We just finished our first Bible conference ever hosted by the Bible Baptist Church of Labranza. It was a great time! The greatest thing about it was the great and challenging theme that was presented. In practically every systematic theology curriculum or book the first topic or doctrine is bibliology. That is because without a Bible there is really no sense in talking about theology. Without a Bible we can share dreams and visions, opinions and philosphies, but we will always wind up talking about what man says about God; not what God says about man. The Bible is absolutely necessary. And, the inspiration and preservation are also absolutely necessary to be able to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. So, we tackled those themes and more in the conference.
The big question is then, does the Reina-Valera Bible represent without error the inspired and divinely preserved Word of God in Spanish? We can say with absolute certainty that the Reina-Valera 1960 Bible does NOT represent the inspired and perfectly preserved Word of God originally delivered to Christians of the New Testament in the Hebrew Preserved Text and in Greek through the Apostles. How do we know that? We know that through the very words of the translation committee of said version itself.
www.labibliaweb.com says,
Nevertheless, in some cases, where it is preferable to use the critical text instead of the traditional Textus Receptus, the committee made simple changes…
For those of us that are convinced on the basis of the very doctrine of divine preservation of the Scriptures that Textus Receptus IS God’s Word in Greek, this statement is a smoking gun. The revisers admit openly in their webpage to all the world that they in fact DID change the Reina-Valera Bible in the 1960 to reflect what is found in critical text (now the Nestle-Aland text) and eliminate the reading of the Textus Receptus.
This statement is repeated by Jose Flores, former head of the Bible Society of Spain, in his book titled “The Text of the New Testament.”
A principal added to the first list of the Revision Committee of the Reina-Valera (1960) was: ‘Where the Reina-Valera Versión has left the Textus Receptus to follow another better text, we will not return to the Receptus.’ Point number 12 of the ‘Working Principles’ says: ‘In cases where there is doubt about the correct translation of the original, we will consult preferentially the English Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, the Revised Standard Version of 1946 and the International Critical Commentary.’
These quotes stand as a clear testament concerning the corruption that was introduced into the Reina-Valera Bible on purpose by men who prefer the critical text and think the Textus Receptus is old and full of errors.
The question is not, Has the Reina-Valera been compromised? The question is, Will the Spanish-speaking churches accept this compromise of the purity of the Word of God? The Bible Baptist Church of Labranza will not. And there are many more who are using the Reina-Valera-Gomez Bible, which has found and removed these critical additions or omissions.
Do you have any links or further info on: Reina-Valera-Gomez Bible? I bought a Spanish Bible and was teaching myself Spanish (well, at least how to read it). The Bible I had ordered turned out to be a 1960 R.V. Comparing various passages, and looking up verses that typically have changes in them in the modern versions, I noticed some phrases removed (such as “without a cause” in Matthew 5:22) and other passages changed. This discouraged me from continuing to learn from that Bible. We just had our Missions conference, and one missionary from Mexico had a 1960 R.V. Sad. How can someone teach and preach from the KJV in America, then go to a foreign country and be content preaching from a modern version (basically!)? If this Spanish Bible you referred to does not have these same errors, but is also in modern (ie. current or modern day) Spanish, that would be something I would be interested in finding out more about. Thank you.
Jerry:
Thanks for commenting. I have a blog in Spanish with links to resources on the RVG and other positions. The address is http://www.palabraspuras.wordpress.com. But, I can give you the links here. http://www.literaturabautist.com has a great deal of information against the RVG. Calvin George is a RV60 proponent. Then the official site for the RVG has a lot of information in favor of at http://www.reinavaleragomez.com.
The main reason I believe that baptist missionaries have not complained about the RV 1960 is that most do not want to make waves. They know the issue will cause them to lose support and they don’t have very informed convictions on the issue. They are much more interested in just “winning souls.” Now, I am also for winning souls and so are evangelicals, but I am also for preaching the whole counsel of God and giving preachers a solid basis for their faith. And there is no denying that the RV60 adds many changes in favor of the critical text. This should be unthinkable for a Baptist missionary.
Con todo el respecto que se merece el trabajo piadoso que ha hecho el Hno. Gómez, quisiera informarle de que la Sociedad Bíblica Trinitaria también está llevando a cabo una revisión a la Biblia Reina Valera 1602/1909. Más informaciones se encuentran en su sitio web, http://www.SociedadBíblicaTrinitaria.org
Bendiciones….
William Greendyk
William:
Thank you for letting us known. I am very much interested in what TBS is doing. Please keep us informed. I will be looking at your site regularly, and hope to be in touch personally.