I was recently given a copy of the 1602 Purified Bible along with a copy of Robert Breaker’s attack on the Reina-Valera-Gómez Bible (RVG). It has been interesting to watch how these two groups react toward each other. They both have the same basic goal, the purification of the Spanish Bible. But, do they have the same tactics and spirit? Do the have the same intellectual honesty and discipline? These are great questions. Therefore, I thought it my duty to present Breaker’s thoughts and refute many of them. I have not seen, nor think I will ever see an attack by the RVG people against the 1602 Purified. However, there is no mistaking this article by Breaker as an attack on the RVG. Let’s look at a few of his comments…
Breaker’s Examples of TR Departures in the RVG
This is the area that most interests me. When we talk about synonyms and equivalents we could argue all year long. However, if there is a literal departure from the TR that supports a Critical Text variant, that is extremely serious business. Let’s see how the RVG does, according to Breaker. His comments are in black and mine are in red.
John 5:33 The original 1602 and the 1602 Purified say “a la verdad” (like the KJV rendering to the truth). The Gomez changes this to “de la verdad” (of the truth, like the 1960). The Greek has ta alatheia, which means TO THE TRUTH. Why the change? Why doesn’t it follow the KJV and TR here?
Right out of the box Breaker is extremely deceptive here. The Greek word “ta” may appear to be similar to the English word “to” and he may be trying to give the impression that he knows what he is saying. However, he conveniently withholds the truth that “ta” is the article “the” and there is no preposition here. The preposition is placed there based on interpretive translation in both versions. And, good defenses can be made for both “to” and “of” in this case. I would like to see Breaker try to translate the John 8:44 occurrence of “ta alethia” with the preposition “to” or “a”. The 1602P has it as “en la verdad” not “a la verdad.” Again in 1 Co. 13:6, where there is no preposition given, the 1602 translates it “en la verdad.” Will he keep his own rules there as well?
John 5:34 The 1602 Purified corrects the original 1602 with the KJV reading of “estas cosas,” (these things) which is of course the Greek word tauta. However, the Gomez translates “esto,” (like the 1960), which in English is, “this.” There is a big difference between these and this. One is plural the other is singular.
There is not really a big difference between these and this in this context. But, you can judge for yourself. However, Breaker is not telling you that he is supplying in his translation the word “cosas” which is not at all in the Greek, it is “this” and “these,” not “these things” or “this thing.” There is a difference there also that he doesn’t tell you about. Also, check out Matthew 1:20. If “tauta” should always be translated “these things” or “estas cosas,” why doesn’t the 1602P read, “Y pensando él en estas cosas,…” Didn’t they review the 1602P thoroughly with the Textus Receptus? What about Matthew 19:20, 21:23, 21:24, 23:23, Mark 10:20, Luke 6:23? Luke 6:23 is especially interesting. Perhaps Breaker would have us translate the phrase “kata tauta” as “in the same things” or “en estas cosas”?
John 5:43 Here the Gomez Bible translates the word as “esté (sic),” or this in English. (As I learned in Spanish class in High School, this and these have the “t’s” in Spanish, that and those don’t!) The Greek TR word is ekenon, which means THAT or THAT ONE. The 1602 and 1602 P use aquel (sic), which also means that one! Is it okay to use that and these interchangeably? Or should the Greek word be translated literally?
(Note: This verse has been corrected in the Gomez in a later edition and changed to ese (sic).)
Breaker shows his ignorance here when he uses a verb “esté” instead of a demonstrative pronoun “éste.” To use his own comment, any graduate of a highschool Spanish class knows the difference! J What is more, the RVG says “ése” now not “éste,” but he insists on mentioning it.
John 6:21 Gomez omits translating the Greek word eutheos, or immediately, as it’s translated in the King James. Fortunately, the 1602 Purified caught that this was left out of the original 1602, and added the word inmediatamente into the text. But why did the Gomez miss this, if it went verse by verse and claimed to have ADDED words that were missing?
By leaving this out, we have a DOCTRINAL ERROR? For if the word in Greek is immediately, then this would be another miracle that Jesus did. As soon as he entered the boat, he IMMEDIATELY was on the shore with his men. See the importance of knowing Hebrew and Greek, so you can translate every word?
First, Breaker states that the RVG omits translating this. This is false. The RVG in fact does translate it as “luego.” However, the question to ask it is… is it always translated “immediately” or “inmediatamente” in the 1602P? How about 3 John 14? All I see is that it is really Breaker who doesn’t have his Spanish or Greek down. Word Study Dictionary – εὐθέως euthéōs; adv. from euthús (G2117), straight, immediate. Immediately, instantly, straightway, forthwith (Mat_8:3; Mat_13:5; Mar_1:31; Act_12:10). By implication, meaning shortly (3Jo_1:14). Strong’s Lexicon – yoo-theh’-oce Adverb from G2117; directly, that is, at once or soon: – anon, as soon as, forthwith, immediately, shortly, straightway. The definition of “luego” depends on the context and can vary from “instantly” to “shortly.”
John 6:22 The Greek word omitted (sic) in the original 1602 and the Gomez is estakos, which means standing, as it’s translated in the King James. The 1602 Purified, caught that this word was not translated in the 1602 original and added the words de pie in their version. How come the Gomez Bible missed this? And why does it miss it again in John 11:56 also?
Breaker’s lack of attention to details not only shows in his English, but in his Spanish and Greek. Breaker offers his own definitions of a Greek words without proper documentation as to the real definition, expecting people to just believe him. This works nicely when you decide to put forth your own definition and ignore the actual definition. Strong’s – G2476 ἵστημι histēmi his’-tay-mee; A prolonged form of a primary word στάω staō (of the same meaning, and used for it in certain tenses); to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively): – abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up). Compare G5087. This gives ample room to question Breaker’s interpretation here, and in the many other verses that he criticizes in the RVG regarding this same topic. To insist that this word always be translated a certain way is impractical and disingenuous.
John 6:63 The Gomez Bible has the wrong verb tense when it says os he hablado (I have spoken to you). The KJV says “I speak” (present tense). 1602 and 1602 P say “hablo” (I speak). In the Gomez, truth is what Jesus SPOKE, not what he SPEAKS today! The greek word is lalo, and of course is in present tense. Interestingly enough, the Gomez Bible here follows the 1960 and NIV in translating it in past tense.
This criticism is true. The verb tense is definitely a clear difference between the TR and the WH or UBS GNT. The difference is between “lalo” and “lelalāka”. It should read like the KJV present tense “speak”, not “have spoken.” The problem is that the 1602P makes the same “mistake” in John 8:25. Weren’t they careful to check the Textus Receptus? And in that case there is no difference between the texts, they simply translated differently. So is it just a “mistranslation” on the part of both? Or, is there a reason to translate it that way? There is. The time frame is given by the Lord as past, but a present tense verb is used. This could be done in Greek, but it is very strange in English and Spanish, making it impossible to use the present tense “speak.” So, this raises the question, is there some liberty when dealing with verbal tenses? The truth is there are verbal constructions in Greek that cannot be translated with absolute satisfaction in Spanish or English or Russian. This is the most difficult task in translating.
John 7:44 The Gomez has “mano” (singular). The Greek words are tas xeiras, which are plural. The KJV translates it hands, and so do the 1602 original and the 1602 Purified. Why doesn’t the Gomez follow the TR and the KJV here, as it’s supposed to?
Good question. Many times changes like this are made to make a translation more readable or understandable. The normal phraseology of a language demands that a plural be made singular due to common usage. If this is not true, why did the 1602P miss the same change in Mat. 26:50? And why did the 1602P translate “manos” correctly in Mark 14:46 but mistranslated the preposition “epi” with “en.” Since when do people lay their hands “in” someone? Do we have a new doctrine here? Or are these men surgeons? J And what about Luke 20:19? Why didn’t the lay their “hands” “in” him? Isn’t the 1602P omitting a word there? I am just asking this to prove that if Breakers standards are applied to the same Bible he is trying to defend, it also comes up short.
John 7:49 The Gomez has “es” (interestingly enough just like the 1960 reading) instead of “son” like the KJV reading (are). The Greek word is eisi, which is plural. The word should be son just like the original 1602 and the 1602 Purified have it. Even a first year Greek Student would not make such a mistake!
Breaker is ignorant of common Spanish. This is just another example. When translating, the translator cannot force his foreign understanding of verb conjugation on another language. In today’s Spanish they do not conjugate this collective noun with a plural verb. It is conjugated as singular. Apparently in the past it was translated as plural. But today it is not. You can verify this by doing a Google search of Spanish grammar sites that use the word “gente” and see that it is used in a singular sense.
John 8:6,8 The Gomez says, “inclinando al suelo” (bending down to the ground). The Greek words are kato kufas, meaning bending down, as the KJV says. There is no mention of the word suelo (floor). This is an addition in the Gomez but not taken from the Greek. The 1602 and 1602 Purified match the KJV with inclinando hacia abajo. Interestingly enough, the 1960 reads like the Gomez here.
Actually “katos kufas” is “down bending.” The Purified does not match the KJV either as it adds the word “hacia.” “Hacia” is not in the Greek. The Greek doesn’t say “toward down bending.” It says “down bending.” The KJV is a two word functional translation “bending down,” and the most accurate. The RVG has a functional translation “inclinando al suelo,” which is very accurate. And, the 1602P has a functional translation that adds a word for understanding, “inclinando hacia abajo,” and is also very accurate. Both the Spanish versions are equal and legitimate translations of the Greek. We can additionally note that this phrase is exclusively found in John 8:6 y 8, and nowhere else in the Greek New Testament. Additionally, the translation of “kato” in the 1602P in Matthew 27:51 reveals that “abajo” was at one time a combination of a preposition and a nominative just like “al suelo” – “a bajo.” In the 1602P in Mark 15:38 has a different translation of the word “kato.” It is translated “a abajo,” adding an extra preposition. Where will this type of criticism stop?
John 11:27 Here the Greek word is legei, which means he says (in present tense). Sadly, the Gomez translates it “dijo” (past tense as he said). The 1602, and 1602 Purified get it right with the present tense dice, like the KJV. This happens time and again in the Gomez Bible, where it follows the 1960, and changes the present tense he says to he said. Just a few other places are John 11:39 and 44. But shouldn’t the Greek word be translated EXACTLY AS POSSIBLE? And shouldn’t the tense be important?
Yes, and in verse 25 “eipen” is an active second aorist indicative, which is normally translated as a simple past tense, which is how the KJV has it, but the 1602P “mistranslates” it as a present tense. Shouldn’t these Greek words be translated as EXACTLY AS POSSIBLE? Yes, but they should not sacrifice the understanding by breaking the narrative tense. Normally the narrative should be in a single tense. In Greek the tense jumps back and forth; however, in Spanish the tense should be maintained. The RVG does this, and so does the 1602P. They are simply different, but synonymous.
John 11:56 Gomez leaves off translating the Greek word estakotes, which means standing. The 1602 P has it! It’s translated as de pie. The Gomez omits translating this word in John 12:29, John 18:5,16,18,22, John 19:25, John 20:26, and many more times in the book of John. But I thought it went VERSE BY VERSE and ADDED omitted words?
The RVG did not omit any words here. “Estakotes” is translated “estando.” Which, as you notice is extremely similar. It is the 1602P that adds words to the Scriptures here. The KJV has “stood,” but it does not have “on feet” as added in the 1602P. We covered the Greek definition earlier.
John 12:22 The Gomez Bible changes “dicen” (1602, 1602P and KJV), the present tense word from the present tense Greek word legosi, to the past tense word “dijeron.” Why? The Gomez Bible does this all too often, just a few more places are John 13:21, 14:6, 18:26,38,
This is really the height of hypocrisy! In the very same verse Breaker complains that the RVG changed the tense of “legousin” while making the error of writing “legosi,” which is not even in the verse; then he misses the fact that the 1602P translates the present active indicative “leyei” as past tense “dijo.” This is really ridiculous! If you make a rule you would think you could stick to it at least in the same verse.
John 13:21 Gomez says “diciendo” (saying). Greek word is PAST TENSE, so it should be dijo (said), just like the 1602 and 1602 P have it!
Now I’m cringing every time Breaker makes a comment like this. What about “eipen” in Matthew 3:7? The 1602P has that 2nd aorist active indicative as “decía” instead of “dijo.” However, it is true that it might be more accurately translated as the 1602P has it here, especially considering the RVG did not include “kai” in there translation. That means the word was omitted.
John 20:2 Gomez says “corrió y vino” (past tense). Greek is in present tense. KJV says runneth and cometh. 1602 P says corre y viene. Original 1602 has it in past tense.
The first verse is in past tense. It does not do damage to the narrative or the sense to keep it in past tense. The inspired words are there and translated. In the Greek run and come are two different tenses, PAI and PNI. Why doesn’t the 1602P show that? Verse one is in the past tense. It does no damage to the narrative or to the sense to translate it in the past tense. The inspired words are there and translated.
John 20:27 Gomez reads “dijo” when others say dice (present tense) for the PRESENT TENSE Greek word. (Gomez does the same in verse 28, as well as in John 21:3,9,12,15).
Again, the whole narrative is in past tense. This is done on purpose to maintain the narrative.
End comments
This is by no means an exhaustive treatment of Breakers paper or of the issue at hand, but I thought it would serve to demonstrate some of the reasons there is such in-fighting among those who want a pure Bible. Tone aside, Breaker makes a couple of good points. However, as can well be seen, many times he isn’t a very good judge of Greek or Spanish. He claims later that “malagradecidos” is too big a word for the Bible and that “mezquindad” is a strange word. Could it be that Breaker’s understanding of Spanish is really the problem and not the RVG? I would have to say that is the case. But, I know you all are free to judge for yourselves that’s why this is a blog entry and not a citation.
To sum things up, my problem here is with Breaker and his apparent superiority complex. The 1602 Purified appears to be a very serious purification project. We hope that the actual colaborators have a better attitude and are more reasonable than he. I don’t know if they approve his message in their defense. It would be interesting to know.
Estimado hermano Heinz, Gracias por sus palabras. Es triste ver como el hermano Breaker, haciendo lo que hace, solo añade confusión y contribuye a la crítica en contra de la Pureza de la Palabra de Dios.
Dios tenga misericordia.
Una crítica constructiva siempre será bienvenida.
Humberto Gomez
Hermano Gómez, igulamente le doy las gracias por comentar aquí. Es muy cierto lo que usted dice. Dios mediante habrá más cooperación en el futuro en vez de confusión. Gracias por su obra de amor en la purificación de la Palabra.
“And What About the Gomez Bible?”
by Jeff McArdle, Th.D.
The advertisement put out by the Gomez organization listing “Dr.” (unearned title he plastered 4 times in his bible) Gomez’ website and advertising his bible, says that it “reads like the beloved English King James Version.” This of course is an “untruth” and in this tract and subsequent tracts we will document the reality that, far from reading like the KJB, the Gomez bible in fact corrupts the original Valera 1865 Bible against the King James.
To be clear about this, the reader should note that Gomez claims to have “revised” his Bible based solely on the 1909 Valera bible. Though this may be true, we shall document in this series of articles that he many times went with the 1960 reading against the KJB and against every other Spanish Bible ever produced. But even if it were true that he only relied on the 1909, why begin with a text that was purposely lined up with the Westcott and Hort corrupt critical text (see documentation at the end of this article), against all attempts by Latin American Christians to keep their beloved Valera Bible pure?
They come to me and ask, “And what about the Gomez Bible?” I’ll cite the history. In 2002 Mickey Carter held a Spanish Bible Conference for the purpose of, said he, “Coming to a consensus on the correct Spanish Bible.” Present and accounted for were 4 groups, 3 of which claimed to be in the PROCESS of producing the correct Spanish text (Gomez, Monterey and the TBS). Only one of the groups claimed to already have it (The Valera Bible Society).
We, the Valera Bible Society, believe and affirm that the Spanish-speaking people have had the correct text for 400 years. We, the Valera Bible Society, believe that God speaks Spanish, and we further believe that having 3 distinct and CONCURRENT groups, ostensibly purifying the text, is disorder, confusion and blasphemy. The Gomez Bible has been revised 4 times since 2004. Confusion!
The other 3 groups are NOT producing anything remotely resembling a PURE text, because they are all using a text (the original Valera) that THEY say is NOT pure, as the basis for the revision. Question: If it is NOT pure already, than why use it as the basis for a revision. Answer: They are too lazy to produce their own Bibles. So they have taken others men’s work and put THEIR name on it. This is called “stealing”.
To add insult to injury, one of these groups (Gomez) now claims that his text reads “like the beloved King James English Bible.” How would that help a man in Bogota or Havana? THEY DON’T SPEAK ENGLISH IN LATIN AMERICA! Sure, we know what he is trying to say. But what is shameful is that no matter how you look at what Gomez is saying, it is NOT true. I am going to list right here 8 verses where Gomez’ bible does not match the KJV. Eight verses where the KJV equivalent was already present in the original Spanish Bible in 1865 or even further back in 1602. Question: What right does Gomez have to change the Spanish Bible and remove words that were correct at least 100 years before he was born and then claim that his Bible reads like the “beloved King James English Version?” I am going to list only 8 out of the hundreds of verses that have become glaringly obvious in just a few cursory perusals of his text.
