Facing The Issue

The Truth About the Spanish Bible


Allen L. Johnson


With Testimonies by the following Bible Believing Fundamentalists:

Bill Bradley, Bible Professor at Landmark Baptist College

Dr. Mickey Carter, Pastor of Landmark Baptist Church

David W. Cloud, Director of Way of Life Literature

Carlos Donate, Missionary to Guatemala

Allen Johnson, Spanish Director at Landmark Baptist College

Gail Riplinger, Author of New Age Bible Versions

Dr. Phil Stringer, Executive V.P. of Landmark Baptist College


Facing The Issue

The Truth About The Spanish Bible

There is much talk today about the Spanish Bible.

Some claim the 1602 revision is the Word of God in Spanish.

Some claim the 1865 revision is the Word of God in Spanish.

Some claim the 1909 revision is the Word of God in Spanish.

Some claim the 1960 revision is the Word of God in Spanish.

How many Words of God are there?

Testimonies by Bible Fundamentalists on the Spanish Bible:

Bill Bradley, Bible Professor at Landmark Baptist College

Dr. Mickey Carter, Pastor of Landmark Baptist Church

David W. Cloud, Director of Way of Life Literature

Carlos Donate, Missionary to Guatemala

Allen Johnson, Spanish Director at Landmark Baptist College

Dr. Gail Riplinger, Author of New Age Bible Versions

Dr. Phil Stringer, Executive V. P. of Landmark Baptist College

Every one of these writers believes the King James Bible

is the preserved Word of God in English.

Every one of these writers desires the pure

Word of God in Spanish.

Edited By:

Allen L. Johnson

Director of Hispanic Department

Landmark Baptist College



David W. Cloud

David W. Cloud is the founder and director of Way of Life Literature, a 20-year-old Fundamental Baptist missionary publishing ministry. Brother Cloud was saved in 1973 at age 23, and the Lord gave him a burden to communicate the truths of God's Word via the printed page. Within six months, he had printed his first booklet. Brother Cloud was married to his wife, Linda, in 1976, and God has given them four children. Their oldest daughter is completing Bible College in preparation to be a missionary to South Asia.

Way of life flourished during Brother and Sister Cloud's 10 years of missionary work in South Asia. They pioneered fundamental Baptist Church planting in that land. During those years, they also produced sound Bible materials in South Asian languages, including a hard cover Topical Bible Study Handbook, which was the first Bible study tool in the Nepali language and is still widely used. They published many other Bible study books and gospel pamphlets plus a five-lesson evangelistic correspondence course through which some 5,000 Nepalis learned of the grace of Jesus Christ.

The Clouds left Nepal in 1989 and based Way of Life Literature in the States. To date, Way of Life Literature has published more than 100 books and booklets in ten languages. Brother Cloud is also the editor of the monthly O Timothy magazine, which began in 1984. The title of O Timothy is taken from I Timothy 6:20 and describes the burden of the magazine – urging Christians (especially preachers) in these last days to keep the faith once delivered to the saints and to avoid the error which is on every hand.

One of the chief goals of Way of Life Literature is to help protect churches from end-time apostasy through doctrinal preaching and carefully documented research. Brother Cloud travels widely and researches his topics directly from firsthand sources.

This article appeared in a 1994 issue of O Timothy.

It is reprinted here by permission.


By David W. Cloud

Through the years I have received considerable correspondence from men regarding the Spanish Bible situation. The standard versions used among fundamental Spanish churches are the 1909 and 1960 editions of the Reina-Valera. These are twentieth-century revisions of the Cassiodoro de Reina Bible edited and reissued by Cipriano de Valera in 1602.

The problem is that the Valera, at least these editions, is not entirely pure. While we praise the Lord that the Valera is not strictly a Westcott-Hort Bible,1 it does contain some significant departures from the KJV Received Text.

Recently I received some correspondence on this matter from a concerned reader, and have decided to print my reply for two reasons: First, I want to publicly present my opinion on this matter. Second, I want to give some information on the subject to our readers. I talked recently with some men who have had dealings in Spanish and who did not know much about the subject at hand. I think every man involved in any way with Spanish-speaking people should know these things and be involved, at least in prayer, in seeking the perfection of the Spanish Bible.

My position is this: While I can't say what the exact solution to the Spanish Bible problem is, I do know there is a problem that must be addressed. I am convinced that the KJV and the distinctive edition of the TR underlying it is the preserved Word of God, and one way or the other the Spanish Bible needs to be brought to this Touchstone.

A difficult matter

I realize this is a difficult matter. First, it is difficult because the 1909 and 1960 Valera are standard Bibles among the Spanish-speaking churches. Missionary Rex Cobb notes this problem in Omissions, Additions and Questionable Changes in the Spanish Bible:2 "We do not want to cause any Spanish speaker to lose faith in the best Bible he has, but at the same time we believe that God wants His word to be perfect in every language." We agree.

Second, it is difficult because of the variety and strength of opinions among fundamental men. Some want to see the Valera revised. Some claim they don't see any problems with the 1909 or 1960 Valera. Others say all editions of the Valera are hopelessly corrupt and nothing but an entirely new translation will solve the problem. There are several variations on these main themes. The fact that there are differences of opinion, though, should not deter us from pursuing this matter.

It is true in general that the Bible version and translation issue is probably the most difficult, divisive issue a preacher can deal with. Does that mean we should cease striving for textual purity? Not on your life. The Lord Jesus Christ said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD which proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). We must care about those words, and we must give our people those words!

I know what it is to strive for a pure Bible, not only in English but in other languages as well. When we arrived in Nepal in early 1979, we encountered a corrupted Bible. We wanted to produce a concordance, but we quickly learned that the standard Nepali Bible was to corrupt for this. It would have been a waste of time to put the effort into producing serious Bible study tools based on a corrupt version of Scripture.

My first attempt to correct that problem was to approach the Bible Society of Nepal (a branch, at that time, of the Bible Society of India, and a member of the United Bible Societies). I attempted to get them interested in producing a sound Nepali Bible. (This reveals how ignorant I was in those days!) After several months of dealing with their deceit and hypocrisy, I woke up to the fact that the United Bible Societies are apostate.


1 In a comparison of the Valera against 800 passages which are corrupted in the Westcott-Hort text, Rex Cobb found 55 omissions, additions, or questionable changes in the 1909 Valera and 75 in the 1960. The Valera does not contain such key Westcott-Hort corruptions as the omission of "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16; "b1ood" in Col. 1:14; "only begotten son" in Jn. 1: 18: and the Trinity passage in 1 John 5. It must be noted that this brother did not count the passages in which the Valera follows an edition of the Received Text different from the one underlying the KJV. For revision purposes, I believe it is important to count these.

2 Rex Cobb, 3420 Guthrie, El Paso, Texas 79935; Cobb is a graduate of the Baptist Bible Translators Institute in Bowie, Texas, and has translation experience in the Zapotec language.

The result of that little foray into the ecumenical Bible translation world was the writing of Unholy Hands on God's Holy Word: A Report on the United Bible Societies (available from Way of Life Literature, 1219 N. Hams Road, Oak Harbor, Wash. 98277 for US $5.00 postpaid.) Because of my dealings with the head of the Bible Society of Nepal in these matters he became my enemy and attempted to have me kicked out of the country. He also told terrible lies about me and slandered me across the land.

After ending my brief relationship with the Bible Society, I began praying earnestly and with tears that God would raise up some qualified men who could produce a sound Nepali Bible. Eventually and after much difficulty this was brought to pass. The first edition of the new Nepali New Testament was printed in 1993 and is being used and revised.

Anything worthwhile is worth striving for, and that certainly includes the pure Word of God.

If I were doing missionary work among Spanish-speaking people, I would do everything in my power to see the Spanish Bible corrected and perfected.

There are some efforts in progress to revise the Valera. The Global Bible Society (1625 Woodcrest Rd., Hagerstown, Maryland 21740) has been attempting to undertake such a project since 1991. I talked recently with Pastor J. Paul Reno, who has been seeking to coordinate this project, and he said that they have not made much progress. Pastor Reno has suffered health problems which has limited his own efforts in this project, and it seems that many of the men involved have not given the active participation necessary to go forward.

The Trinitarian Bible Society (217 Kingston Road, London SW19 3NN, England) announced their intention in 1993 to revise the Valera. Though I have written to Trinitarian, at this writing I have not received a reply as to the nature of this revision.

If I were a Spanish-speaking pastor I would take a careful look into these projects to see if I could he1p or support them. Such efforts cannot succeed without participation by concerned men.

Then there is the version being printed by the Broken Arrow Baptist Church of Pearce, Arizona (Pastor Clyde Thacker, P.O. Box 469, Pearce, Ariz. 85625). They have completed a Spanish-English parallel edition of John and Romans, and their goal is to have the New Testament in print in early 1994. If I were a Spanish-speaking preacher I would check into this project. According to Pastor Thacker, the version that is being printed by Broken Arrow is an ancient Received Text Spanish Bible which has been checked out and updated linguistically. I might add that though I called Pastor Thacker and requested more information about this project, I have yet to receive anything.

Missionary John Sawyer, editor of The Martyrs Bible Series1, has looked into this matter carefully and advises returning to the text of the Valera as it existed in its early editions. In a recent letter he made the following observations:

It is my humble opinion that the text of [the Valera of] about 1865 is about as error free as you are going to get. For someone to try to come up with a new translation is to ask for trouble, and when you multiply the effort by many hands, you are going to have the mess we have in English. There are more than 20 countries that speak Spanish and every one of them is nationalistic. lf you reproduce a good Bible from history it will not be based on present personalities or countries and it will be basically the one that the fundamentalists are using now.

In 1984 I bought a Valera 1602 in London and also a 1569 De Reina (before they were reprinted in facsimile). The only things I remember wrong in 1602 were the use of the word "pentence" for "repentence" and "of Christ" missing from Rom. 1:16. The difference I remember between the De Reina and the Valera was about one word per chapter in the New Testament. ...

I would like to see the Trinitarian Bible Society restore the full text of the Valera 1865 and not mess around with a new translation. ... To put it in the most simple terms, I think they could put back what was taken out the past 100 years, and it would be fine (John Sawyer, 6514 E. 55th St., Tulsa, Oklahoma 74145).

Though I cannot yet make a dogmatic recommendation of any of these projects, if I were a Spanish-speaking person or missionary I would not be satisfied until I had a truly pure Spanish Bible.

Some have charged that "you King James men" only care about the English language. It is not true. I know many KJV men who care deeply about the condition of Bibles in other languages. I know that I do. During our years in South Asia, I did everything in my power to stand for the pure Word of God in Asian languages.

When I visited Czechoslovakia two years ago, I spent part of my time examining the Czech and Slovak Bibles. I sat with several pastors and had them go through the existing versions in these languages as we compared them to the critical texts. I want to know the state of the Bible in the lands where I am working to produce sound literature.

I was interested, by the way, to find that not one of the church leaders I met in eastern Europe knew ANYTHING about the textual background and condition of their Bibles. How could they? Who has taught them? Is this not what we must do? Is it not a priority in missionary work to be certain that our Bible is pure? I think it is a copout for men to avoid this issue because of the problems it inevitably causes.

The very first thing a preacher needs to know is the condition of the Bible he will be using. If the Bible is corrupted, we cannot fight the enemy effectively. Yes, people can be saved through impure Bibles; we saw many saved in Nepal through an impure Bible. (Even most impure Bibles contain some pure teachings; you can preach the gospel from a Catholic Bible.) That same Bible, though, was one of our greatest frustrations when it came to discipling those Christians and building strong churches.

