed by the Old Testament Law.  Changing it to just citizens of Israel removes this fact, and makes it an ANTI-VALERA, PRO 1960 WORD.

             Phil. 1:19     RVG follows the 1960 and NIV here with "liberación."  Original 1602 reads salud.  1602P reads with KJV when it puts salvación.  Greek word is sotarian which is of course the word for SALVATION!

             Phil. 2:2       Gomez follows old 1602 and 1960 with "sintáis."  But the KJV says like minded.  The Greek word is phrnonate which is the word for to think.  1602P translates it literally with penséis lo mismo.  (In verse 5 the Gomez does something similar.  Also in Phil. 3:15 and 4:2)

             Phil. 2:8       RVG has 1960 reading of "condición."  KJV reads in fashion.  1602P is better with forma.  Verse speaks of Christ being in the flesh.  It wasn't his condition.  He was fashioned or born in the flesh in the form of a man.

             Phil. 4:19     Here Mr. Gomez makes a GLARING DOCTRINAL BLUNDER!  He translates "Mi Dios, pues, suplirá todo lo que os falte...This literally means "Mi God will supply everything that you lack."  This is a DOCTRINAL ERROR!

            The Greek shows us that the KJV rendering is correct with But my God will supply all your needs...  The 1602P follows with Mas mi Dios suplirá todo vuestra necesidad...

            Note the difference!  The Gomez says God will give you EVERYTHING YOU LACK!  This would include your WANTS.  But the KJV and 1602P are correct as they say God will only supply your NEEDS.  The Greek words are o de theos mou plarosei pasan xreian humon (But God will supply your EVERY NEED...).  THIS IS A GREAT DOCTRINAL ERROR!  God promised to supply your NEEDS, not your WANTS!  Is this the new age, charismatic, prosperity gospel in the Gomez?

             1 Thes. 1:4            Gomez reads with 1602 and 1960 as "hermanos amados de Dios, vuestra elección."  Notice the placement of the comma.  The KJV says brethren, beloved, your election of God.  1602P gets it right and reads with the KJV as, amados hermanos, vuestra elección de Dios.  In case you missed it, the Gomez makes a person beloved of God instead elected of God.

             1 Thes. 4:6            KJV agrees with the Greek TR with testified.  RVG and original 1602 read "protestado."  1602P agrees with TR and KJV with testificado.

             1 Thes. 5:1            1602 and RVG say "tiempos y momentos."  KJV says times and seasons1602P follows with tiempos y sazonesGreek word that Gomez translates moments is the word for seasons.  Once again the 1602 Purified is closer to the Greek TR and KJV than the Gomez.

             2 Thes. 2:2            RVG and 1960 have "pensar."  KJV says mind.  1602P reads mente.

             2 Thes. 3:14            Gomez follows 1960 with "Señalad."  Old 1602 and 1602P both read Notad, like the  KJV reading Note.

             1 Tim. 2:2       RVG follows 1602 and 1960 with "eminencia."  KJV says authority.  1602P reads autoridad.

             Tito 1:9       Gomez follows 1960 with "Retenedor de la palabra fiel" (literally one who retains the faithful word).  KJV has Holding fast the faithful word from the Greek TR.  1602P is reteniendo firme la palabra fiel

             1 Peter 1:13     RVG, 1602, and 1960 all read "manifestación."  Greek word is apokalupsei, the same root word for Revelation, the last book of the Bible.  This is why the KJV says revelation in this verse, and the 1602P reads revelación

            This could be argued as another DOCTRINAL ERROR in the Gomez, as the manifestaction of Jesus was his first coming in the flesh to die on the cross.  While the revelation of Jesus Christ is his second coming.

             1 Peter 2:11            RVG/1602/1960 all read "los deseos carnales" (the carnal desires).  KJV says fleshly lusts.  1602P has it right with las concupiscencias carnales.

            The verse commands us to stay away from fleshly LUSTS (KJV and 1602P reading) not fleshly DESIRES (Gomez reading), for there are some desires of the flesh that are not wrong, examples would be hunger, thirst, sex with your own spouse etc.

             1 Peter 3:8       KJV commands us to be of the same mind.  RVG and 1960 tell us to be of the same feeling with "sentir."  1602P has it right with mente.  The Charismatics would love this verse, as they go by FEELINGS instead of by FACTS!



