By Robert Breaker

copyright 2012


Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight. (Proverbs 12:22)


The above verse tells us that LIES are something that God hates, while God delights in truth and those who deal truly.  It is the intention of the author of this work to do just that, as he attempts to point out what appear to be lies connected with the Gomez Spanish Bible.  And he hopes that people will see what this version really is, where it came from, and how it's begun entrenching itself so deeply in modern Spanish-speaking circles, and how it's now dividing the brethren.

There is a new version of the Spanish Bible out there that is gaining much ground today.   It is called the Reina-Valera Gomez Spanish Bible. This version was put out by a Mr. Humberto Gomez, an Independent Baptist Missionary to his native country of Mexico.

This Bible is now being massed produced and put out on a large scale, and many people are beginning to adopt this version.  However, I wonder if they realize that it sits on a throne of lies?  Should we then accept a version that although it might be better than the 1960 and the 1909, it still was brought into being through lying and deception? 

In this article, I shall show what appear to me to be some outright LIES about the Reina-Valera Gomez Spanish Bible.  It is then up to you to decide if that is indeed a good version and the version that GOD would have Spanish-speakers to use. If so, promote it.  If not, either fix it, or turn from it.  It's that simple. 

Let's now look at a few things, and you decide for yourself whether or not they are lies.  I'm simply pointing out some things that don't make sense. I'm also pointing out that I personally have been lied about by this crowd.  I also wish to make it known that I'm not writing this article out of a spirit of anger.  I simply believe these things should be looked at and acknowledged. If they are lies, then they should be dealt with.  If not, then forget about them.  But I believe you should look at the evidence for yourself.




Taken from Mr. Humberto' Gomez' Website years ago, we read:

"In 2002, Dr. Gomez began translating the Word of God into a pure, error free, Spanish translation of the Bible..."

But then later on the same site, we read the following words from Mr. Gomez himself: "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..."

Now, the version he speaks of is probably the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible, of which he used the New Testament for a short while in his churches.  However, what sticks out like a sore thumb is the fact that in one place it says he started in the year 2002, while in another, he claims it was in the year 2000. So which is it?  Why give two conflicting dates to confuse us?  God is not the author of confusion!  Yet, immediately we are met with doubt as we study the inception of the Gomez Bible, for we don't know for certain which date is true.

Mr. Gomez's first version quickly came out in 2004, and it was labeled by many the "Reina-Valera Gomez 2004" or simply the RVG '04 for short.  So did he spend two years or four years in translating it?  Either way, that's a very short time to do a thorough revision.  Could it be Mr. Gomez tried to set the date back two years, to make people think it was more exhaustive translation that it actually was? 




Before the Gomez New Testament of 2004, there was the Valera 1602 Purified New Testament, the work of an Independent Baptist Church in Monterrey, Mexico, who worked exhaustively many years in purifying the New Testament of the old Valera Bible with the older Protestant Spanish texts, the KJV, and the Textus Receptus.  This is a very thorough translation of the Spanish Bible and is probably the best available version today.  (However, it's still a work in progress. They want it perfect, so they are still working to get it right.)

Mr. Gomez had a copy of this New Testament when he did his "revision," and according to what people have told me, Mr. Gomez used the N.T. of the Valera 1602 Purified in his churches for a short while.  Did he use this version also some in his translation work?  We do not know.

But as we study Mr. Gomez' first edition of his New Testament, (the RVG '04) we find it was full of horrendous errors!  For example, in John 2:10, it said that those who were drinking wine were "borrachos" or "DRUNK ON HARD LIQUOR!"  This is a very surprising reading!  Does that mean Jesus was at a party where they drank fermented alcohol?  Of course not!  Wine in the passage was a reference to grape juice. 

However, probably the worst reading in Mr. Gomez' first edition text was the insertion of the word "hija" (daughter) twice into 1 Corinthians chapter 7, giving us a reading that allowed INCEST between a father and his daughter.  For the passage spoke of marrying your virgin. You can imagine the confusion when the passage said it was okay for a man to marry his "VIRGIN DAUGHTER!"  To this date, the Gomez Spanish Bible is the only Spanish Bible ever to insert that reading into the text.

Now, both of these readings have since been changed (fixed) in the later editions of the Gomez. (Thank God!)  Yet we must ask, "How did those get in there in the first place?"  Could this have given us a mindset into Mr. Gomez' thinking?

But what's horrible is that those who follow the Gomez have lied about this word "hija" being added into the text in the first edition of the Gomez.  They have said it was not the Gomez, but rather the Valera 1602 Purified which inserted "hija" (daughter) into the text.  I quote Tim Fellure, an avid Gomez defender, who according to his own confession speaks NO SPANISH at all, in an article I found in which he erroneously stated:

"The 1602 R [The Valera 1602 Purified New Testament] 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."