I have not decided yet when we are going release the hundreds of other corrupt verses in the Gomez bible (though anyone could easily find them if they would take the time to study). Perhaps we’ll wait for each of his subsequent revisions (he has already revised it 4 times in 4 years). Why continue this game of musical chairs when his people have already had the Scriptures for more than 400 years? Confusion!
Here are the first 8 and then I’ll answer the previous question for the reader. Understand, we are pointing out that he is less than honest when he states that his bible is the King James in Spanish. Some people call this an untruth. Others call it an “unfortunate statement.” We’ll be charitable and call it a lie. (Note: in almost each of these verses, the “Gomez” bible lines up with the 1960 and against the original 1602 and against the KJB):
1) Galatians 2:20
KJV: the life which I now live in the flesh
1865: la vida que ahora vivo en la carne
Gomez: lo____ que ahora vivo en la carne
1960: lo____ que ahora vivo en la carne
(Comment: The word life is actually removed twice by Gomez, because the direct object pronoun la is also removed in Spanish, referring directly to the word life).
2) Ephesians 1:10
KJV: all things in Christ…even in him
1865: todas las cosas en Cristo…en él digo
Gómez: todas las cosas en Cristo…________
1960: todas las cosas en Cristo…________
(Comment: This is a direct reference to Jesus Christ. The words are in every text – English, Greek and of course the Spanish – for 400 years).
3) Hebrews 9:14
KJV: blood of Christ…purge your conscience
1865: sangre de Cristo…purgará vuest. conciencias
Gomez: sangre de Cristo…limpiará vuest. conciencias
1960: sangre de Cristo…limpiará vuest. conciencias
(Comment: Obviously there is no such place as purgatory, with fire to “purge”, if the blood of Christ is what does the purging. The Gomez says to “clean” or even “purify” (limpiar). But it does NOT say “purge.” This is sloppy revision work by a man [Gomez] who is trying to reach Catholics in Mexico when the Valera has been correct for over 400 years!)
4) I Timothy 3:8
KJV: must the deacons…not double tongued,
1865: diáconos sea…no de dos lenguas,
Gomez: diáconos deben ser…sin doblez _____
1960: diáconos deben ser…sin doblez _____
(Comment: Anything we can do to help out the two faced hypocritical Christians and preachers in America who have a problem with the TONGUE!)
5) Ephesians 4:16
KJV: according to the effectual working
1865: conforme a la operación eficaz
Gomez: conforme a la ______ eficacia
(Comment: Christ is “working” in me – Phil. 2:13 and I Thess. 2:13! Is He “working” in you?)
6) II Timothy 2:21
KJV: sanctified, and meet for the master’s use
1865: santificado y útil para los usos del Señor
Gomez: santificado, y útil _______al Señor
1960: santificado, y útil _______al Señor
(Comment: The devil will use you, abuse you and then lose you. Christ will use you, care for you and then glorify you! Amen!)
7) Hebrews 12:1
KJV: the sin which doth so easily beset us
1865: el pecado que tan cómodamente nos cerca
Gomez: pecado que ______________ nos asedia
1960: pecado que ______________ nos asedia
(Comment: Corrupt W & H Greek text is the reason for this change, and the difference between the words cerca [besiege] and asedia [bother]).
KJV: by them that heard him
1865: por los que le oyeron a él mismo
Gomez: por los que oyeron __________
1960: por los que oyeron __________
(Comment: This verse has been correct for more than 400 years. Why does our good “Dr.” wait until 2004 to take Jesus Christ out of the verse?)
I was participating in a mission’s conference in Texas in 2004. I received a call from Mr. Gomez, who asked me to meet him for breakfast at the Laredo Dennys. In that meeting he invited me to the “unveiling” of his new Bible.
This meeting was to be in Milton, Florida at Victory Baptist Church (Jim Fellure). At that meeting he also told me that the old Valera 1865, was absolutely correct. So I asked, “Why change it then?” His answer: “Well, there are some words that I prefer over others.” And that is the heart of the problem when it comes to the word of God in any language. The human heart is so dark that men are willing to change “what God hath wrought” for their own preferences.
I went to the meeting in Milton, Florida with Mr. Gomez. One good thing I got out of that meeting was that I am the “proud” owner of the very first Gomez NT ever to come off the press, complete with Mr. Gomez’ autograph. It is his Bible after all (he holds the copyright)!
Gomez invited me to that meeting but he never gave me a chance to speak. After I had refuted thoroughly any of his preferences, he proceeded, from the pulpit, to attack the readings of the old Valera 1865, even after I had showed him he was wrong according to what God has stated in His word! Oh the human heart is a tricky thing, is it not?
What are these preferences that Gomez is so worried about? One of the verses that Gomez spoke of at the meeting on Nov. 30, 2004 was Psalm 68:11, which he says is an erroneous reading in the original Valera:
KJB: The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.
1865: El Señor daba palabra: de las evangelizantes había ejército grande.
Gómez: El Señor daba palabra: Grande era el ejército de aquellos que la publicaban.
The words “las evangelizantes” (which translated means simply “evangelists”, feminine gender), seem to give the impression, to the casual reader, that those who are charged with the preaching of the gospel are woman. In other words, the ones publishing the “palabra” (word) are women (though the word “women” does not appear in the text in Spanish). These words are obviously the correct translation for the word in Hebrew תּוֹשּׂרּבּמּהּ (feminine gender, hamesaberoth). These words are feminine in Hebrew, feminine in Spanish, and feminine in English, because the passage tells you that women are involved (v. 12 states that the words in the 1611 “of those that published it” refer to “she that tarried at home divided the spoil”).
Now I realize that Psalm 68:11 as it stands in English makes great preaching and can be used as a great moniker for a Bible printing ministry. But changing a verse that deals doctrinally with the 2nd advent, in order to suit your own preferences is not wise. The verse as it stands doctrinally refers to the female prophets of God in the OT who prophesied of the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. Please note Ex. 15:21, Judges 5 and I Samuel 2. Interestingly enough, Valera himself made reference to these verses in the footnote found alongside Psalm 68:11 in his original 1602 Bible. Additionally, if the spiritual application were made known here, the argument could easily be made that those who are charged with preaching the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in this age are the churches. The church is the bride of Christ and as such is female. No matter how you apply the verse it is correct as it stands in the original 1602 Valera Bible.
The following documented quote shall serve as proof positive that the 1909 Valera Bible revision committee based their revision on the wrong text: “In December [1907] the committee proposed [that the] Greek basis be Westcott and Hort, with the English Revisers Text [RV of 1881] and Nestle,” Text and Translation: European Languages, Essay #16, Part V, D, Eric North, ABS, April, 1967, p. 36. Conclusion: Gomez based his revision on the wrong text. The same article goes on to state that the missionaries and native Spanish speakers were against the revision and the corrupt Greek text they used: “…a group of missionaries in Buenos Aires question the use of Westcott and Hort and Nestle Greek Text, but Versions Committee does not change,” (Ibid., p. 42). Welcome to Laodicea!
Jeff:
Thanks for dropping by to comment.
First, if you think comparing the Spanish Bible to the KJV is wrong, then you need to let the promoters of the RV1865 know. We don’t have any control over that here. They do it all the time in the States because it is their beloved Bible in English. I see nothing wrong with it.
Second, the other three groups you mentioned were in a process of revision and your society was not because you only see one side of the issue. You don’t believe there are any differences between the KJV and the Valera 1865 even when you are showed them. So, your criticism only reflects poorly on you.
However, let’s get to the important issue though, the text.
Galatians 2:20
La RV1865 contains the word “vida (life)” without italics, which means that it is supposed to be in the original text (TR). Where is it in the text? What text? The word is included for understanding of the text but is not mandated by the original. As for “la,” you demonstrate your ignorance of Spanish. “La” in this case is a definite article, not a pronoun. That mistake is as laughable as the mistakes that Breaker makes in his booklet. Is “the” a new pronoun in English? The original Valera had it exactly like the RVG. It is the RV1865 that changed this verse.
Ephesians 1:10
You misquote the RVG. It reads exactly like the KJV. The RV1865 here differs more with the KJV than the RVG.
KJV That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:
RV1865 Que en la dispensación del cumplimiento de los tiempos, juntaría en uno todas las cosas en Cristo, así las que están en los cielos, como las que están en la tierra; en él digo:
RVG que en la dispensación del cumplimiento de los tiempos, había de reunir todas las cosas en Cristo, así las que están en el cielo, como las que están en la tierra, aun en Él.
The word “digo” is not in the KJV, it is not in the RVG, and it is not in the TR.
Hebrews 9:14
The issue is the use of the word “purge.” Do you believe, Jeff, that the word “katharizo” should always be translated “purge.” Why then doesn’t the KJV do that? Why doesn’t the RV1865 do that? In all these verses the word “cleanse” is used for “katharizo” in the RV1865: Mat_8:3 , Mat_11:5, Mar_1:42, Luk_4:27, Luk_7:22, Luk_17:14, Luk_17:17, Act_10:15, Act_11:9, Mat_23:25, Mar_1:40-41 (2), Luk_5:12-13 (2), Luk_11:39, Mat_10:8, Mat_23:26, 2Co_7:1, Eph_5:26, Jam_4:8, 1Jo_1:9, Mat_8:2, Mat_23:25, Mar_1:40, Luk_5:12, Luk_11:39, 1Jo_1:7. Do these make the RV1865 a Bible favorable to the catholics? What about the fact that the RV1865 does not have the word purge in Hebrews 9:22 y 23, where the KJV does? That is sloppy commentary. The fact is the original Valera translated “cleanse” as well – “alimpiará.” The Valera has been correct for 400 years; it just didn’t say what you say it said. That’s sloppy study too.
1 Timothy 3:8
This is just silly. The two are the same.
Ephesians 4:16
The TR has one word for “effectual working.” It is translated as one word in the KJV as “working” without the word “effectual” attached in Eph_1:19, Phi_3:21, Col_1:29, and 2Th_2:9. But it is translated “operation” in Colossians 2:12 and simply “strong” in 2 Thessalonians 2:11. I suppose you would have it read “working delusion.” “Eficacia” means “working.” You just have to look it up in a Spanish dictionary. The RV1602 has “operation.” The RV1865 adds the word “eficaz” because they recognized that the term includes “eficacia.”
2 Timothy 2:21
Notice first of all that the RV1865 does not contain the word “purge” in this verse when the KJV does. Is that to please catholics too? But now we see how little you know of translating and Greek. The phrase in Greek is three words, “euchreston toe despote,” which verbally translated means “useful to Master” or “useful to Lord,” or more understandably “useful to the Lord.” This is exactly what the Spanish and the English says. Apparently you are not aware that the term “useful” is an English word which implies use and usefulness. “Útil” does exactly the same thing in Spanish.
Hebrews 12:1
Again, you show a real lack of understanding regarding translation. The Greek TR word is “euperistatos.” So the KJV translates one Greek word into five English words. The Spanish does it in three. Is that bad?
As for texts, again you demonstrate ignorance. The Critical Text is exactly the same in this verse.
As for the word “asediar” you better look that up in a Spanish dictionary again. I checked a few, and they all agree that it means the same as “cercar.”
Hebrews 2:3
You misquoted the RVG. It says “los que le oyeron.” The “le” is the masculine pronoun “him.” The RV1865 adds “mismo” unnecessarily. The KJV doesn’t have that. If it did it would read “heard him himself.” But, it just says “heard him,” just like the RVG, and unlike the RV1865.
Psalm 68:11
Your assertion is ridiculous. Now you want the gender of every Spanish word to agree with its Hebrew counterpart! That’s pretty funny. I wish you well in your gender inclusive revision of the Bible. I’ll be sure to let your constituents know that you believe the KJV is in doctrinal error here. The RVG obviously agrees more with the KJV in this verse than the RV1865. The “she” of v.12 is singular, not plural, therefore “kings” and “she” are to be considered part of the company that published.
It appears Jeff that though you have a doctorate in theology, you need to learn to go back and study thoroughly. There are those who get honorary doctorates, and there are also those who get their doctorates through less than academic schools. I’m not saying that’s the case with you though. I havn’t studied that out yet.
Jeff:
Please tell us why in the following verses the RV1865 does not agree with the KJV or the TR, and why you are content to promote a Bible that follows the Critical Text in them. And tell us why there are different versions of the RV1865 available today. Which one do you use? The original?
Matthew 24:2 – The name of Jesus is absent.
Matthew 27:41 – “And the Pharisees” is added.
Mark 6:33 – “the people” is missing.
Mark 6:44 – “about” is missing.
Luke 2:22 – “Maria” instead of “her” [some TR have this, KJV does not]
Luke 9:43 – “Jesus” is missing.
Luke 13:35 – “verily” is missing.
John 8:28 – “my Father” is changed to “the Father”
John 14:28 – same as previous
John 16:10 – same as previous
Acts 5:23 – “without” is missing.
Acts 25:6 – “more than ten days” is changed to “no more than ten days”
Titus 2:7 – “sincerity” is missing.
If you were as honest a student of the Word as you say, and as sincere in your conviction of the preservation of the Scriptures in the TR and the KJV, you would not promote the original RV1865 as the perfect Word of God in Spanish.
My Brother,
1) We have never claimed the the original Valera, by way of its outstanding representative the 1865, is like the KJV in any way. It can’t be. It’s in Spanish. That is the position of the Valera Bible Society. I care not what others say. You say “you don’t believe there are any differences between the KJV and the Valera 1865 even when you are showed them.” Believe me, I know there are differences, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPANISH AND ENGLISH. I have NEVER claimed the the Valera1865 “reads like the beloved King James Version” as has Mr. Gomez.
2) Gomez is the one who claims that his Bible “reads like the KJ” when it does not and I have proven it.
3) You were right when you said that I only see one side of the issue: God’s side. Because God produced the Valera Bible 100-400 years before I was born. Gomez has not been given authority by anyone to change it. He should produce his own work and stop calling his corruption a Valera Bible.
4) Gal. 2:20, the KJV has the word “life”. So does the 1865. I don’t care if Gomez has it or not. But he should not claim that his Bible “reads” like the KJV when at least in that verse it does not.
5) Eph. 1:10, you say “It appears Jeff that though you have a doctorate in theology, you need to learn to go back and study thoroughly”. Well you should take the beam out of your own eye. You were looking at Eph. 2:10 but what I sent you was Eph. 1:10. You will see that I was absolutely correct.
6) Heb. 9:14, the issue was NEVER how to translate the Greek. The issue is that it was correct in Spanish for 400 years AND SERVED AS A PROOF TEXT AGAINST THE CATHOLIC TEACHING OF PURGATORY. What right does Gomez have to change it?
7) I Tim. 3:8, OK, you go on thinking they are the same.
9) Heb. 12:1, I’ll concede this one.
10) Heb. 2:3, you say “It appears Jeff that though you have a doctorate in theology, you need to learn to go back and study thoroughly”. Well, again I say, you should take the beam out of your own eye. I have all 4 editions that Mr. Gomez has printed and NONE of them has the reading that you have given to me (“los que le oyeron”). Check it again and you will see that I was absolutely correct. And again I ask, if the KJV AND the Valera have been correct for 400 years, who is Gomez to change it. By what authority? Just because Heinz says so?
Now, my brother, I have nothing against you personally. I don’t know you. But you have only two choices: You can go to the Chilean people and tell them that they DONT have the word of God in their language (but thankfully there is a Mexican named Gomez, who though he is unable to command the Castilian as well as the Chilean people can, he is working on perfecting it. Oh look! He already has revised it 4 times in 4 years). Or you can tell them that they have had the word of God in their language, even BEFORE the gringos had it, in 1602, and that the source of this Bible is not a broken-Spanish speaking Mexican, but rather, the original fount of the language by men who were MASTERS of the language. It is your choice.
As far as my doctorate goes, 1) I do not use the title “Dr.” in the United States because of the way that it has been cheapened. I have already explained this. 2) At least I earned mine. 3) I’ll stand my education up against any Baptist preacher in America and we’ll see who comes out ahead. I have a BA, MA and a THD. All of them I earned and most of it IN THE CLASSROOM. I am thankful that I was trained by the best. It is not the title, but what was learned. My education allowed me to train men in Cuba, in one of only two Baptist seminaries on the Island, teaching them the Bible, including Greek, from a grammar that I personally wrote IN SPANISH. Remember, I’m not the one going around boasting about my title. I DONT USE THE TITLE on any of my literature, books, tracts, etc. in English, (though I have the RIGHT to do so because I EARNED the title, unlike your friend “Dr.” Gomez).
