Hermano, I will quote what Brother Gomez wrote on the DBS website, and you will see that he did indeed include the 1602 in his poverty declaration, and it did not even involve a matter of differences with critical texts:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some examples of the poverty of the translations of our Spanish Bibles, and how we have improved it and made it better, using the terminology of the King James Bible.

The 1602, 1865, and 1909 use the word "salud" (health) instead of "Salvacion" (salvation); The word "cubierta" (lid) instead of "propiciatorio" (mercy seat); The word "parte" instead of (portion), and many more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

No sir, the poverty he was referring to did not have to do with critical texts. He didn’t have to use such a highly-charged word for what was merely old Spanish. He did not even explain that the word “salud” meant more than just health in the old days, something English speakers are not likely to know.

I produced his chart as “food for thought” only. I have since looked at his list more in detail, and realized that in many places the supposed discrepancy was very vague, or was a variation between Textus Receptus editions, or vindicated by Reformation Bibles clearly based on the Textus Receptus, etc. In March of 2006 I sent Brother Cobb a letter pointing these kind of things out. Here is an excerpt from what I wrote him:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find some things in your study that I consider a double standard. Several times the 1960 is faulted for not following the exact word order of the Greek. Did the KJV never do this? Just look at any interlinear and you will see. Rev. 7:17 is an example, where you fault the 1960 for having “fuentes de agua de vida” en vez de: “fuentes vivas de aguas.” Isn’t this nitpicking to the point of utter absurdity? [the 1960 reading sure flows much better, which is probably why they changed the word order]

On numerous occasions the 1960 did not use the exact equivalent that the 1960 used, but rather a synonymous phrase. Rev. 14:5 is an example, where you fault the 1960 for having mentira (falsedad) en vez de: engaño. Aren’t these words synonymous? What is the problem here?

Luke 11:15 (Beelzebú, Beelzebul vs. Beelzebub). If the 1960 doesn’t spell a Greek transliteration exactly as in Greek it’s wrong, yet if the KJV and others don’t follow the Greek spelling it’s OK? The Greek does not have a second letter “b” as in English. Does the English correct the Greek?

There are some so-called critical text readings in your study that are in reality due to differences in TR editions. One example that caught my eye was Luke 2:22, where the 1960 reading is found in Stephanus 1550.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brother Cobb acknowledged the letter, and admitted that some things might seem insignificant, but he excused himself by saying he got his problem passages from other sources, and if they marked it down as an error, he went with it, no matter how insignificant it seemed. I thought, "how convenient."

If he were to begin to slander others or say really awful things about other Reina-Valera Bibles as some others have done would you withdraw your support?

I didn’t mean to be so abrupt, especially after you ended your last communication in a friendly manner. But there were some tough questions that needed to be asked, and I hope I was not overbearing.

Bro. George, good to hear from you again. My response is in the works and will be posted as soon as time allows. Right now I need about 3 of me to take care of everything (preparing for deputation and a trip to PR) but I will make time to respond. God bless.

__________________
RETIRED.

Please take care of TOP, my pet donkey, while I'm gone.

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/sho...57&postcount=7

God bless everyone!

Visit my website www.4thesaviour.com and sign the guestbook to stay updated with our ministry.

Howdy brother Manny,

You don't know me and I don't know Spanish, but I've been to 2 classes on the Spanish bible by to 2 men and I was interested in your input on the subject. Brother Robert Breaker gave the first class, who in a condensed version said that there wasn't a perfect Spanish bible, but the 1602 was close but it was close, however God preserved the KJV and Jeff McCardle the 2nd. class who said that the 1865 was just a revision of the 1602 and the right one preserved.

I might not have stated their positions perfectly, but you probably know both men and their positions. Could you comment on which is right in your opinion.

BIBLE BAPTIST MINISTRIES Tommy H. Heffner Sr.
Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou
shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this
generation for ever. http://www.akjb.org

__________________
Bible Baptist Ministries Tommy H. Heffner Sr.
A bible believer adjusts his theology to meet the demands of the TEXT, NOT adjust the TEXT to meet the demands of his theology. P.S.R. http://www.akjb.org

Bro. Calvin George, sorry for the late response. Between preaching, teaching, raising a family, working a full-time job, trying to sell my home, maintaining a website, preparing for a 2-week trip to PR, preparing for deputation, etc, it has been a challenge to find ample time to get on here. Even now, I am sacrificing time I could be using for preparations for deputation and phone calls. But this is not a complaint. I enjoy this conversation and will continue it as long as you or anyone else wishes. I want to oblige anyone who is interested in my perspective on this controversial subject.