Now, why would this man say this if it's not true?  I have all the editions of the Valera 1602 Purified and all the printed editions of the Gomez.  The Gomez Bible is the only version that ever inserted "hija" into the text, making it condone INCEST.  The Valera 1602 Purified has never, and I repeat, NEVER said this!  So why LIE and slander the Valera 1602 Purified?  Why not admit the fact that the Gomez was the one that read this way in its first edition?

I wrote to Mr. Fellure asking for him to apologize publicly for this false statement.  I've yet to receive a response. This has been close to four years ago as I write this.




Mr. Gomez on his old website, says the following dogmatic statement about his work of revision, "...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 KJV we have immediately corrected."

So according to this statement, we are to believe that Mr. Gomez ONLY used the 1909 and the KJV, and that he IMMEDIATELY corrected that Spanish text (the 1909) with the KJV.  (I say only as Mr. Gomez mentions no other text in the quote above.)  But is this what really happened?

I bought a copy of the Gomez Bible. In fact, I've bought several copies of the various editions of it over the years.  I finally got the finished version which is now printed by the Charismatic Chick Publications company.  They call it the RVG 2010.  And, as I read through the Gomez, I did not read a Bible that read like the old 1909 and the King James.  Rather, I read a Bible which read more like the  modern, ecumenical 1960 corrupt Spanish Bible, which the majority of Evangelicals today still use and love.  So to me, it was unethical, and even morally irreprehensible for Mr. Gomez to say he ONLY used the 1909 Spanish text, for it is undeniable as you go verse by verse with the Gomez and the 1960 how closely the Gomez follows that ecumenical version.

Later, (i.e. several years ago AFTER his version came out and began to be accepted), Mr. Gomez did come out and say that he did indeed use the 1960 in his revising work.  But were we not mislead by the above quote, in which Mr. Gomez has said to us before, in making us believe he used only the 1909 and the KJV, while the facts are that he did use the 1960? (A version he claimed to be very much against at the time!)  Why did he do this?  Why did he hide the truth?  I believe he used the 1960 in order to make the text read closer to it so that those who used the 1960 would change to his version.  And this is exactly what's happening.  But I do not seek to judge his motive.  This is what I personally believe.

At least those behind the Valera 1602 Purified have been very open and honest about which texts they used. And they adamantly REJECTED the 1960.  Why then should we adopt a version that used the 1960 on purpose? 




In the preface of the second edition of the Gomez Bible, we read the following words from Mr. Gomez about his version, in which he states, "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."

Years ago I contacted Mr. Gomez myself on the phone and asked him about this and his version.  He told me that he was the "final authority" (to use his own words) on that translation.  Perhaps, that's why he likes to call it the Reina-Valera GOMEZ.  And that title fits that version well, as it is indeed HIS Bible.

He further told me that he went verse by verse with the Hebrew and Greek, and corrected the text.  However, when I asked him if he knew Hebrew and Greek, he responded to me in saying, "No!"  (Thus, he obviously didn't do any TRANSLATION work.  So instead of the Reina-Valera Gomez translation, we must of necessity call it only the Reina-Valera Gomez Revision.)

How could Mr. Gomez have gone verse by verse through the TR and Hebrew Masoretic text with the KJV with a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, when he didn't know Hebrew and Greek? 

The answer given today by the modern defenders of the Gomez is that Mr. Gomez used the help of Mr. Donald Waite, a learned scholar in Hebrew and Greek, and they say he was the one that went verse by verse with those texts, working on the project.  (So it appears that Mr. Gomez was not the "final authority" after all.  He had help.  Should we then call it the Reina-Valera Gomez Waite Spanish Bible?)

Contacting Mr. Donald Waite myself (via my wife's email,) I asked him if he did indeed work on the Gomez revision.  Here is his response:

"Dear Laura,

You are right that I have helped A LITTLE with Dr. Humberto Gomez on his Reina-Valera Gomez Spanish Bible... Dr. Gomez used four sources for his RVG Spanish Bible (1) The O.T. Hebrew Words, (2) The N.T. Greek Words, (3) The 1909 Spanish text, and (4) the King James Bible.  Though the KJV was one of the four sources, when the KJV differs slightly from the Hebrew and Greek, the Hebrew and Greek can be followed if preferred.  If you have further questions, you may ask them to me.  Sincerely yours, Pastor D A Waite."