The fact is that the Valera in its commonly printed editions today is not pure enough. That is easy to demonstrate even to a non Spanish-speaking person. It definitely needs some significant correcting.

Please understand that I am not referring merely to words in the Valera which could be translated differently, or to words which have become antiquated. I am referring chiefly to actual textual corruptions in the version. I agree with Rex Cobb in this: "No one who understands the nature of languages would expect that the Spanish and English Bibles would be exact1y alike, and any attempt to make them read literally the same will do harm to the Word of God. However, if the English says, 'gospel of Christ,' and the Spanish says, 'gospel' as in Romans 1:16, then I believe we have a problem to deal with."

There are many places where the 1909 Valera departs from the KJV Received Text, and there are some plainly erroneous translations of the Received Text.


1 The Martyrs Bible Series include modern spelling editions of Tyndale's translation, the Matthew's New Testament, and the Geneva New Testament of 1557. These helpful volumes are available from J.B. Printing Ministries, 1367 Woodville Pike, Milford, OH 45150.

The KJV Received Text should be the standard

I specifically compare the Valera to the "KJV Received Text." Some would point out that certain of the textual differences in the Valera can be found in editions of the Received Text other than the one underlying the KJV. They would argue that since these readings are found in at least some editions of the TR, we should not be concerned about correcting them. I don't agree.

Many of our readers will understand that there are several editions of the Received Text. There are different editions in Greek, and there are different editions represented in the translations. Prior to the translation of the KJV there was in Greek the Erasmus text (1535), the Stephanus (1551), and the Beza (1582), including several editions of each. The KJV translators perused the Greek texts mentioned, as well as many other versions and resources. They leaned heavily upon the work of their learned forebears, the men who produced the Tyndale, Matthew's, Taverner's, Great, and the Geneva Bibles. The KJV is thus founded upon a particular independent variety of the TR.

There are four main reasons why I believe this variety of the TR, the KJV-TR, should be the Touchstone for all translation work. (1) We must have an absolute standard, and to open the text up for further revision at this point in history is to produce the confusion we see all around us in the Bible world. The KJV text is not a text in transition, whereas the preceding editions of the TR were. The hour leading up to the KJV was one of transition and purification, but that hour has passed. God obviously put His stamp of approval upon the KJV-TR and allowed it to be published and translated throughout the world in a manner unprecedented in history. At this confused, weak, apostate hour in history are we going to perfect the Bible? I say not. That has already been done, and our part is to lean upon that perfection. (2) The unique position the Authorized Bible has had in the past 400 years of history forces me to bow before its authority. (3) The importance of the English language in Bible preservation during this era forces me to see God's hand in a unique way in the production of the English Bible. That is why I would correct any other language version with the KJV-TR. (4) The unique and thorough revisions the English Bible was brought through from Tyndale to the KJV force me to see the superiority of the KJV-TR. This was an unprecedented purification process.

When someone says, "You are fighting for the superiority of one mere translation in one mere language," I realize they do not understand - or refuse to recognize -the true history of the English Bible.

I am thus convinced the KJV-TR is the edition of the TR we must follow in all translation work. I am convinced this is the Touchstone, the perfect, preserved Word of God.

Problems in the Valera

Consider some examples of corruptions in the 1909 Valera:1

"Of God" is omitted in Matthew 2:12. "Draweth nigh unto me with their mouths" is omitted in Matthew 15:8. "Jesus" is omitted in Matthew 24:2; Luke 9:43; Acts 3:26; Acts 9:29; and some other verses. "Yet found they none" is omitted in Matthew 26:60. "From the door" is omitted in Matthew 28:2. "As they went to tell his disciples" is omitted in Matthew 28:9. Mark 1:2 in the Valera reads: "Isaiah the prophet" rather than "the prophets" as in the KJV. This results in a lie, because Mark was quoting two different prophets, not just Isaiah. The KJV is correct; the Valera is wrong. "To repentance" is missing in Mark 2:17. "Whole as the other" is omitted in Mark 3:5. "With tears, Lord" is omitted in Mark 9:24. "In the name of the Lord" is omitted in Mark 11:10. "But he answered nothing" is omitted in Mark 15:3. "In spirit" is omitted in Luke 2:40. "Be of good comfort" is omitted in Luke 8:48. "The prophet" is omitted in Luke 11:29. "Lord" is missing from Luke 23:42 (and other verses). "That one whereunto his disciples were entered" is omitted in John 6:22. "My Father" is changed to "the Father" in John 6:65; 8:28; 8:38; 14:28 and 16:10. "Of the Lord" is omitted in Acts 7:30. "Christ" is omitted in Acts 15:11; 1 Corinthians 9:1 and other places. "After this manner" is omitted in Acts15:23. "Of Christ" is missing in Romans 1:16. "Freely" is missing in Romans 8:32 and 1 Corinthians 2:12. "Fasting" is omitted in 1 Corinthians 7:5. "Corrupt" is missing in 2 Corinthians 2:17. "By Jesus Christ" is missing from Ephesians 3:9. 1 Peter 2:2 says Christians "grow unto salvation." "Of God" is omitted in 1 John 3:16. Revelation 18:20 reads "saints and apostles" instead of "ho1y apostIes."

Examples of corruption could also be given from the Old Testament. "For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name" is mistranslated in the Valera in Psalm 128:2 as "above all things." Another is Daniel 3:25 which reads "one of the gods" instead of "the Son of God." Another is 2 Samuel 21:19 which reads "Goliath" instead of "the brother of Goliath."

These examples were given to me by several Spanish-speaking men over the years, and this is not an exhaustive list of corruptions.

It is enough for me, though, to know that something definitely needs to be done to revise the Spanish Bible.

Through the years I have noted a strange inconsistency in the position of some men when it comes to Bibles in other languages. If the Received Text is the perfect Word of God, it is inexcusable to promote or defend ANY DIFFERENT READING IN ANY OTHER LANGUAGE. It is one thing to endure a corrupted Bible while we are making every effort to see it revised; it is quite another matter to excuse or defend corrupted texts.

I have met too many preachers who know little or nothing about the textual basis and history of the Bibles they use. Even worse, they don't seem to care about this and they get a little huffy when you try to delve into the details of the matter. They seem to feel that since the Bible they use is the standard Bible in that particular language it must be the one God wants them to use, regardless of its textual corruptions. They even seem frustrated at the attempts of men who want to produce genuinely pure Bibles in their language.

This kind of attitude makes me sad. We need perfect Bibles, and I applaud every man who has zeal for a perfect Bible – even though he might make some mistakes along the way. It is only because of the efforts of such men that the English world has a pure Bible today.


1 I believe the 1909 Valera is the best Spanish Bible in print. Though the 1960 Valera does correct some problems, it is even farther removed from the TR overall. The 1977 edition of the Valera is farther removed yet, and the Southern Baptist Convention-produced Reina-Valera Actualizada is still yet farther removed from the TR. As would seem reasonable in light of the Roman Catholic-Modernistic influence in Bible translation work in this century, the Spanish Bible has been moving farther and farther from the preserved Text with each revision since the late 1800s.

I repeat my position: I am convinced that the KJV and the distinctive edition of the TR underlying it is the preserved Word of God, and one way or the other every foreign language translation needs to be brought to this Touchstone. Inasmuch as a non-English Bible differs in meaning from the Received Text, it is corrupted.

"My apology for bestowing so large a portion of my time on Textual Criticism, is David's when he was reproached by his brethren for appearing on the field of battle --'Is there not a cause?'" -- John William Burgon

"No amount of earnestness can be condemned when pleading, on straight lines, the cause of God. ... To employ soft words and honeyed phrases in discussing questions of everlasting importance; to deal with errors that strike at the foundations of all human hope as if they were harmless and venial mistakes; to bless where God disapproves, and to make apologies where He calls us to stand up like men and assert, though it may be the aptest method of securing popular applause in a sophistical age, is cruelty to man and treachery to Heaven. Those who on such subjects attach more importance to the rules of courtesy than they do to the measures of truth do not defend the citadel, but betray it into the hands of its enemies. Love for Christ, and for the souls for whom He died, will be the exact measure of our zeal in exposing the dangers by which men's souls are ensnared."

-- George Sayles Bishop, 1885


Carlos A. Donate

Carlos A. Donate is a fundamental, soul-winning, independent Baptist missionary to Guatemala. He has a growing church with several ministries including a Bus ministry and a Bible Institute. They are also planting a new church and turning the current work over to a national pastor. Brother Donate graduated from Hyles-Anderson College and is sent out by First Baptist Church in Hammond. In addition to his church planting and soul winning, Brother Donate has spent literally hundreds of hours studying the history of the Spanish Bible and collating and comparing Spanish texts.

Brother Donate submitted this testimony for this booklet.


By Carlos A. Donate

People ask me, "What Spanish Bible should we use?" My answer is that until a better revision of the entire Antigua Valera Bible becomes available, we should use the 1909 printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society, as it has more verses that read like the KJB than the other popular revision, the Reina-Valera 1960. This matter ought to be dealt by each church individually, and by each missionary individually. Some pastors are 100% KJB/TR. Others are not. I do think that it is improper when someone says that "the 1960 is just like the KJB". May the facts speak for themselves. Spanish Bible fundamentalists need to strive for the best revision of the Valera possible. In light of the information I have, I decided four years ago to go for the Antigua.

It would be too mind-boggling if I showed you all the textual problems with the 1960 Reina-Valera. For now I will just share 25 reasons why we should use the Antigua 1909 instead of the more contemporary RV 1960. A lengthier collation is available in Spanish.

1. Because everyone has forgotten that the 1909 was the Spanish Bible that circulated throughout Spanish-speaking countries for 51 years prior to the 1960. Many fundamentalist works were begun with it, and many thousands of old-time missionaries, pastors and evangelists used it with confidence way before the 1960 came about. Many have forgotten how much the old fundamentalists refused to give up their TR-based Antigua for a more modern 1960.

2. Because the 1909 is public domain, and nobody has to ask permission to reprint it. If someone wants to print the 1960, they must obtain written permission from their "owners", the ecumenical, and pro-Westcott & Hort United Bible Societies. It is indeed copywrite protected. Then, after they print it, they must pay the Societies anywhere from 5% to 10% by way of royalties. UBS is a member of the World Council of Churches.

3. Because the 1909 Antigua Valera is the last Spanish revision of the Valera line that is predominately a Textus Receptus-based Bible. The Reina-Valera 1960 was the forerunner of the Westcott & Hort-type bibles that came as a result of UBS´s inclination toward modern biblical scholarship.

4. Because the committee members of the 1909 were great leaders of the past, while the 1960 committee members were mostly liberals and modernists. For example, Dr. Eugene Albert Nida was on their Executive committee. He denies the doctrine of the verbal, and plenary inspiration of the word of God. He and the rest of the members were highly against the King James Bible.

5. Because although the 1909 has certain passages that follow Eberhard Nestle´s of text of 1886, we have the word from Dr. José Flores, member of the 1960 revision committee, that the 1960 introduced over 10,000 textual changes following the 1946 Revised Standard, the 1901 American Revised Standard, the English Revised Version of 1885, and the International Critical Commentary's liberal exegesis of the Scriptures. According to Dr. Flores, their working principle plan was to eliminate the Textus Receptus as much as possible and introduce more "contemporary" renderings of verses. (See Dr. José Flores´ book, "El Texto del Nuevo Testamento", by CLIE, 1977, page 232.) Originally, their intention was to update the language, but what they ended up with was a Valera Bible that was farther departed textually from the original 1602.

