Which English Bible Corrected Your Spanish Bible? - Dr. Gomez

Which English Bible Corrected Your Spanish Bible?

(By Dr. Humberto Gómez)

“I don’t believe the English Bible should correct the Spanish Bible”

The previous statement was made by the most outspoken of our critics; he makes such a statement while holding in his hand a Spanish Bible that was “corrected” by ENGLISH BIBLES.

I write this response only because the same statement is being repeated by many others. God’s people deserve to know the truth. Please allow me to demonstrate that the great majority of the changes that were made in the 1960 RV Spanish Bible were taken from ENGLISH BIBLES(The ASV & RSV).

I don’t understand why they would even deny it, since Dr. Eugene Nida and Dr. José Flores, of the United Bible Societies, on similar books they have written, like the book “El Texto Del Nuevo Testamento” proudly admit the following. Quote:

A principal added to the first list of the Revision Committee of the Reina-Valera (1960) was: ‘Where the Reina-Valera Version has left the Textus Receptus to follow a better text, we will not return to the Receptus.’ Point number 12 of the ‘Working Principles’ says: ‘In cases where there is doubt about the correct translation of the original, we will consult preferentially the English Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, the Revised Standard Version of 1946 and the International Critical Commentary.’ End of quote.

These are not my words, but the words of Dr. José Flores.

(1) The Reina-Valera has left the Textus Receptus to follow a better text.

(2) We will not return to the Receptus.

(3) We will consult preferentially the ENGLISH Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, the Revised Standard Version of 1946 and the International Critical Commentary.

 

I am sure you notice that the Bibles mentioned to be consulted by the 1960 Revisers are ENGLISH BIBLES; not only English Bibles, but Bibles based in Westcott and Hort and Nestle-Aland Texts.

 

 

The fact of the matter is that these ENGLISH BIBLES were not just consulted, they were implemented.

While the Spanish Reina Valera Bible was based on the Textus Receptus, a departure began in 1909 and in the year 1960 an official divorcement took place. They said: We will not return to the Receptus.

Allow me to point out just a few words that were erased by the RV 1960 revisers in order to follow these ENGLISH BIBLES. These are not my opinions, these are facts.

 

Hell - Infierno

Our critic also asks: quote: Was it just a coincidence that both the Spanish RVG and the KJV have “hell” exactly 54 times? End of quote.

Can I ask the same question: Was it just a coincidence that both the Spanish 1960 and the ASV have “hell” (Infierno) exactly 13 times? The 1960 revisers completely erased the word Hell from the Old Testament, as did the ASV. They also reduced the word hell to merely 13 times in the NT. Is it a coincidence? Perhaps.

ASV Hades 10 times - 1960 Hades 10 times

ASV Hell 13 times - 1960 Infierno 13 times

ASV Sheol 65 times - 1960 Seol 65 times

 

Why is it wrong to follow the King James Bible, but it is okay to follow the American Standard Version?

Words that remained in the RV Spanish Bible for 400 years were erased from the RV 1960.

 

Charity -Caridad

No more charity in the Spanish Bible. Until I die I will defend the fact that the Greek word <agape> can be translated either way, charity or love, but that does not justify the total erasing of the word. There is an English Bible that also erased the word charity, the ASV. Is it a coincidence? Perhaps.

Rightly dividing(Traza) is gone.

It stood in the RV Spanish Bible for 400 years. The word Traza (Rightly dividing) is a very rich word in the Spanish language. It is a word used in architecture and fine art; in painting, design, drawing, and in sculpture. It is the art of rightly dividing and putting every thing where it belongs. But the word Traza (Rightly divide) was erased and replaced with “uses well” The ASV “handles well”. Is it a coincidence? Perhaps.

Unicorn - Unicornio

Several fundamentalists have written to me, chiding me about the word unicorn (unicornio). They say: Why did you dare to change the word of God? The unicorn (unicornio) is a mythological horse that never existed. Seriously, they think that I changed it, when the word unicorn has been in the Reina Valera Bible for more than 400 years, 1602, 1862, 1909 and RVG04 All have it unicornio.

So the 1960 Revisers removed it from the RV and replaced it with the word “Buffalo”. Unicorn remained there for 400 years. There is an ENGLISH BIBLE that did exactly the same thing; you guessed it, the ASV. Is it a coincidence? Perhaps.

A Whale, a dragon or a sea monster?

¿Ballena, dragón o monstruo marino?