Notice what he confesses to us.  First he says that he only worked a "little" on the Gomez version (emphasis added in the quote is by me).  That does not sound like an exhaustive translation method which went verse by verse.  He then says there were four texts used by Gomez.  But he does not mention the 1960, which Gomez later confessed to have used also.  Further, he does not tell WHICH Hebrew and WHICH Greek texts.   And then he says that those Hebrew and Greek texts (whatever they might be) are PREFERRED over the King James.  In other words, it appears he doesn't believe the KJV is perfect and infallible, and entirely adequate to be used in translation and revision.

The last thing that must be mentioned about the revision method done by Mr. Gomez is that he suggested people to email him places that should be fixed.  He claims to have received countless thousands of emails from people, and he promised to look at their suggestions and change the text to match WITH THE KJV. 

When I heard of this, I decided to test the waters and several years ago I personally sent Mr. Gomez a place that needed to be changed to match the KJV.  (I mean he promised in his own words to IMMEDIATELY change the text to match the KJV, so I wanted to see if he really would.)  I emailed him 2 Peter 1:21, in which the KJV says that holy men spake as they were, "moved" by the Holy Ghost.  The 1909 text says they were "guided" (guiados in Spanish).  I sent this because liberals who don't believe in the inspiration of the word of God claim God only "guided" the men to speak THEIR OWN WORDS, for they believe they weren't God's words, but only man's.  To this day, Mr. Gomez has not changed this to match the KJV.  His 2010 version still retains the word "guiados."  Why would he not change it to match the King James, especially when the doctrine of inspiration is at stake?   I guess the word "immediately" does not mean the same to Mr. Gomez as it does to me. 

As we shall shortly see, this was not the only place that Mr. Gomez did not change to read with the KJV and Textus Receptus. There are many more. 

Because of this "pick and choose" method of translating and changing verses, some have called the Gomez a "stop gap" translation.  In other words, he changed some things to make the text better, but because of his lack of Hebrew and Greek and his dishonest practice of not following through with immediately changing every verse to read with the KJV (after stating dogmatically that he would), the Gomez is not a perfect revision.  That is, it might have fixed some problems, but it did not fix the entire problem. 

The Valera 1602 Purified, however, fixes the above mentioned verse, and it reads much better than the Gomez in many places.  (The New Testament is done, however, they are still working on the Old Testament.)


Why, therefore, did Mr. Gomez say that his version did fix the Spanish Bible completely in making it entirely match the KJV?  The Gomez falls very short when we look at the facts. 




As before mentioned, Mr. Gomez claims to have corrected the text entirely, and I quote him when he states to have fixed, "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."

If this be the case, then if we ourselves go through the Gomez VERSE BY VERSE with the TR and KJV, then we should not find any differences, right?  I mean we should find absolutely NO words omitted, added, changed, etc., correct?  Well, I did just that, and I was appalled at what I found.   Because he followed so closely with the corrupt 1960, there were a plethora of differences and even what I believe to be errors.  The most common were plural words being translated as singular, and vice versa. (Something that happens quite often in the 1960).  Also the little words "mi" and "su" were commonly omitted.  But doesn't the Bible say that we should live by "EVERY WORD OF GOD?"  Even if they are little words, they should be in the text, especially when they were in the KJV, and in the Valera 1602 Purified, which made sure to carefully study the text and insert these words.

There is no time or space to give an entire list.  But I will give three examples, just to prove my point.

John 5:34  The KJV and Valera 1602 P read correctly with the plural "estas cosas."  The Gomez uses the singular term "esto."  But if he did know Hebrew and Greek (which he says he didn't), and he did what he claims to have done in going verse by verse and IMMEDIATELY changing everything that didn't line up with the TR and KJV, then why didn't he change this?  This is a DEVIATION from the true texts in the Gomez Bible.

John 11:56  The Gomez leaves off translating the Greek word estakotes, which means "standing."  The KJV and Valera 1602 P have this word (de pie in Spanish) translated.  Why was it left out of the Gomez?  This is a subtraction in the Gomez, or at least an OMISSION.

2 Cor. 4:15  The Gomez ADDS the words "por amor" to the text.  It does so in following the corrupt 1960.  Neither the KJV nor the Valera 1602 P have these words, nor does the TR.  This is an ADDITION to the text.

I could go on and one with verse after verse in which the Gomez does not match the KJV or the TR, either it's wrong in gender, plurality, or something has been left completely untranslated.  In fact, I could write a whole book about it.  Oh, that's right, I already did.

And in that book, I gave places in which the Gomez does not read with the KJV and TR as it claims to.  You can read my book at:


A missionary responded online to my book explaining away the differences, and I believe he did a great job of proving that he is not a true KJV Bible believer.  I encourage you to read his weak critique of my work, for he doesn't deal with the issue, or at least not entirely.  And as far as he's concerned, it's not big deal if a word is not translated correctly in the Gomez.