The position of the Valera Bible Society is, simply stated, that God speaks Spanish, and that he doesn’t need Gomez’ help to preserve His word in their language. Our position is that the original Valera Bible, by way of it outstanding representative, the Valera 1865, is the INSPIRED word of God for the Spanish speaking people.
Amen!
I can easily answer every one of these “problems”. But why am I answering your objections and you haven’t answered mine. I responded to everything you said, and all you do is send more objections. Please respond to EVERYTHING I said, in a systematic fashion, just as I have done for you. Any rational dialogue functions this way. Unless of course you are trying to “tempt” me, as they did Christ, with foolish questions that engender strife, in which case our discussions can not continue. Please respond to my objections and in the meantime I will respond to what you have written here.
In Christ
Jeff:
Personally I try to avoid discussion of all the many corollary issues like Brother Gomez using the title “Dr.” It doesn’t bother me. It doesn’t bother me that he didn’t invite you to preach for instance. What does that have to do with anything? The text issue is much more important to me. So, if I seem to avoid some issues, you’re right.
But now you seem to be claiming that I didn’t answer you on the text issues above, or didn’t read carefully what you said because I mistakenly put Ephesians 2:10 instead of Ephesians 1:10. I have corrected it above, but you need to go back an answer what I wrote. I showed that the latest edition of the RVG definitely does include the pronoun, just like the Valera 1602, but the RV1865 actually adds the word “digo” and omits the word “aún.” Neither are explicitly used in the TR, but the RVG reads closer to the KJV than the RV1865. So, I answered you with sound arguments and you ignore them.
I’ll give you only one other example for sake of time. Perhaps Monday I can respond a little more thoroughly. On Hebrews 9:14 you insist that the word purge must be in the Spanish Bible and that it has been there for 400 yrs. The Valera 1602 did not have the word purge. I wrote that, and you ignore it. The original Valera uses the word “alimpiará” not “purgará.” My reference to translation was an explanation as to why these two words are essentially the same.
But you still have not answered Heb. 2:3, Heb. 1:3. We can play this game of “my Bible” “your Bible” all day long. Gomez can “patch” the Bible and put bandaids on it all day long. I have documented 100’s of verses where Gomez reads against the TR (which is not my final authority in spanish) and against the KJV (which is not my final authority in Spanish). Apparently you have revision #5. When will it end? Never, because not only is he pretending to line up with the KJV, he is destroying the Valera. Proof? Taking Maria out of Luke 2:22 may be OK for you TR worshippers, but it is not OK for the Spanish speaking people. GOD GAVE THEM ADVANCED REVELATION IN 1602 THAT IS NOT IN THE TR! The TR for me is just EVIDENCE. The INSPIRED text in Spanish is the Valera and NOT the TR. The TR is in GREEK, not Spanish and emphasizing MARIA in Luke 2:22 is PERFECT and inspired. MARIA needed purification, NOT Christ!
Well, that makes things easy, just accept the RVG as advanced revelation then. How convenient! Your only problem is that the Bible no where teaches advanced revelation, but rather preservation.
Hebrews 1:3 changes “purged” to “expiate,” which in Spanish means exactly the same thing and actually agrees much better with Old Testament teaching of expiation. “Expiate” is used 214 times in the RV1865 Old Testment in the prefiguration of the sacrifice of Christ in the New Testament. “Purge” is only used 7 times.
Diccionario de la lengua española © 2005 Espasa-Calpe S.A., Madrid:
expiación
1. f. Pago o reparación de las culpas mediante la realización de algún sacrificio:
vive solo en el monte como expiación de sus pecados.
Diccionario de la lengua española © 2005 Espasa-Calpe S.A., Madrid:
purgación
1. f. Purificación a través de la penitencia y el sufrimiento.
2. pat. Enfermedad infecciosa de transmisión sexual que se caracteriza por una inflamación de los conductos urinarios y genitales y que produce un excesivo flujo de moco. Más en pl.
Which of these two definitions is a better or clearer term?
I did answer Hebrews 2:3. The latest edition (downloadable) of the RVG has it right. The RV1865 is simply redundant there, and does not agree with the KJV.
Yes, I believe in advanced revelation. But I don’t believe that the church mandated to preserve or “keep” the word, like Philadelphia (Rev. 3:8 & 10). If Gomez is the author of advanced revelation, then why not Eugene Nida in 1960. Why did you switch from the 60 to Gomez? What is wrong with the Valera that God preserved in Philadelphia? And if there is something wrong with it, why use it as a foundation for a new Bible? Be honest and start from scratch.
Of course the downloadable copy is going to fix all of the corruptions I have pointed out because he is never going to finish revising it. It will never be settled. It is settled for me!
In regards to Heb. 1:3, your musings are fine, BUT IT DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION OF IT NO LONGER SERVING AS A PROOF TEXT AGAINST THE INFERNAL TEACHING OF PURGATORY! You can throw into the arena all of the definitions from the DRAE and OT cross references. That does not mean that it matches the KJV and that does not mean that the verse continues to serve as the ONLY proof text against purgatory. You are the one who is ignoring me.
I think that this incessant bantering has become fruitless. If you are content with the Gomez and all of its morphing than stick with it. But please do not pretend that it is the KJV in Spanish. It is not and never will be. God wrote the KJV to the English speaking peoples of the world, not to Chileans. I am surprised you don’t know this. But this is typical behavior for some Americans who try to force their culture onto the peoples of other lands. Now you are trying to force your Bible onto them. Welcome to Laodicea!
In the second blog above, I meant to say that I don’t believe that Laodicea is the church mandated to preserve and “keep” the word of God. We are living in Laodicea. If Gomez’ downloadable version is so wonderful, what about all of the copies that have arrived to the field that have all these hundreds of verses wrong. Why use a faulty foundation when the Valera has been correct since at least 1865?
There is a real disconnect here on Hebrews 1:3 between us. I said the RVG says exactly the same thing as the RV1865, just maybe a little better for Spanish speakers. So how does that affect the doctrine of purgatory? If the RV 1602 denies purgatory and the RV1865 denies purgatory and the RVG denies purgatory, where is the problem? The RVG says made expiation of our sins and sat on the right hand of the Majesty on high. The RV1865 says that having purged our sins, He sat on the right hand of the Majesty on high. The use of the word expiation does not water down the meaning, especially when it is the prefered term for the Old Testament typical foreshadowing of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice.
Yes, but the RCC teaches that even though Christ made “expiation” for our sins, that does not carry you through to Heaven. Your mortal sins commited while being a member of the “one true apostolic church” must still be dealt with. So the RCC, based on I Cor. 3, invented a place called “purgatory”. This is to them the place where the sins of the “Christian” (ie, RC congregant) are “purged”. There is only one verse in Spanish, going back all the way to 1602, that says that Christ has ALREADY purged our sins when he died on the cross. That verse is Heb. 1:3 and it is the ONLY proof text against purgatory and the erroneous teaching of the RCC in regards to I Cor. 3:11-15. The only question that remains is, what right did “Dr.” Gomez have to change the word. I agree with you. Titles matter not. What matters is the text. And the position of the Valera Bible Society is that the Chilean people have had the correct “text” for 400 years.
By the way, I visited the national library in downtown Santiago and asked them to let me see the oldest Spanish Bibles they have on record. After an hour the lady brought to me 2 Spanish Bibles and BOTH of them were 1865 Bibles. This is to say that the first Bible to ever make entrance into Chile was the 1865 TEXT. Which is to say, that when the Chileans come to you and ask you why you do not use the 1960 like everyone else, you have two opposite answers: 1) You can say that a Mexican named Gomez is helping them out. 2) Or you can say that you have returned to the FIRST Bible to ever hit Chilean soil. AMEN!
For those who are interested, there is a long article defending the RVG’s use of expiation in Hebrews 1:3. (here)
As for me, I will restate, I believe God preserved his Word in the Textus Receptus NT and therefore, I evaluate translations, versions, and revisions according to that standard. A subtle diffence of words like that between “expiation” and “purgation” will not persuade me that some wrong has been done. My concern is Critical Text corruptions. The Reina Valera 1865 has some of those just like RV1909, so I do not see how starting with the 1865 would be advantageous. Starting from scratch as Jeff suggests would certainly be noble, but it’s not necessary, when the vast majority of words in both the RV1865 and the RV1909 agreed with the TR.
Heinz has now begun addressing me in the third person. This reveals his heart. He never did care about my opinion or getting me “the truth”. He is writing for his “audience”, whomever they may be. As I stated previously, Heb. 1:3 is the ONLY verse in the entire Valera1865 Bible and the entire King James Bible that destroys irrefutably and forever the RC doctrine of purgatory. This verse states that our sins were purged at Calvary. The RCC teaches expiation. So do Baptists. But expiation is NOT purgation and Gomez had no right to change the word.
Again, our brother is revealing his heart. He states, “I believe God preserved his Word in the Textus Receptus NT and therefore, I evaluate translations, versions, and revisions according to that standard”. DA Waite and Humberto Gomez would be proud. So now the Spanish speaking people, WHO DONT KNOW GREEK, have only one recourse, and it never was or will be ANY Bible in Spanish. And the English speaking people have no recourse, and it certainly would NEVER BE the King James Bible. Now we know that every person living throughout the Americas must learn Greek, because that is where “God preserved his Word”. And if the cant learn Greek they will have to turn to Heinz and Gomez to give them light that they can not get in Spanish or English.
Critical Text corruptions?! Critical Text corruptions?! The Gomez is replete with them as I have shown. I have not released the dozens that I have found in just a cursory glance at his text. It came from the 1909 and therefore by default must be filled with corruptions. He started from the wrong base. The 1865 has NO critical text corruptions (any and all variations are variations between TR text, Erasmus, Beza, Stephens, etc.). It could not possibly have an Critical Text corruptions because the Critical text did not come out until Westcott and Hort. Gomez HAS to have Critical Text corruptions, being based on the 1909, which is BASED ON THE CRITICAL TEXT. Quote: “In December [1907] the committee proposed [that the] Greek basis be Westcott and Hort, with the English Revisers Text [RV of 1881] and Nestle,” Text and Translation: European Languages, Essay #16, Part V, D, Eric North, ABS, April, 1967, p. 36. Conclusion: Gomez based his revision on the wrong text.
Gomez had better start from scratch, or he will be guilty of changing the word of God in Spanish. He has no more right to change the Valera then Heinz has to change Shakespeare. Can you imagine, “Hamlet: The Donald Heinz Edition”. Welcome to Laodicea!!
Thanks for commenting, Jeff. I think your writings pretty well speak for themselves, and often times do not deserve responses.
You mean they CANT be responded to!
No, that’s not at all what I mean, and I think you have said enough to prove my point to those reasonable people who read this.
Amen my brother! It is absolutely clear the gulf that separates Bible correctors from Bible-believers. I’ll see you and DA Waite and Humberto Gomez at the judgment seat of Christ. Christ will straighten out our crooked ways. To Him be the Glory.
I hope to see you there too. I’m sure it will be an enlightening moment for all of us.
Bro. Heinz, thank you for doing a fine job of demonstrating yet again why much of the accusations of errors in Bro. Gomez’s revision is just a bunch of nonsense, which is why many Bible-believers today are not taking guys like McArdle and Breaker seriously.
How can anyone take McArdle seriously when his arguments are so full of double-standards and hypocrisies?
For example, McArdle complains that one of the reasons Bro. Gomez had no right to revise the Spanish Bible is because he is living in the Laodicean church period. So only those of the Philadelphian church period (1500-1900 AD) were truly led of God to engage in Bible translation and revision. Yet, here’s a funny thing. In the leather-bound parallel editions of the 1865 Valera Bible that can be purchased through his society’s website (I have a copy), in the back of them is a list of 50 changes that were introduced and incorporated into the text JUST WITHIN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. In other words, his society is selling Valera Bibles that have been changed (revised) during the Laodicean church period. Now isn’t THAT interesting.
Why is it wrong for Bro. Gomez to do this but it’s OK for them to do it? Why is he ranting and raving about Bro. Gomez revising the Valera Bible during the Laodicean church period when the ones he uses and promotes are not even original 1865 Valeras, but instead they are recently revised editions with 50 new changes (updates, mainly additions) that are listed in black and white right in the back for everyone to see? Sounds like a double-standard to me.
HOW HYPOCRITICAL! Yet, how humorous!
(Ah, yes…the Judgement Seat of Christ will indeed be interesting.)
Thanks, Manny, you beat me to the punch. I had heard that they had changed the 1865, so I was looking for a copy nearest to the original. Do you know if anybody is actually printing and unedited 1865?
Bro. Heinz, here is a link where the original 1st edition of the 1865 is available:
http://mestizapresspublishers.com/Biblia1865.html
Also, via email I am sending you a list of the 50 changes that were recently made in the 1865 Valera, which McArdle’s society sells.
The Valera Bible Society is printing the original text of the original 1865 without any changes. Our position is that we reject any and all changes made to the text other that typographical errors and orthography. No word changes will ever be made by the Valera Bible Society.
McArdle, why are you being dishonest? I have a copy of the leather bound parallel 1865 Valeras that is sold on your website. And in the back of it is a list of changes that are NOT orthographical or typographical changes. They are additions. Here are some of them (space forbids me to post all 50 of them in one post):
1. Genesis 2:18 “de gracia” added
2. 2 Sam. 21:19 “al hermano de” added
3. Job 32:1 “propios” added
4. Psalm 139:24 “eterno” added
5. Prov. 8:17 “de ma�ana” added
6. Prov. 21:2 “propia” added
7. Matt. 24:2 “Jes�s” added
8. Mark 6:44 “como” added
9. Mark 7:14 “a s�” added
10. Mark 8:19 “le” added
11. Mark 10:14 “a mi” added
12. Luke 2:4 “tambi�n” added
13. Luke 6:44 “propio” added
14. Luke 8:36 “tambi�n” added
15. Luke 9:43 “Jes�s” added
16. Luke 13:34 “O” added
17. Luke 13:35 “de cierto” added
18. Luke 14:26 “propia” added
19. John 8:28 “m�o” added
20. John 10:17 “m�o” added
It is hypocritical for you to chastise Bro. Gomez for making changes in the 1909 Valera when your people have made changes in the 1865, of which all 50 of those changes are listed right in the back for all to see. How can you deny it?
Jeff:
How can advanced revelation need changing? And, is the changing super-advanced revelation then?
The position of the Valera Bible Society is that these changes were unnecessary and therefore we reject them. Our “people” did not print these changes. I have given you the position of the Valera Bible Society. What more should be said. We do not deny that there is a Bilingual edition out there with the afore mentioned changes. We reject them. Just as we reject the changes made by Gomez.
None of the changes made to the bilingual edition come close to the destructive and confusing activity of the Gomez Bible. He is destroying the beauty, accuracy, precision and grandeur of the Valera Bible. Besides, he is destroying the cross reference structure found in the Valera Bible. Besides all that, he is using as his basis a corrupt text. Besides all that he is taking the glory for the final product. Besides all that he is calling himself a Doctor when he is not.
Well that’s strange. You reject these changes, yet you continue to sell this changed Valera 1865 (bilingual edition) on your website. Hmmmmm….
I never said your people PRINTED these changes. I intimated that it was your people that suggested or introduced these changes according to a rumor that I heard from Robert Breaker himself. But I provide that this rumor could be wrong. So to set the record straight, my question for you is “who suggested these changes”? Surely it is not a secret. Or is it?
You say that Bro. Gomez is destroying the “beauty, accuracy, precision and grandeur of the Valera Bible.” But why is it that so many Bible-believing national Pastors all over the Castilian speaking world reject the 1865 and use the RVG instead? There are national Hispanic Pastors and laymen in Spain and South American countries, who are very fond of the Castellano language, that use the RVG instead of the 1865 or 1909 as they win souls, preach the Gospel, and establish Bible-believing churches. These Hispanic Bible-believers don’t seem to think the RVG destroys the beauty of the language nor the “cross reference structure” at all.
And you, as well as Robert Breaker, amaze me with your ability to know Bro. Gomez’s motive. Since when did God start giving that gift out?
As far as his Honorary Doctorate that he received by Dr. Mickey Carter, President of Landmark Baptist College, Bro. Gomez has done more in the last 8 years than most earned Doctorate recipients have done in a lifetime. He has invested 8 years into revising a Spanish Bible that Bible-believers all over the world (many who have earned degrees) are recognizing to be the best Spanish Bible available. That accomplishment is much more than I can say for those with earned Doctorates who have done absolutely nothing worthwhile with their education other than judge motives, spread falsehoods, sow discord, and criticize others.
McArdle, perhaps you and your “society” should reconsider further revising your 1865 Valera because it is far from perfect. For example, in Num. 31:39 the KJB says:
“of which the LORD’S tribute was threescore and one.”
Now compare:
1865 – “y el tributo de ellos para Jehová, setenta y uno.”
RVG – “y de ellos el tributo para Jehová, sesenta y uno.”