I agree with you that the KJV translators were not inspired in the same manner that the original writers were. If they were, they wouldn't have needed any manuscripts to collate and translate from. However, I disagree with the insinuation you are trying to make that the KJV is not perfect. Let's be plain about matters. Basically, you don't believe the KJV or any other translation is perfect. You believe only the "originals" were perfect. But because the "originals" are gone, there is no such thing as a perfect Bible on this earth today [is what you believe]. I disagree.

I'll make it simple. God promised to preserve his pure words in Ps. 12:6-7. Upon that promise, I believe it's only common sense to believe that God would not, and did not, waste his time inspiring scriptures that he did not intend to perfectly preserve. I believe this because " I know that whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. - Ecc. 3:14" Also, why would he promise to preserve his words perfectly if he didn't intend for us to have them today?

I believe nothing is too hard or impossible for God. Therefore, I also believe that God has the power to override man's shortcomings and imperfections to produce a perfect work. He's God. He can do that. He used an imperfect woman named Mary to produce his perfect son (the incarnate Word) in human form. Why couldn't God use imperfect people to produce his perfect words in scripture form(the written Word)? I think God has to ability to do anything he pleases.

So if the perfect word of God is not preserved for us in the King James Bible, THEN WHERE IS IT? It's got to be around here somewhere, because he promised to preserve it. And God doesn't lie. So the perfect word of God is on this earth somewhere today. And I believe I have a copy of it in the English language in the King James Bible. And I challenge anyone on this earth to prove me wrong in this matter.

I believe the RVG is perfect textually in the sense that it is totally pure from any critical text readings that depart from the Traditional texts. As far as any typographical or translational problems, I believe only time will reveal when we can claim that type of perfection as we do our King James Bible in English. The RVG has been in a trial stage. There are collaborators (some whom I have met and know personally) all over the world perusing the RVG and submitting their suggestions, recommendations, constructive criticisms, etc to Bro. Gomez for the sake of purifying the text. But despite whatever typographical or disagreements with certain language renderings, what we have in the current available editions of the RVG is a Spanish Reina Valera Bible that follows the Received Texts 100%. Consequently, the RVG reads parallel to the KJV more than any other version of the Reina Valera Bible. However, the RVG is now in it's final stages and I anticipate that what we will have in the finished product of the RVG will be the perfect words of God in Spanish in the same sense that we claim perfection for the KJV.

I believe I've already dealt with this thoroughly enough in an earlier post on this thread.

see comments above

Here are the exact words of Bro. Gomez from that article: "In our opinion, our Bible is perfect and ready to be preached from. However, we have an open heart and mind: If a godly person has an opinion regarding the text or grammar, we will take it into serious consideration because we want the best for our people." (emphasis mine)

Again he states: "What I am presenting to you, in my opinion, is the perfect word of God. But here it is for you to read and examine; if you can find anything in it that is not in agreement with the Textus Receptus, or if you can find anything that is not written in good and perfect Spanish, we will immediately correct it, for the good of our people and for the glory of the Lord." (emphasis mine)

Notice 2 times, Bro. Gomez said that it was his opinion that his revision was perfect but that he was open-minded and willing to stand corrected. I think that is about as honest as a man can be. Don't you? Besides, if the KJV went through a purifying process, and did, why shouldn't the RVG, or any other Bible?

I have never done a research to find who first came up with the idea of the KJV being perfect, infallible, or inerrant. However, I believe in the idea a perfect translation not because of Peter S. Ruckman or anyone else. I believe it because of my faith in what the Bible says about itself. I may sound like a broken record, but I believe Ps. 12:6-7 is pretty plain about God's promise to preserve his pure words. This promise of preservation, coupled with my faith in God's ability to do the seemingly impossible, serve as the foundation for my belief, yea, my conviction in a perfect Bible. Not Peter S. Ruckman. I believed the KJV was the perfect word of God before I ever knew who Ruckman was.