It is therefore quite misleading for Mr. Gomez to say he IMMEDIATELY changed EVERY VERSE that didn't line up with the KJV and TR, when we ourselves can go through his text and find many places that don't match either one.  This is inexcusable.  Why claim he did it, when the facts prove he did not!  Should we follow such a man?  For if he mislead about this, what else could he be misleading us about?




The Gomez Bible being printed today by Chick Publications has the following dogmatic proclamation printed on the front cover in Spanish: "Las palabras preservadas de Dios en espaƱol."  This means, "The Preserved Words of God in Spanish."

This is a very dogmatic statement. It's claiming that EACH and EVERY word found in that text is indeed the very preserved word of God.  In other words, it's proclaiming GOD gave his stamp of approval on every single word in the text.  But is it true?  Can it be true, especially since the Gomez doesn't read exactly with the KJV, the TR, and the Hebrew Masoretic texts?  You must decide for yourself.  But it seems very dishonest to say this after what we've already seen.

To believe that the Gomez Spanish Bible is indeed the very "preserved words of God in Spanish," we must swallow some very tall suppositions.  We must first believe that God waited until these last days and chose Mr. Gomez alone as his channel to give the Spanish-speaking world the very EXACT words that he wants for them in Spanish to have.

We must then also believe that God used those 1909 Spanish translators, many of which were pro-critical text, to preserve his word enough in order for Gomez to take it and use it as his basis.  We must then believe that God also used those ecumenical pro-critical text men behind the translation of the 1960 to give us some of his words too, for Gomez often uses and prefers their words over those of the old Protestant Reformation Spanish Bibles.

But can we swallow this?  Can you swallow it?

If we go clear BACK to the true time of the Protestant Reformation, we find older Spanish Bibles that are very different from the modern versions (like the 1909 and 1960).  And, as we study the Gomez, we find that many of the word choices he chose were from the 1960, and they are even the same words used in the more modern Spanish NIV!  Thus, the Gomez reads closer to the Spanish NIV in word choice in many places.   Are we to believe that God did this?  Are we to believe that God preserved his word through the 1960 and even the NIV and then put it into the Spanish Bible through Mr. Gomez?   I find that very hard to believe.  How about you?

But because of the dogmatic claim that it is the very preserved words of God in Spanish, there are many who seek to defend it as such.  And this they do diligently.  (We shall see who these people are shortly.)

But let's look specifically at John 1:1 for a moment.  The Gomez reads with the 1865, the 1909, the 1960, and all later Spanish Versions in using the CATHOLIC word "Verbo" in the text in speaking of Jesus Christ.  However, in the older Spanish Protestant versions we find the word "Palabra" in speaking of Jesus.  These were the texts from the time of the Reformation.  Should we believe that God used CATHOLICS to give us the word choice "Verbo?"  Or should we not believe that the older Protestant Reformation reading of "Palabra" is the right one?



Many Gomez defenders now claim that Verbo is not a Catholic word, and it should be defended at all costs.  But the facts prove otherwise.  Why mislead us?

Gomez defenders are now even are saying that VERBO is the right word and PALABRA is the wrong word because Verbo is a masculine word and Palabra is a feminine word.  The early Protestants knew Spanish Grammar when they chose PALABRA rather than VERBO.  Obviously, they had no problem with using the feminine word "Palabra" in reference to Jesus Christ.

The only Spanish Bible available today that reads with the older Protestant texts is the Valera 1602 Purified, which reads "Palabra" in speaking of Jesus Christ, and not the Catholic word, "Verbo" which comes directly from the Catholic Latin Vulgate reading of "Verbum."

I, therefore, cannot believe that God used Mr. GOMEZ to give us his preserved word.  If, however, he did, then we should fall to our feet and worship Mr. Gomez, just as Catholics worship the Pope, and Mormons worship Joseph Smith.  For God must have chosen HIM alone to give us his word, as he picked through and chose which word in Spanish was the right one.  (I wonder if they believe if Gomez was under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit to choose the exact right word every time?).

Yet, this is exactly what is happening among users of the Gomez Spanish Bible.  They have become men worshippers, and they all even use the same speech, calling Mr. Gomez so very "humble."  (How is it humble to put your own name in the title of the Bible?)

But what if Mr. Gomez was wrong in some places?  What if Mr. Gomez as the "final authority" on his version chose the Spanish words which HE desired to use, and the words in HIS version are just those, the words He chose to give us.  This would mean that only parts of the Gomez are God's preserved words, and other parts are not.  And to defend them all would mean you have to defend Mr. Gomez.  How can someone defend a man who's proven to have mislead us on more than a few occasions?