Job 7:12  ¿Soy yo el mar, o un monstruo marino, Para que me pongas guarda? 1960

Job 7:12 ”Am I a sea, ora sea-monster, That thou settest a watch over me?”(ASV)

Eze 32:2… y eres como el dragón en los mares; pues secabas tus ríos,  y enturbiabas las aguas con tus pies,  y hollabas sus riberas. 1960

Eze 32:2 … “You consider yourself a lion among the nations, but you are like a dragon in the seas(RSV)

Eze 32:2… eres como la vallena en las mares RV 1602 (BallenaRVG)

What happened with the word “Ballena” Whale? Is it a coincidence? Perhaps.

Pissethagainst the wall - Meante a la pared

The phrase “pissethagainst the wall” (meante a la pared) was totally erased from the Reina Valera Bible 1960.

The ASV ENGLISH BIBLE also erased the phrase, “pissethagainst the wall.” Is it a coincidence? Perhaps.

Sabbath - Sábado

The word sabbath (sábado) was totally erased from the Reina Valera Bible 1960.

The ASV ENGLISH BIBLEalso removed the word Sabbath. Is it a coincidence? Perhaps.

Christ was not in the desert?

1Co 10:9 Neither let us make trial of the Lord, as some of them made trial, and perished by the serpents.ASVW&H

1Co 10:9 Ni tentemos al Señor, como también algunos de ellos le tentaron, y perecieron por las serpientes. RV 1960

The word Christ remained for 400 years in the Reina Valera Bible. But they took an ENGLISH BIBLE, the ASV and “corrected it.” Is it a coincidence? Perhaps.

1Co 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. KJV TR

1Co 10:9 Ni tentemos a Cristo, como también algunos de ellos le tentaron, y perecieron por las serpientes. RVG (RV 1602 Christo)

Is Jesus the Creator?

Eph 3:9  And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:KJV

Ef 3:9 y de alumbrar a todos quál sea la dispensación del misterio escondido desde los siglos en Dios, que crió todas las cosas por Jesu Christo;1602,

Eph 3:9 y de aclarar a todos cuál es la comunión del misterio escondido desde el principio del mundo en Dios, que creó todas las cosas por Jesucristo;RVG

Eph 3:9 and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things______________;ASV

Eph 3:9 y de aclarar a todos cuál sea la dispensación del misterio escondido desde los siglos en Dios, que creó todas las cosas_______________; RV 1960.

The words by Jesus Christ (por Jesucristo) remained for 400 years in the Reina Valera Bible. But they took an ENGLISH BIBLE, the ASV and “corrected it.” Is it a coincidence? Perhaps.

We did not have to follow the KJV English Bible for all these words and verses; The Spanish Reina Valera Bible had them right for 400 years.

I can give you several more examples, but these should suffice to demonstrate that English Bibles were not only consulted, but implemented.Hundreds of Bible verses in the RV 1960 come from the ENGLISH BIBLES(ASV and RSV).

It is very hypocritical that our critics accuse us of following an English Bible (The KJV) when the revisers of their Spanish Bible made several hundred of changes following ENGLISH BIBLES (ASV & RSV). Maybe the statement of our critic should be; “I don’t believe the KJV Bible should correct the Spanish Bible, only the ASV and the RSV

It is your prerogative to use the Bible of your choice; nobody should obligate you to use a Bible that you don’t trust; but please, don’t twist or spin the truth; be honest. God’s people deserve to know the truth.

If we are “accused” of following the English reading in Dan 3:25 we don’t deny it; we agree 100%; it is the truth. We are guilty as charged! We believe that it is a much better rendering; and it is based in the Masoretic Text.

Dan 3:25Respondió él y dijo: He aquí yo veo cuatro varones sueltos, que se pasean en medio del fuego, y ningún daño hay en ellos; y el parecer del cuarto es semejante al Hijo de Dios. (The Son of God: instead of: the son of the gods)

But you are guilty of not telling the truth, whenyou implied that we follow the English in many other verses like…

Mt 16:18, Mr 9:24, Lu 23:42 and many more.

 

I am perplexed by the attitude of some Fundamentalist leaders that are willing to take a “strong stand” only when it’s convenient.

 

They swiftly and “bravely” side with the majority; but when the truth is on the side of the minority, and there is a price to pay, they explain away their position. They would rather remain “neutral” and not face the issue.

 

It is very saddening to witness the dethronement (by the Critical Text) of the God honoring Traditional Text (The Textus Receptus), with the complacency, and in many cases complicity of fundamentalism. Not in Spanish only, but in all the languages of the world.

 

May God grant us some grit to take a stand for what is right.

English
term reference: 
nuns">