6. Because the 1909 rendering for hell is mostly "infierno", while the 1960 rendering is mostly "hades", "sheol" or "gehena". The 1960 Reina-Valera weakens the vital doctrine of hell, just like the RV, the ASV, RSV, New World, and the NIV, following Alexandrian cultism.

7. Because the 1909 uses the formal equivalence technique to translate certain words, the 1960 uses the modernistic "dynamic" equivalence method, thus loosing the usage of many words. This is why the 1909 has unicorns, Mammon, charity, Nethinims, Sabbaths, hemorrhoids, impute, and many more good words, whereas the 1960 has buffaloes (two-horns), riches (loss of proper name, and not the same), love (not always the same, the gays also "love", the devil also "loves"), servants of the temple (loss of identity), tumors (too vague, and not the same), the seventh day (not all Sabbaths are the seventh day), and count (doctrine of imputed righteousness).

8. Because the 1909 Antigua Valera renders Isaiah 9:3 just like the KJB, but the 1960 renders it just like Westcott & Hort, "thou hast increased their joy". Either God has, or He hasn't increased their joy. Both cannot be right. The latter, "not" is right.

9. Because the 1909 Antigua Valera renders Isaiah 64:5 just like the KJB, "we shall be saved", but the 1960 questions salvation by ending this verse with an interrogative, "shall we be saved?" The doctrine of the security of the believer is affected here.

10. Because the 1909 Antigua Valera renders Genesis 18:19 correctly just like the KJB, "for I know him", but the 1960 has omitted this important phrase, following corrupt Alexandrian text-based bibles.

11. Because the 1909 Antigua Valera renders 1 Peter 3:21 properly, following the KJB, as "the like figure", speaking of baptism, whereas the 1960 omits this phrase. Baptism is a figure, and is not essential for salvation.

12. Because the 1909 Antigua Valera, following the same text as the KJB, renders Revelation 19:8 as "the righteousness of saints" (las justificaciones de los santos) whereas the 1960 alludes to the works concept by rendering that phrase as "the just works of the saints" (las acciones justas de los santos). Compare RV, ASV, RSV and the Latin Vulgate. They will agree with the 1960. The difference is that the 1909 presents the word "justificaciones" as a noun, just like KJB´s "righteousness", but the 1960 presents it as a verb, "acciones justas". Big difference!

13. Because the 1909 follows the KJB closest in Acts 15:18 by including the phrase "known unto God" but the 1960 omits it.

14. Because in Exodus 12:5 the 1909 calls the Old Testament sacrificial offering for sins the "lamb", while the 1960 calls it "the animal". This is typical of Eugene Nida´s dynamic equivalences in which he attacks the deity of Christ.

15. Because the 1909 follows KJB properly in Luke 2:22 by calling Mary unto purification, whereas the 1960 calls both Jesus and Mary unto purification, following Westcott & Hort.

16. Because the 1909 follows the KJB in 1 Thessalonians 4:4 correctly as "vessel", unlike the 1960 which has it as "wife". Poor exegesis by part of the 1960 revisers.

17. Because the 1909 renders the Roman´s road to salvation right in Romans 10:9 just like the KJB as "that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus" whereas the 1960 renders it as the Westcott & Hort "Lordship-salvation" crowd does: "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord".

18. Because the 1909 doesn´t have the word "aspiration" added in 1 Peter 3:21 like the 1960 does. Aspiring to be baptized is a pagan concept, according to Dr. Riplinger. See New Age Bible Versions.

19. Because the 1909 renders Leviticus 17:14a correctly by including the word "soul" but the 1960 renders it as "life", talking about mankind. Animals have lives, but not souls.

20. Because the 1909 follows the KJB closest in Revelation 22:14 by stating that "blessed is the man that doeth his commandments" whereas the 1960 has it just like the Westcott & Hort bibles, "blessed are they that wash their robes".

21. Because the 1909 follows the KJB properly in Luke 21:5 by using the word "gift", but the 1960 adds the Roman Catholic expression "votive" to "gifts". Votive gifts and votive prayers is popery. Is this not proof that the Roman Catholic Church worked with the American Bible Society to produce an ecumenical bible?

22. Because the 1909 follows the KJB in 2 Corinthians 2:10 in forgiving others in the "person of Christ", whereas the 1960 follows the Westcott & Hort by allowing the "presence of Christ." Christ´s Person abides in the believer; that´s why we can forgive those that offend us.

23. Because the 1909 follows the KJB exactly like the KJB in Judges 18:30 by calling the son of Gershon, "the son of Manasseh" while the 1960 calls him "the son of Moses" just like Westcott & Hort.

24. Because the 1909 is true to the KJB by rendering Psalms 2:2 as "Kiss the son", whereas the 1960 changes it to "honor the son". This change weakens a vital cross-reference in Luke 7:45 where our Lord says about Simon´s half-hearted devotion, "Thou gavest me no kiss". The kiss was the ultimate expression of love, honor, and devotion.

25. Because the 1909 is correct like the KJB in Matthew 5:22 by rendering the phrase "without a cause" as "locamente", whereas the 1960 omits it altogether, following the Alexandrian Westcott & Hort. Was our Lord Jesus guilty of sin when becoming angry in the Temple as he overthrew the thieve´s tables? According to the 1960, the ASV, RSV, RV, New World, etc, he was!

Like Gail Riplinger said, "AVOID THE 1960 REVISION" Dr. Riplinger received an honorary doctorate´s degree from Hyles-Anderson College during Pastor's School in 1996. Her bestseller, "New Age Bible Versions", has been used to show the evil behind modern versions. She is a true friend of Bible believers.



"The 1960 is the most popular Bible among the Spanish." This may be so, but the ever increasing popularity of the NIV will soon surpass the 1960´s popularity. Will that argument hold up then?

Why do good men use and recommend the 1960? The following are actual reasons or excuses I have heard through the years----

1. They may be pro-Westcott & Hort. Ask them point blank: Do you believe that the KJB is the pure and perfect Word of God? (If they say, "Yes, but for the English speaking people" then they also believe that the KJB is imperfect and full of mistranslations. They say this in order to accommodate all the textual problems in their Bible.)

2. They may be ignorant of the facts. I believe this is true of most of our missionaries.

3. They might have been saved themselves with the 1960 and are emotionally attached to it.

4. They may be "used" to it by now, and prefer to keep using it because to change would be a difficult thing to do at this stage of their ministries. It would also mean that they have been wrong all these years and would have to admit it to their congregations which would be too humbling for them to do.

5. They may not like some of the old, archaic words that appear in the 1909 such as "salud", "criar" "apriesa", and others, even though these are perfectly good Spanish words backed up in the official Spanish dictionary.

6. They may not be able to find the Antigua Valera 1909, as it is difficult nowadays to obtain.

7. There is an edition of the Scofield Reference Bible with the 1960, but not with the 1909. Some are devotees of Scofield's notes more than of the Scriptures themselves!

8. They hate the word "Sumo Pontífice" in Hebrews in the 1909 because it sounds like it is a reference to the Pope, when in reality it is none other than a direct reference to the royal priesthood of Christ.

9. In the 1909 Old Testament, some references to the Holy Spirit appear with a small "e". However, they don´t realize that the same thing occurs with the KJB in certain OT passages.

10. "So-and-so uses the 1960, and he's building a great church for the Lord in Mexico." This may be so, but who "builds" the church anyway, the missionary, or God? Neither is the fact that the Reina-Valera 1960 has been used to explain the Gospel to countless sinners a valid enough reason to prefer it over the 1909. Spurgeon used the Revised Version to see many souls saved, yet this does not mean we as true fundamentalists should accept the Revised Version. There is even enough Gospel to lead a soul to Christ with a Roman Catholic bible, but that does not mean we should allow the Vulgate to take preeminence over the Received Text in our Bible.



There are three attitudes that can be taken: left, neutral and right!

1. Not have any fellowship with them. "They are apostates, and will answer to God someday!" Be real mean to them, because they are apostates who are worthless to God! This attitude has done more damage to discredit our position than anything else. It is boastful, it is cynical, and it shows we have a bitter spirit about the whole matter. Let us be careful to show some respect towards others who may differ with our position. We all have the right to disagree with one another without resorting to name-calling, and a negative attitude.

2. Remain totally quiet about this whole issue. Play "dumb". Never say anything to anyone about it. "We are not supposed to defend or attack the Bible, as the Bible defends itself". Don´t ever teach about this because it is too hard for the people to understand. Remain ignorant about it. This second attitude demonstrates an unwillingness to take a stand for what is happening in regards to the Bible. This was my attitude for many years, and it frustrated me to the point that I no longer cared which Spanish version I used, seeing all my fundamentalist friends were swaying into the Westcott & Hort philosophy. Since my pastor, Dr. Jack Hyles, declared his true position in favor of the King James Bible in his book, "The Body, The Book, and The Blood", we too have decided to share our position in regards to the Spanish Bible.

3. With a loving, compassionate, patient attitude, and with respect, humbly stand for what´s right without condemning others, as you will not give an account for what others say and do, but you will give an account to God for what you say and do personally. I have never heard any true Spanish fundamentalist that uses the 1960 teach anything that was contrary to the truth. Having said this, the only exception I find is that some have turned in favor of the Westcott & Hort ideals. Most, however, simply ignore what is actually happening, and thus deserve our sympathy, not our condemnation. They need us to help them comprehend the fallacies of using a revision which is so departed from the Receptus AND the original Valera 1602.

In closing, let us not be accused of attacking the "Spanish Bible". What we are in fact attacking is the Westcott & Hort readings that were introduced into the RV 1960. But please don't take my word for it, read it for yourself in Dr. José Flores' eye-popping statement taken directly from his book, "El Texto del Nuevo Testamento", published by CLIE, 1977, page 232, and now translated word for word into English:


Dr. José Flores was a member of the RV 1960 revision committee, as well as the general manager of the Spanish Bible Society for many years. His admission is a stunning revelation, as for years the UBS has been telling the Hispanic world that their revision was a "simple update of the language".

Bible believing KJ-Only pastors must know that this debate is dividing Hispanic fundamentalists everywhere. May the Lord give each one the proper discernment and wisdom to deal biblically with the issue. We must be willing to teach our Spanish workers the doctrine of inspiration and preservation. We must beware of the United Bible Societies as they are trying to do away with the KJB Received Text. Let´s encourage our workers to stick with the Antigua! Let´s be patient with our good friends that are ignorant about the issue, and let us pray that they will come to a full understanding of the issue. I am encouraged about the possibility of revising the Antigua following the KJB/TR. Only then will we be found consistent in our stand for the pure Word of God. In the light of such controversy, it behooves those of us who use the 1909 to defend the truth, stay "focused" at winning souls, and pray for God to open the eyes of our friends who use the 1960, hoping they will consider using the 1909 until something better becomes available.

Dr. Gail Riplinger

Gail Riplinger has B.A., M.A., and M.F.A. degrees and has done additional postgraduate study at Harvard and Cornell Universities. As a university professor, the author taught seventeen different courses, authored six college textbooks and was selected for the Honor Society's teaching award and membership in a national Education Honorary. The seventh textbook, New Age Bible Versions, was an international best seller and for it the author was honored with a Doctorate from the College of the nation's largest church. The author is in several editions of Who's Who and was invited to be a member of president Reagan's Citizens Ambassador Program. The author also has taught English as a Second Language to students who spoke Greek, Japanese, Spanish, and numerous other languages.


By Dr. Gail Riplinger

The following is a letter submitted for this booklet by Dr. Gail Riplinger.