As we look at the modern defenders of the Gomez Bible, we find that they usually will not deal with the issue at hand.  That is, they most of the time do not deal with the actual text itself.  Rather they exalt and defend the man--Mr. Gomez.  And they proclaim it must be used of God because of the many people who are now adopting and using it.

Their mentality is "numbers means it's used of God."  But can this be so?  This argument can be turned around and used by Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, etc., who do indeed have LARGE NUMBERS of followers to prove that they then must be the true Church of God.  But just because they have a huge crowd, doesn't mean that God is using them!

Further, the majority of Spanish-speaking evangelicals still use the 1960.  Does that not mean that it's the right version?  They still have the biggest numbers!

The fact is numbers mean absolutely nothing, especially when we are in a day and age of apostasy, in which the Bible proclaims more and more people shall fall away, (i.e. following lies rather than the truth). 

The history of the world given to us in the Bible is the history of the "MAJORITY" almost always being wrong, and God having to preserve for himself a "remnant," a minority of those who have the truth and who are believing right.  For the majority often falls headlong into apostasy.

Still, many choose the Gomez because they believe it's of God and being used of God.  And their main argument is that God is using it because it is gaining more and more acceptance.  And they claim we should accept it as well, as numbers prove it's of God.  But who is accepting it?  And does that argument really hold water?




Most of those who accept the Gomez Spanish Bible are modern Independent Baptist Missionaries and Pastors.  But the majority of these are ENGLISH SPEAKERS who know absolutely nothing about the words in the text (except what they've been told by Gomez and his followers) and know absolutely no Spanish.  (Some of them like Tim Fellure are honest in even telling you themselves that they don't speak Spanish).

These men have begun "promoting" the Gomez Spanish Bible to others.  Are we then supposed to accept that version because of their recommendation?  If so, then they are putting their reputations at stake.  I wonder if they have read the text verse by verse with the KJV, TR, and Hebrew Masoretic text?

I've watched the Gomez Bible from the beginning until now, and Mr. Gomez has consistently gone to English-speaking people, who know no Spanish whatsoever, and convinced them that his version was the best.  This means that Americans in the United States who DO NOT SPEAK SPANISH are the main supporters of the Gomez Bible.  They are what some would call "gringos" (I personally don't like that term).  And these are the people who appear to be pushing the Gomez Bible more than anyone else.

And, as we look at Tim Fellure's modern website, we see a list of some of these men who are "endorsing" or "promoting" the Gomez Bible.


I ask you to click on that link and look at who these men are and what they say.  And then ask yourself if what they are saying is true.  For as I read it, it don't believe it's true.  It's men saying the same thing Mr. Gomez has said.  But if you read through his text, you find the opposite is true!

I wonder if these men believe what they say, or if they are only repeating what has been told them, for if they actually looked at the text themselves, they couldn't help but see the evidence I've touched on above.

It's almost as if the modern Gomez Bible movement has become a CULT, in which people are following a MAN and that man's WORDS, rather than studying out what his version actually says.  And how can they if they don't speak Spanish?

But American born Independent Baptist Missionaries and Pastors aren't the only ones accepting the Gomez.  We further see other denominations are accepting it as well.  I recently found a copy of the Gomez Spanish Bible put out by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and it is a Bible Study edition full of notes.  Care to guess who's notes were put into the text?  Helen G. White's!  That's a woman's notes put into the Gomez Bible.  And if you buy that version, which I did (and it cost me 70 dollars), you will see that in the front it says that the text was used by permission of Mr. Gomez. 





Probably the biggest publisher of the Gomez Spanish Bible is Chick Publications.  Their representative is a man named David Daniels, who has accepted the Gomez Spanish Bible and believes it to be the best Spanish Bible.  He, of course, speaks no Spanish. On Youtube, I found a video of him speaking to what looked like a Hispanic Church.  Through an interpreter he said that the Gomez is the only Spanish Bible that was the work of a true Hispanic in a Spanish-speaking country, that used the pure texts underlying the King James Bible.  But this is not true!  This conveniently leaves out the Valera 1602 Purified, the more thorough work of an Independent Baptist Church in Monterrey, Mexico.  Why did he leave this out? 

I know he's familiar with the Valera 1602, because I've personally written to Mr. Daniels TWICE, and mailed him a copy of the Valera 1602 Purified.  I received no response.  So how could he say that?  (I also have heard from others who said they told him about it also in an email.  Did he read their emails?) 

Why would Chick, on what appears to be on purpose, exclude the Valera 1602 Purified?  (We shall see later that they have a history of doing this).  Could it be so they can sell their own printed copies?

Chick also leaves out the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible in their list of Spanish Bibles on their website in which they sell the Gomez.


But who is Chick Publications?  It's a publishing company which claims to be a Bible-Believing organization.  However, everyone I've spoken to that knows the company or has visited says that it is very, very Charismatic.