 By now the truth should be sinking in.  When Mr. Gomez says he went verse by verse correcting the text with the TR and KJV and immediately correcting it with them, it's obvious that he didn't do this. Or to be fair, that he didn't do a thorough job of it.

And, when Mr. Gomez says the following, we now understand what a more meaning full word means to him:

 ..."Because not all the words mean the same in every language we have used the best words available in our Spanish language, the words that have the most meaning, never contradicting the TR or the KJV."

To Mr. Gomez, the 1960, and NIV, have more meaningful words, and he chose them over the perfectly adequate and venerated long-standing Castellan Valera words. 

Señor Gomez further states on his website:

"We had to produce: a good solid translation or revision of our Spanish Bible, one that will rise to the challenge; that has to be better than all the revisions we now have; a Bible pure to the text, and also, perfect in our language.  One that will make us stand tall and proud, one that will allow us to say without an apology: 'These are the words of God in Spanish,' and accurate Spanish translation of the inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved, and perfect Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words that underlie it.  A revision that will unite us.  By the Grace of God we believe we have produced one."

                        The version Mr. Gomez wants, one that Fundamentalists can be proud of, and one that will make us stand tall, is basically a 1960 revision with most of the doctrinal errors and critical text readings removed.  In his zeal to give Spanish Speakers a pure Bible, Mr. Gomez has instead given us a version with even a whole new set of problems and errors (see all I've listed above).

            Mr. Gomez confesses his real motive for producing his revision in the quote above.  It is to UNITE THE BRETHREN.  It was to give them a Bible they could all accept and be proud of (be careful, Job 41:34 tells us that leviathan or Satan is the king of all the children of pride).

            Seeing how most Fundamentalists use the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible, it must be asked, "Did Mr. Gomez use so many 1960 words so that the 1960 crowd would be more willing to change and accept his version?

            This can be the only conclusion, especially when he told us that he immediately changed the text with the KJV, TR, and 1909, and it's obvious he did not.

            "Could this have been his real motive for substituting so many 1960 and NIV words into the text?"

            I submit to you this is the only explanation for the Gomez reading so closely to the 1960 and NIV.

            From the facts, the truth is clear.  Mr. Gomez did not produce a pure Castellan Spanish Bible, rather a modern synonym Spanish Bible using many modernistic Spanish words taken from liberal updated Spanish revisions.

            Logically, we must then ask ourselves, "If we reject the 1960 Spanish Bible and even the NIV because the translators went against the King James and the Textus Receptus, should we not also reject the Gomez Bible for choosing to use so many words that appear in those same liberal apostate 1960 and NIV versions?

            I'll let you answer that question yourself. 

Another good question is "If modern fundamentalism was wrong once in using the 1960, could it be wrong again by accepting the Gomez Bible?

I'll let you decide that personally as well.



             On Mr. Gomez' website, he states the following: "...if you can find anything in it [his version] that is not written in a good and perfect Spanish, we will immediately correct it, for the good of our people...

Wanting to see for myself whether or not this is true, I contacted Mr. Gomez and asked him if he was open to suggestions about his version.  He said he was, so I thought I'd test the waters.  I emailed him 2 Peter 1:21 from the 1909 and asked him if he'd consider revising it.  The verse states:

 Porque la profecía no fue en los tiempos pasados traída por voluntad humana, sino los santos hombres de Dios hablaron siendo inspirados del Espíritu Santo.

             Translated literally, this reads in English: "Because the prophecy was not brought in times past by the will of man, but holy men of God spake being inspired by the Holy Ghost."

             Being anxious to immediately correct his edition with the KJV, I thought for sure Mr. Gomez would jump at the chance to give us a "perfect" reading of this verse and help us to avoid error, as modern liberals and apostates use this verse the way its written to say that the WORDS of God aren't inspired, rather the MEN were inspired by the Holy Ghost. This is a DOCTRINAL ERROR!  And this way of thinking leads to doubt of God's inspired words, and makes the Bible a book written by men rather than written by God.

            Mr. Gomez cordially replied, but stated he did not see a need to change the passage, and left the verse like this:

 Porque la profecía no vino en tiempo pasado por la voluntad del hombre; sino que los santos hombres de Dios hablaron siendo guiados por el Espíritu Santo.

             Literally translated it reads: "Because the prophecy did not come in time past by the will of man, but holy men of God spake being GUIDED by the HOLY SPIRIT."