By Dr. Gail Riplinger

Dear Dr. Carter and Faculty of Landmark Baptist College,

Greetings in the name of our precious Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. May I commend you and your college for your love for the Spanish people, as expressed in your stand for a completely accurate and historic Spanish Bible. Having taught Spanish-speaking people English as a second language for three years, I can tell you that, in Christ, there are no second-class Christians. The Received Text, that is, the "scriptures," have been "made known to all nations" (Rom. 16:26), "the word...in all the world" (Col. 1:5,6). One currently circulating Spanish version, the Reina-Valera 1960, represents that text in the main, but not in toto. The textual changes which were introduced in 1960 by the liberal Eugene Nida are subtle, but critical. They might not be noticed by a young Christian or someone who has never seen the true readings. The "slight changes," as Eugene Nida calls them, are textual, and not idiomatic. To "take away from the words of the book" is expressly forbidden (Rev. 22:19). Omissions, such as "by Jesus Christ" in Eph. 3:9 and "Lord" in Luke 23:42, do not follow the Received Text (Textus Receptus, Luther's German, Ostervald's French, the Dutch Bijbel, the Authorized Versions, etc.). They are, as Nida admits, from the "critical text." I am reminded of Nida's remarks in his article entitled, "Reina-Valera Spanish Revision 1960," pp. 107 and 113.

[T]he Reina-Valera Version...1602...text has been the basic text of the Protestant Spanish church for generations, but it has not remained unchanged through the years, even though many Spanish-speaking persons tend to think of it as coming down to them unmodified from the Golden Age of Spanish literature. Actually, by means of a succession of minor revisions, of which the 1909 was the last and most extensive, more than 100,000 changes of spelling, orthography, and punctuation were introduced and well over 60,000 changes of wording...However, despite the fact that this translation has been widely used and fervently loved (and defended), in the years prior to 1950 (when the present revision was begun), the Bible Societies had received a series of suggestions for certain substantial modifications...[I]n some instances where the critical text is so much to be preferred over the traditional Textus Receptus, the committee did make some slight changes, particularly if such changes were not in well-known verses where an alteration would be unduly upsetting to the constituency. In a number of instances certain modifications in exegesis and text were introduced ..."

Reading Nida's disregard for the Received Text which has always been used by the aggregate body of Christ for 2000 years, coupled with his admitted dishonesty in changing only infrequently cited passages, leads one to conclude that this leader of the 1960 revision was not a Christian. This has been the trend in the American Bible Society for many, many years.

The Received Text has been given to all nations. To document this I have purchased, at great expense, one of the rare remaining editions of Hutter's Nuremberg Polyglot of A.D. 1599, previously owned by A. Gifford of the British Museum. It includes the Bible in twelve languages, as seen around the world five years before the KJV translators began their work. (These include the New Testament of the Greeks, Hebrews, English, Spanish, Italians, French, Germans, Danish, Old Latin, etc.) I will be making available a full collation of these Bibles in my new book, Understanding the King James Bible: The History and Mystery of the Word, to be released next year. A CD-Rom of these twelve Bibles will also be available then. The Bibles and the collation prove that the KJV matches all of the other Bibles; the Reina-Valera of 1960 does not; neither do the NKJV, NIV, NASB and New World Translation. God's love for the Latins (and those not speaking Hebrew and Greek!) is seen right on the cross. Luke 23:38 and John 19:20 record that "it was written in Hebrew, and Greek and Latin." Why should today's precious Spanish speaking people be deprived of the text that circulated since Acts 2 and the Old Latin Bibles. My currently available book, The History of the Bible, documents that the Romance languages, which developed from Latin, did indeed have and use for over 1900 years, a Received Text Bible, like the KJV. This has been corroborated through correspondence with a professor at the University in Spain. The changes in the Reina-Valera 1960 mirror those in the New World Translation and the corruptions which were introduced in English Bibles at the turn of the century. All of these corruptions have their root in the corruptions introduced by Origin in his Greek manuscripts and followed by Jerome in his corrupt Latin revision.

(The following are excerpts from my upcoming book, Understanding the King James Bible: The History and Mystery of the Word. The collation of Hutter's Polyglot proves that the KJV and the Valera 1602 R* match the Bibles of the world. The Reina-Valera 1960 does not.)

The ancient heresy of Adoptionism has slipped into the new versions. This sect denied that Jesus had the spirit of Christ before his baptism. They change Luke 2:40 which says that as a child, Jesus "waxed strong in spirit."


British Museum Hutter's Polyglot 1599

Where was the Bible before the KJV of 1611? Luke 2:40

Greek 1599 A.D Same as KJV, German, Spanish, Italian, French, and Latin etc.

KJV in spirit

English 1599A.D in Spirit

German 1599 A.D in Geift

French 1599 A.D en efprit

Spanish 1599 A.D del Efpiritu

Italian 1599 A.D di spirito

Valera 1602 R* del Espiritu

Latin 1599 A.D Omit

NIV, NASB etc. Omit

NKJV note Omit

Jehovah Witness Version Omit

Catholic Version Omit

Reina-Valera 1960 Omit

* For source of copies of the New Testament contact Missionary Carlos Donate co/ First Baptist of Hammond Indiana, P.O. Box 6448, Hammond, Indiana 46325 or Valera1602@aol.com. Others may also be printing this text. Call A.V. Publications (276-251-1734) for updates.


The thief on the cross did it (Luke 23:42), Paul did it (Acts 9:6, 22:16), and the woman caught in adultery did it (John 8:11) ¾ but not in the new versions. The thief said, "Jesus, Lord" in the KJV and all the good national Bibles.

The Adoptionists believe 'the Christ' left Jesus when he was on the cross. Consequently they steal the word "Lord" from the mouth of the thief on the cross. "Satan cometh immediately and taketh away the word" from the NIV, NASB, and most new bibles (Mark 4:15).

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Romans 10:9).


Hutter's Polyglot 1599 British Museum

Where was the Bible before the KJV of 1611? Luke 23:42


Greek 1599 A.D Same as KJV et. al

Hebrew 1599 A.D. Same as KJV et. al

Syriac 1599A.D Same as KJV et. al

Bohemice(Central Europe) Same as KJV et. al

KJV Jesus, Lord

English 1599A.D Jefus, Lorde

German 1599 A.D Jefu, HERR

Danish 1599 A.D Jhefum / HERRE

Polonise (Polish) Jezufa / Panie

French 1599 A.D Iefus, Seigneur

Spanish 1599 A.D Iefus, Sennor

Italian 1599 A.D IESV, Signore

Latin 1599 A.D Iefum, Domine,

Valera 1602 R* Jesus: Señor

NIV, NASB, Jesus ____

NKJV note Jesus ____

Catholic Version Jesus ____

Jehovah Witness Version Jesus ____

Reina-Valera 1960 Jesus____

Hell is pictured in other languages as a place of 'fire'. The transliterated 'Hades' or NIV 'depths' communicates nothing of being "burned in the fire," the "hell fire," "eternal fire," "everlasting fire," and "fire unquenchable" Mat. 5:22, 13:40, 18:9, Mat. 25:41, Jude 7, and Luke 3:17.


Nurem-berg Polyglot 1599 British Museum

Where was the Bible before the KJV of 1611? Mat. 11:23 etc.

Greek 1599 A.D. Same as KJV, et. al

KJV Hell

English 1599 A.D. Hell

German 1599 A.D. Helle

Spanish 1599 A.D. Infiernos

Italian 1599 A.D. l'inferno

French 1599 A.D. Enfer

Latin 1599 A.D. Infernu

Valera 1602 R* Infierno

NASB Hades

NKJV Hades

Jehovah Witness Hades

NIV Depths

Catholic Version Realm of death or netherworld

Reina Valera 1960 Hades

Jesus said, "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and death." Rev. 1:18


(© For a copy of Understanding the King James Bible: The History and Mystery of the Word by Gail Riplinger contact A.V. Publications, PO. Box 280, Ararat, VA 24053 or www.avpublications.com next year for its release date.)

For the last several years we have been offering the Reina-Valera 1909 as a viable alternative. Its date makes it clear that it too has been subject to the modern revisers hand, although not as badly as the 1960. I am enthusiastic about the Spanish 1602 Restoration project being done by a large group of Central and South American pastors and missionaries. The outstanding research that they have shared with me on the history of the Spanish Bible and its editions and 'corrupt revisions,' corresponds precisely with the facts of history and the investigations of numerous others and myself. It echoes the cry we hear daily on the phone from Spanish pastors and workers who have seen the subtle changes occurring infrequently in today's 1909 edition, and multiplied in today's 1960 edition. We, along with many, many Spanish speaking Christians look forward to seeing the Valera 1602 R in print. (We are offering the 1909 until it is available.) I am anxious to return to the standard Romance language text in 2 Peter 1:19 which does not substitute Lucifer for Jesus Christ. The correct Old Latin reading is seen in the Traditional Italian Bible and in the Valera 1602R*. The Reina-Valera 1960 matches the NIV, NASB and Jehovah Witness versions.

Italian: "e che la stella mattutina sorga ne' cuori vostri"

Valera 1602 R*: "y la estrella de la manana salga en vuestros corazones."


        Like the NIV and NASB, Jesus becomes 'Lucifer' in the 1960.

Reina-Valera 1960: "y el lucero* de la manana salga en vuestros corazones"

*Isaiah 14:12 Lucero (Lucifer)

This comes from Jerome's Latin bible which says, "et lucifer exoriretur in cordibus vestris" (Jesu Christi Domini Nostri Novum Testamentum ex Interpretatione Theodori Bezai Impressa Cantabrigiae A.D. 1642. Even today Luciferians use the expression "Lucifer rising." The theme song of an underground movie called "Lucifer Rising" is sung by the notorious Satanists in the heavy metal rock group, Led Zeppelin. Frank Baum, a member of Madame Blavatsky's Luciferian Society, wrote a play entitled, The Uplift of Lucifer ¾ right after he wrote The Wizard of Oz.)

For those who are looking for a Spanish revision produced by Greek and Hebrew scholars ("falsely so-called"), I would point them to the recent book, An American Bible: A History of the Good Book in the United States 1777-1880 by Paul Gutjhr, (Stanford University Press, 1999). The author points out that the originally conservative American Bible Society used to insist that all foreign translations be done using the Authorized Version as their base. (In 1834 liberals split off and formed the American and Foreign Bible Society because they wanted to break this long standing tradition and introduce instead, the use of the Greek and Hebrew text as the basis of foreign translations. Dr. Gutjhr points out that their 'real' motive was to introduce "sectarian" meanings into the Bible.) Pages 106 and 107 note the following:

The American Bible Society...maintained that it would not publish or distribute any bibles that did not "conform in the principle of their translation, to the common English version.

This emphasis on the common English version (the King James Version) as the root translation from which translators had to work ...

The American Bible Society was tying its translators to an English translation...

[Sectarian liberals] maintained that the American Bible Society was encouraging the production and distribution of error-filled texts in ignoring the primacy of the originals...

[The American and Foreign Bible Society] split off from the American Bible Society to form their own bible society. The American and Foreign Bible Society set itself up in contrast to the American Bible Society by selling itself as God's instrument ...translating work that conforms ... "to the originals." The American and Foreign Bible Society had resolved at the first meeting of its Board of Managers that all missionaries of the board engaged in translation work [using]... "the original text."

It appears that the conservatives of years gone by would laud efforts to restore the Spanish Bible using the King James Bible as a benchmark. Only the Unitarians and liberals, according to Dr. Gutjar, discouraged such an approach. Many of our brethren have adopted the ultra-liberal point of view without realizing its origin and history.

The restoration of the Spanish Bible is being done just as the God-honored KJV was done, that is, by following the Received Text. By Received Text I mean the Traditional Text used by the aggregate body of Christ: Greek, English, German, French, Italian, Old Latin etc. etc. etc. I do not mean a translation from one of the two currently printed editions of the Textus Receptus. (i.e. The Greek Text published by the Trinitarian Bible Society or the Dean Burgon Society Press or the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by George Ricker Berry printed by Baker or Hendrickson). Although correct in the main, each has some very minor problems which prevents it from being THE benchmark in the minutiae. For example, all four printers include the name of Jesus only once in Mark 2:15. It occurs twice in the Received Text. These problems are discussed in the upcoming, Understanding the King James Bible and The History of the Bible, from which the following is taken.


Taken from The History of the Bible © by Gail Riplinger

"Babes" or Bookshelves?

The Received Text or Currently Printed Editions of the Textus Receptus

Fifteen total editions of the Greek New Testament were printed by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elziver's. The KJV translators availed themselves of all of these as well as numerous Greek manuscripts and vernacular editions. On the title page of the KJV, the translators said that the King James Bible was "Translated out of the Originall Greeke." They would not have made this claim if they did not have authoritative documentary proof or if they had followed any Latin Vulgate readings, as some critics, like Frederick Scrivener, claim.

In 1881, F.H.A Scrivener, a textual critic and member of the corrupt Revised Version Committee of Westcott and Hort, attempted to create his own Greek Textus Receptus by back-translating the KJV into Greek. As he was back-translating, Scrivener remarked that the KJV seemed to follow Beza rather than Stephanus about 113 times, Stephanus rather than Beza in 59 places, Erasmus and others against both Stephanus and Beza about 80 times. These varients merely represent the errors these individual men or their printers made from "the Originall Greeke" to which the KJV translators referred on their title page. The wealth of ancient and antique Bibles that God providentially provided for the KJV translators, was not available to Mr. Scrivener almost 300 years later. They had passed to collections around the world. So, with his so-called 'skills' of textual criticism, mixed with his own opinion, and truncated by the limits of his own bookshelf, he altered this back-translation in a small number of places. He admits his "corrected" places were "precarious," based on what he "presumed" and what "appears" to him to be "more likely" the correct data. To top it off, he followed "the punctuation of the Revised Version." Also, he admits, "The paragraphs into which the body of the Greek text is here divided are those of the Revised Version..." (F.H.A. Scrivener, The New Testament in Greek, Cambridge: University Press, 1908 edition, pp. vii-xi, 655,656; Scrivener, The Authorized Edition: Its Subsequent Reprints, p. 60).

Scrivener's Greek New Testament is sold today as the Trinitarian Bible Society's Greek Textus Receptus. The TBS gives the reader the impression in the preface that it,

"follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with the "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version," edited by F.H.A .Scrivener..." (emphasis mine).

In fact, it is not the text of Beza precisely; it is Scrivener's text. It is not precisely the Greek text followed by the KJV translators, but only those Greek readings to which Scrivener had access.

This text of Scrivener is also sold by Hendrickson Publishers as J.P. Green's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. Its preface falsely states that it is "the original Greek" (Peabody, Mass., p. vi, xi).

The only other Greek New Testament in print, is the 1550 edition of Stephanus. It is sold by Baker books as the Greek-English Interlinear by George Ricker Barry. As previously mentioned, it was not deemed accurate by the KJV translators in over 193 places. The Baker edition includes Berry's blasphemous interlinear English translation above the Greek. Berry's use of anti-Trinitarian liberal G.B. Winer's A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, translated by J. Henry Thayer, makes his English interlinear useless. Furthermore, the English interlinear has been drawn chiefly from Thayer. (See the back of the paperback edition after p. 670, on p. v. preceding the dictionary in Baker's reprint of the 1897 Hinds Noble edition.) Thayer was a Unitarian whose heresies were so well known in his day that the publisher introduced his work with this warning:

"A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through...The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force)...and Biblical inerrancy."

(Thayer's Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1977, p. vii.)

Consequently, in Bakers' hardback edition of 1981 there is an admission in its preface that Berry's. "literal translation is not finely tuned" (p. ix).

Yet how many hapless students read it and assume that it can correct the KJV!!!!!!!!!

Neither Berry's edition of Stephanus nor Scrivener's edition should be used, as some do today, to 'correct' the KJV. These texts can create unnecessary confusion for students who have one of these two printed editions and are comparing it to the KJV.

For example, in Mark 2:15, the Received Text uses the name of Jesus twice. (ie. See Reina-Valera 1599, 1602, French 1599, Old Latin (5th century) Tyndale 1526, the Geneva 1599, King James 1611, et al.) The mistake of including Jesus only once, as seen in these two T.R.'s in print today, arises from the Latin text, as seen in Wycliffe's edition of 1389, taken from the Latin text. When in doubt, the context will determine easily which is correct. If the name of 'Jesus' is replaced with the pronoun "He," as it is in the NASB and all new versions, as a pronoun, it could refer to its antecedent, Levi, seen in verse 14. God is not the author of confusion.


Hutter's Polyglot 1599 British Museum

Where was the Bible before the KJV of 1611? Mark. 2:15

KJV Jesus...Jesus

English 1599 Jefus...Jefus

Spanish 1599 A.D. Jefus...Jefus

French 1599 Iefus...Iefus

Old Latin (D Sumpti-bus only) Jesus...Jesu

NIV Jesus...He

NASB He...Jesus

NKJV He...Jesus

Catholic Version He...Jesus

Jehovah Witness He...Jesus

In Mark 2:15, the name of Jesus is twice in today's good foreign editions such as the French, Le Nouveau Testament (Traduit sur Les Textes Originaux Grecs Version D'Ostervald, Mission Baptiste Maranatha, 1996). 'Jesus' (Jezus...Jezusem) is also twice in the Polish (Biblia To Jest Cale Pismo Swiete Starego I Nowego Testamentu Z Hebrajskiego I Greckiego Jezyka Na Ploski Pilnie I Wiernie Przetlomaczona.) Both the French and the Polish state that they were translated out of the 'original' Greek ("Originaux Grecs," "Greckiego"). Even the corrupted Reina-Valera 1960 includes Jesus twice! Edward Hills said that it was more honoring to God to believe he had preserved the true text in that which is used by the people, "babes" than to think he abandoned the truth to the library shelf of "the wise and prudent."

Again, in 1 Peter 1:1, the KJV follows Elziver's Greek text reading of "God and our Saviour," rather that Stephanus' reading of "our God and Saviour." Those who have Berry's edition of Stephanus would think the KJV did not follow the Greek, unless they looked at the fine print in Stephanus' notes. (Dr. Kirk DiVietro has collated Berry's edition against a copy of the original Stephanus and has discovered that Berry has introduced errors in his notes.)

These printed Greek editions of the Textus Receptus must be understood to be what they are and nothing more. They are an excellent tool in proving that the Received Text readings of the KJV are, in fact, based on a long history of Greek editions. These current printed editions are not however 'authoritative' or to be regarded as 'the Original Greek' "in the microscopic points of detail" where they differ from the manuscript tradition and the King James Bible or other great vernacular Bibles (Cambridge. Vol. II, p. 499).

A translation directly from a Greek text requires many subjective decisions. These decisions have already been made and are clearly evident in God-approved vernacular editions, like the KJV. Nothing but liberalism can result from translating a good Greek text using the bad currently available lexicons written by non-believers like Thayer (Berry's Interlinear), Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius, etc. Many who hold on to the 1960 do so because they are either using as a benchmark the corrupt UBS-Nestles Greek text or are looking at the corrupt so-called literal translation in Berry's or Green's Interlinears, or are using one of today's corrupt Greek or Hebrew Lexicons like Thayer's, Vine's, or Strong's.

The preponderance of the true word of God in the 1909 (and 1960) has led many precious souls to Christ and fed them for their daily growth. God uses the pure Spanish scriptures that make up the bulk of these Bibles; the pure word outweighs the bad. (God can even use a crooked stick to draw a straight line, when need be.) The places where they have been revised are stumbling blocks, however. Imagine trying to instruct a dear Catholic person with a 1960 verse that wrongly says we must "grow up unto salvation" (1 Peter 2:2)! For those who are accustomed to the 1960 and see words in the Valera 1602 R which could have various idiomatic interpretations, I must remind them that the Bible defines its own terms. Confusion cannot arise if the context is read. Questions about the meaning of a word can be addressed by a pastor or with the use of a dictionary. The problems of the 1960 relate to textual OMISSIONS. These cannot be 'explained,' because the words are GONE.

May the LORD encourage you and the faculty there in the battle against liberalism, complacency, and poor scholarship, no matter what name it hides behind.


Dr. Gail Riplinger

2 Thes. 3:1


Dr. Phil Stringer

Dr. Phil Stringer is the Executive Vice President of Landmark Baptist College in Haines City, Florida. He in an active speaker, having spoken at over 325 churches, camps, Christian schools, and colleges. He has spoken in forty-one states and eight foreign countries. He has appeared on over 25 radio and TV programs.

He is the author of several books and booklets including, The Faithful Baptist Witness, Fifty Demonstrations of America's Christian Heritage, The Bible and Government, The Culture War, The Real Story of King James I, Biblical English, The Means of Inspiration, The History of the English Bible, Misidentified Identity, In Defense of I John 5:7, and The Real Story: Real Lessons from History.

He has also written several Christian school courses on such subjects as Baptist History, current Events, U.S. History, U.S. Government, U.S. Presidents, and Economics.

He also speaks to civic and conservative groups on topics related to current events and America's Christian heritage.

Dr. Stringer can be reached at:

Landmark Baptist College

810 East Hinson Avenue

Haines City, Florida 33844

(863) 422-6493

The following is an article by Dr. Phil Stringer prepared for this booklet.



By Dr. Phil Stringer

I have read with interest many articles defending the Reina-Valera 1960 (RV 1960) revision of the Spanish Bible. I was surprised that most of these articles fail to tell their readers that the 1960 was produced by the United Bible Society. This leads me to wonder what these defenders of the RV 1960 hold as their position about the United Bible Society.

As I am sure that you know, the United Bible Society has produced over 600 translations of the Bible in languages that already had a Textus Receptus translation of the Bible. Most of these Textus Receptus translations were produced during the great missions movement of the late 1700's and 1800's. A few of them date back to the Reformation.

Most of these new translations were produced under the direction of Dr. Eugene Nida, during his long tenure as Executive Secretary for Foreign Translations of the United Bible Society.

Dr. Nida wrote sixteen books about Bible translation, authored hundreds of articles about Bible translation, and gave thousands of public presentations on the subject. Consequently his goals, procedures and beliefs are well known.

All over the world, Baptist missionaries are confronted with this question, "Should I use the older translations or should I use the newer United Bible Society translation?" What do the defenders of the RV 1960 teach their missions students and missionaries?

Do they teach:

1. That UBS translations should be avoided whenever possible as the products of a modernist Bible society.

2. The UBS translations should be used whenever possible because they are more up to date translations.

3. Each UBS translation should be judged individually.

4. Do they not teach anything about the UBS at all?

This is a very important issue for any institution training missionaries.

One article I read referred to Dr. Nida's work on the NIV. Actually Dr. Nida was not involved with the translation of the NIV. He was involved with the translation of the Revised Standard Version and Todays English Version (Good News for Modern Man).

Some also refer to Dr. Nida's influence on the RV 1960 being overturned by "men of God who remained faithful to the Received Text." Can you name one saved person (professing evangelical) that was involved in the translation of the RV 1960? It is interesting to me that the defenders of the RV 1960 never want to discuss its translators.

Also, I note that many claim the RV 1960 as having the Textus Receptus as its authoritative base. Can you name anyone connected with the RV 1960 translation that says that it was based solely upon the Textus Receptus?

Dr. Jose Flores was a member of the RV 1960 committee. He was also the president of the Spanish Bible Society for many years. He refutes this claim when he says:

"One principle added to the first list of the RV 1960 revision committee was that wherever the RV (1909) Version has departed from the Textus Receptus to follow a better text we did not return to the Receptus. Point 12 of the working principles states: in cases where there is a doubt over the correct translation of the original, we consulted preferentially The English Revised Version of 1885, The American Standard Version of 1901, The Revised Standard Version of 1946, and the Internaional Critical Commentary." (El Texto Del Nuevo Testamento, 1977, pg. 323).

Dr. Eugene Nida also refutes this claim when he says, "Nevertheless in some instances where a critical text is so much preferred over the traditional Textus Receptus the committee did make some slight changes, particularity if such changes were not in well-known verses. . ." (Bible Translation, Vol 12, No.3 July 1961, pg. 113).

Calvin George is a professing fundamental Baptist who has written a defense of the RV 1960 called The Battle for the Spanish Bible.

However, unknowingly, his defense shows the weakness of the textual basis for the 1960. Think carefully on these quotes from his book:

"I cannot deny that there are some deviations in the Reina-Valera 1909 and 1960 that most likely cannot be traced to differences in the TR editions." (p. 42)

"There are a few translations in the 1909 and 1960 than may not be able to be traced to differences in TR editions, or semantics. A few departures come from a critical text." (p. 42)

"I believe Wescott and Hort texts can be consulted in the process of translating (such was the case in the Reina-Valera 1909 & 1960)" (p. 115)

Calvin George is honest enough to admit these facts. He is clear that they do not bother him. But they are contrary to the clear teaching of many fundamental Baptists about the preservation of Scripture.

For decades, fundamentalists have opposed United Bible Society translations in Japanese, Korean, Russian, Norwegian, English and hundreds of other languages. When someone also opposes the United Bible Society translation in Spanish, defenders of the RV 1960 are quick to accuse them of having a secret motive of ending the revival in the Spanish world. Are they so sure that no fundamentalist can have a legitimate motive for opposing the work of the United Bible Society? Such accusations are very serious. If they are wrong in trying to read the minds and judge the hearts of those who oppose the United Bible Society, they have committed a very serious mistake.

There is a real revival taking place in the Spanish world. It is occurring because local Baptist churches are taking their soul-winning responsibilities seriously. However, many revivals in the history of the world have been short lived. Without a zealous loyalty to the word of God, this revival will one day be replaced by apostasy as have other revivals throughout the centuries. A real revival is not threatened by the pure Word of God.

God is no respecter of persons. The pure Word of God is available to people in any language. If godly men are willing to depend upon the Lord and humbly do the necessary translation work God will give them the Word of God. But God does not automatically give the Word of God in any language anymore than He automatically makes anyone a soul-winner. Faithful Christians must be willing to pay the price.

It took several decades and seven major translations in order to get the pure Word of God in English.

One of the articles I read closes with an allusion to Dr. Jack Hyles' famous sermon, "Logic Must Prove the King James Bible". Please note that in that sermon he said "How can we know which is the real Bible? Well you can scratch off the Revised Standard Version because the liberals put that one together."

The same United Bible Society that translated the Revised Standard Version in English translated the RV 1960 in Spanish. Some of the same people, like Eugene Nida, were involved. In the United States, they selected modernist seminary professors to do the actual translation work. In the Latin American world, they selected modernist seminary professors to do the actual translation work on the 1960. Dr. Hyles was right!

Many refer to the large numbers reached by some using the RV 1960. Bill Hybels has a larger church in the U.S. than any of them do in their countries. He draws more people to his conferences than attend any conferences in the Spanish world. He claims that his abandonment of the King James Bible and his use of the New International Version is one reason that he can draw such crowds. Do his numbers justify the NIV in English?

The community church movement in the United States is building some huge Spanish ministries using the RV 1960. Do the numbers justify them?

Dr. Jerry Falwell is influencing Southern Baptist Churches in building some large Spanish ministries. He recommends they use the RV 1960 (he also recommends the New King James and the New Revised Standard Version in English). What do the numbers prove?

There is a large ecumenical evangelism movement in the Spanish world. It is drawing the evangelicals, charismatics, cults, and Roman Catholics together. It is heavily influenced by Louis Palau and The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. It reaches huge numbers. And it usually uses the RV 1960. What do the huge numbers prove about ecumenical evangelism?

Truth is not determined by numbers.

I hope that you will further study the issues involved in the Bible translation and preservation!



Bill R. Bradley

Bill Bradley graduated from Landmark Baptist College with a B.A. in Bible and later received a M.B.S from Revival Fires Baptist College. He spent 10 years in evangelism and is currently a full time Bible professor at Landmark Baptist College. He is the author of Purified Seven Times, The Miracle of the English Bible, To All Generations: The Story of the Bible, and Revelation, Verse by Verse.

The following is a book review written by Bill Bradley.


By Bill R. Bradley


The Battle for the Spanish Bible

by Calvin George

(Direct quotes of Mr. George are in italics).

Recently I was given a copy of Calvin George's The Battle for the Spanish Bible. The title of the book was the first thing that caught my attention, because I, too, have been "battling for the Bible" (KJV 1611 and the pure Bible texts upon which it was based) since being exposed to the Bible Translation issue shortly after coming to Christ in 1986. As I read this book, it soon became very clear that many of the "alleged contradictions with the King James Version" (see subtitle – The Battle for the Spanish Bible) were not "alleged contradictions" at all, but genuine contradictions with the King James Bible. I concede to Brother George that many defenders of the KJV, in their zeal to defend their position, often go too far, and I won't deny that "some false allegations that attempt to discredit the Spanish Bible" (again, see subtitle- The Battle for the Spanish Bible) have obviously been made. I will not concede, however, that all of the allegations made by Bible-believing fundamentalists against the 1960 Reina-Valera are false or groundless; in fact, many of the allegations are verifiably true, and for this reason I offer my review of this book.

*Note- This is by no means an exhaustive commentary on Calvin George's book, but I believe it is a good representation of issues he raises that require a response.

From George's "Open Letter" on pp.11-15, refuting "those who accuse the RV 1960 of being the equivalent of the RSV: "My copy the RSV does not state who was manifest in the flesh in I Timothy 3:!6. Does not your copy of the 1960 state that God was manifest in the flesh?" I'm glad the 1960 got it right here. The TR Greek dictates that the proper translation is "God was manifest in the flesh."

Why then, just a few paragraphs later (on p. 16) do we learn from Mr. George that "In some of these cases, 'Jesus' was replaced with the personal pronoun 'he' in the Spanish Bible. The use of personal pronouns in these cases is really not a problem, as long as there is no question as to whom the person (spoken about) is." Could not the producers of the RSV present the same argument for their rendition of It timothy 3:16? Why was it wrong for them but it was not wrong for the RV 1960? If the Greek TR calls for 'Jesus', when would it ever be proper to ignore the text and substitute something not found in the text, or something found in a faulty, corrupted text?

Chapter Three, The source Underlying the Text of the Spanish Bible, begins with this question: "Was the Reina -Valera New Testament translated from the Textus Receptus?" The answer, according to Mr. George, "Certainly!" Boy, that's a relief! But then we read on p.32, in reference to both the 1909 and RV's. "a few 'Alexandrian' corruptions have apparently slipped into them sometime during their history." Same page (32): "It is apparent that there are some differences between the Reina-Valera 1960 and the King James Bible and/or the Textus Receptus Greek Text (sic) that underlies it...there are some readings (in the 1960 RV) which do follow the critical text ... the RV 1960 does have some readings which do not occur in any standard TR ... the RV 1960 is not based upon the Critical Text, ... although (it contains) some Critical Text readings (Nestle's)."

On p.34 we read, "It is admitted that there are differences between the 1960 and the KJV/TR, but not to the degree of the modern versions." Oh, so that makes it okay?! Let me ask you this, just how many "Alexandrian Corruptions" have to "slip in" before we draw the line and say the text has been corrupted? Bury your head in the sand, or face the truth; those are the options. I didn't write Brother George's book; I'm merely quoting it!

I lost count of just how many times George concludes a paragraph in his book, when justifying a difference in readings between the King James Bible and the RV 1960, with, "The words are different, yet the meaning is the same." To quote a deep theological truth from Dr. Mickey Carter, "Things that are different are not the same"!! Words that are different do not mean the same thing. One example should suffice for argument's sake: From the chapter entitled Problem Passages (p.26), the question is asked: "Why does Revelation 22:14 in the KJV say 'Blessed are they that do his commandments,' whereas the Reina-Valera 1960 reads, 'Blessed are they that wash their robes'?"

Without commenting on George's list of "respected commentators who do not have a problem" with changing this text, I can answer this question quite plainly, truthfully, and simply. "Do his commandments" is the correct Textus Receptus reading; "wash their robes" is also an accurate translation -- of the Nestle-Aland (Westcott & Hort) Greek text, and is the reading chosen by the RSV committee. If the RV 1960 reading of Revelation 22:14 is right, then the KJV reading of Revelation 22:14 is wrong . Is that what you believe about your KJV? George asserts: "The words are different, yet the meaning is the same." The words surely are different, and so is the meaning!

George lists 16 "Significant Portions of Verses Omitted" from the RV 1960 that appear in the KJV/TR (p.34); 18 "Omissions of the name of our Lord God", 51 "Other Differences that Have a Substantial Effect on the Meaning" (But I thought "the words are different, yet the meaning is the same"!!); in total, 136 instances are cited by George in Everett Fowler's Evaluating Versions of the New Testament where the 1960 RV departs from the KJV/TR. That's not corruption?! Would you allow someone to omit "significant portions of verses" from your KJV? Would you allow 18 "omissions of the name of our Lord God" from your KJV? Would you allow 51 changes "that have a substantial effect on the meaning" in your KJV? Would you allow someone to take your King James Bible and change it in more than 130 places, and still call it a King James Bible? Aren't you part of the same crowd that gets mad when "thoroughly" is printed instead of "throughly," and when "Saviour" isn't spelled right?

On p.35 the question is posed by Mr. George: "How close do the Reina-Valera Bibles come to the modern English translations?" His answer to himself is, "Not as close as some people have made them out to be." Would you settle for an English "bible" that was at all close to the modern translations? Why are you willing to settle for it in Spanish?

A chart on page 37 shows that the RVA (Reina-Valera Actualizada) 1995 departs from the TR 795 times. On page 39 the comment is made: "It is sad to see how much the Reina-Valera Actualizada distances itself from the TR. Without question, that Bible does not deserve 'Reina-Valera' included in the title. That is deceitful." The same chart (p.37) shows that the RV 1960 only left the TR 186 times, so that makes it a good Bible. (Am I the only one missing something here?)

On page 41 we are confronted with this question: "Why should any difference between the Reina-Valera and the KJV automatically be labeled an 'error.' " (Answer –Because many of those differences were borrowed from an erroneous text - the W&H Critical text.)

Page 42- "I cannot deny that there are some deviations in the Reina-Valera 1909 and the 1960 that most likely cannot be traced to differences in the TR editions ... a few departures come from a critical text" – Calvin George. Then why are so many fundamental Baptists, both English-speaking and Spanish speaking, attempting to deny the undeniable?! We must at least credit Mr. George for his honesty and forthrightness.

There's a representative list of Common Complaints Against the Reina-Valera 1960 on p.29. In Matthew 17:20 "unbelief" (TR and KJV) was changed to "little faith" (RV 1960, Wescott and Hort, and RSV). In John 12:47 "and believe not" (TR and KJV) was changed to "and does not keep them" (RV 1960, W&H, and RSV). In Acts 15:17 "who doeth all these things" (TR and KJV) is omitted from the RV 1960 (as in the W& H and the RSV). No explanation or defense is offered for these departures in the 1960 in favor of the critical text readings. None is necessary.

Again, in his chapter The Problem Passages in the Spanish Bible, Mr. George poses the question: "Why do some RV's (including the 1960) read 'As it is written in Isaiah the prophet...' in Mark 1:2, when the KJV says 'As it is written in the prophets...'? He dedicates the rest of the page to "answering" his self-posed question, without ever really answering it. He concludes: "Why not give the Spanish Bible the benefit of the doubt?" To which I pose this question: "Why not translate according to the proper Greek Text?" The TR does not have "Isaiah" in Mark 1:2 like the RV 1960 does; it has "prophets," but the 1960 producers chose to follow the Wescott & Hort text and the RSV here.

In addressing the discrepancy in Daniel 3:25 ("like a son of the gods" – 1960 RV, "like unto the Son of God" –KJV) Mr. George makes this interesting assertion: "Nebuchadnezzar did not say 'is a son of the gods', he said, 'is like a son of the gods." (p.21). If that's what Nebuchadnezzar said, then the KJV got it wrong. Do you believe Daniel 3:25 in the KJV is wrong? The RSV translators did; that's why they changed Daniel 3:25 to read "like a son of the gods," just like the 1960 RV

The debate over the versions of the Bible presented by Mr. George in this book is not limited to sparring over which Bible is right for the Spanish-speaking Christian. The following quotations from his book amount to a different view of the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures - in Spanish, English, or any other language!

In George's Introduction (p.6) he states: "Nowhere in this book will you find me stating that there are errors in the KJV." Yet, in his Final Thoughts (p. 114) he says: "I believe it is possible for the current KJV ... to contain human error." Do you believe that your KJV "contains human error"?

Again, from Final Thoughts (p.114): "I believe that the KJV and the Reina-Valera, as accurate translations of the preserved Word of God, are the inspired Word of God in their respective languages." (So far, so good) "I believe they have derived their inspiration from the text upon which they were based." (Okay by me!) Now, p.115: "I believe the Wescott and Hort texts can be consulted in the process of translating (such as was the case in the Reina-Valera 1909 and 1960)." (Uh oh!) Do you believe the Westcott & Hort texts can (or should) be consulted in the process of translating? Do you believe the Westcott & Hort texts can (or should) be preferred over the TR in the process of translating? (The producers of the 1960 RV did!)

Mr. George says, "The KJV...had to go through a purification process after (it) was issued." Do you believe that about your KJV?

On p.44 George quotes M.L. Moser, Jr., who says, "There are places in the Spanish 'Antigua Version Reina y Valera' which... (have) a more accurate translation than the KJV." Do you believe there are places where your KJV is not accurate?

Calvin George states, on p. 117, " The standard for me in English is the KJV, mainly because I believe it reflects the best manuscript evidence." Is that why the KJV is the standard in English for you? You mean, it's not the inerrant, infallible, inspired, preserved, perfect Word of God for the English –speaking world?

Mr. George states, on p.68: "Unknown to most Christians, the King James '1611' we use today is not a true 1611." Is that what you believe about your Bible? "There have been more than 400 textual changes (some say the textual changes were to correct printing errors)"-p.68 Isn't that what you say?"

"Honest defenders of the KJV concede that a purification process has taken place in English Bibles before and after the KJV of 1611" (p.69). Do you concede that? Just what exactly has this "purification process" amounted to in the years since 1611? Are you telling me the translators didn't get it right back then? Who came to their rescue and straightened them out?

P.69 continued – "The same can be said of the Spanish Bible, except that the process took longer, and was more extensive." And the same is said by the modern bible advocates, promoters, producers, and propagators. A "more extensive" process is quite an understatement. On p.119 George quotes an article from a 1961 issue of Bible Translator (produced by the American Bible Society, producers of the 1960 RV): "Since 1909 ... more than 100,000 changes of spelling, orthography, and punctuation were introduced and well over 60.000 changes of wording." Compare that to the alleged "400 textual changes" in the KJV over the last nearly 400 years!

Mr. George goes to great lengths in his book to point out the harshness, the meanness and the vitriol of those who oppose his position on this issue, but then peppers his book with the same harshness, meanness and vitriol he condemns in others. In the spirit of Christian love he employs such words and phrases describing his adversaries and their conduct in this conflict as "slander," "outlandish charges," "carnal rhetoric," "spewing out...anti-1960 venom," "Mentira!" ("liar!"), "dysfunctional preachers," "caustic," blasphemous," "bitter," "ruckmanite," and "unethical."

I'm not "slandering" anyone with "outlandish charges in order to gain devotees and raise money" for my project (p.10). I don't even have a project. I do, however, have dear Christian friends who have been the victims of "slandering" and "outlandish charges" because of their stand for the pure Bible text. I'm not a "ruckmanite" (p.50). I'm not "spewing out... anti-1960 venom" with "carnal rhetoric" (p.58). In my heart of hearts I don't believe I'm part of the group whose "lack of ethics... seems to have no bounds" (p.61). I don't believe I,ve been "caustic" or "angry" (p.95) in my rebuttal of this book. I'm not even a "dysfunctional preacher" (p.96) and I'm certainly not a part of a "Satanic attack" upon the Spanish people or their Bible. I'm a Bible–believer. I believe the whole Bible, every Word of it, is the Word of God, and is preserved for us in the English-speaking world in the King James 1611 Bible. I believe that the insertion into the pure text of Scripture of corrupt, Alexandrian, Westcott and Hort, Nestle- Aland, American Bible Society, Critical text readings is wrong, in great or in small measure. "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (I Cor. 5:6 - KJV).

To Calvin George, there is really no issue. He believes "the Wescott and Hort text can be consulted in the process of translating" (p.115). He readily admits the inclusion of Critical text readings in the RV 1960, and to him that presents no problem. I can appreciate his candor and sincerity. But what about those of you who claim to be King James-only, Textus Receptus-only, anti-Westcott and Hort, anti-modern English "bibles," anti-RSV, anti-Critical Text? How can you consistently stand for the KJV and the RV 1960, containing readings you supposedly cannot endorse nor tolerate? The answer is – you can't.



By Allen L. Johnson

My name is Allen Johnson and I am the Director of the Spanish Department at Landmark Baptist College. I grew up on the mission field of Brazil where my parents have been serving the Lord for 27 years. I attended Hyles-Anderson College (my parents are from First Baptist) and I later received my B. A. in Foreign Languages, International Studies from Purdue University in 1997. I finished my language studies at Universidad Complutense in Madrid, Spain. After graduating, I taught Spanish in Christian schools for three years and I am now teaching Spanish at Landmark Baptist College and coordinating the Spanish program in the college. I also have the privilege of preaching the Word of God in our Spanish ministry.

If you are reading this you must be aware of the Spanish Bible issue among professing fundamentalists. The ministry of Landmark Baptist Church has been attacked and one of the "attacks" is that Pastor Carter and Dr. Stringer are not Spanish speaking and that this is simply a misunderstanding among "Gringos". The truth of the matter is that many who know Spanish as a first language and as a second or third language have been standing for the truth all along. By the grace of God the truth shall prevail. After all, facts are stubborn things.

Let me first say that it is not my goal to attack or criticize anybody but simply to present the truth. This article specifically addresses the Spanish Bible but this is a doctrinal issue and not only a language issue. It is my hope that this will help bring unity and not division to the cause of Christ and His Preserved Word.

It has been very disheartening to see people resort to name calling and attacking people rather than dealing with the issue. This is the tactic employed by people who cannot defend their position. I ask that we open our hearts and our minds and put our prejudices aside, even if it is inconvenient. I believe there are many more out there that are willing to look at the facts and take a stand for the truth. It is time for true Bible fundamentalists to unite and stand for the purity of the Word of God in any language.

For the sake of space I will include only a few detailed comparisons in the following study. I will use the English King James Version, the Portuguese Bible translated by Joao Ferreira de Almeida and revised by the Trinitarian Bible Society in 1994, and the Spanish Valera 1602-R* as my Received Text Bibles. I will contrast them with the following Critical Text Bibles: the English Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation (Jehovah Witness Bible), and the Spanish Reina-Valera 1960 revision (copyrighted by the United Bible Society). I include the Portuguese, which is very similar to Spanish, to demonstrate that the issue at hand is not just a linguistic one. To claim that you can not compare English with Spanish as some have claimed is erroneous. If the Portuguese can match up with the English so can the Spanish because God can preserve His words in any language. However, some languages still have Bibles in need of purification. This study will show that the RV 1960 would be one of them. I trut this study will be helpful as we compare Scripture with Scripture. Let us study to show ourselves approved unto God, workmen that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (II Timothy 2:15)

As you study the following comparisons please keep in mind the following words of God:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)

The words of the LORD are pure words: ... O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalm 12:6-7)

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. (Proverbs 30:5-6).

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life...(Rev. 22:18-19).

An Attack on the Inerrancy of Scripture by

Changing the Words of God in Mark 1:2

Truth (Received Text)

English: (KJV)

As it is written in the prophets, Behold...

Portuguese: (TBS 1994)

Como está escrito nos profetas: Eis que...

Spanish: (Valera 1602-R*)

Como está escrito en los profetas: He aquí...

Perversion (Critical Text)

English: (RSV)

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold...

New World Trans. (JW)

Just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: (Look!...

Spanish: (RV 1960)

Como está escrito en Isaías el profeta: He aquí...

In verse 2 Mark quotes from Malachi 3:1 not Isaiah. In verse 3 he quotes from Isaiah 40:3. If a new Christian reads verse 2 in the RV 1960 and then goes to Isaiah to find the quote - guess what? That's right, he will not find it! I believe in an Inerrant Bible. If you want an Inerrant Bible without error or contradiction Mark 1:2 must read "the prophets", not "Isaiah the prophet".

2. An Attack on the Preservation of Scripture by

Taking Away from the Words of God in Romans 1:16

Truth (Received Text)

English: (KJV)

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is...

Portuguese: (TBS 1994)

Porque nao me envergonho do evangelho de Cristo, pois é...

Spanish: (Valera 1602-R*)

Porque no me averghenzo del evangelio de Cristo; porque es...

Perversion (Critical Text)

English: (RSV)

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power...

New World Trans. (JW)

For I am not ashamed of the good news; it is...

Spanish: (RV 1960)

Porque no me averghenzo del evangelio, porque es...

Notice that the words "of Christ" are missing in the Critical Text bibles. I believe God preserved every word including the words "of Christ". Is every word important to you? If you want a Preserved Bible you must have the words "of Christ" or you will leave room for "another gospel" (II Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:6)

3. An Attack on Salvation by Grace by Adding

to the Words of God in I Peter 2:2

Truth (Received Text)

English: (KJV)

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

Portuguese: (TBS 1994)

...o leite racional, nao falsificado, para que por ele vades crescendo;

Spanish: (Valera 1602-R*)

...la leche no adulterada de la palabra, para que por ella crezcáis:

Perversion (Critical Text)

English: (RSV)

...long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation;

New World Trans. (JW)

...milk belonging to the word, that through it you may grow to salvation,

Spanish: (RV 1960)

...la leche espiritual no adulterada, para que por ella crezcáis para salvación,

Notice that this time the Critical Text bibles add the words "to salvation". I believe in instantaneous salvation by grace not in works or process salvation. What do you believe? Does your Bible agree with what you claim to believe?


4. An Attack on the Severity of Hell by Changing

the Words of God in Job 21:7-13 and Other Passages

Truth (Received Text)

English: (KJV)

Wherefore do the wicked live ...?... and in a moment go down to the grave.

Portuguese: (TBS 1994)

Por que razao vivem os ímpios...?...e num momento descem a sepultura.

Spanish: (Valera 1602-R*)

¿Por qué viven los impíos ...?... y en un momento descienden á la sepultura.

Perversion (Critical Text)

English: (RSV)

Why do the wicked live ...?... and in peace they go down to Sheol.

New World Trans. (JW)

Why is it that the wicked ...keep living...?...and in a moment down to Sheol...

Spanish: (RV 1960)

¿Por qué viven los impíos ...?...y en paz descienden al Seol.

Believe it or not, the Jehovah Witnesses got it right on that one! On the other hand, the RV 1960 and the RSV teach that the wicked go to Sheol in peace. That sounds pretty Catholic to me. I do not believe there is any peace in Hell, do you?

Also, while the KJV has the word "Hell" in 54 verses the RV 1960 only uses it 13 times giving preference to the more politically correct "Hades" like other modern versions. In fact, guess how many times the RSV uses "Hell"? That's right, 13!

5. An Attack on the Person of Christ by

Taking Away From the Words of God in Ephesians 3:9

Truth (Received Text)

English: (KJV)

...in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Portuguese: (TBS 1994)

...em Deus, que tudo criou por meio de Jesus Cristo;

Spanish: (Valera 1602-R*)

...en Dios, que creó todas las cosas por Jesu Cristo.

Perversion (Critical Text)

English: (RSV)

...in God who created all things;

New World Trans. (JW)

...in God who created all things.

Spanish: (RV 1960)

...en Dios, que creó todas las cosas;

I believe Jesus Christ is my Creator and not a created being like the Jehovah Witnesses teach. Why would Baptist fundamentalists defend a Bible that agrees with the JW bible against the KJV? If you want Christ as Creator in Ephesians 3:9 do not use the RV 1960!

6. An Attack on the Person of Christ by

Changing the Words of God in Luke 2:22

Truth (Received Text)

English: (KJV)

And when the days of her purification...

Portuguese: (TBS 1994)

E, cumprindo-se os dias da purificacao dela,...

Perversion (Critical Text)

English: (RSV)

And when the time came for their purification...

New World Trans. (JW)

Also, when the days for purifying them...

Spanish: (Valera 1602-R*) Y cuando fueron cumplidos

los días de la purificación de ella...

Spanish: (RV 1960)

Y cuando se cumplieron los días de la purificación de ellos

How important are pronouns? In the true Bibles "her" refers to Mary and in the false bibles "their" or "them" refers to Mary and Jesus. Mary needed purification but did Jesus? I believe Jesus Christ is the pure, spotless Lamb of God. Do you want a Bible that teaches that Christ needed purification?

7. An Attack on the Person of Christ by

Changing the Words of God in Daniel 3:25

Truth (Received Text)

English: (KJV)

...and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Portuguese: (TBS 1994)

...e o aspecto do quarto é semelhante ao Filho de Deus.

Spanish: (Valera 1602-R*)

y el parecer del cuarto es semejante al Hijo de Dios.

Perversion (Critical Text)

English: (RSV)

...appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

New World Trans. (JW)

...of the fourth one is resembling a son of the gods.

Spanish: (RV 1960)

...del cuarto es semejante a hijo de los dioses.

In the Received Text Bibles, Nebuchadnezzar recognized the fourth man in the fiery furnace to be like the "Son of God" (Capital and Singular). In modernist bibles he recognizes the fourth man to be like "a son of the gods" (lower case and plural). I believe in a "Capital G" God. Which do you believe to be the correct rendition?

8. An Attack on the Person of Christ by

Taking Away from the Words of God in Matthew 5:22

Truth (Received Text)

English: (KJV)

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

Perversion (Critical Text)

English: (RSV)

But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment;...

Portuguese: (TBS 1994)

Eu, porém, vos digo que qualquer que, sem motivo, se encolerizar contra seu irmao, será réu do sinédrio;...

Spanish: (Valera 1602-R*) ...cualquiera que se enojare sin razón con su hermano, estará expuesto a juicio;...

New World Trans. (JW) ...everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice;...

Spanish: (RV 1960)

...cualquiera que se enoje contra su hermano, será culpable de juicio;...


Omitting the words "without a cause" from these verses makes Jesus "liable to judgment" because Jesus was angry in Mark 3:5. The Critical Text verses also contradict the command in Ephesians 4:26 to "be ye angry and sin not". In fact, of the three Critical Text bibles the RV 1960 has it the worst. The JW bible at least reads "continues wrathful" and the RSV says "liable to judgment". The translation of the RV 1960 to English is "whosoever is angered against his brother shall be guilty of judgment"! Jesus is NOT guilty of judgment because when He is angry it is not "without a cause". I personally believe He is angry with the RV 1960 "with cause".

The above comparisons should make it very clear that this is not simply a "different language" issue as some claim. The real issue is the "different source". It is not coincidence that the examples in three different languages all match with each other – they all come from the Received Text. It should also be no surprise that the Spanish RV 1960 matches with the RSV, NWT, and other perversions – they all come from the Critical Text. Not to mention that the RV 1960 is a product of the United Bible Societies and men like Eugene Nida, Westcott, and Hort!

I trust that these eight comparisons are enough to convince anyone with an open heart and mind to the truth. Some will continue using the RV 1960 and that is their choice. However, please do not believe ignorant statements such as, "the RV 1960 is the King James Bible in Spanish" because we just saw eight examples where a truer statement would be, "the RV 1960 is the RSV in Spanish". We have also seen the error in stating, "I believe the KJB is the Word of God in English and the RV 1960 is the Word of God in Spanish" because God only has one Word in any language. In the words of Pastor Mickey Carter, "Things that are different are not the same"!

If you are still not convinced please compare the verses in the following partial list of verses that have changes, additions, or omissions to the Words of God in the RV 1960. (Genesis 1:14, 18:19; Numbers 23:22, 33:52; Judges 18:30; I Samuel 5:6; II Samuel 22:3, 23:18; Ezra 2:43; Job 11:12; Psalm 2:12; Isaiah 9:3, 64:5; Jeremiah 5:17Matthew 5:22, 6:24, 20:20, 24:22, 28:19; Mark 1:2, 2:27; Luke 2:22, 5:17, 16:23, 21:5, 22:43, 24:12; John 3:36, 5:29; Acts 15:17, 19:27, 22:16; Romans 1:16, 4:8,23,24, 10:9, 10:15; I Corinthians 10:9; II Corinthians 2:10, 4:14; Galatians 3:2, 5; Ephesians 3:9, 3:14, 6:24; Colossians 3:10; Titus 3:10; I Peter 2:2, 3:21; Revelation 14:1, 17:5, and 22:14) to name a few.

Then refer one more time to the following words of God:

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. (Proverbs 30:5-6)

If you are convinced of the corruption in the RV 1960 we can move on to the question, "What Spanish Bible should we use?" Allow me to continue my testimony. For 20 years my parents used a Portuguese Bible that contained the Words of God but also contained corruption (just like the RV 1960). They used the truth to win souls and disciple them but they still desired the pure Word of God. Some defend the RV 1960 because of the souls that have been won with it. That can be used to supplement the defense of a Bible (like the KJV) but it should not be used as the basis of defense. Like Spurgeon won souls with the Revised Version, others have won Catholics to Christ with their Catholic Bibles. Does that mean we should continue using them? In 1994 the Portuguese Bible (the one used in my comparisons) was revised with the Received Text and my parents and other missionaries made the transition because they were interested in the truth and not in tradition. Purity was more important to them than popularity.

I do not understand why this has not been the case with the Spanish world. There are good soul winners and church builders using the RV 1960. Again, I am not attacking them or the truth contained in the RV 1960. However, I am attacking the "leaven" that is contained in the RV 1960 because I Corinthians 5:6 states, "Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" I am also urging people to stop trying to defend the RV 1960 at the same time they are supposedly defending the KJV because that is either ignorant or deceptive. To truly defend the one you must attack the other. They are not the same and in fact, they are not even in the same ballpark! My desire is that we keep winning souls and building churches in the Spanish world but that we do it with the purest Spanish Bible available. The comparisons should have made it clear that the RV 1960 does not fit that description.

So what is the purest Spanish Bible available? I do not have time to share all the research I have done but let me share briefly about the 1909, 2001, 1865, and 1602-R* revisions.

Many have been using the Valera 1909 revision, recognizing its superiority to the RV 1960. It is much better than the 1960 and in fact some defend it as the Word of God in Spanish. It has scores of better readings than the RV 1960 including Job 21:13, Matthew 5:22, Luke 2:22, and I Peter 2:2 from our comparisons. Unfortunately, the United Bible Society basically monopolizes the Spanish Bible industry. If you go into an average "Christian" bookstore you will only find the RV 1960 or even more modern "per"-versions. However, the 1909 is still in print and available through conservative Bible distributors and local church bookstores. If nothing else, exchange your United Bible Society's RV 1960 for a purer 1909 revision.

Just last year, in 2001, the Trinitarian Bible Society released their revision of the Valera 1909 revision. It improves upon the 1909 in several key passages including Mark 1:2, Romans 1:16, and Ephesians 3:9 from our comparisons. I believe the TBS 2001 Valera is the best full Bible available in print.

In 1865 there was a good revision of the Valera Bible bringing it very close to the Received Text. This Bible went out of print long ago but there is a group reprinting it. I have the 1865 on CD ROM and a hard copy of the New Testament. The whole Bible is due to be printed in April of 2002. It has the correct rendition of all the verses used in my comparisons.

Last but not least there is the Valera 1602-R* project. This project has a threefold approach. First they are "Regressing" to the old 1602 Valera text as their textual base (instead of the 1909 or other modern revisions which rely on the critical apparatus). Second, they are "Restoring" words and phrases omitted in the 1602 that appear in other Spanish translations prior to 1611 agreeing with the Received Text. Third, they are using the Received Text and "Revising" any remaining textual problems. This project has been underway for over 6 years and has been misrepresented, falsely accused, and attacked. However, their New Testament is now available in its second edition and the "proof is in the pudding". This is the Spanish text used in my comparisons and it matches the Received Text in every verse I have compared. I believe this is by far the best Spanish New Testament available. They are currently working on the Old Testament and hope to have the complete Bible soon.

My prayer is that we will unite and encourage all who are for purifying the Spanish text rather than fighting amongst ourselves. Also, I pray that true Bible fundamentalists will take a stand against corrupt texts like the RV 1960. Thank you for your time and may the Lord bless you as you faithfully serve Him with the pure, perfect, and preserved Words of God. Please feel free to contact me with any feedback, questions, comments, or requests for more information such as contact information for the Bibles and New Testaments mentioned above.

Yours for the Preserved Words of God (in any language),

Allen Johnson

Director of the IHLBC

Esther 4:14

Contact Information

Landmark Baptist College

810 E. Hinson Ave.

Haines City, FL 33844