It's odd to me to see Independent Baptists, what Gomez is, hooking up with Chick publications, an organization that is very Charismatic.  I was in the Charismatic church BEFORE I was saved, and the last thing in the world I want to do is hook up with them again.  Why then is the modern Gomez crowd doing so?




He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool.  (Proverbs 10:18)

Now that so many are starting to use the Gomez Spanish Bible, there are those who are fighting to get to the head of the pack, who want to be viewed as "authorities" on the Spanish Bible, and who want fame and glory for pointing people to that version.  One of these defenders is Emmanuel Rodriguez, a Missionary to Puerto Rico, who has recently written a book published by Chick about the Spanish Bible.     

He also has recently attacked Gail Riplinger and her scholarly article about why she documents "Verbo" as the wrong Spanish word.  And, he further in that same article, has attacked me personally, and lied about me. Why is this?  Is it because Gomez has continually lied so much that his followers desire to be just like him?  Remember the old saying, "Birds of a feather, flock together!"

Let's look at this LIE perpetrated about me.  In his article, Manny Rodriguez says the following lies, slander, and misleading statements about me, in writing, "...Breaker was eventually confronted by his Pastor and Assistant Pastor, Brian Donovan, for dishonest practices.  As a result, church discipline was administered as Breaker was kicked out of his sending church and mission board.  Since then, Breaker decided not to return to Honduras, but to remain in Alabama as a 'missionary evangelist to the Spanish-speaking people of the Americas... Despite all his efforts, he has no influence and a hardly an audience, especially amongst Hispanic brethren.  No Hispanic Bible-Believer who understands the issues at hand takes him seriously."

This is very devious and dishonest, and certainly UNTRUE!  My wife and I were not KICKED OUT of our old home church, we LEFT of own accord.  And we put on the internet the reason why.


We were not "disciplined" for we did nothing wrong.  Notice, Mr. Rodriguez does not mention the "supposed" dishonest practices."  He can't, as there were none.  What happened was my wife got saved!  She had been believing a "Bloodless Gospel."  Thank God, her eyes were opened to the truth and she was born again!  But these guys tried to LIE to her, and say she was already saved, she just didn't know it.  What?

Further we left Honduras because we couldn't get a Visa for my wife.  It was not because I decided not to stay there.  God had other plans for me.

Manny also claims that no Hispanic people take me seriously.  This sounds like he's only trying to convince himself, as I continually get phone calls, letters, emails, and even visits from Missionaries who continually ask me more about the Spanish Bible.  I also travel and preach on the History of the Spanish Bible. And, I continually speak to SPANISH-SPEAKERS who've studied the issue, who all agree that the Gomez is not as good as the Valera 1602 Purified.

Why then, would Manny LIE and SLANDER my good name?  Is it because he views me as a THREAT to him?

Finally, Manny in another place in his article makes it sound like I'm a "gringo" who doesn't know Spanish.  This is silly.  In fact, I am LATINO!  That's right.  I have a great-great grandmother from Spain.  I also learned Spanish and have been preaching in it WAY BEFORE Manny learned Spanish himself.  But I'm not bragging.  I'm simply stating a FACT.  Why then would Manny try to downgrade me, and lie about me to others?  Does Mr. Gomez encourage this kind of action from someone who follows him so adamantly?

Note:  Manny has since written another article against me this time against this very article.  To read it, you can go to:


Be advised that his article contains harsh language, and it's sad the lengths he goes to in order to try to prove his own opinion that I was thrown out of my old home church.   I was not.  The above article on why we LEFT our own home church explains it all.  However, I responded to Manny's latest article against this one in the following manner:


I'm tired of responding to people who don't care about FACTS, but are only interested in perpetuating ATTACKS.  However, I pray for Manny and his ministry.  I still count him a friend even though he's said bad things about me and written me off completely.    




Manny Rodriguez (Emmanuel's nickname), mentioned above, and I used to be good friends.  We did a lot together and talked about a lot of things.  And when I knew Manny, he spoke NO Spanish.  In fact, I spoke Spanish more than he did.  But now, he's telling people I'm an American who doesn't know much Spanish.  That's strange, as in Honduras I sometimes was either teaching or preaching 13 times a week in Spanish!

But Manny has since adopted the Gomez version.  And rather than that uniting us, it divided our fellowship. Several years ago Manny called me on the phone and said, "I don't want anything to do with you and your Bible! I'm not going to have anything to do with you anymore!"  Since then he purposely has omitted speaking about the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible as he began adamantly defending the Gomez instead, pretending I don't exist. 

It's only lately he's come out in full force attacking me and the Valera 1602 P version, while defending the Gomez Spanish Bible.  How is this "uniting" the brethren?