Bro. Gomez’s revision agrees with the KJB that the Lord’s tribute was 60 and 1. Your 1865 Valera disagrees with the KJB by saying 70 and 1. I’m sure you know the difference between 60 and 70. So which is right and which is wrong? Is the KJB right or the 1865? They can’t both be right. I believe the KJB, the final authority, is right and Bro. Gomez was wise for sticking with the KJB instead of the 1865 in this verse.
Like I said, the bilingual edition is still vastly superior to anything Gomez is putting out. And my dispute with Gomez is not the 8 years of work he did (though he wasted precious time and resources ruining an already perfect Bible called VALERA), but that he deceptively tries to make people think he is something he is NOT. Eight years of work does NOT excuse lying and deception.
As far as all these pastors who are using the Gomez, there are a lot of people who use the NIV in Spanish. And??? There are a lot of people who use the 1960. And???? There are a lot of people who use Dios Habla Hoy. And???
How many Gomez Bibles have been burned by the Catholic church. I’ve got pictures of Catholics burning Valera Bibles before Gomez was born. And then Gomez pops up and does EXACTLY what the RCC did for years. He destroys the Bible that Valera gave his life for by removing “Maria” from Luke 2:22 and “purgación” from Hebrews 1:3, and about a two dozen other pro RCC corruptions added by Gomez. And your worried about 71 versus 61 when the ORIGINAL Valera is so clearly anti-RC. And you just sit there and watch while he destroys the BOOK and makes it pro-RC. If Bro. Gomez is so wise, then why did he NOT stick with the KJV in Heb. 1:3. What is more important? The Bible doctrine of purgation or the number of ASSES in Num. 31. I guess you forgot to look at verse 33 where the Gomez ALSO disagrees with the KJV. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO PUT A STOP TO THE REVISION WORK AND ACCEPT WHAT GOD HAS GIVEN TO THE SPANISH PEOPLE YOU DIRTY HYPOCRITE? “They can’t BOTH be right” you lying Bible corrector! Beware the scribes!
Who made the suggestions for the changes? I’ll tell you who. You and about 30 other critics of the Valera Bible who constantly bray about piddling nonsense WITHOUT checking to see that passages like Mat. 24:2 and Luke 9:43 represent the difference between ERASMUS and BEZA. Mat. 24:2, in the context, can only be Jesus and it is redundant to repeat the name Jesus IN THE CONTEXT. The Spanish language, as I am sure you are unaware, does not lend itself to redundancy. God knew that even if you don’t. God speaks Spanish even if you don’t. Luke 9:43, in case you haven’t noticed, is even clearer in Spanish FOR the deity of Christ. Go back and read it again.
I should have known you were in cahoots with Breaker. Birds of a feather flock together. El diablo los cria y ellos se juntan! Neither of you have spent enough time STUDYING the Bible to know that there is a cross-reference structure in the Valera Bible. In fact, you’ll never know it because you have already destroyed it and what Valera wrote in 1602 is no longer important to you. If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch!
Jeff and Manny:
Please give me a time out for a couple of days. I will be presiding over my mom’s funeral tomorrow. I need the time and cannot be concerned for what might appear here. Thank you for your understanding.
I’ll be praying for you and the family.
Jeff:
You are guilty of the very accusations that you throw with venom at other people. You hypocritically dismiss the errant verses in the 1865 like you say that we dismiss problems in the Gomez. When the truth is, on many occasions we personally have read your concerns or the concerns of other men who see problems in the Gomez and make corrections accordingly. You in turn just dismiss with insults anything we say. Then you state that the changes shouldn’t have been made in the RVG or there shouldn’t be new editions. Who is the hypocrite?
Here is evidence. I don’t have to go far in you latest comment to prove your hypocrisy. You see the addition of the name “Maria” in Luke 2:22 as a good thing when in God Himself chose not to put Maria’s proper name in there in the original. No manuscript contains Maria’s personal name there. There is no justification for it other than to isogete the passage to create a proof-text, when “her” is just a clear as can be. The only female antecedent in the passage is Mary. Reina and Valera added Mary because they thought it would be clearer, but that is a preferential decision, not a textual preservation decision. So, this is only evidence of where your advanced revelation theories will take you. Given time you will have a very different Bible than what God gave us.
The same is true of Hebrews 1:3. The difference between “purgation” and “expiation” is only found in the English and Spanish translations. God Himself did not make that distinction in the original because the Greek word is exactly the same for both. So for you to wear yourself out trying to force your ideas into the Bible so you can have a “proof-text” is not honest hermeneutics or Bible translation.
You are correct. There is NO manuscript that has Maria… Except the ORIGINAL Valera. You see, when you say “God Himself chose not to put Maria’s proper name in there in the original”, you identify yourself for what you really are – a man who worships the original manuscripts. You are correct, God did not put “Maria” in the TR. But then again, NOONE in Chile speaks greek. God DID put it in the Valera. Are you better than God? Are you better than Cipriano de Valera? You say that it was “preferential” for Valera. Why is your preference better than his? How do you know that “Maria” was not in the originals when the originals don’t exist. You say that I will “have a very different Bible than what God gave us”. Who is the “us”. I have a Valera Bible that has remained unaltered since at least 1865. We have decided to never change it. This is the Bible given to the people in Chile. It is called Valera. Luke 2:22 is the same as it has been for 430 years. Who are you to change it? Who gave you that authority? You are a Bible corrector. You are an “original manuscript”olator. You have NO final authority but Humberto Gomez, in spanish. You are your only final authority so that you may LORD IT over your sheep and maintain your priestly airs while keeping the Chilean Christians in the yoke of your bondage. No member of your congregation will ever have any final authority except you (and you don’t even know Greek well enough to be any kind of authority in that language) and when you are gone they will have nothing. You and Humberto Gomez (and he does not even know Spanish well enough to be an authority in Spanish) have now become the final authority. Congratulations!
Well, Jeff, it’s apparent that you just like to chase your tail. I just hope you don’t get hurt doing it. Your circular reasoning and lack of sound Bible doctrine of inspiration and preservation have lead you a long way from the Words of God. I pray you find your way back some day. Thanks for commenting here. Sorry we can’t help you.
I never asked for your help. As I have already stated, you are the one with the problem. You have no final authority but yourself and your preferences. You claim that your authority is the “original”. Yet they do not exist. This leaves only you as the authority. The Chilean people were better off with the inquisitors on their back, instead of you, who “compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” You think your so smart, to give them a Bible that has no final form, that lines up with the RCC, that destroys the beauty of their language. Mt 23:24 “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”
My reasoning is NEVER circular. I have only ONE final authority that I have ever presented to the Spanish speaking people: It is the Bible that God gave them. You have four. The KJV, “the original”, the Gomez and the TR. I am not confused. You are. I am not correcting ANY Bible, you are. You are not a Bible-believer, I am. If standing for the ONE Book given to the Chilean people is “chasing my tail”, then I am happy to chase it. That’s what junk-yard dogs do, as well as GUARDING THE GATE. I will defend the Valera until my dying breath. You can defend Humberto Gomez (all 4, or is it 5, or…however many versions of it) until your dying breath. I will let God judge me for NOT changing His word, the Valera Bible. God will judge you for CHANGING it. We will both stand there before Him. You can take up my tail chasing with him. I’ll be able to stand there and say, “Lord, I had to learn this lesson the hard way, but I have not changed YOUR words in Spanish. I have defended them. I offer up my service to you. Amen!” What will you say? “Lord, I told my people that their Bible was imperfect, but we used the English Bible, and a Greek Bible, to make 15 revisions over a period of 20 years….”
Like I said, chase your tail, if you like. I can’t help you.
Never asked for your help.
Like I said, I never asked for your help.
Jeff McArdle thinks he’s a “junk yard dog”? LOL! Hey Jeffrey, Dr. Ruckman already used that line. I hate to break it to you but you’re gonna have to come up with your own line and learn to be original. LOL!
On a more serious note, congratulations McArdle. You are right that Num. 31:33 is in disagreement with the KJB. So here’s what I did. I just called Bro. Humberto Gomez and pointed out to him the discrepancy in Num. 31:33 and guess what he said? He said he is on his way back home right now and as soon as he gets home he is going to fix it to read just like the KJB. So when the next edition of the RVG is printed Num. 31:33 will be corrected. Praise the Lord! Thanks, Mr. Junk Yard Dog.
You see McArdle, that’s the fundamental difference between YOU and Bro. Gomez. Bro. Gomez is humble and honest. YOU are a stubborn idiot. And the proof of this is that when a mistake is shown to Bro. Gomez, he fixes it. When a mistake in your 1865 Valera is shown to you, you go on a feminine-like tirade about Bibles being burned by the RCC, Bro. Gomez’s honorary doctorate, how I’m in “cahoots” with Breaker just because he told me something (ask Breaker if we’re in cahoots), how I’m a “Bible corrector” just because I believe the 1865 Valera should be changed in places that disagree with the KJB (MY final authority), and a dozen other meaningless rants.
But no matter how much you continue to run in circles and make excuses, the fact remains that the 1865 Valera, though it is much more textually pure than the 1960, is still not perfect and therefore needs revision. Num. 31:39 is a blatant error in the Valera 1865. And there are many more errors like it that need to be corrected. And the reason why we Bible-believers, who believe the KJB is the standard and superior to the 1865 Valera, will choose the RVG over the 1865 any day of week is because we know that the RVG is an honest effort going on to produce an edition of the Spanish Reina Valera Bible that lines up with the KJB.
We are the true Bible-believers, not you McArdle. We want our Spanish Bible to be in agreement with the KJB. You want to lie to your people by trying to convince them (and yourself) that there are no errors in the 1865. Well have fun living in Disney land, but some of us will continue to rejoice that we finally have a Spanish Bible that is being corrected with the KJB as the standard.
I strongly considered using the 1865 Valera before when I was searching for a pure Spanish Bible. And when I heard that your people had made 50 changes I thought that at last there were some brave brethren finally doing something about the Spanish Bible errors. But then you guys BLEW IT by deciding to go backwards instead of forward. So as long as you and your cohorts refuse to acknowledge the very real problems that exist in your Bible, Bible-believers like myself who sincerely want to use a completely pure Spanish Bible will continue to ignore your mindless rants against anyone and everyone who disagrees with you.
And another thing, McArdle said something about “which one is more important”. Isn’t that what the NIV, ASV, RSV supporters say? They try to justify errors in their bibles by trying to point out errors in our Bible. But the Bible says “every word of God is pure” Pro. 30:5. It also says in Mat. 4:4, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
The RVG is an attempt to produce a Spanish Bible that has “every word of God” in Spanish. McArdle and his crowd are not concerned with the 1865 Valera having “every word of God” in Spanish otherwise they would acknowledge errors like that of Num. 31:39 and fix them. Instead they choose to live in a dream world by trying to convince everyone that these errors actually don’t exist or are really not that important. Well good luck with that.
I never called my self a jundyard dog. Heinz called me a dog. If that’s what he thinks than that is fine with me. LOL. If being associated with Ruckman is the way you guys can marginalize me, that is also fine. I have never called any of you a dog. And there is nothing feminine about defending your position. My position is that the Spanish Bible is PERFECT for the Spanish speaking people. There are NO proven errors. Don’t forget, it was here BEFORE the King James Bible was. If the KJV is your final authority and you are going to conform the Valera to the King James, you and Gomez will spend the rest of your lives revising it because there will always be something more to revise. In fact, as long as I continue to point out the errors in Gomez’s Bible, he’ll keep revising it for ever and eventually there will be 20 or 30 DIFFERENT Gomez Bibles. Imagine having responsive reading in a Gomez Bible church. It will sound like a bunch of hens cackling because every one will have a different revision.
There is nothing humble about presuming to be able to correct God. There is nothing humble about slapping your name on a Bible, along with the names of others who have gone on before. There is nothing humble about about calling yourself a “Doctor” in order to gain attention and respect and fame, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU NOT A “DOCTOR”.
You call me an idiot. Thank you. That is exactly what Peter and John were called by the Pharisees. Ac 4:13 Entónces viendo la constancia de Pedro y de Juan, sabido que eran hombres sin letras e idiotas, se maravillaban; y los conocían que habían estado con Jesús. That just means, according to the Bible, that I’ve been with Jesus.
There is nothing mindless about realizing that two different languages operate in different ways. If you knew Spanish you would realize this. You would realize that God speaks Spanish and chose to communicate with the Spanish people differently. Forcing the King James on them is the same as a Greek scholar forcing the TR on an English congregation. I learned this lesson early in life. I was taught by Jack Hyles to CORRECT the Bible. He used Greek to do it. I have my John R. Rice reference Bible here, filled with notes I took at Hyles church, where he used Greek to CORRECT the King James Bible. I learned later that this and produces DOUBT. It never produces faith.
Now you are going to do the same thing to the Latino population that Hyles and thousands of others have done. You are going to tell them the ONLY final authority is in a language that they don’t understand. That is exactly what you stated in your last email. Quote: “…the KJB (MY final authority)…”. It could never be the Final Authority in Spanish, because it is written in English. So now you take out the words “las evangelizantes” because it doesn’t agree with the KJB. It does agree, only not the way you want it to. The two Bibles agree, but in a way that only God could produce, because He is the author of both books.
Are you going to criticize God for misquoting Hab. 2:4, where the word “his” is later omitted by Paul in Rom. 1:17. Are you now going to add the word “his” to Rom. 1:17 because it doesn’t agree with the Hebrew text. Of course not. Paul may have misquoted Habakuk, but his mistake became advanced revelation for the church age. The just is not save by his faith anymore, rather, the faith of Jesus Christ. Advanced revelation in Greek.
Now the same author of Hab. and Rom. also gave us the Valera Bible during the Philadelphia church period. I would not change a word of it and sooner than I would change Habakuk or Romans. If you deccide that is what God has called you to do, go for it. I was not called to correct ANY Bible, least of all the one God gave to the Spanish speaking people. Mistakes in the Valera are advanced revelation in the Spanish language. Amen!
You see McArdle, this is why many of us REAL Bible-believers don’t take you and your position seriously. You have deceived yourself into thinking that the 1865 Valera is perfect when the truth is that IT IS NOT. You want to elevate the 1865 Valera to the same level of the KJB and it’ll never work because the 1865 Valera has errors in it. The KJB doesn’t. Many of us would have been glad to support your cause and almost did until we found out that instead of continuing to revise the 1865, which your people started to do but quit for whatever reason, you guys backed out and dropped the ball. Those of us concerned with using a totally pure Spanish Bible sensed that you went just a little bit cuckoo by instead trying to convince yourself and everyone else that really the Valera 1865 is just as perfect as the KJB and therefore never needed any revision to begin with. Yeah, OK buddy. Disneyland must be nice this time of year.
If the 1865 Valera is perfect, than you must conclude that the KJB is not perfect because they are in disagreement in Num. 31:39, which is a fact that you continue to dodge. Here are the facts. In Num. 31:39:
The 1865 says 71.
The KJB says 61.
They cannot both be right. And no this is not an issue of Spanish and English, like you are trying to insinuate. I fully understand that because of the linguistic differences that exist between languages that it is wrong to expect the Spanish Bible to read word-for-word like the KJB in every single instance. But that’s not what we’re dealing with in Num. 31:39. We are dealing with an obvious error.
You have the nerve to call me a “Bible corrector” for defending the KJB against the 1865 Valera. Well whatever floats your boat but the fact is that the KJB, the true authority and standard, demonstrates that the 1865 Valera is WRONG in Num. 31:39 as well as many other places. You go ahead and continue to convince yourself that the 1865 Valera is just as perfect as the KJB. But don’t get mad if those of us who know better refuse to drink the Kool-aid that you wish to jam down our throats about this imaginary PERFECT 1865 Valera. Don’t get mad if we decide to support the RVG instead of your Spanish version because we see that Bro. Gomez’s work is an honest effort to correct corrupt readings by bringing them in line with the KJB. Don’t get mad if….
…on second thought, GET MAD. I could care less.
You guys lost me on Numbers 31:33. This verse is exactly the same in number in all the versions of the 1865, KJV, and RVG that I have. Did you mean some other verse? Even the first edition RVG that I have has it right, just like the KJV. Threescore and twelve thousand is 72,000.
Well, think what you may. We will NEVER waiver. Fortunately, the 71 of the 1865 is a typographical error made by Valera’s typesetter in 1602. De Reina clearly reads “sesenta y uno”. So there is not a problem. The position of the Valera Bible Society is to NEVER change one word of the 1865 Bible unless it falls under the category of typographical or orthographical errors, conformable of course to the Royal Academy of Spain. I refer you to the VBS minutes dated 2006:
Valera Bible Society
Annual Business Meeting
March 2006
3/10/06
Present: Jorge Garcia, Phil Robinson, Paul Garcia, Jeff McArdle, Billy Lisenbee, Don Brush, Eduardo Roig Ramirez.
1) Reading of by-laws
2) Reading of 2005 Minutes
3) Eduardo Ramirez Roig (hijo) suggested as a new officer. Vote was taken and motion was affirmed. Additionally, by-laws were amplified to accommodate 9 members.