Besides, even IF Ruckman was the first to popularize this idea, that would be one item that I am in agreement with him despite all the things I may disagree with him on. The truth is the truth no matter who declares it. Some may use that statement to label me a "Ruckmanite" since I am in agreement with him on a particular subject. But I've never been one to be intimidated by guilt-by-association arguments and ad-hominems anyways. When the Catholic church stands up against abortion and calls it murder, I say AMEN! Does that make me a Catholic? I agree with Charles Haddon Spurgeon when he preached that repentance was necessary for salvation. Does that make me a Calvinist since I agree with a Calvinist on a certain doctrine? (I reject all 5 points of Calvinism) I agree with Sam Jones, John Wesley, Peter Cartwright, and the other old time Methodists when they preached the necessity of personal holiness and separation from this world, yet they believed you can lose your salvation and were Arminians. Does that make me an Arminian, despite my belief in Eternal Security? I guess I could be labeled all kind of things if you dug hard enough. But the problem with me is that I am too dumb to know to be intimidated by petty labeling and stigmas. Pray for me. I never was a good politician.

(continued)

__________________
RETIRED.

Please take care of TOP, my pet donkey, while I'm gone.

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/sho...57&postcount=7

God bless everyone!

Visit my website www.4thesaviour.com and sign the guestbook to stay updated with our ministry.

Well it is unfortunate, hermano, that I would have to be in disagreement with you on that matter. However, I can still respect you for your efforts and sacrifices as a minister to my people. I just think you are misguided in this regard.

I have talked with Bro. Gomez about that several times (in fact just yesterday). In time, Bro. Gomez will reveal his collaborators. However, right now Bro. Gomez will not because he doesn't want these brethren to be subjected to the same type of heat, slander, and ostracization that he has suffered in the process of this work. I think that is wise. Why discourage these good brethren from contributing their valuable input? However, I have had the privilege to meet some of the collaborators. Others I have communicated with one way or another. I have told Bro. Gomez that I believe it would be good to reveal his collaborators soon enough. And he has stated that he will. Sooner than later.

You brethren give Bro. Humberto Gomez too much credit for this work by trying to imply that he has done it all by himself. Bro. Gomez may be smart, but you guys are making him sound like an intellectual giant!

We can play the semantics game forever. However, my questions still stands. Where is the God-given law that states that Bible revision can only be done by a committee of men? And what type of set-up was this "committee" to employ according to this same law?

Most importantly, the issue should be more about the text and not Bro. Gomez anyways. When the KJV translators (or "revisers" for you) nominated the use of the Bishop's Bible for their work, notice they were more concerned with the text and not the person behind the text. That is the main issue. What about THE TEXT Bro. Gomez has produced?

Well first off, we already know that the majority of the Reina Valera text is Textus Receptus based to begin with. So the main crux of the reviser’s job (in this case Bro. Gomez) would be to simply remove the critical text readings that were inserted into the text in 1909 and 1960 since that has been the concern - CRITICAL TEXT READINGS. Secondly, we could knit-pick Bro. Gomez's words and strain at gnats all day in attempts to make a man "an offender for a word" - Isa. 29:21, but my major concern will remain the same. WHAT ABOUT THE TEXT? Is there anything wrong with the text?

I'm starting to suspect something. I'm beginning to speculate that Bro. Gomez's critics are actually afraid of his honesty. I suspect that the real reason his critics continue to criticize him instead of the text is because they're afraid that Bro. Gomez in his honesty will actually consider their textual criticisms if they had any. And upon consideration, he might entertain the idea of worthy changes, thus turning his critics into his involuntary allies. (some preach Christ of contention...) Of which, such a thing would be devastating to his critics due to their desperate desires for his failure.

As I've stated before, Lucero and Lucifer could both be used here. Neither are incorrect. This is no real problem. Latin Vulgate readings don't bother me where they are in agreement with the Traditional Texts.

Why not?

Please do so and let's look at them. I'm all ears.

I also think it's very revealing. It's very revealing that most "fundamental leaders" care more about their image and speaking opportunities, than taking a stand for the word of God. Perhaps these "leaders" do not have the backbone to withstand the peer pressure. Notice I said "perhaps". This is not meant as a slam to these men of God. I have a preacher friend of mine, a native Mexican, who has admitted to me personally that he does not have the courage to revise the Reina Valera Bible although he recognizes the need for revision. I appreciate this brother’s honesty. Not every task is for everyone. But God knows the right people to raise for the right job.