I'm not the only one.  There are many others who call me all the time saying, "I've read the Gomez and the Valera 1602 Purified, and I can't go along with the Gomez.  Because of this, they have shut me up, and pushed me away!"

There's a modern defender of the Gomez named Carlos Donate, who is a Missionary in Guatemala.  He used to HATE the 1960 Spanish Bible.  And he used to defend the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible.  Now, he's chosen to go with the Gomez.  And his choice split his church.  I know of a man who went to his church that contacted me afterwards saying, "Donate has changed from the right Spanish Bible, the one he taught us to defend and believe in.  I can't go along with him because of that!"

How is this uniting the brethren?

I emailed Donate a few years ago about my concerns that the Gomez reads so close to the 1960, and how I thought that was done on purpose in order to get more 1960 users to use that version.  Donate responded that he thought that was a good thing, and his attitude was "So WHAT?"

Many of those who use the Gomez are now coming out and viciously ATTACKING those who don't, like Manny did to me in his article in very mean and angry speech.  They have even pulled the "race card" in saying that people who aren't Hispanic shouldn't even have a voice and shouldn't even talk about the Spanish Bible Issue.  (But it's okay for Pastors in the states who speak NO Spanish to endorse the Gomez.  Am I the only one here who sees a double standard?).

Where is the Spirit of Christ in all of this?  Rather than converse and discuss, they choose to lamblast and attack.  And this is not leading to unity rather disunity in the Body of Christ.  But, would we expect anything less from a version that started with so many lies?




The Bible says in the last days that God will give people STRONG DELUSION that they might believe a lie.  What is this strong delusion?  Well, that's another article all in itself.  But when we look at the Spanish-speaking world, we see that Spanish-speakers have continually been kept from having a pure word of God in their own language.  First, the Catholic church prohibited translation into Spanish, yet some Spaniards at their own peril translated the New Testament.  Eventually Reina and Valera worked on getting their own whole Bible, but it was quickly messed with and perverted with the catholic and critical texts. Thus, for years Hispanics used corrupt texts such as the 1909 and 1960.

Then the Valera 1602 Purified came along.  And its translators attempted to do what no one else had done before.  They took those old Protestant Spanish Bibles from the 1500's and 1600's, the KJV, the TR, and the Hebrew Masoretic text, just to name a few, and went about purifying the REFORMATION Spanish Bible text. And they did a great job.  They are still working on it, because they want it done right.  (Their latest edition whole Bible is available today, and they are still working at purifying it, wanting it to be done right.  But even in it's current state, it's much better than all the other Spanish Bibles combined).  

But, Mr. Gomez could not wait for this, so he started his own revision.  But instead of doing what they did, which was going back to the old Reformation Spanish texts, he went straight to the corrupt 1909 and 1960, and tried to make them read better. 

Now, he wants the whole world to believe that HIS VERSION and HIS VERSION ALONE is the only pure text and the only "preserved words of God in Spanish."  But to believe this means we must believe God CHOSE Gomez and him alone to give us his word.  We must then turn to his version only, or fact attack, ridicule, and slander from the followers of his version.  And we must not be listened to if we speak out on the facts that we find when we look deeper into the issue.  If we are "gringos" who endorse the Gomez, then we should be heard, but if we are Spanish-speakers who ask questions about it, we should IMMEDIATELY be shot down and censured!   Or at least that's what's happening today.

But can we not just look at the facts and ask some questions?  I've given you here what appear to me to be some LIES about the Go-mess Spanish Bible.  Are they not worthy of further study and further questioning?  Should we believe everything we are told about this version, or should we be allowed to study it and question it?

The movement of the modern Gomez Bible is quickly becoming a cult.  In a cult, the cult leader exalts himself and puts himself on the same platform as the word of God, or in this case, in the same title as the Bible.  Men then worship and follow the leader, for only he can tell us what are the pure, perfect, and preserved words of God, for without him, they believe they'd be tossed to and fro with no one to show them the way to the truth.  And they appreciate the cult leader for his showing them that HE and HIS WORDS are the only way to the truth.  In a cult, the followers also will viciously ATTACK anyone who does not follow their leader or who questions his authority.

But, dear reader, what if he's wrong?  Did you know that one of the things about cults is that you are never allowed to question the cult leader?  And he never responds if he is questioned

I recently read a website by a Gomez defender in which he said Gomez doesn't need to answer any questions, and he doesn't need to answer his critics.  Is this not headed towards a CULT?

The facts are plain.  Mr. Gomez mislead us about when he started his work.  He mislead us about the text he used, claiming at first to only have used the 1909 and KJV.  But later he admitted to following the 1960.  He appears to have lied in saying he went verse by verse with the Hebrew and Greek, even though he didn't know those languages.  But his defenders quickly stuck up for him, claiming Donald Waite did that for him.  But Mr. Waite said he only did a "little," according to his own words.  And it shows as you yourself go verse by verse through the Gomez with the TR, Hebrew Masoretic, and  KJV.  The Valera 1602 Purified is much better.

Further Mr. Gomez desires us to believe what he says about what the Gomez is.  He says it's the very preserved words of God in Spanish.  This is a very outlandish statement and is not something to be taken lightly.  If it is, PRAISE GOD!  But if it isn't, then it's an outright LIE which his followers are forced to believe at all costs! 

Yet, we've seen there are lots of places that Mr. Gomez deviated from the true reformation texts in favor of newer, more modern, more liberal words used in modern versions.  Did God choose these?  Did God choose Mr. Gomez to give us these?

We've look at a few of the followers of Gomez and how many of them don't speak Spanish.  We've also seen them LYING time and again.  Should we believe that God is using them?  We've also seen the Gomez does not unite (unless you are willing to go along it, them, and their lies), rather it divides the brethren.

So the great big lie that you are forced to believe if you accept the Gomez is that God used a liar to give us his word, and he's using liars now to propagate, promote, and distribute it.  And unless you accept it, YOU are the LIAR, and you can never have the pure, preserved words of God in Spanish.

Do you believe this?  I don't.

And from what I see in the Gomez Bible movement there is a lot of man worship, man words, and men praising other men.  Where is the exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ? 

In my life and ministry, I've come upon the truth that there comes a time in a man's life when he's faced with the truth, and he has to either compromise to get along with others, or he has to STAND, no matter what the cost.  And I've seen other men get to this point in the ministries as well.  Sadly, I've seen quite a few COMPROMISE and go the easy way, the way of wealth, fame, and glory.  I chose not to go that route, because once you've gone that way, it's hard to get back. 

I would rather STUDY to show myself APPROVED to God, and not be ashamed when I stand before God. 

Proverbs 13:5 says, "A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame."

And from what I've seen through the years in studying the Gomez Bible, I've seen a lot of lying.  I HATE this!  I wish it wasn't so, but it is.  There is lying about the text, and lying about others who don't accept it.  There's even been lying about me.

Jonah 2:8 tells us "They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy."  Where is the mercy from the Gomez crowd?  Why do they attack, ridicule and lie so much?

Proverbs 17:4 says, "A wicked doer giveth heed to false lips; and a liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue."  Could it be that those who choose the Gomez do so because they want so bad to believe the lie?  They want so bad to have a perfect Bible in Spanish, that they'll compromise for it, believing the Gomez is it, even if it's not.

Ephesians 4:25 commands Christians: "Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another."

Colossians 3:9 further commands: "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds."

When we are saved, we should not lie, especially to or about other Christians!  We should tell the truth.  

James 3:14 says it well, "But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth."

It all boils down to this, do you love the truth or don't you?  If you do, then turn away from the lies.  If you love the lie, then believe it and propagate it even more.  For the lie will get you recognition, support, and even your books printed by a large printing company, however, it will cause you to follow a man, and eventually be involved in what appears to be the beginning of a cult movement.  

But if you stand for the truth, you will most likely get spit upon, ridiculed, and attacked by the majority who are following the lie.

Paul said it best when he asked, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"  (I guess the opposite of this is "Am I therefore became your FRIEND, because I tell you a LIE?")

Ask yourself this, "Has Mr. Gomez and his crowd given you the truth?  Or have they misrepresented the facts?"

You must decide for yourself.  To me, I see a lot of lies.

I encourage you to go VERSE BY VERSE through the Gomez Spanish Bible and see if it is what it claims to be.

That's what I did.

And if it is what it claims to be, then USE IT, PREACH FROM IT, and SPREAD IT FAR AND WIDE!!!  (I'm not against anyone using it.  Everyone has freedom and a free will to use which ever Bible they desire in whatever language they want!)

But, if the is not what it claims to be, then how about admitting the TRUTH for a change, and allowing the facts to spread far and wide?  Shouldn't TRUTH be more important than anything else?

In this article, you've been given what amount to me to be lies about the GOMEZ.  You might disagree.  That's fine.  Maybe they are just well-meaned statements by men who were deceived.  Or maybe they thought they really were the truth when they said them.  Do the facts, however, prove them to be true?

What will you do with this knowledge?  For the facts are the Gomez Spanish Bible is being accepted and represented by many who claim it's the best Spanish Bible, but what if they are wrong?  What are they really taking to the Spanish Speaking people?  Have you studied it yourself to find out?   I encourage you to do so!!!