4) Vote taken to use as an authority “Royal Academy of Spain” to correct TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS found in the printing. Affirmed.
5) Vote taken to use as an authority “Royal Academy of Spain” to correct ORTHOGRAPHICAL ERRORS found in the Spanish texts, with two exceptions: when the change affects doctrine & teaching or the word in question appears in the Royal Academy of Spain dictionary and is defined therein. Affirmed.
6) Vote taken to not change words initially translated by Ciprius de Valera (e.g. Lucero, Renacer, Concierto, Ojalá, etc.). Affirmed.
7) Vote taken to never add words to the 1865 Valera other than ORTHOGRAPHICAL and TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS abovementioned. Affirmed.
This is our position and has been for more than 3 years. You can call us hypocrites or liars or dogs or idiots. Ad hominem attacks will not move us or shake us. We will defend it to the death, because that is what Valera and Reina and de Mora did.
Jeff:
I wouldn’t bring this up, except it is a great illustration of your hypocrisy. Search it. You won’t find the word dog in any of my posts. Then you say that you didn’t call yourself a junk-yard dog, when in fact you did in your post of April 19, 2009 at 2:02 am. So who is telling the truth?
You say that the 1865 is the perfect Word of God for Spanish speakers because it was done in the Philadelphian church-age. But, you ignore the fact that it differs with the 1602 that was done in a previous church-age in which the KJV was done. Why isn’t the 1602 perfect? Why did the 1865 have to correct the 1602? Wasn’t the advanced revelation of 1602 good enough for you?
By the way, you would like for me to “get mad”. Which shows that you don’t love me as a brother. I feel sorry for you and “your people” as you are so fond of saying. But I am not “mad”. I have a beautiful family, a wonderful wife, a wonderful church, two perfect Bibles, my bills are paid, I’m on my way to preach a Valera Bible Conference in Peru, and I shot a 95 on the golf course the other day. Why would I be mad? If you think you guys correcting the Valera Bible can make me lose 10 seconds of sleep, that you have a higher opinion of yourself than you ought.
To heinz:
What were you referring to when you said for me to chase my tail?
An elephant?
One more thing. You guys asked me the other day who it was that was pushing for the changes in the biligual. Once again, this is an example of you people accusing Cipriano de Valera of erroneous translation work when in fact in Num. 31:39 it was simply a typographical error. In other words, it is not a mistake the WE made. But ALL of the errors in the Gomez are errors that YOU made and are making. Why? Because you are the final authority. The Valera Bible Society is not responsible for ANY errors, real or imagined, in any Bible. The Valera Bible Society is only guilty of defending the Valera Bible. You are guilty of changing it. Have a nice day.
Jeff:
You are not defending like Valera. Valera is very clear in his Exhortación al Lector to invite future generations to remove textual corruptions from the Spanish Bible. You instead block the way with your advanced revelation theory that arbitrarily selects the year 1865 as a perfect Bible for your own curious goals.
No a cat actually.
Bro. Heinz, you are correct. Upon a second look at Num. 31:33 it turns out that it actually is not an error and that McArdle was just wrong. So false alarm. The RVG was right all along. Meanwhile, the 1865 Valera is still incorrect in Num. 31:39 (and other places). And McArdle is just too proud and blinded by his own conceit to admit it.
To McArdle, please don’t start getting sappy on me like a little girl. I’ve seen the way you have talked condescendingly and derogitorally to other brethren who disagree with your position (which is why I answer a fool like you according to your own folly – Pro. 26:5 – something I rarely do with those I disagree with). Of all the people I have disagreed with over this issue, including guys like Robert Breaker and Calvin George, I have the least amount of respect for you. In fact, I have NO respect for you. I don’t have any respect for a guy who tries to bully and intimidate other brethren over a disagreement. I’ve read some of the nasty things you write to other brethren who decided not to jump on your 1865 Valera bandwagon because they thought the RVG, or the Purificada (which I don’t support), or some other revision was better. So don’t talk to me about “loving the brethren” when you’re a hypocrite on the matter. Don’t start trying to play Mr. Nice Guy when you’re backed up in a corner. Save that gimmick for someone else.
You see, its not the 1865 Valera that I have a problem with. If someone wants to use it I will encourage them to use it over the 1960 all day long. It’s YOUR attitude, and the way you treat the brethren who aren’t a part of your little clan, and the way you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being some kind of “Bible correcter”, that turns me away from taking anything you say seriously.
It’s also your hypocrisy. You said in your Elephant book something to the effect “the KJB has the authority to correct any Bible on God’s green earth”. Than when someone like Bro. Gomez does exactly that, you do a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and say its wrong. You are a confused individual.
But never fear, I have nothing to worry about with you. Because your position is so obviously whacked out to people who know better (even those from the same school you graduated from) that hardly anyone involved with the Spanish Bible takes you seriously anyways. So never mind. Go play golf. That’s probably the best thing you got going for you.
At least we have a finished product. You never will. You Gomez people are locked in a perpetual mud hole of revising and rerevising and revising again. Case in point. Valera writes: Mat. 25: 1 “esposo”. Gomez 1st edition: Mat. 25:1 “desposado” (very obviously WRONG). Gomez 4nd edition: “esposo”. Ring around the rosy, pocket full of posies…you all fall DOWN. Now who is the hypocrite. You gonna keep doing this year after year and the Spanish speaking people will pay the price for YOUR confusion.
Hey dummy, there is no 4th edition. There has only been 3 editions printed. LOL!
Is 4nd a typo or advanced revelation?
Please enlighten us Jeff to the “wrongness” of the word “desposado.” Which respectable dictionary of the Spanish language are you using as your standard? I suppose at times the Royal Academy is good for you and then at other times not. Who is the final authority now? Jeff McArdle?
” REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA
DICCIONARIO DE LA LENGUA ESPAÑOLA – Vigésima segunda edición
desposado, da.
(Del part. de desposar).
1. adj. Recién casado. U. t. c. s.
2. adj. Esposado, aprisionado con esposas.
Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados
A cat? Good. Then I am a Lion’s welp with a voracios apetite to defend the Bible given to the Spanish speaking people (NOT a junkyard dog) and also a desire to bring to naught those who would criticize Cipriano de Valera for his “faulty translation work”.
The word desposado, in the most authoritative dictionary that exists (Valera’s Bible), is ALWAYS someone “betrothed”. So using the word in Mat. 25:1 makes the virgins the church, WHICH THEY ARE NOT, and has Jesus returning for the Jews in the tribulation without FIRST that the church already been raptured and the marriage supper of the lamb taken place. This is classic failure to rightly divide and proves that Humberto Gomez is unqualified to change one word in the Valera Bible. He is a Bible illiterate, as well as unable to command English or Spanish.
You call me a “dummy”. But the truth is there have been 5 editions. I own the very first copy of the Gomez Bible ever printed, hot off the press, presented to me by Bro. Gomez and Bro. Fellure and witn Gomez signature in it. It is the very first copy ever given to anyone, or at least that is what Fellure and Gomez said to me the night they gave it to me in Milton, Florida. Then I have the Brown Bible, where his name appears 3 times as “Dr. Humberto Gomez”. Then I have the Black cover, which has his name 4 times as “Dr. Humberto Gomez” (yea, sure he’s humble!). Then there is the bilingual. Then there is the current online text which does not agree with the other 4 versions. You are a “johnny-come-lately”.
To Manny:
I’m glad you have no respect for me. I said the “King James can correct any Bible on earth” thing tongue in cheek. I got tired of people telling me that because I am a gringo, I have no right to respond or deal with the issue. You are welcome to interpret it any way you choose. Most latinos who know me and have heard me preach tell me I speak Castilian better than they do. I’m talking about the real latinos born in Latin America, who really know how to speak Spanish. Not like you who can barely converse in it. Your opinion of me warms my heart and lets me know that I have gone down the right road.
My ministry is to Latin America. NOT to Baptist preachers in America, like you, who can not speak Spanish. You Gomez guys will win the battle in America because I have never advertised the Valera Bible as the equivalent of the King James in Spanish. I refuse to advertise it that way. We will win the battle in Latin America because we are helping them defend the Bible that God gave them, and not some perversion of it like the Gomez.
As far as being sappy, I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean my criticism of you for resorting to ad hominem attacks to prove you point (which of course never proves the point). I have called no one a dog. I have called no one a dummy. I have called no one an idiot. Look back over my arguments and you will see that I don’t need to stoop to those types of attacks to state my case. No matter how caustic and denigrating my arguments may be, they are just that, ARGUMENTS.
Maybe you are referring to my denigrating Gomez for his inability to handle the English language. Well, that is only because I know him personally and his command of the Kings English is suspect. In fact, many times I have to talk to him in Spanish in order to communicate with him effectively. Then he claims to be able to produce a Spanish Bible that “reads like the King James”. These are not ad hominem attacks, like the ones you fling about. These are facts.
I am not a “dummy” in regards to there being 5 versions of the Gomez available. The word “dmmy” is from “dumb” which means “mute”. It can also mean “studid”. But if I called you stupid for not knowing there are 5 versions of the Gomez, you would say I was mean spirited.
Mr. Rodriguez, I deal in facts, not hyperbole. If you think that my calling you on the carpet is because I am sensitive, then again you don’t know me. You mean less than nothing in my universe. Yes, I’ll see you at the judgement seat of Christ. Both of us will obey Christ at that moment and reconcile our differences. Until that day, I maintain that anyone engaged in the process of incessantly revising the Valera Bible in order to conform it to their “preferences” (and Gomez has admitted that most of the changes are simply his “preferences”) is a “Bible corrector”. That is not an ad hominem attack, like what you resort to. These are FACTS.
“dmmy” and “studid”? Oh I get it. More advanced revelation. Or is that orthographical?
Yeah, you sure are winning the battle in Latin America with the handful of Latino Preachers in your gang. I guess the over 100 native Latino preachers, mostly Mexican nationals (all of whom use the RVG), that were counted at the Bible conference I attended in Matamoros, Mexico are not real Latinos. I guess the national preachers I know of in different parts of Central and South America, who use the RVG, are not “real Latinos”. I guess the national preachers in Spain are not real Hispanics. What does a Spaniard know about Spanish, especially if he’s not using the 1865 Valera?
Silly me. I should have known that the only REAL Latinos are members of the Valera Bible Society, headed up by Jeff McArdle the “Lion’s welp with a voracios apetite”. LOL! (somebody is a legend in his own mind) Only people that use the 1865 Valera and believe that it is perfect (because after all – the errors, omissions, and corruptions, are simply “advanced revelations” that can’t be found in the King James Bible) are “real” Latinos. And if only I was as smart in the Castilian tongue as DOCTOR Jeff McArdle, I and all the other fake Latinos, especially the ones born and raised in Mexico, Guatemala, Argentina, Peru, Paraguay, Bolivia, Cuba, Spain, and several other countries, would have known about these advanced revelations. But how could we ever attain to the greatness of Jeff McArdle. I mean after all, he’s the JUNK YARD DOG for cryin out loud! And Bro. Humberto Gomez, shoot man, HE’S definitely not a real Latino. Who cares where he was born and how many churches he’s started in Mexico and how many countries he’s preached in (including Spain, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Guatemala, Argentina, Cuba…). He’ll never speak Spanish like THE DOCTOR Jeff McArdle. All the honarary doctorates in the world from guys like Dr. Mickey Carter will never make Bro. Gomez a REAL Latino. Who do these guys think they are anyways?!
Oh and I should have known that every time an edition of the RVG was printed in a different color or in paperback, or vinyl, or hardback, or leather, that each one represented a whole new edition. Wow! Perhaps there are really about 10 different editions if that’s the case. Never mind that some of those different printings were of the same texts, of which only three have been released for printing. But who am I? I’m just a fake Latino who can’t speak Castilian like the Junk Yard Lion’s Whelp – DR. Jeff McArdle, President of the Valera Bible Society for The Real Latinos in the World.
Well I give up, Dr. Junk Yard Dog. I guess we’ll never attain unto you. I’m just a mean ol Puerto Rican who calls such loving, innocent, little teddy bears like Jeffrey McArdle such ugly names which is so unfair (because he would never call me a “dirty hypocrite” and “lying Bible corrector”) Calling names is not nice (never mind the nasty mean names McArdle has called other people which I have read but, but, ….but those don’t count). Guys like me, Humberto Gomez, Don Heinz, and thousands of others are just a bunch of “unlearned and ignorant men” (Acts 4:13). We certainly will never speak Castilian as good as “the Lion’s whelp”.
Doggone it!
They must be 5 different versions if they ALL say something different.
Heinz called me a cat. Or a dog. That is fine. You called me an idiot. All of them are Biblical. I take them as a complement. I am no legend. I don’t even call myself “Doctor”.
But why defend myself. I only intend to defend the Valera Bible. I don’t care what Manny Rodriguez thinks. Have a good day. See you at the judgment seat of Christ.
By the way, a Lion’s welp is the offspring of a Lion. I am a child of THE Lion of the tribe of Judah. What is the problem? Does that make me “puffed up”. It would be better for you to stick to discussing the Bible instead of calling people names. That is what people who have no substance to their arguments do. If I called Heinz a hypocrite, it is because that is what he is.
An all of you are engaged in “correcting” the Valera Bible. It does not need correcting. But anyone who does so is a Bible corrector. That is why I said it. In the context of Gomez and others “changing” the Valera to suit their own preferences.
You called me a “dummy” in the context of saying there are only 3 versions of Gomez WHEN THERE ARE 5. That is an untrue statement and an ad hominem attack.
True: Gomez has “corrected” the Gomez. He is a Bible corrector.
Untrue: Jeff McArdle is a dummy for saying there are 5 versions of the Gomez. Uh! That is exactly how many there are. This called an ad hominem attack. You attack the messenger because you can’t refute the message. Typical!
Gomez has corrected the Valera also.
Jeff:
I did not call you a dog. I used an analogy that any normal person understands to mean that your reasoning is circular. That is quite different from calling people lying and dirty hypocrites. If you are so sensitive to using analogies, I won’t use them in the future. You are right about one thing. It is important to keep the discussion about the text. I suggest we all do that, and leave the personal attacks out.
Manny:
I have to say that calling Jeff and idiot and dummy will not get us anywhere, and as the owner of this blog I would rather stick to the issue. If we can’t have a civil discussion, I’ll have to just close this down.
What about Num. 31:39, Jeff? To use a title from a good book, Can two things that are different be the same? How can one be revelation and the other advanced revelation? Is one plus one two now? How can it be perfectly 61 in the KJV and perfectly 71 in the 1865?
Bro. Heinz, I agree. For the record, McArdle is the first and only person I have ever used this type of approach in arguing with on the Spanish Bible issue. “Idiot” and “dummy” will never compare with the many nasty things he has written to others. They are quite tame in comparison I can assure you. I figured it was time he got a dose of his own medicine. And as I figured, when McArdle was faced with a taste of his own medicine, he quickly took on the role of the pious victim. The “damsel in distress” if you will. This tells me what kind of a person he is.
I know what others will say. “Bro. Manny, don’t become like them. Don’t get mean and nasty.” But quite frankly brother, I’m tired of guys like McArdle spreading so many lies, judging our motives, and the ungodly things they say about us and yet we’re supposed to just take it and play the nice guy. Well I’m through with that. This is a fight. And I’ve never been in or seen a fight in which the opponents didn’t both come out dirty, bruised, and bloody. It gets ugly. And so for now on I’m pulling the gloves off. I’m not advising this for everyone else. But as for myself, I refuse to play the passive part. If these guys want to pick a fight, I’m game. (“he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him” Pro. 26:27.) I can’t help it. I’m Puerto Rican! LOL! Besides, most these guys will do what McArdle did here anyways and just switch roles from the tough guy to the persecuted damsel as soon as someone obliges them.
At any rate, the pure word of God in Spanish (the RVG) will continue to grow and multiply regardless of my behavior or anyone else.
Nevertheless, Bro. Heinz this is your blog. I do enjoy your blog. You do a fine job and it is always edifying. You are perfectly in your right to a civil discussion. So I will honor your request.
Besides, I’m through tossing McArdle around anyways. I have some projects I’m involved in (relating to this issue) that needs my focus and attention right now. It’s been fun. God bless.
Well, I hear ya. Anyway, I think there is plenty of information here for anybody who is interested in following the debate. Thanks to both for the commentary.
To Manny:
You say the “pure word of God in Spanish”. That must mean that you are all finished revising it. Which means I can freely release the more than 150 errors I have found in just a cursory perusal of the 5 editions of the Gomez that I have in my possession?
As far as being a damsel in distress, I only said that the debate should focus on the errors in the Gomez text. You can call me a dummy all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that there have been 5 editions of the Gomez and you have not yet admitted that you were wrong about there being only three. I live by the maxim, “Sticks and stones may break my bones by names will never hurt me.” So fire away Boricua. I can take it. I just find it easier to deal with reality instead of your fantasy world.