And isn't the willingness to stem the tide by standing for what is right despite the support of your peers a quality of good leadership? I respect these men who will not stand with Bro. Gomez for their faithfulness in other areas of Christianity. They are good men of God and should be honored as such. Sometimes good men part ways over certain issues, such as Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:36-41. However, I have even more respect for a man that is not intimidated by ostracization, rejection, peer pressure, politics, and popularity, but instead will stand for what he believes whether no one else stands with him or not. Was it not Paul who said "at my first answer, no man stood with me"? Did not he say later "only Luke is with me...notwithstanding the Lord stood with me"? There were many good and honorable men of God during the time that Paul made those statements. Paul did not deny those men of the respect they deserve. However, the fact remained that at times he stood alone.

Bro. George, would you be willing to stand alone for what you sincerely believe is right if you did not receive the approval of the "fundamental leaders"?

As for me, I am no one’s puppet. (not saying you are) I may love and respect the “fundamental leaders” for what they DO stand for. But I love and respect the Lord Jesus Christ even more. He is the Supreme Leader. What if we intend to follow him more than the others? Wouldn’t that be something.

I have only looked into the matters of God's word in two languages: Spanish and English. Therefore, I am not qualified to make a judgment on Bibles of other languages. Although I have heard that the Koreans have a Bible that is 100% perfect. But again, I have not looked into that matter since my dealings are not with Korean people.

At any rate, examples or no examples, I think it only makes perfect common sense to believe that if the KJV is perfect, any other Bible will line up perfectly with the KJV in regards to the text. I stand by that statement.

Of all the things I have read and researched over the past 10 years, I have always been under the impression that the KJV followed the Masoretic Text perfectly. Of course, saying the "Masoretic text" is also a somewhat vague terminology in that there are different editions. It is generally believed that the 2nd Rabbinic edition of Ben Chayim best represents the Jewish scriptures that the KJV translators based their OT work from.

At any rate, I would be interested to look into any “variations” from the Masoretic Text you are aware of in the KJV. And by faith in Ps. 12:6-7, I already know that whatever you come up with, there is a good explanation for it.

(continued)

__________________
RETIRED.

Please take care of TOP, my pet donkey, while I'm gone.

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/sho...57&postcount=7

God bless everyone!

Visit my website www.4thesaviour.com and sign the guestbook to stay updated with our ministry.

I have looked for that quote in my copy of Ruckman's "The Bible Babel" and have not been able to find it on that page or even in that chapter. So perhaps my edition is newer than yours. Perhaps Ruckman has recanted that statement since then. After all, it was about 50 years ago when he wrote that book.

At any rate, in all of my research I have always been under the impression that the KJV was based on the Received Texts 100%. And so until you can show me specific examples where this is not so, I will continue to stand by that notion.

I have not taken the time to look into the verses in Scrivener's text to see to what degree these are variations. Like I said earlier, I am very busy these days. However, if these slight differences are simply spelling or language variations rather than textual variants, such as that which you find in the W & H and Nestle/Aland greek texts, than the "variations" are immaterial.

Does it have it's origin in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, or the pure Old Latin scriptures of the anti-Catholic, Bible-believing Waldenses? So first off, are you sure of the premise for claiming this word as a "critical text" rendering? The word Bro. Gomez chose is not in conflict whatsoever with the Hebrew word "heylel", therefore there is no problem. And I have no problems with readings from Jerome's Latin Vulgate where it doesn't contradict the Traditional Received Texts.

Well the verses I mentioned are from what I see in a borrowed facsimile of the original 1602 put out by Sociedad Biblica in Madrid, Spain.

I don't either, however I do advocate using the 1602 as one of your primary guides for revision work, as Bro. Gomez has done.

You say that as if that's a bad thing. I think that's a good thing. But of course, you don't share the same perspective that I have in the KJV being perfect. So I can understand your logic in this statement although I respectfully disagree with it.

I am curious as to who this person is that I am connected to that I should be careful of. You can shoot me a PM or an email if you want. I'd really like to know.