            Notice he changes some of the verse to match the KJV, but not all of it.  And notice he puts GUIDED instead of MOVED as the KJV has it.  If the men were MOVED by the Holy Spirit to speak God's words, they were instruments of God to speak His Holy Inspired words.  However, if they were only GUIDED by the Holy Spirit, and weren't moved to speak them, this leaves room for a private interpretation and weakens the doctrine of Inspiration.

(Remember his quote about "immediately changing" to line up with the KJV?  Well, he didn't change this verse completely to line up with the King James!  And it's still not changed in the 3nd Edition.)

            So I guess I successfully tested the waters!  And I guess the words "immediately" and "every" don't mean the same to Mr. Gomez as they do to me.



             I've read the Gomez, and I think that the name Gomez Bible is exactly right for that work.  It is Gomez' Bible, as he was the final authority, and he made changes the way he wanted them. But is the Gomez Bible finished?  By no means.

            Mr. Gomez promises further changes in his following statement on his website, which I've translated into English: "There are many more changes that little by little we are going to add.  Not all are changes for the purity of the text, but many of them are because we think it's a better translation."

            What are these changes?  Are they the many 1960 and NIV synonyms he used?  And when will the revising stop?  (If you ask me, it's already gone too far!).

            If Mr. Gomez truly believes what he's stated, then he's going to continue changing his Bible.  He's not changing it because there are doctrinal errors in the text, or critical text readings.  No, he's changing it because he thinks that there are better words out there that best express what he thinks the Bible should say.  Could these be more 1960 words?  Or will he add more NIV words?

            If this keeps us, and it reads even more with the 1960, the ultimate question that must be asked, is: "Will Mr. Gomez have to pay those that own the copyright on the 1960 for copyright infringement?"



            The 1960 Spanish Bible is now heralded as "The Crown Version" in Spanish because of it's wide acceptance.  It is used by Protestant, Baptist, and Catholic alike.

            One of the biggest reasons modern Fundamentalists that I know have turned away from using the 1960 is because the text itself is copyrighted.  And to print the text, one has to pay a small percentage to the liberal Bible Societies who own the text.  Because these Societies are members of the United Bible Society, which works closely with the Roman Catholic Church, a small percentage of all 1960's sold worldwide goes directly to the Vatican. What a sad thought!  That means for every 1960 printed, and every 1960 bought, the Pope in Rome gets his cut. 

Because the majority of Independent Baptists over the years have used the corrupt 1960, that means they've funded the Vatican and helped them in their endeavours.  Think about that for a moment!  Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Churches which use the 1960 are giving to catholic missions!  Both Cassidoro de Reina and Cipriano de Valera, would turn over in their graves if they knew this! 

Now we have a new version of the Spanish Bible being circulated called The Reina-Valera Gomez. It's heralded as being The Fundamentalist's Spanish Bible.  But instead of going against the Roman Catholic Establishment, and honouring the ANTI-CATHOLIC VALERA BIBLE, it uses many words from the Pro-Catholic 1960 Spanish Bible and reads along with it in many places.  How can this be???

Valera was very adamant against Catholicism.  Just listen to his words in a tract he wrote in 1588 (which by the way was put on the Catholic Index of forbidden books) about Roman Catholicism:

 "[The Catholic Church] is deceiving in many ways. Because it deceives the people with false doctrine and vain promises, with magnificent titles, and pretend holiness, with bulls, indulgences and false miracles, and illusions of devils, etc.  It is full of impiety, not only does it sin and delight in its sins, but makes others sin also.  Because it has deprived the people of God with idolatry, the authority of the kings with tyranny, the public faith with deceit, the lives of the ecclesiasticals with filthiness and infamy, caused by its forced celibacy.  In conclusion, in the reign of the Pope is found a fountain and spring of abominations and scandals, according to the proverb, THE CLOSER TO ROME THE WORSE THE CHRISTIAN.  Which means, the closer to the antichrist, the farther you get from Christ.  Clearly we are able to conclude with these demonstrations that the Pope is the Antichrist, that the scriptures have foretold, and of which the Christian Church has suffered."

With such strong words, it's easy to tell that Valera was ANTI-CATHOLIC.  If he were alive today, what would he say about the Gomez Bible, that claimed to be a revision of this work, yet used many synonyms taken directly from the pro-catholic 1960 Spanish Bible?  Why I believe I know what he'd say.  I quote Valera from the preface of his 1602 revision:

 "...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."

             Valera's words lead me to ask, "Are the many synonym words Gomez uses which match the 1960 and NIV GOD'S words or MAN'S words?"  Further, "Are the many changes in the Gomez, changes GOD WANTED CHANGED or what GOMEZ WANTED TO CHANGE?"

            These are important questions, which must be answered.  Lastly, we must logically ask, "Did VALERA NOT USE THE RIGHT WORDS?  And, "Did God wait until Mr. Gomez came along to use him to give us His perfect words? 

            You must decide.  I've given you the facts about the Gomez.  Now it's up to you to decide what to do with them.  Will you use a version that deceives people into thinking it's based on the TR, the KJV, and the old Valera, when it really reads along with the 1960 and even the NIV so often?

            Or will you get a copy of the 1602 Purified and see if it isn't much better.  Souls hang in the balance.  Do you really want the pure words of God in Spanish?



             A good number of those who promote the Gomez Bible are English Speaking pastors and English Speaking printing ministries who know no Spanish whatsoever.  Below I'll give an article I found from a link on the Gomez website from one man in particular from Milton, Florida who writes a pamphlet entitled, "The Spanish Bible."  In it he explains why he uses and prints the Gomez Bible.  However, the man speaks NO SPANISH.  I quote from his article:

 "Knowing ahead of time that whichever position we take will likely draw fire from opposite sides, let me diffuse criticisms now.  I have excellent English Grammar skills and NO SPANISH LANGUAGE SKILLS."

(emphasis added is mine).

             He continues with attacks against the 1602 Purifed in the following words:

 "Besides these three main versions [1865,1909,1960], a brief consideration should also be given to two other revisions that have just recently been introduced to Spanish missions.  In 2001, the Trinitarian Bible Society published a revision of the Valera 1909 with a number of textual corrections made.  Finally, there is the Valera 1602-R [the 1602P], a project being produced in Monterrey, Mexico.  Carlos Donate...states that the methodology followed was 'to carefully follow the Textus Receptus...taking into account the original 1602 Valera as the main source.' 

             This is of course true.  However, he erroneously attacks the 1602 Purifed as he continues:

 "The knock on the 1602R is the language is so Anglicized that it will not be accepted by Hispanic-speaking people.  It may be proven to be textually correct, but the grammar has already been demonstrated to be so poor that we cannot accept it."

             This from a man who has NO SPANISH LANGUAGE SKILLS.  He continues by showing his ignorance with the following words, again attacking the 1602 Purifed:

 "The Valera 1602R has not been included in this comparison because most of the textual problems effecting doctrine have been corrected in this revision.  The men working on the project are good men who are doctrinally pure and faithful to the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible.  They may have damaged their cause, however, by isolating themselves with criticisms of anyone not using their particular revision.  Even still there are some issues with the 1602R that gives us reason to look for another solution to the Spanish problem:

 Matt. 22:18            But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? (KJV)

             The 1865 and 1602R translates the phrase 'their wickedness' as 'su malicia.' The problem with this is that 'su' can mean either his or their.  It can read 'But Jesus perceived his wickedness'...  It would be better to translate this phrase with the Spanish ... 'But Jesus knowing the wickedness of them.'

 1 Cor. 7:36            But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

             The 1602R has this as 'If a man has a virgin daughter and if he feels that he behaves 'indecorosamente' (immorally, indecently, with obscenity) toward his virgin.'  This would be a man committing incest with his own daughter.

             I am sure that these unfortunate translations (and the many that are not given here) do not reflect the beliefs of the translators.  Rather, what you have with this revision is the English being forced into the Spanish resulting in a translation that is doctrinally sound but grammatically inferior.  Not speaking Spanish myself I have had to rely on the judgment of others who are fluent in the language, and the overwhelming criticism of the 1602R is that the language here is worse than all of the other Spanish translations."

             Almost everything written by this man is a lie.  Notice he again confesses he knows NO SPANISH. 

As I looked up the first verse, I found no problem in the 1602 Purified.  The rest of the verse (the context) proves the wicked men are the Phariesees, not Jesus!  No one who knows Spanish would get confused in this verse and think Jesus was calling himself wicked.

Secondly, the second verse is exactly how the GOMEZ 1st EDITION READS (I have a copy and I looked it up), and not the 1602P!  This man needs to get his facts straight!

            Finally, he attacks the 1602 Purified yet again, by saying there is overwhelming criticism of it, (yet he gives no proof to back up his claim).  But where does this so-called criticism come from?  Who told him these LIES about the 1602 Purified?

            It's possible Mr. Gomez had some kind of influence over the man, as we read in the end of his website article:

 "For several years our ministry has been associated with Bro. Humberto Gomez, missionary to Mexico. Bro. Gomez has been burdened about the problems with the different Spanish translations for over twenty years and has been working on a major revision since the year 2000.  Using the 1909 as his base, he has gone over every single word of the New Testament, comparing it with the Textus Receptus and the Authorized 1611.  He has demonstrated to our satisfaction that every mistake we have ever been shown in any of the Spanish translations has been corrected in his revision.  We have come to the conviction, BASED ON OUR LIMITED RESEARCH, that the best available Spanish translation now available is the Reina Valera Gomez (RVG) Revision 2004."

             So there you have it.  His argument is, "The Gomez MUST be right, cause I don't speak Spanish, but Mr. Gomez assured me it was, so he must be right!

Our evidence (which is not limited research) shows the Gomez is not what it claims to be.  It has many problems.  By failing to carefully follow the Greek and Hebrew, by inserted many foreign Anti-Valera words, replacing them with 1960 and NIV words, and adding many synonyms, the Gomez segregates itself greatly from the honorable King James, the Greek Textus Receptus, and the Old Valera Castellan text.



            Being careful not to speak out of turn, or accuse someone without proof (as the man mentioned above has done), I must tread lightly on what I'm about to write.  After giving a mountain of evidence against the Gomez Bible, proving it does not follow the KJV and TR completely, rather it is closer to the 1960 and NIV in many places, I feel I've got room to insert at least one accusation I've heard from several sources about Mr. Gomez.  You may choose to accept or reject it.  But it is worthy of mention.

            Several reliable sources have told me that Mr. Gomez is the head of a "Christian Helps" ministry.  And, as the director, he has much pull, and is able to influence many pastors, recommending to them which missionaries or native pastors they should and shouldn't support financially.

Now, I've heard from several sources (in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established), that Mr. Gomez has insinuated (if not demanded) that if native Pastors would use his version of the Bible, he would be willing to try to get them financial support with his prestige and influence.  One source told me that he did this in Chile, and again in Mexico with native pastors there.

I throw this out there, as I've heard it, for I believe you deserve to hear the accusation, whether they be true or not, is another story. 



History teaches us that nothing gets better, but rather spirals downhill towards destruction.  The Bible foretold us church history is no different.  Instead of revival, the last days will be full of apostasy. And instead of the world changing for the better, it is getting prepared for the kingdom of the antichrist (thankfully, we that are saved will leave soon at the rapture!).

With this in mind, it's obvious that the majority will not always be right.  They never have been and never will be until God's on his throne.  On the subject of the Spanish Bible, Fundamentalists have been wrong in wholeheartedly accepting the 1960 Spanish Bible.  Thankfully, many are starting to wake up and see that they've been deceived into using a corrupt version containing many critical texts.  They are turning from the 1960, but turning to what?

Many who pride themselves upon being Fundamentalists are learning about the Fundamentalist Gomez Bible, and are beginning to defend it.  But could they be wrong once more?

One thing is for sure, as an outsider who's determined not to go blindly along with the crowd until I've studied out the issue, I'm watching more and more people pick up the Gomez Bible, not out of conviction, but out of convenience.  When I ask them why, they usually all say the same thing, "Because so many others are starting to use it!"

But are they using it because they've studied it out, or just because everyone else is?

I've even lost several friends over this issue, each one turning to the Gomez Bible.  Instead of unity, the Gomez Bible is causing division. And I'd like to tell you what I'm seeing.  You can take or leave what I'm about to write.  But I feel it must be stated.

A few months ago, at the time of this writing, I learned that a friend of mine started using the Gomez Bible in his church instead of the 1602 Purified (which he also worked on, and which he also printed at one time).  Why the change?  The answer is simple.  He wanted to get in good with the group and be able to preach more conferences.  In other words, he wanted to be a "groupie."

When I showed him some of the examples of problems in the Gomez which I've given you in this booklet, and told him how I found the Gomez read so much closer to the 1960, his answer to me was:

 "...Textually, the RVG is pure.  If it sounds like the good part of the 1960, then amen!  Hopefully the 1960 crowd won't feel they are being dragged to the water trough if you get my gist."

 He then confessed:

 "Yes, I do think Bro. Gomez would like to see many 1960 folks come our way.  He has mentioned this and it seems to be working.  ...I do feel many of my friends will be drawn to something more in line to the 1960, though not a 1960 in itself.  If it sounds like the 1960 in diction...that's not necessarily a bad thing."

 Obviously, the reason Mr. Gomez used 1960 words so heavily in his version, was to target the 1960 crowd and get them to use his version!  This being the case, and I can see no other reason for using so many synonyms which read closer to the 1960, the Gomez Bible is nothing more than a compromising Bible. (Maybe the Gomez Bible should be called the RVG/60, instead of the RVG '04.)

But should this have been done?  If the 1960 is a bad version, why would we want anything to do with it at all? 

  And if the Gomez is not completed, and is still being revised (as we are told on his website), I'm sure it will continue to get even closer and closer to the 1960 and even the NIV as time goes on. 

            Even so come Lord Jesus, before that happens!

            Again here are Mr. Gomez' words, "There are many more changes that little by little we are going to add.  Not all are changes for the purity of the text, but many of them are because we think it's a better translation."


             We've looked at the beginning of the Gomez Bible, the translation method of it, and how it's fruit is not giving us a Bible that's closer to the King James and original 1602 Valera, rather a Bible that's closer to the 1960 and even the NIV.  We have also looked at how it's uniting compromisers and dividing those who take a stand on the pure 1602P.

            Countless verses have been given which prove without a doubt that the Gomez Bible is an unfinished work, and what has been completed is NOT PERFECT, deviating time and again from the KJV and old Valera.  In short, it's not a CASTELLAN BIBLE, rather a modernistic updated Spanish synonym version.

            I've exposed the fact Mr. Gomez tried to hide that he used the 1960 in his revision work.  And you've been given the evidence from the testimony of Mr. Gomez himself that he doesn't know Hebrew or Greek, and he's unworthy to do such a task. We've seen many lists where his versions do not read with the Textus Receptus or the King James as they deviate from it completely in many places.  And we've together looked at how the 1960 has been deliberately mixed with the 1960 in order to accommodate 1960 users, and sway them to change from their 1960 to the Gomez. 

            Finally, you've seen how those in favor of the Gomez carefully try to sweep the 1602 Purified under the rug, and either not mention it, or attack it with no evidence.  So in closing, I'll do what those behind the Gomez will not, I'll tell you all I can about the 1602 Purified, and let you know the facts.  And then I'll ask you to decide which Bible is the purest and best Spanish Bible based upon the facts. 



             From the beginning until now, I've given you nothing but facts, except for a few opinions of others, and stories I've heard about Mr. Gomez and those associated with him.  I will now state an opinion, and then give you more facts to prove the 1602 Purified is the best Spanish Castellan Bible available.

            My opinion is thus, "I believe the 1602 Purified is much better than the RVG, as it is closer to the King James and Textus Receptus than the Gomez, and does not dishonor the Old Valera with modern 1960 and even NIV words as the Gomez does!"

            With my opinion, as one who KNOWS SPANISH and has studied HEBREW AND GREEK, thus stated, I will now give you some facts that show the 1602 Purified is far superior to the Gomez revision.



            The original 1602 uses the word "ACTOS" for the book of Acts, instead of the more Catholic word "HECHOS" still used in the 1960 and Gomez.

            The Catholic Bibles use the word "SANTIAGO" for James, but in the text they have "JACOBO."  The 1602P uses JACOBO in all places, as SANTIAGO is the catholic spelling.

            The 1602P uses "REVELATION" instead of the Catholic "APOCALIPSIS" which comes from the Latin word, instead of the Greek.



            All Catholic Spanish Bibles and all modern Spanish Bibles (The Gomez included) use the word VERBO when speaking of Jesus in John chapter one.  The original 1602 uses the word palabra.  So does the 1602 Purified.

            One popular Gomez defender recently told me the 1602P is wrong for using the old Valera word, and the Gomez is superior because the word PALABRA is feminine in Spanish and the word VERBO is masculine.  This macho type of translation theory is quite odd.  The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter if the word is feminine or masculine, as what it applies to is Jesus the SON (masculine).

            If we follow his false line of reasoning, then I guess all the places in the Spanish Bible that apply to Jesus Christ, we must now change to masculine words.  If they really believe this, then Mr. Gomez should change John 10:7's reading of LA PUERTA (the door), to EL PORTICO in his version.

