These are some horrendous errors in the first edition Gomez:





            In John 2:10, 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 with alcohol!

            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 to 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..."


            The first three versions are 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 greatest doctrinal error that has ever been in any Bible in any language, ever!


            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?")




            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.




*These are errors that are only found only in the first edition of the 2004 Gomez.  These have been changed in newer versions.  However, newer printed versions of the Gomez do not tell you what edition they are, making it hard to determine what edition of the Gomez Bible you have.