By the way, I have never called anyone a “dummy”, “stupid” or “idiot”. I have called people “hypocrite”, “liar”, “laodicean Christian”, “Bible corrector”, “unqualified”, etc. Every one of these is a description of someones behavior or state of being. I have purposely deferred any personal attacks. In fact, though I disagree with the Monterey project, I personally defend Bill Park in regards to his marital status, because when I preached at Mickey Carter’s Bible conference in 2002, some pharisaical brethren tried to make it an issue.
I have never attacked Gomez personal life. Only his actions. His actions in regards to correcting the Bible. His actions in regards to placing himself on the pedestal. The servant of the Lord must be HUMBLE. I know Gomez well. I have never known him to be humble.
He goes around the country playing both ends against the middle. That makes him a hypocrite. I have proof of these things.
Also, if every latino on earth suddenly started using the Gomez Bible it would mean nothing. In America 95% of Christians use either the NIV or some other Bible. So what does all these mean.
The Gomez group, as I pointed out, has taken the position that the TR is the final authority. This differs from even your own position. DA Waite, who told me personally that he was part and parcel of the Gomez project, has said that the KJV is NOT inspired.
That Catholic church burned the work of Cipriano de Valera and Casiodoro de Reina and then burned those men in effigy. They produced a thoroughly anti RC text, ON PURPOSE. Gomez is undoing the work that they did by changing verses like Heb. 1:3 and a dozen others that I won’t mention here. I also will fight to defend the work they did, while you stand by and criticize the words they wrote in Spanish. Words like “mujer” (you’ll are feminizing the text), and “Domingo” (lining up with the 7th day adventists), and “ojala” (Gomez lining the Bible up with Islam). You change these words and critize them without realizing that you are erasing advanced revelation in the Valera.
Did you know that the fastest growing ethnic group in islam is the latinos? And you guys took “ojala” out of the Bible, and it was God’s way of telling the Latinos that Allah cannot answer their prayers. Think about that for about 5 years.
How about change los to las in Psalm 12:7. This directly contradict Mal. 3 where God promised to preserve the nation of Israel. As the verse stands in the original Valera, the verse says that God will preserve 2 things: 1. His words (v. 6) and his people (v. 5). You know that a masculine object pronoun is inclusive of both masc. and fem. nouns. So los INCLUDES “las palabras” as well as “los menenesteroso” in v. 5. But “las” can NEVER include v. 5.
Don’t you guys see what you are doing. Your destroying it, not making it better. You are not allowing God to speak in Spanish, rather forcing him to speak in English to your own people.
I agree with you Manny, you don’t have time and neither do I. I was taught by Peter S. Ruckman to always give God the benefit of the doubt, no matter how difficult it may be. I believe that the Valera Bible deserves the benefit of the doubt in regards to the words of God in Spanish. God gave it to your people. You know this is true or else you would not keep the name Valera on the Bible. But God never told you to change it or add the name Gomez. You need to change, nay repent of these dirty deeds. You have no right to spend the years leading up to the rapture trapped in a perpetual trap of revising, rerevising and revising again. It will never end. I feel sorry for you all. May God have mercy on your souls.
Jeff:
The clearest discredit to your position is your admission to have been taught by Peter Ruckman. He has nothing to teach anybody, but rather needs to be taught the first principles of the oracles of God. If a man can’t rule his own house, how can he take care of the church of God? Ruckman is a charlatan who puts personal achievement before ministry, and if you give him credence, your are not a trustworthy person. A companion of fools shall be destroyed.
To me the Issue is very simple. We were taught in manuscript evidence that the KJB came from the right text ” Recived Text”
We were also taught that any Bible that has critical text readings were not good Bibles.
I am 100% King James. I believe it is Perfect, preserved, Inspired Word of God.
We were also taught at PBI That any Bible in any Language that was faithfuly translated from the Recieved text is a good Bible.
I just want a Spanish Bible that is True to the Texus receptus and masoretic text.
Reina and valera did a great job! Though not a perfect one as they admit.
If the 1960, 1865 or any Spanish Bible has critical text readings or that has left the recieved text. I do not want to use them. I want a Spanish Bible that I can trust, preach from, believe, and confidently teach that the Spanish people have Gods Word in their language.
I believe that the RVG Spanish Bible is the best Spanish Bible out there.
Thats all we want. Valera is not my final Authority. We keep the REina Valera name because Humberto only revised his work. Reina Valera did a great job. Humberto is just correcting mistakes.
I want a Spanish Bible, faithful to the recieved text.
We have one now THe RVG.
Mike:
Thanks for your comments. I agree. It is a simple concept. God promised to preserve His words, and we have them in the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible. Now we have projects like the RVG, 1602 Purified, and the Trinitarian Bible Society working to do in Spanish what the Englishmen did with the Bishop’s and Geneva Bibles. I believe that, contrary to what Jeff says that we are in the Laodicean Age, God is about to do some great things through Latin American Christians as he has done with English-speaking Christians. And, this is why the move to have a pure Bible. I agree with you, the RVG is the best and will be perfect in a short period of time, if it isn’t already.
I agree, God is doing great things in Paraguay. We started t
We started two Churches and a Bible Institute. We have over ten men called to preach.
Our people believe and can defend the RVG. One of the men who I ordained is Nelson Gimenez. He is called to preach, pastoring our first work, doing a great job!
Praise God for His Word!
To Mike
You better back down. You are venturing into territory you should not be in. Are you saying that Dr. Ruckman is a charlatan like Donald Hienz is saying? I f you don’t back down I will release the truth about you. Back down!
Jeff,
Back down from what????
Here we go again!
But no I dont hold Heinz position against Dr Ruckman. I respect him very much. That is not the issue here for me.
Again back down from what???
Jeff if you want to blast me, go ahead. I still love you and pray for you.
As far as Dr. Ruckman goes: Heinz, you wouldn’t know a man of God if he was staring you in the face. I don’t suppose your wife has ever “kicked against the pricks”. To bring a man’s personal life into the debate is a low blow. And that after having rebuked Manny for the same thing.
And f you reject me for being trained by Ruckman, than don’t be a hipocrite and play nice with Mike Wilps. Wilps was trained by him also. Once again you force me to call you a hypocrite.
Jeff, release all you want. You crazy Jeff!!!
Look at what you wrote to me and tell me if that is right?
you better back down or I will release??
Yes I went to PBI,
And thank God for my training.
I do apreaciate brother Heinze for his stand on the RVG and thats what this is about!
And Mike: As far as your beloved TR goes, how do you know anything about that. Remember, you dropped out of Greek telling everyone around you that we would not need it after we graduated. Bet you wish you hadn’t dropped out now, like I told you, you lazy bum you! You admitted to me you were lazy so don’t accuse me of denigrating you. And what about the dozens of verse I have sitting here where the RVG lines up perfectly with the W & H text. You don’t know about those because you don’t knwo the TR and you don’t know Greek.
But guess what I know that you don’t. The RVG was based on the 1909, which according to the ABS, and I have the documentation, was purposely revised using W & H.
Quote: “In December [1907] the committee proposed Greek basis be Westcott and Hort, with the English Revisers Text [RV of 1881] and Nestle [Nestle-Aland Text, Novum Testamentum Graece],” (Text and Translation: European Languages, Essay#16, Part V, D, Eric North, ABS, April, 1967, p. 36).
Quote: “Versions committee recommends Westcott and Hort as basis, with liberty to use Revisers [RV, 1881] and Nestle’s Greek NT…” (Ibid., p. 37)
“…a group of missionaries in Buenos Aires question the use of Westcott and Hort and Nestle Greet Text, but Versions Committee does not change,” (Ibid., p. 42).
“We were expected to meet in the Bible House in New York in the month of January, 1909. The Greek text as edited by Nestle was placed in our hands as approved by the two Bible Societies [ABS and BFBS], as the original which we should translate,” (Ibid., 46).
You see Mike, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. But now you are going to denigrate me publicly because of the TR. The TR!
You don’t even know what the TR is. Well there are dozens of W & H readings in the Gomez and there are absolutely zero, nada, zilch W & H readings in the 1865. How do you know that? Because the 1865 was printed BEFORE the W & H text even existed.
Back down Mike!
Ok Mike. I am waiting for you to explain to me all of the W & H readings in the Gomez Bible. What is the matter? Cat got you tongue?
(Music from Jeopardy playing in the background). I’m waiting….
Cat got your tongue? I mean a “Lion’s welp”? (That is what Heinz called me, by his own admission).
Or have you decided to do the right thing and back down? Hmmmm?!
You love me? Is it love to get involved in a debate that no one invited you to only to take sides AGAINST a man you said was your best friend. YOU SAID THAT! You could have just stood on the sidelines and said NOTHING! You call that love? Love?! Mike? You there? Yooo Hooo! Mike?!
It is love that has kept me from attacking your flimsy position Mike. But if you stick your nose where it does not belong, I won’t hesitate to chop it off.
I’ll bet Tony Mc Glaughlin wishes he had taken Greek also Mike? Did you ever think about that? Have you apologized to him for your influence on him. You were wrong then and you are wrong about the Gomez now!
I’m still waiting.
Well, some of us have work to do. I thought you would have nothing to say. Looks like Mike Wilps and Donald Heinz are the Charlatans, along with Manny Rodriguez and “Dr.” Humberto Gomez. Welcom to Laodicea!
Gotta go. Tired of waiting.
Dear Jeff,
You said “But now you are going to denigrate me publicly because of the TR. The TR!”
First when did I do that!
Second, A Chinese man from China could speak and read broken English, read a book or two about the issue, and know more about the subject than most.
I know enough to know the truth. You don’t even need to go to school to learn this stuff. Simply, Read books like weigh the evidence, Things that are different are not the same and many other books about the issue. This is an easy issue. The same principles apply to the Spanish Bible. It is so easy that a drop out like me can figure it out!!!
I praise God the He uses flunkies like me. God uses the foolish to confound the wise!!!
I praise God I have the TR on E-Sword, and can read!!! Amen Glory to God.
I am so glad I can compare!! Amen!!!!
Anybody can tell the difference. You don’t need to take any Greek class.
I did not finish PBI, and God actually is using me!!! Imagine that!!!
I thank God that HE has put me in the ministry. By the way anyone can know what the TR is after reading one book. You don’t need years of schooling to know what is the TR.
This is such an easy topic that even I (“lazy Bum”) can understand.
In three years this lazy bum started two churches and a Bible Institute. Training men for the ministry all for the Glory of God.
Jeff,
Thank you for reminding me how small I am and how Powerful God is.
Jeff:
Is the RV1909 the only version the societies put out at that time? Don’t you know that they put out a translation in 1914 which was a complete flop because it was critical text? It is that text to which the minutes you quoted refers to. Nobody denies that the societies produced corrupted texts even that early. However those minutes do not refer to the RV1909. The proof is that your quotes refer to a “translation” not a “revision.” The RV 1909 is not a translation, it is a revision. What is more, your quotes state that in 1909 they were just beginning to translate. So, you are twisting the facts.
Jeff,
Your wrong!
1. You say I don’t know what I am talking about because the Westcott and Hort came after the 1865. First I never mentioned Westcott and Hort but the Critical Text. You mentioned Westcott and Hort; I never mentioned Westcott and Hort. I MENTIONED THE CRITICAL TEXT.
2. Second surely some one as smart as you would know that before Westcott and Hort the Critical Text existed. There’s Lachmann (1831), Tishendorf (1841-1869), Alford (1849), Wordsworth (1856), Tragelles (1857), and several others. All these Greek Texts were based on Vaticanus and other Alexandrian manuscripts before Westcott and Hort started their text.
3. Thirdly, we all know that the 1909 has critical text readings. That’s why we don’t use the 1909. So what Gomez did was he took the 1909 and took out the corrupt readings with the TR and King James Bible.
Well have to go, All who are on this blog are missionaries.
I encourage all of us to stay close to Jesus and win Souls to Christ.
Where there is no vission the people perish… proverbs 29:18
To Mike
I glad you think God is using you. And if He is using you, I am glad of that too! Don’t forget, the first Bible you ever brought to Paraguay was a gift from your “best friend” Jeff McArdle. The issue is not how many souls you have led to Christ in this discussion. What do you want to do, compare how many souls and see which of us comes out ahead. That is carnal. Noah only had 8 souls in 100 years. What are you trying to prove.
This issue is the following:
1. By your own admission you are not qualified to speak on the subject of Greek texts and critical readings. I gave you the documentation that the 1909 is based on the W & H text and the 1865 is not. You even have admitted that the 1909 has these corrupt readings. You said, “So what Gomez did was he took the 1909 and took out the corrupt readings with the TR and King James Bible.” The problem is Mike that he has not yet removed them all. I have 2 dozen sitting here on my desk that he missed. HE STARTED WITH THE WRONG TEXT. What is worse, he is destroying advanced revelation in the original Valera. He is destroying antiRC readings that have been there for 400 years. He is destroying a cross reference system that is perfect ONLY in the original Valera. He is destroying the beauty of the Biblical Castillian used in the original Valera.
2. By your own admission you are unqualified and you lied to me again. You said to me in May of 2007: “Your friendship is important to me. That is how I feel in my heart. I dont want to enter this battle. “I wont” Brother I am not entering this battle. Brother I love you and your family in Christ Keep going for Jesus.” You say you love me but you lied to me again. In 2007 you said that you “wont” enter the battle. Now in 2009, I’m having a debate with Donald Heinz, and instead of sitting on the sidelines and keeping your big mouth shut, you jump in the fight and take his side against me. Do you call this love?
I’m glad you are winning souls. What has that got to do with Humberto Gomez corrupting the word of God? NOTHING. Stopped tooting your horn and admit that you have no place in this fight. And while your at it, send an email to Tony and apologize for convincing him to quit Greek. And don’t try to tell me that you didn’t because he himself admitted it to me in 2003 one day when we were playing racket ball. You can’t weasel your way out of it.
I never criticized you for being a flunkie, as you say. I criticize you for being too lazy to finish what you started and then being proud of it. I criticize you for supporting a man who is puffed up and arogant and goes around the world blowing his horn just like you do. How many souls you have won has absolutely NOTHING to do with this debate.
Please, don’t love me so much.
Jeff:
You didn’t give him the documentation. I have the same documentation and it does not refer to the RV1909. You took the quotes out of context.
The quotes you give are in reference to the Hispano-Americana NT.
To Heinz
1. According to our sources at the ABS the documentation that they sent is definitely concerning the 1909. Seeing that they are the ones who were involved and printed the information, I’ll take their word over yours.
2. You’re so critical of Dr. Ruckman, but let me ask you a question. I your wife came to you, God forbid, and said, It’s me or the gospel. If you keep preaching I’m gone.” What would you do? It has happened to better men than you and I (Lester Roloff, Peter Ruckman, John Wesley). So tell me, what would you do?
3. You still have not responded to being a hypocrite. You condemn me for being trained by Ruckman and Mike Wilps is your new buddy, and he was ALSO trained by Ruckman. Please clarify this hypocrisy. Quote: “The clearest discredit to your position is your admission to have been taught by Peter Ruckman”. Well Mike Wilps is Gomez and he was “taught” by Peter Ruckman. So by default, your position is discredited because of Mike Wilps.
To Heinz
1. On June 13, 1907, it was proposed by the versions committee of the ABS that a joint project between the ABS and the BFBS be commenced. They proposed calling it the Union Standard Version. This information comes under the heading “Hispano-Americana NT”. (Text and Translation: European Languages, Essay#16, Part V, D, Eric North, ABS, April, 1967, p. 33).
2. In December of 1908 the following men were appointed to the committee:
i. Dr. Henry C. Thompson, graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and missionary to Mexico for 20 years.
ii. Dr. Charles W. Drees, Episcopal minister and also a missionary to Mexico.
iii. John Howland, also a missionary to Mexico.
iv. V. D. Baez, native of Mexico.
v. Fransisco Diez, from Spain and a missionary to Chile.
3. This is the very same committee that Eugene Nida says did the 1909 translation. (Nida, Eugene, The Bible Translator: Versiones Castellanas de la Biblia, ABS, 1951, p. 202).
4. It was in their meetings in New York in 1909 that they formed the committee and decided to use the Westcott and Hort Text. “We were expected to meet in the Bible House in New York in the month of January, 1909. The Greek text as edited by Nestle was placed in our hands as approved by the two Bible Societies [ABS and BFBS], as the original which we should translate,” (Text and Translation: European Languages, Essay#16, Part V, D, Eric North, ABS, April, 1967, p. 33).
5. On 9/25/1913, some missionaries from Argentina complained about the use of the Wescott and Hort text: “…a group of missionaries in Buenos Aires question the use of Westcott and Hort and Nestle Greet Text, but Versions Committee does not change,” (Ibid., p. 42).