            He should also change LA VID (the vine) in John 15 to something else.  And he should further change LA LUZ in John 8:12?  And, I guess he'll also have to change Jesus from being LA RESURRECTION in John 11:25!  Then he'll have to do something with Jesus as LA VIDA and LA VERDAD in John 14:6!

            No, his reasoning is foolish.  The simple question is, "Do you want the old Valera, PROTESTANT word, or the modern, CATHOLIC latin word? 

            Further, the reason Palabra is important is because Jesus not only called the word, but is just like his holy word, the Bible.  In the KJV, when it speaks of Christ, it always spells it with a capital "W" as in the Word.  When it speaks about the word of God, or the scriptures, it speaks it with a lower case "w" as in the word

            I learned in Bible School that Jesus, as the Word has a lot in common with his word.  For example:

WHAT THEY ARE:              The Word         The word

Both are PERFECT              Matt. 5:48         Psalm 19

            Both are ETERNAL             Hebrews 1         Ps. 119:18

            Both are SPIRIT                   John 4:24          John 6:63

            Both are HOLY                     Heb. 7:26          Rom. 1:2

            Both INCORRUPTIBLE     Acts 2:27           1 Pet. 1:23

            Both will JUDGE                  Jn. 5:26,27         Jn. 12:48,49

            Both are TRUTH                  John 14:6          John 17:17

            Both EVERLASTING          Rev. 1:8            1Pet. 1:23

            Both SANTIFY                      Heb. 10:10        John 17:17

             Now do you see the importance of the OLD VALERA WORD?  Changing it to the catholic "Verbo" makes you lose the cross reference and this valuable teaching in Spanish.



            In Spanish there are two ways to say forever.  One is the most commonly used para siempre.  The other is por siempre.  Even stronger you can say (like I saw it many times in a Honduran newspaper), por y para siempre.

            Para siempre means literally forever, but there is a slight possibility that change could occur.  But por siempre is so strong in Spanish, that it can NEVER be changed.  This is why the 1602P uses por siempre (just like Reina and Valera did in their versions) most of the time.



            When Jesus uses the words I AM in English, he is saying he is the very essence of God.  When God answered Moses' question in Exodus 3:14 of who he was, he answered I AM THAT I AM.

            This is why the words I AM or YO SOY in Spanish are very important, especially in the book of John in the New Testament.

            In the 1602 Purified, they gave careful attention to this, and made sure in the book of John that I AM or YO SOY was always written in capital letters, to let the reader know that GOD is speaking!  For Jesus Christ is God (1 Tim. 3:16).



             One of the greatest knocks against the 1602P is that the revisors, under influence of the Holy Spirit, as a priesthood of believers, chose to use the word SEÑOR instead of Jehova.  That is to say, every time (except for four) that the KJV has LORD (in all capitals), the 1602P puts the word SEÑOR in all capitals. 

            Most who attack the 1602P say this should not be, as the right word is always Jehová.  However, the word Jehova is actually a TRANSLITERATION of the word in Hebrew.  The TRANSLATION of the word is LORD in English as the KJV has it, or SEÑOR in Spanish as found in the 1602 Purified.

            Most will not accept this, however, claiming Jehova is better.  Yet the church in Monterrey claims the 1602P is far superior for using SEÑOR (and I agree) for several reasons:

            First, they were not the first to do so!  The Juan Perez de Pineda version, in his book of Psalms used Señor.

            Second, as already mentioned, the word Señor is a translation of the word, and not only a transliteration.

            Thirdly, Valera stated that there is no problem with using SEÑOR in his preface of his 1602 revision.  (In fact, Reina confesses in his preface that it's not wrong at all to use Señor, but he uses Jehova in his translation because the Jews wouldn't, as a sort of anti-semitic dogmatic stand against the Jews, whom he calls superstitious).

            Finally, the greatest tool Jehovah Witnesses have to help their false sect grow in the Spanish speaking world is the fact that most Bibles use the word JEHOVA in the Old Testament, and SEÑOR in the New Testament.  Because of this, they are quick to point out that there are two sepearate gods, and only Jehovah is the real God. 

Now let me ask you, "Is the LORD in the Old Testament the same as the LORD JESUS CHRIST in the New Testament?"  I think you know the answer!

            The 1602P is much closer to the King James in translating SEÑOR instead of Jehova.  And a new convert will never get mixed up and the join the J.W.'s if he uses the 1602P.



            The King James Bible commands us to study in three different passages.  These are Ecc. 12:12, 1 Thes. 4:11 and 2 Tim. 2:15.  No other Spanish Bible has ever said, "STUDY" (instead they use procurar), that is until the 1602P came out.  They have inserted the word into the Spanish text!  Why?  Cause the KJV has it!

            The Gomez Bible now also adds "Estudia" in 2 Tim. 2:15 in their Bible.  But I have the first and second edition where they did not.  They have copied the 1602P in so doing!



            It has been mentioned the Gomez was started in 2002, by the unworthy Mr. Gomez who knows no Hebrew or Greek.  As I write this (in 2008), it is just coming out in its fourth edition. (I'm unable to see exactly what the changes they have made are, as they claim they are not all posted on their internet site yet, but I'm certain they didn't undo all the 1960 synonyms they added!).

            The 1602P, however, has been a thorough revision, done with much prayer and fasting, the work of a local Independent Baptist Church, which I've proven in this booklet, has given CAREFUL and THROUGH attention to the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts, as well as the KING JAMES in ENGLISH, and has compared its work to all older protestant, castellan Bibles.  (As far as we know, the Gomez only used the 1909, 1960, and NIV!)

            The 1602P is a true CASTELLAN BIBLE, and not an "anglicized" version as it has been so called by a man who speaks NO SPANISH and has no evidence to uphold his charge.

            No, the 1602P bears witness to itself that it is the pure word of God. All you need do is read it, and see for yourself.  Don't take my word on it, or anyone else's.  Just read it with the original 1602, the King James, and the TR and Hebrew Masoretic text, and you'll see it's much closer to them than the modern Fundamental Gomez Bible.



           The 1602 Purified does not give glory to man.  It is not called the Reina-Valera Reyes, for Pastor Raul Reyes whose church did the work.  Nor is it called "Park's Bible," as those who use the 1865 have called it.  It is only called the 1602 PURIFIED.

            Compare this with "the Reina-Valera Gomez" title of the modern Gomez Bible. Why would Mr. Gomez want his name attached to the Bible?  (Especially after he admitted he knew no Hebrew or Greek, and he was not worthy to do such a task?)

            If we were to compare the revision work Mr. Gomez did in Spanish to English, it would be the equivalent of if I took a King James Bible, and changed hundreds of thousands of synonyms with words I found in the English RSV and NIV, (in order to reach those that use these versions).  Then I made a few more changes with dynamic equivalence, and I printed it, calling it the KING JAMES BREAKER BIBLE!

            Who would use it?  I don't know.  It scares me even to say my name with the venerable King James Bible.  I feel so unworthy!  So why does Mr. Gomez feel he needs to call his version after himself? 



             The church in Monterrey which produced the 1602P is a small church with little more than one hundred members.  Yet they love the Lord.  They preach on the streets, they have a radio ministry, a bus ministry, and much more.

            But they are not the richest church in the world.  Actually, that's a good thing, as the richest church in the bible is LAODICEA (Rev. 3:17)!  Yet Gomez has tons of funds to print his version. 

            But little is much when God is in it, and the church in Monterrey has by the grace of God printed four editions of their New Testament on a small scale, and have recently in the beginning of 2008 had over 30,000 whole Bibles printed.  But there is still a great need for more.   

I ask you to seek out and obtain a copy of their revision, and you'll see what I've seen, if you'll read it. You'll find it's not a compromising Bible that reads closer to the 1960 to pander to the 1960 crowd, or a synonym Bible that chose to use modernistic words instead of the old Valera words.  Instead it's a pure Castellan Spanish Bible.

            Would you pray with me that God would bear witness to his pure, holy word, and use it in a mighty way in these last days? 

            Truthfully, I don't expect much.  We are in a day and age of apostasy, and just seconds before the rapture of the Church.  I'm sure the Gomez crowd will increase more and more and their Bible will eclipse the much better 1602 Purifed.  Partly because of ignorance, and partly because of envy, but mostly because they have numbers on their side.  Yet, the saying holds true, "The majority is not always right!"

            But how much do the pure words of God mean to you?  Are you willing to "seek ye out the book of the Lord and read?" 

I'm not telling you to not buy a Gomez.  No, I'm telling you to buy a Gomez and a 1602P and compare the two.  And if you do, you'll see the 1602P is far superior.

            How much is the word of God worth to you?  It means everything to me!  That's why I've chosen to go against the majority, and give you the evidence in this book.  And I pray your eyes will be opened!

I leave you with the following verses:

The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.  More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.  Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.  (Ps. 19:9-11)