Like I said earlier, I am not going to make Bro. Gomez "an offender for a word". The point Bro. Gomez was trying to make was the need for revision. And even you would agree with Bro. Gomez in the need to update the word "salud" to "salvacion" according to your book on the History of The 1960 RV (which I commend you for the research you did to give us a background behind the men of the 1960). Whether Bro. Gomez's choice of using the word "poverty" in regards to antiquated Spanish words was wise or not is not ample ammunition to totally discredit the work that he has done. I'm sure if we dug up all the writings of the KJV translators, or the 1960 Reina Valera revisers for that matter, we could find all kind of questionable statements. But all that would be beside the point. The real issue, as I have stated over and over again, and will continue to repeat like a broken record is - WHAT ABOUT THE TEXT? Is the RVG a good revision or not? I think it is for reasons already stated. How about you?


Just because you can find a critical text reading in a Textus Receptus based Bible does not justify it's existence there if the reading is corrupt. I recommend Dean Burgon's book Causes Of Corruption on this matter.

The rendering of "their purification" instead of "her purification" is an example of the "poverty" that can be found in some editions of the Textus Receptus on rare occasions, which is why the KJV translators used not one, but several editions of the TR, for their work. Why did the KJV choose the rendering of the other editions of the TR rather than the Stephanus rendering? Deductively, because one of the principles they used for their work was the principle of context or internal evidence. Dean Burgon lists this as one of his proposed "7 notes of truth" for Bible translating and revising, and Wilbur Pickering elaborates on this point in his Identity of the New Testament Text. This passage would be in error if rendered as "their purification" because "their" would include Jesus Christ. And Christ did not need any purification since he was sinless. Besides, the law of purification was for a woman who had just bore a child according to Lev. 12. It was not in reference to the circumcision of the male child. Lev. 12 makes this very plain. And the fact that the sinless Christ was not in need of any kind of purification strengthens that point, nor was a sin offering necessary for him which was one of the requirements of the purification process. The KJV and the RVG are absolutely correct for rendering Luke 2:22 as "her purification" (ella) rather than the erroneous rendering of "their purification" (ellos).


If Bro. Gomez ever went bad, it would sadden me as I count him a dear friend. It wouldn’t be the first time I have parted ways with a dear preacher friend for inexcusable misbehavior. If his behavior necessitated me to withdraw supporting him, than I would do so with great sorrow. (some people act as if they want Bro. Gomez to fall or go bad) But not supporting Bro. Gomez would not necessarily constitute a need in rejecting the text he produced depending on the magnitude of the situation. In the words of Bro. Gomez himself in his article:

"If any of you come up with a revision that proves to be better than ours, more perfect, more accurate, we will move aside and rally around it, because this issue is not about me or you. It is about The Word, and for the benefit of our people, and for the salvation of this lost and dying world." (emphasis mine)


Bro. George, feel free to ask me ANY tough questions you have. I invite them. Because if I don't have the answer, I will not rest until I do by the grace of God. Tough questions will only strengthen my convictions. I know what I believe. And I am more than willing to discuss the toughest matters in a Christian and respectful manner. In fact, Bro. George, when you are in the US on furlough, I invite you to visit me in Beaufort, SC. I would love to extend to you and your family the hospitality of my home. We could not only fellowship around the matters of the word of God, but I would love to discuss Puerto Rico with you and glean from your experience there. I do not wish to count you as an enemy because of our disagreements, but rather as a friend as we are family in Christ. The question is: will you extend to me the same courtesy?

God bless.

__________________
RETIRED.

Please take care of TOP, my pet donkey, while I'm gone.

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/sho...57&postcount=7

God bless everyone!

Visit my website www.4thesaviour.com and sign the guestbook to stay updated with our ministry.

I know one of those men personally. The other I have yet to meet. I try to meet everyone and anyone who has anything to do with this issue whether I agree with them on everything or not.

As far as there not being a perfect Spanish Bible, we must define "perfection". If perfection is to be defined as free from critical text readings that depart from the Traditional texts and the King James Bible, then I say there IS a perfect Spanish Bible in the RVG. See my posts above for more details.

I know that Bro. Breaker supports the work of restoring the original 1602 Valera Bible in Monterrey, Mexico. I have a copy of the NT. It is a good text in my opinion. However, it is only a NT and I need more than just a NT when I go to the mission-field. They have yet to put out the OT and their status is still pending. The RVG is Old & New Testament.