6. On Sept. 30, 1916 the NT was completed and was named the “Hispano-American NT”, (Ibid., p. 43).
7. What is interesting is that the 1909 seems to be a combination of H. B. Pratt’s OT with this NT printed by the ABS.
8. Note also that the picture of the revision committee appears with the date “May, 1909”. This would be the reason why many call the “hispano-americana” the 1909, when really it did not appear until 1923 and the entire Bible did not appear until 1929.
9. One thing remains clear, this was the only Bible printed by the ABS in Spanish, besides the 1865. Reference is made to it on page 59, paragraph c, where it is mentioned that people actually still “used” it and preferred it over all the others. They don’t give the date as being 1865, but why would they. The only Bible they printed at this time was the 1865 and the “Moderna” and nobody wanted the “Moderna”. So apparently, the only reason the 1865 was displaced was because the ABS had already switched to the corrupt text and they refused to use anything.
10. Again, this is proof that the 1909 used the W & H greek text. This is the ONLY Greek text they used, so, whether it is called the “Union Standard” or the “Hispano-Americana” or the “1909”, the fact remains that the 1909 was taken from the WRONG Greek text.
If this IS referring to the 1909, here is the final decision on the critical text changes…
“Provisional copies (printed in Spain) were sent out to correspondents for criticism. On October 29,1917 it was reported these comments and criticisms were pouring in. The Versions Committee extended the time for receiving these to June 30.1918.
In the spring of 1918 (V. 3.4.18; 12.27.18;) it was agreed
(BFBS and ABS) that pamphlets of the criticisms received both by BFBS and ABS) should be put in the hands of the Revision Committee and they by correspondence should inform Dr. Thomson, the Chairman, of their views and he should make the final decisions. This was done except that the long delay in hearing from Don Enrique Lindegaard (a BFBS member of the ReVision Committee) delayed conclusion but finally the BFBS agreed not to wait. It was noted that most of the criticism received were of the Greek text use rather than of the
Spanish translation. These criticisms came no doubt, as happended in other languages using the W. & H. or Nestle text, from adherents of Textus Receptus. Editorial Secretary Kilgour (BFBS) independently suggested that in the final edition many of the alternative readings in the margin and reference to the Nestle text be omitted as likely to arouse dissatisfaction. Dr. Thomson had already been following this policy. (V. l2.2.2l) ”
Most of the critical text changes were removed, and they were in the margins to start with. There is no doubt that the 1909 was not a perfect Bible, but that does not mean is was a bad basis to start with for a revision.
As for my wife, 1 Timothy 3 is still in the Bible the last time I checked. If my wife told me to stop preaching the gospel, I would continue to preach it as always, but I would not stay in the ministry. I would be disqualified.
Fine, but the did not remove ALL of the W & H readings. Only MANY. And yes, because of all the corruptions in it, it definitely IS the wrong basis, because the Valera was PURE before they tainted it. All of the imperfections are now in the Gomez Bible and he will never find them all. Not only that, but most of the changes he is making are as well detrimental, as I have already pointed out.
What is interesting is the Page 58, paragraph c, seems to be a reference to the Valera 1865, which of course was the ONLY Valera Bible printed by the ABS at the time. They indicate that people were still readily using it, with not complaints. It is only because of the ABS insistance on using the corrupt Greek text that the 1865 was replaced. In other words, even the latinos knew that the 1865 was PURE TR and did not want a new Bible with the W & H as the basis.
In regards to your ministry, the only person who can disqualify you is God. NOT our wife. The gifts and calling of God are without repentance. I have never met any pastor who fulfills all of I Tim. 3 completely. So based on our faulty interpretaion of “husband of one wife” no one is now qualified to be in the ministry. Obviously I Tim. 3 is LITERAL and PRESENT TENSE. The word blameless HAS to be present tense. I have met literally thousands of preachers who were blameless when they entered the ministry, but yet previous to that they lived wicked lives. The entire passage is present tense.
In other words, Pauls instruction to Timothy is that if a man is being considered for the office of a Bishop, he must have ONE wife. Not zero. Not two. Not three. That is a literal interpretation. Even Jesus said that fornication dissolves a marriage. So a divorced man who has remarried does NOT have 2 wives, because the first marriage no longer exists.
Jack Hyles once told me that he would never have a divorce man in his pulpit. I asked him if he would have God in his pulpit. God is divorce, Jer. 3:8.
The more I look into the assertion that this Versión Hispano-Americana was the 1909, the less I believe it. Calvin George has research on his site attributing the RV1909 to Juan Cabrera and Cipriano Tornos. His information is incomplete, but the working was ongoing in 1906 and was completed before 1911. It is much more likely that that was the source of the RV1909. The dates in the information sited by Jeff here does not coincide with the facts known about the RV1909.
What facts. Please give me the facts. I have give quotes from the ABS. I will admit my error if there is one. But just simply saying ¨the dates in the infromation cited by Jeff here does not coincide witht the facts known about the RV1909¨. Again, what facts are you referring to. I sent documetation. You have sent me nothing.
I took this off of Calvin Georges website. I think this is evidence that the Bible he is speaking of is not the 1909. The 1909 uses the word ¨Jehovah¨. Apparently they took the word out of the version on George´s website.
Hojeamos con interés los primeros capítulos del Génesis, y notamos con placer que la palabra Jehová ha sido substituida con éxito por la más fácil y conocida: Señor;
Good point.
Here then is where we stand. Regardless of which one of these is the 1909, it matters not because both the BFBS and the ABS had already switched to the corrupt text BEFORE 1909. I offered Gomez the opportunity to use the 1865 text as his basis. In fact, he lied to Micky Carter and told Micky Carter that we would all get together and work on the project together. That was at the conference in 2002. Monterey, TBS, Gomez and 1865, all of us were present and Micky Carter asked us to all put our heads together and come up with a solution. WE ALL agreed. Funny thing though. After that none of the other guys would return my phone calls. THEY LIED! (Of course Micky Carter rewarded Gomez for his deceit by giving him an honorary doctorate).
I tried to keep my commitment to Micky Carter. But noone took my phone calls. They all lied. Not only that, but I offered Gomez’ buddy, Jim Fellure the SAME opportunity, to start with the correct text. (I am glad that I have learned subsequently that the Valera never did need to be revised. It is PERFECT the way it is). We would hand the text that we had spent hundreds of hours entering digitally into the computer over to them to print. What did Fellure say to me, “No, I think we’ll patch the 1909.” That is exactly what the Gomez is. It is a bandaid Bible. It is a Bible that has dozens if not hundreds of W & H corruptions. He’ll never find them all.
On top of that, there are hundreds of corruptions in the Gomez, where he deviates from the original Valera, and in so doing has destroyed the 1. beauty, 2. Accuracy 3. and majesty of the Spanish language. What’s more, 4. he has destroyed the crossreference superstructure found throughout the original Valera Bible. Gomez will NEVER be able to undo the harm he has done. And as long as you guys keep thinking that his Bible is “popular”, you will remain deceived. The 1960 has been popular for 40 years. What does that mean? Since when is this a popularity contest? Whatever happened to fidelity to the word of God? Does God speak Spanish? Or only English
Jeff:
You can make all the personal accusations that you like and I will never know the truth about it, so you never will persuade me. One man’s “lie” is another man’s change of opinion. Personally, I can see why other men would not be interested in dealing with you on a revision of the Reina-Valera – you’re not interested in working together on a revision of the Reina-Valera. On top of that, do you think you can heckle and attack people, and then expect them to turn around and cooperate with you? That’s more than a little silly.
As for where we stand, the RVG is free of Critical Text readings. That is what is important to me. The 1865 is not. We have already had this debate. You put forth at the top of this blog article your best verses. One of them was right on, we went to Bro. Gomez and he agreed, upon review, to make the change. You were shown verses that do not agree with the Textus REceptus or KJV, and you said they are advanced revelation. That is where we stand. You don’t want a Bible that agrees with the KJV and Textus Receptus, so you are satisfied with the corrupted 1865. We do want one that agrees with the KJV and the Textus Receptus, and so we use the RVG. Case closed.
What you fail to realize is that Gomez and Monterey and TBS also lied to each other. It matters not that I was put off by all of them. We agreed, ALL of us, in the meeting with Carter, that we would have a meeting in Texas the following year. None of them ever showed. Why? Because they all want the glory! One thing you do not realize is that NOONE can get the glory for the original Valera. But Gomez gets the glory for the Gomez. And Raul Reyes gets the glory for the 1602TR (at least he is not so puffed up to call it the Reina Valera Reyes, which would actually sound better than Reiva Valera Gomez).
If you do not believe that WE ALL agreed, in a closed door session, at the top of Carter’s college, to work together, confirm it with him. He will tell you the truth. And if you are so interested in a purified text, why use Gomez instead of Monterey?
And of course Gomez has to make ALL the changes that I suggest. His Bible is so full of corruptions that it is not even funny. The truth remains that the Valera 1865 is a PERFECT translation of the Erasmus Text. It has NOT W & H readings because it existed BEFORE W & H. But Gomez is full of W & H readings, as you already have agreed, or at least seen confirmed, and everytime I bring one of them up he will have “to agree, upon review, to make the change”. Does that sound to you like “case closed”. Is the case closed if every time I point out a W & H reading in his Bible he has to run and make a revision. How many revisions will that be?
The problem is, as I have pointed out, that he began with a corrupt text. Valera gave us a pure text and Gomez is destroying it. The case was closed in 1865. You guys have opened it up again and it is nothing but a can of worms.
When I say the case is closed, I am referring to your side. You do not want to work with others on a revision, so obviously they will not work with you (although the truth is they are open to your suggestions). Given your tirades here, I rather believe the other members in this debate.
Secondly, you have been shown where the RV1865 differs with the TR and the KJV and you defend yourself with advanced revelation. So, the your case is closed as far as I am concerned. You are not sincerely interested in a Bible that agrees with the TR and the KJV.
How does removing the word “purgacion” line up the 400 years old Valera with the King James. The word “expiacion” does not appear ANYWHERE in ANY King James Bible. How does changing that word line it up with the TR?
Why do you call my arguments “tirades”. All I have done from the beginning is present my arguments for NOT changing the Scriptures that were here 400 years before you were born. These arguments are tirades? I have not lost my temper once. Neither have I defamed anyone.
Explain to me how removing the word “vida” from Gal. 2:20 lines up Valera with the King James.
Explain to me how removing the word “ahora” from Mat. 3:10 lines up Valera with the King James. The word “ahora” (not the word “ya”) is one of the most important marks of dispensational truth found in ANY Bible in ANY language.
I could give 500 examples of this type of activity. Nobody in the Gomez camp is lining up with ANY TR or ANY King James.
I could give you 50 examples of where Gomez reads against the TR
I could give you 50 examples of where Gomez reads against the King James.
I have them all right here on my desk.
I am working with others on their revision. Every time I point out an error to Gomez, he changes is. The problem is not all the errors that I am pointing out that he corrects. It is all the hundreds of verses that are being needlessly changed, that have nothing to do with the TR or the King James.
Gal. 2:20 – Where is the word psuche or zoe in that verse in the TR? Where is the difference between the TR and Critical Text in that verse? The word life was added in English for understanding. This is not a textual problem, it is a translation issue, and both options are equally valid. The 1865 changed the 1602.
Is that the strongest example you have of where the RVG is “critical text”? There is no textual difference between the RVG and the TR.
Mal. 3:10 – The RVG has it right, just like the KJV and the Valera.
You say you have 50, but you haven’t produced one real one.
As for expicación, the two words are synonyms. The advantage of expiación is that it has a stricly religious or spiritual meaning. Purgación is used as a medical term as well. Lost people can purge there physical system and have no sins forgiven.
Oops, I saw Mal. 3.10. Sorry.
Mat. 3:10 – Ahora means ya. Here in Chile ya is in much more common use perhaps than in Mexico. The Chileans us ya in the very same sense as ahorita is used in Mexico. Hazlo ya. There is no problem here.
I produced 8 real ones and you said that Gomez admitted it and therefore changed one of them. I don’t know which one it was but he’ll never get all of them. He started with the wrong text.
I only listed Gal. 2:20 because you said that I am “not sincerely interested in a Bible that agrees with the TR and the KJV.” Well obviously Gal. 2:20 does NOT agree with the KJV. Which is your authority? The TR or the KJV?
Why did Gomez begin with a corrupt text when he could have started with a text that is already pure. He’ll never be able to clean it up. An his revision work is so sloppy that he needs me to help and supply him with all the corruptions.
None of you have ever read the Gomez through. I have read the 1865 5 times. I have read the Gomez NT twice. I’m working on the OT. You all have no idea how corrupt you Bible is. You have all been deceived into believing a lie. No matter how I say it. If I say it nicely you won’t listen. If I attack you won’t listen. Suite yourselves.
Jeff said, “None of you have read the Gomez through.”
You’re not telling the truth. How can anybody trust you with statements like that?
I have read through the Gomez 3 times personally, and now I am reading it while I listen to the KJV audio. We read the RVG publicly a chapter at a time in our church meetings. The brethren here read it through for their devotions in a year.
I read the 1865 through twice and used it in my pulpit for a year, as I did with the 1909. This is not a reading competition.
This is about whether the Spanish Bible is faithful to the TR and KJV. There will be cases where the translation is not exactly the same though is is accurate because that is the nature of translation. However, the 1865 definitely has differences with the KJV that agree with corruptions in the Critical Text, and you have no interest in changing them. They are advanced revelation to you. So Origin, Eusebius and Jerome have given you their advanced revelations, and you think they are okay.
I am not going to repeat the list I put out above of those diferences. There is a list of 50 changes that someone made which they believe aligned the 1865 more closely to the Textus Receptus and the KJV, but you persist with your advanced revelation.
Jeff:
Why were these changes necessary in the RV1865?
1. Genesis 2:18 “de gracia” added
2. 2 Sam. 21:19 “al hermano de” added
3. Job 32:1 “propios” added
4. Psalm 139:24 “eterno” added
5. Prov. 8:17 “de mañana” added
6. Prov. 21:2 “propia” added
7. Matt. 24:2 “Jesús” added
8. Mark 6:44 “como” added
9. Mark 7:14 “a sí” added
10. Mark 8:19 “le” added
11. Mark 10:14 “a mi” added
12. Luke 2:4 “también” added
13. Luke 6:44 “propio” added
14. Luke 8:36 “también” added
15. Luke 9:43 “Jesús” added
16. Luke 13:34 “O” added
17. Luke 13:35 “de cierto” added
18. Luke 14:26 “propia” added
19. John 8:28 “mío” added
20. John 10:17 “mío” added
21. John 14:28 “mío” added
22. John 16:10 “mío” added
23. Acts 1:1 “en el primer libro” added
24. Acts 7:55 “parado” added
25. Acts 7:56 “parado” added
26. Acts 8:16 “el Señor” added
27. Acts 13:22 “también” added
28. Acts 17:26 “antes” added
29. Acts 19:37 “de iglesias” added
30. Acts 20:8 “alto” added
31. Acts 22:16 “del Señor” added
32. Acts 23:14 “nos” added
33. Acts 25:4 “mismo” added
34. Acts 27:11 “de la nave” added
35. Acts 27:19 “propias” added
36. Rom. 9:21 “sobre el barro” added
37. Rom. 11:24 “propia” added
38. Rom. 14:4 “propio” added
39. Rom. 15:17 “Jesu” added
40. Rom. 16:18 “propios” added
41. 1 Cor. 2:12 “de gracia” added
42. 1 Cor. 7:2 “propia” and “propio” added
43. 1 Cor. 15:23 “propio” added
44. 2 Cor. 11:33 “en una espuerta” added
45. Filipenses 2:25 “de milicia” added
46. Tito 2:7 “sinceridad”
47. Heb. 12:2 “capitán” changed to “autor”
48. James 3:6 “gehenna” changed to “infierno”
49. 2 Peter 1:20 “privado desatamiento” changed to “particular interpretación”
50. 2 Peter 2:4 “tártaro” changed to “infierno”
The reason is that in most cases the RV 1865 does not agree with the KJV or the TR.
Jeff:
You are worried about one reference to “purgación” in the NT when the RV1865 is missing the word “infierno” eleven or twelve times in the OT. Talk about an important doctrine affecting purgatory!
Many times in the KJV the words “hell” and “pit” are interechangeable: Is. 14:15 and Ezek. 31:16. It is standard teaching that Korah, Dathan and Abiram went to hell. Yet the KJV text in Num. 16:30 doesn not specifically ahve the word “hell”. Interestingly enough, only the original Valera has the word “infierno”. Will you criticize the KJV as you do the 1865, because it doesn’t have the word “hell”. Of course not. Because you know that the “pit” is “hell”.
This situation exists in Spanish in regards to the word “infierno” and “sepulcro” and “profundo”. Note Job 11:8 and Job 26:6. There is no problem textual or translation at all.
I have already given you the Valera Bible society minutes from 2005. We decided to NEVER make any changes textually. We will answer to God for our decision. You will answere to God for yours. At least I don’t have to spend the rest of my life looking for mistakes. I can preach it with authority knowing that every word of it is pure.
You have admitted that you have already forced on your people 3 or more different Bibles in Spanish. You expect them to submit, but you yourself find fault with the text. I hope you never hold the Bible up and say, “This is the perfect infallible word of God”. You will be lying. Kind of like Calvin George, who said on 114 of his book, “I bleieve that the RV 1960 is the inspired word of God” and in the following sentence said, “But I do not believe that it was inspired by God.”
I actually have more respect for some of the 1960 people, then for you and Gomez. At least they believe that the Book they have in Spanish is perfect and they are willing to defend it. I believe the Book (1865) I have in Spanish is perfect and I am willing to defend it. By your own admission, your book will never be perfect and it will never be finished.
What does the word “hell” have to do with “purgatory”?
Truly amazing!!! I have read through almost this whole blog, except for when the posts were completely redundant. Is it me or was this not a blog on “Breaker’s Broken Booklet” and the 1602R? Then comes the “dissertation” on the 1865 and the (venomous) “suggestion” that Bro. Wilps was wrong for getting in a debate to which “no one invited you”? I have dealt with this type of venomous, hateful spirit in association with pseudo-truthfulness and a complete lack of either moral, ethical or intellectual honesty and I would just like to say:
1. Bro. Wilps, thank you for maintaining your integrity in the face of such morally destitute attacks. Please maintain that type of spirit before the Lord. A piece of advice I was given long ago and has served me well, “You can always live down a lie, but you can never live down the truth.” Acts 24:16
2. Bro. Heinz, thank you for maintaining such a good spirit and thank you so much for presenting such well formed, complete and intellectually honest answers. (i.e. Answers based upon and taking into account the WHOLE truth.)
3. Bro. Rodriguez, thank you for your honest in put both in this blog as well as your “reason why I use the RVG.” I found both enlightening and completely accurate!!!
And remember what the bear said to the skunk, “I COULD whip you but it wouldn’t be worth the stink.”
First of all I have to admit that I am not a English native speaker, so I will try to be honest, not commit a mistake and brief on my Commentary.
1.- I respect both point of view of the subject. I respect the point that stands that the Spanish Bible(Reina Valera) need a kind of purification, even when I am not agree with this point.
2.- I respect the pint that stands that the Bible Reina Valera as it is now or as it has been printed in 1865, is the Word of God preserved in spanish.
3.- I Belive that the Word of God is also preserved in spanish in a good translations like Jerusalem Bible, or Nacar Colunga Bible.
4.- I Know that you do not agree with me in the previous point but I have reasons to Belive that and I will defend my points because I have studied the subject.
5.- It is a shame that I can not read the Bible in Hebrew or in Greek, I would love that even when I have in both lenguajes. I would love to have to say something about the matter, and I would love all Christians could read the Bible in the original lenguajes, but that is not possible for now. Only the Original text were Inspired, the copies were not, but even when certain kind of erors or mistakes were introduced, that does not affected the word of God.
6.- I know that the last point is controversial also but that is the fact, not even all the entire manuscripts are exactly alike, that is a fact.
7.- Translations were made for teach the word of God for the people that were not able to read the original lenguajes, and there are hundreds of ancient translations like the Septuagint, the Phesita, the Vulgate, the Armenian, and these are also witnesses of the preservation of God´s Word, but what those translations shows is that Translation need a kind of exegesis, literal translations can´t be good, does that matter the God of word was changed and corrupted, could be, but what those translations meas is that God Used those for preserve his word in those lenguajes for his people in those lenguajes.
8.- The King James Bible was not the first translation fo the Bible in English but was and is the most used for the Protestan Christians of English lenguaje, the history of the Church of English lenguaje is unique and the History of those that fled to North America from the religios persecution because of his Belive in the Word of God preserved in the King James and the Geneve Bible, shows the Way God preserv his word for the English lenguaje speakers.
8.- The History of the Bible in Spanish is different, and the History of the Protestant churches is Different, we have to understand that, Two different kind of cultures, motives and needs of God´s word. But God Preserv his word in the translation of two Scholars. Casiodoro de Reina y Cipriano de Valera. Even when the pople in Spain and in Latin America, (ancient colony of Spain) did not know about the Bible, because we were under the Power of the Catholic Church. Barely the Bible were owning even in the early 50’s, I have hear how the Christians Protestants were treated in the rural towns in Mexico. They fought to defent their belive in God´s Inspired Word, (The Reina Valera 1909, the only that was available). Do doy think honestly that those people Fought for nothing, for a Corrupt Bible, and that God never blessed them?
9.- I think that the two points of view set out here, are praiseworthy, but that do not are complete, Both do not see the whole social historical background of the Power God working trouhg the Reina Valera Bible (1909 and even 1960) and now Many of the Christians are looking at your Work and look the way you fight between you in this Subject and they are confused and loose hope.
10.- Now the Catholics with their Bibles are saying look how those fight for a “Bible”, and now they Use the Bible for preach and evangelize his own people. How do our fights says something for those that are nos Saved?
11.- I Belive that the KJV is the Word of God in English as much as I Belive the Reina Valera 1856, 1909 and 1960 are the Word of God. I know that you are not agree with me but I have see and Feel the power and the Blessing of God trough this Bibles. Even I saw for first time the Word of God in the TORRES AMAT Catholic Bible when I was 9 years old and this was the only Bible translation in my home and that Version lead me to Christ my Lord and Savior and Now I preach the Word of God.
12.- I have a wide and considerable colection of Bibles in several lengaujes, but specially in Spanish but I Use the Reina Valera 1960 in devotional and personal study of the Bible but I consult other translation even in other lenguajes. But I belive I have the Word of God and I preach it.. I am looking to have the Valera 1856 and the Valera Gomez to study tha subject. and I think I will find the preserved word of God in this revisions also.
your Brother Alex George
Alex:
Thanks for commenting. However, I must say, you bring up way too many issues to comment on. What would be the most important concern you have of the many you mention here? Are you mostly concerned about the “fighting” as you call it, and the negative affect it might have on lost people? Is that why you wrote? Maybe you thought you could get us to stop?
Well, healthy debate is not only part of the culture of liberty, but is also part of Bible culture. Doctrine must be discussed and debated for people to understand it well. I think it is healthy to have debate. Some debate can go too far. When people resort to name calling and such, I don’t think it is very helpful. However, it IS helpful to put out an idea for debate, so as to sharpen our arguments for what we believe is true.
As for the Bible issue, you have not made clear your doctrinal position on preservation. You seem to be saying that you believe in “conceptual preservation,” that God preserves the concepts of His inspired Word, but not the literal words. I ask you then, what does the Bible teach? Doesn’t the Bible teach that God will preserve his “words,” and even the jots and tittles? Are those jots and tittles preserved in all of the Bibles, or just the good ones? or just popular ones? Do you really think that God preserved his Word through an institution that systematically killed good Christians and also purposely perverted copies of the Word of God?
1.- I think the debate can be good as you have said, but we have to be aware of the risks of such debate. The Bible Says: “neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do” 1 Timothy 1:4. I do not feel any kind of godly edification on this debate.
2.- I think that the purpose of the debate is to open possibilities of knowledge, considering the point of view of others and questioning our own knowledge. But in matter of faith it is hardly to be open to explore our own beliefs, when we have come to be sure of this, then debate turns in a dispute. The idea comes to be something like this: “I want to prove that you are wrong and I am right” with such point of view there is no possibility of debate but a dispute. There fore no kind of godly edification. I do not want you to stop from debate, but I think the level of this can be high, spiritual.
3.- I believe in the inspiration and preservation of the word of God, the Holy Bible. And it is a matter of Faith in God promise: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever.” Isaiah 40:8. The word of God was inspired by him trough the autograph, and preserved trough copyist. On this, however, are different positions about the preservation of God´s word. And I will expose what I believe.
A) God Inspired the autograph but God used the autograph not as a secretary or as instrument, like a man use a pen for write, but God used the autograph as a person, using his skills, knowledge, reason, emotions, and sometimes of course reveling things directly. Other times they were move to a searching and consulting other writings. They ways in which God´s word was wrote shows that God use many ways to give it, but always use the men as a whole persons, not as a merely instruments of writing. For Instance Ezra quote other writings that may be used of him for write Chronicles. 1Chr 29:29. The prophet Daniel made a research of his own and made a narration of how God answer his pray. Dan 9:2-3, 21-22. Luke says in his gospel: “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus”. Lc 1:3. And in the introduction of Acts, Luke says: “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, af all that Jesus began both to do an teach.” Acts 1:1. So we can see how God use the person, and inspire him to write, but God not always dictate HIS WORDS. God cannot be tied of hands in his ways to inspire his word and cannot be conceived as a merely dictator.
B) The facts shows, with out doubt, in the many copies of the Scriptures that the word of God has been preserved. No other Book has this record of preservation trough the years. But NO ONE of the copies are exactly alike, The fact that a Masorah exist shows the fact of different lectures, the Fact that exist majority text of the New Testament but no one exactly alike shows that God preserved his WORD, but not the EXACTLY WORDS. It is true that some, few, corruptions were copied and introduce in the text, but God has give us the understanding to identify this corruptions. The fact is that Erasmus and then others made a CRITICAL WORK in constituting the called “TEXTUS RECEPTUS” from the majority text. Even the Vulgate version was consulted. THAT IS A FACT. And the FACTS confirm my Faith and the promise of God. No other Book can show these amazing facts of preservation, and the facts cannot deny the God´s promise of preserve his word.
C) You have the right to believe that God always dictate WORDS, I believe that God inspire also WORDS, God use his servants to write not a dictation always but an inspired words also, and words are objective signs of mental subjects, ideas, concepts, psychic tracks. Where did God perform the inspiration?, in the hand? Or in the mind and spirit of his servants? I believe that God also inspire ideas and concepts and guide then the men to write using their culture, skills, and knowledge. God can do that. See how Paul says by inspiration of his own: “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: if any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be please to dwell with him, let him not put her away”. 1 Corinthians 7:12. Also see 1Cor 7:40: “But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God”. Did God dictate these words or inspire these words? From where these words came? Of course from God´s Spirit, but God´s spirit use the thoughts, feelings, spiritual maturity of Paul to write this. Are this Paul´s words or God´s words?, Both, God use the words of Paul to express his words. That is inspiration. Not dictation.
4.- I know that exist perversions of the Word of God. For instance I can say that I have see a supposed purified Bible, not the Valera1602 purificada, but another that says that JEHOVAH is the name of the calf of gold that Israel made in the wilderness, and says this is the name of a false God, and that the real name of God is “Eyeh Asher Eyeh” and they say the Tetragrama, the 4 letters for God´s name is False and a corruption of the Scribes in the exile in Babylon. The Bible it self and the facts of its preservation shows this belief is a “fable” The Critical Work help us, guided by the Bible it self, to identify the corruptions. It is not an easy work and of course not finished work, but helps us. I do not expect you to share this point with me. But I believe this.
5.-God can use what ever he wants and who ever he wants to preserve his word. Before Erasmus (Catholic Scholar) prepare his Critical Text (that is what he did, a critical work) out of the few manuscripts he has of the Byzantine family, that later became to be the Textus Receptus, other prepare good text of the New Testament in Greek, for instance the Complutensian Polyglot, and many others revised these works, and refine the text. Most of them were Catholics (liberals, humanists). Even we know now that the first work of Erasmus used also the Catholic Vulgate. Why we tie the hands of God?. God use before other people for his purposes, he uses the Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, etc. even he use the wicked prophet Balaam for express his words, even when then this wicked Balaam give a bad advice for make sin Israel and that brings the wrath of God. God may not be agree with this apostate institution (Roman Catholic Church), and will judge it for its bloodshed, but God can use men from this institution if he wants. By the way I have followed some reads in the KJV and most of the times the Byzantine text follows the Latin Vulgate. For instances none of the Few Byzantine text own by Erasmus had the text 1 John 5:7, and Erasmus then have to put it on his text translated out of the Vulgate because of the critics that he received, because his first work did not have the words of the “coma Ioaninus”.
I want to add one more thing, I have come to open to examinate the facts you show about the Spanish Bible Issue. I am looking forward to adquire the Reina Valera Gomez Bible and read it and study it. I want to be open to this subject. I am not closing my mind and my spirit.
God Bless you all that is my pray
Greetings gentlemen,
This is Robert Breaker III. Since it seems my book started this whole blog, I’ll ask anyone who’s read this far to check out my new website at:
http://www.rrb3.com
There you can get all the facts, presently “nicely” without “namecalling,” so there is no “confusion,” as Mr. Gomez accuses me of.
On my website, you’ll find out more about THE 1602 PURIFIED, the version Mr. Gomez used before he decided he’d get a name for himself by making his own version. And you’ll be able to read the entire book about the Gomez, so you can see the context, as well as the evidence about that version.
I’ve briefly looked through this site and the less than cordial postings, and was reminded of the following Bible verses in 1 Peter 3:13-16, which state:
“And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.”
It appears someone has forgotten these verses!
My desire is to preach the truth from a pure Spanish Bible. That’s why I use the 1602 Purified, and not the Gomez Version (which said it was okay for a man to marry his own daughter in the first edition which I have on my shelf!). Nor do I use the Mora and Pratt 1865 Spanish Bible. (I don’t know why they call it a Valera 1865, when it’s a REVISION of the 1602 Valera. And yes there was a second edition with 50 changes. I have it on my self. And even on the spine it has an error, spelling the spanish word “edición” as “edicieón”).
The 1602 Purified is the purest Spanish Bible around and it reads closely with the original Valera of 1602 (Closer than any other). It’s the work of my home church in Monterrey, Mexico, which with prayer and fasting for almost 20 years now, under the leadership of Pastor Raul Reyes, has been purifying the original 1602 with the KJV, TR, Hebrew Masoretic, and many other protestant reformation bibles before 1602. Dr. Ruckman even supported this work financially, which is interesting. (I have proof on my website).
The church’s desire was to remain as close as possible to the original 1602 Valera. I have a copy and have gone through all the versions extensively (1543 Enzinas, Pineda, 1569 and 1602 originals, 1865, 1909, 1960, and many more). I believe the 1602 PURIFIED is the purest Spanish Bible today.
If you don’t believe me that the 1602 Purified is the purest Spanish Bible, then get a copy and study it out yourself. My website will give you a ton of information, and also will tell you how to get a copy for yourself.
It’s a shame the Spanish Bible Issue is more about Politics than Purity. Let’s quit the name-calling, and start looking at the text itself!
The original 1602 Valera uses the word “Palabra” in speaking of Jesus Christ in John chapter one. The 1865, 1909, 1960, Gomez, and all catholic Bibles use the corrupt Catholic word “Verbo” from the latin vulgate reading of “verbum.”
I had a hispanic guy call me on the phone the other day, saying, “I read through the Gomez and looked it over, but when I hit John 1:1, I knew it was a Catholic bible, cause it said, “Verbo.” As a catholic before I was saved, I was taught Jesus is the Verbo, and that Verbo means he’s the God in “action.” But I see that Jesus is really the “Palabra,” (the older protestant word) because he’s the Word of God, just like the bible is the word of God. And they are both eternal, both life, both everlasting, etc. So which version is really a VALERA version in this verse? The 1602 Purified, of course.
That’s just one of many countless different SPANISH SPEAKERS who’s given us a testimony.
Unlike the 1865, 1909, 1960, Gomez, etc., our 1602 Purified also uses the correct word “SEÑOR” instead of Jehova in all but four places. Why? Because Valera said it was okay to use it in his preface of the original 1602! Also, because the KJV uses LORD (notice it’s all in capitals). And, because there are a plethora of older spanish Bibles (pre 1602) that do the same. Most importantly, because SEÑOR is a TRANSLATION of the Hebrew word, and not a TRANSLITERATION of the word. And, it also keeps Jehova Witnesses from being able to make new converts.
So there’s my 2 cents worth. I’m not interested in arguments. You can (and you probably will) write whatever you want about me. I’ll probably not even read it. I have too much to do than argue about all this. There’s souls going to hell! And someone needs to win them! That’s what we’re trying to do. We just want to make sure we win them with a pure word of God, and that’s what we have in the 1602 Purified.
My new website once again is: http://www.rrb3.com
Click on the flags to enter, and then go to SPANISH BIBLE ISSUE. You’ll be glad you did! You’ll find a lot of truth there!
Thanks for reading this, and may the Holy Spirit lead you into all truth. (John 16:12-13)
Robert:
Thanks for checking in here. I also doubt that many folks will actually read all the way down here. But, if they do, I will make my response simple. Your plea for civility and sticking strictly to the text is not reflected in your book. Secondly, just because one hispanic man said that the word verbo is a catholic word will not convince most people.Thirdly, the fact is Valera did not say that using SEÑOR was okay. He said it was catering to the superstitious and carnal traditions of the errant Jews, when holy men of God in the Scriptures did not have the same problem.