I know that Bro. McArdle is a staunch supporter of the 1865. The 1865 was indeed a good revision of the 1602. The revisors Mora and Pratt did not use the critical texts for their work. However, most Hispanics do not wish to use the 1865 because of the antiquated Castilian language within the text. For example, it uses "salud" instead of "salvacion". "Salud" was the old Castilian usage for the word salvation. Since then, the hispanic world has embraced the word "salvacion" instead and most prefer that rendering in their Bible. Another example is in Lev. 17:11 in which they use "alma" (soul) instead of "vida" (life). Thus, it reads "the soul of the flesh is in the blood" rather than "the life of the flesh...". This is not an error. It's just a matter of difference in word usages in the original Castilian Spanish and todays more common vernacular.

At any rate, most Hispanics, especially in Mexico, have a problem with some of these old usages of words and thus prefer an updated language. There are some Hispanic brethren in some parts of the Spanish-speaking world that have no problem with the old Castilian. Therefore, I say that if they don't have a problem with it, I wouldn't have a problem with it either if I was ministering to them. After all, the 1865 is a good text in that it is truer to the Textus Receptus, and thus reads closer to the KJV, than the 1909 and 1960 revisions of the Reina Valera.

The language in the RVG is the same as what you will find in the 1909 or even in the 1960 for that matter. But it does not contain the critical text variations from the Textus Receptus that you find in the 1909 and 1960.

__________________
RETIRED.

Please take care of TOP, my pet donkey, while I'm gone.

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/sho...57&postcount=7

God bless everyone!

Visit my website www.4thesaviour.com and sign the guestbook to stay updated with our ministry.

Thanks for your input!

I noticed you went to a church in Beaufort, SC. I can't think of his name, but there was a man, his wife and a daughter from McAdenville, NC that visited my church around '99-2002 who was in your church. I was just wondering if maybe you knew him. I know that isn't much info, but I liked him and wondered if he was still down there.

BIBLE BAPTIST MINISTRIES Tommy H. Heffner Sr.
He that leaveth off preaching and hearing the word of God,
for fear of being excommunicated of men, is already excommunicated
of God, and shall in the day of judgment be counted a traitor to Christ. ...
John Wycliffe 1320-1384 http://www.akjb.org

__________________
Bible Baptist Ministries Tommy H. Heffner Sr.
A bible believer adjusts his theology to meet the demands of the TEXT, NOT adjust the TEXT to meet the demands of his theology. P.S.R. http://www.akjb.org

I'm sorry brother but I can't think of who you are referring to. I've been in this church for close to 20 years so I'm sure I'd know who you are talking about if I knew the names.

__________________
RETIRED.

Please take care of TOP, my pet donkey, while I'm gone.

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/sho...57&postcount=7

God bless everyone!

Visit my website www.4thesaviour.com and sign the guestbook to stay updated with our ministry.

Hi Folks,

This is a fascinating and worthwhile thread discussion.
Just finished reading the three pages .

I learned a lot of new information about the Spanish Bible situation.
And appreciate the efforts of brother Humberto Gomez being shared by Manny.
Earlier, reading the material about the Reina-Valera editions had left me with
a slightly incomplete sense, and this sounds like a fine effort to fill the gap,
to have the word of God in Spanish most excellently.

Thanks for sharing here.

There are some minor technical issues that I might discuss (e.g. there are
a few small Scrivener/KJB differences and also the question of Ben Hayim
variance from the KJB) - however they really are a bit on the technical level.

One comment, though, about the Peshitta, from the first page.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpanishMissionary 3 of the 4 passages you mentioned above are vindicated by the Peshitta. If you look at the books by KJV defenders that include a “good source tree” you will find the Peshitta listed as a good source along with the KJV. ... If it is OK to defend the KJV with the Peshitta, it is OK to defend the Spanish Bible with the Peshitta. No double standards allowed.

The Peshitta agrees 75-80% with the pure NT text against the alexandrian. A very consistent and strong agreement. (It was simple to check about 200 differences using the English translation from Lamsa.)

And the Peshitta is very strong evidence for the early Byzantine readings. Which led to the alexandrian proponents theorizing a later date for the Peshitta, since the early date (2nd century) destroys their Lucian recension theories. (Theories which are essentially discarded anyway, yet their false
conclusions are retained.)

However to use the Peshitta as a verse-by-verse defense of a non-TR reading will simply lead to error. You could similarly use the Peshitta to justify the removal of the Pericope Adultera or the Johannine Comma or changing "God was manifest in the flesh..." .

Such a methodology would be faulty.

==============

Thanks again for sharing about the Spanish Bibles on the forum !

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY