This is a topic of personal interest to me. I am doing some research on the subject...but would like some input!

I have many hispanic friends that are Christians, and we have different views on this issue...but I'm curious what the views are of the people familiar with the subject.

I know that there are people out there who do not use the 1960 RV...I also know that there are some who use nothing BUT the 1960 RV...I would like to know why you do or do not use this particular version.

I know this is a debate that is just as strong as the English Bible issue, and will probably become very heated very quickly. Therefore, I ask that ALL PARTIES keep their comments civilized and becoming to Christians.

I do not have a problem with opinions...however, I would like some sources/facts to back up your opinions so I and others who are interested in further research can check it out!

Thanks for your help!

I have researched this subject a lot and have been aware of it for the past 8 or 9 years. I will be glad to discuss this subject this evening but right now I have to go to work. I'll be back here sometime after 5:00 pm Eastern time.

__________________
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.

Where to begin...

Let me start by saying that I believe the controversy that has arisen in the past several years has been much more complicated and nasty than the controversy of the English Bible. There has been so much material and information given from both sides of the issue in English that to me it's not really much of a controversy anymore. It's just a matter of choosing sides nowadays.

But with the Spanish Bible it's been a lot more complicated. For years, I decided not to speak up on the subject and to just let the situation smooth itself out over time. I believe to certain degree this is starting to happen. But a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city and there has been a lot of offensive energy from every side surrounding the Spanish Bible.
It's gonna be a while before those who have divided over this issue come to terms with one another as true brethren "endeavoring to keep the spirit of unity in the bond of peace". I believe the main culprit that caused this issue to be so negatively explosive is pride. Only by pride cometh contention is what the Bible says in Proverbs. However, I believe with all my heart that over time truth will prevail, and the brethren will all eventually come together and unify. Some don't believe that. I do. Because I know there are good brethren from all sides of this issue. The same Holy Spirit dwells in every one of them. And with God, nothing is impossible.

The Bible that God gave the Hispanic people is the Reina/Valera Bible in 1602. This Bible was fruit of the Protestant Reformation (Reina and Valera being Protestants who were persecuted by the Catholic church) and was therefore contemporary with Luthers German Bible and the English King James Bible, amongst others. It was a Textus Receptus based Bible, having been translated from an OT done by 2 Spanish-speaking Jews who based their work on the Hebrew Masoretic Text, as well as Erasmus' Greek text for the NT. There were other texts used as well such as the Latin Vulgate, but for the most part it was based from the same manuscripts that led to the text of Luther's German translation and the King James Bible of 1611. The Reina/Valera Spanish Bible has been and should continue to be the standard text for the Spanish-speaking people as this is the text that God has place his stamp of approval on as evidenced by the fruit it has born throughout history.

However, Reina and Valera both have called for their work to be revised according to their own writings. This was due to the fact that their noble work was constantly being interrupted having to flee several times from the Catholic church. The Spanish inquisition was in full swing at the time and it was considered illegal to translate the scriptures without the Catholic church's approval.

There had been many revisions done since then and this is where everything gets complicated. The most famous revisions being used amongst fundamentalists have been that of 1909, and 1960. Recently another revision that was done in 1865 has been restored and made available to the public again. Which version of the Reina/Valera should we use? Well the answer to this question depends upon what exactly you want.

If you want a Bible that is up-to-date linguistically, than you will probably want the 1960 RV. However, if you choose the 1960, you do so at the expense of many critical text readings that were inserted by the revision committee headed up by Eugene Nida of the United Bible Society. If it doesn't bother you that there are departures from the Textus Receptus within the 1960 than you will also be encouraged to know that the 1960 is the most widely accepted version of the RV amongst fundamentalists.

Some fundamentalists who built their ministries with the 1909 have in recent years switched to the 1960 due to it's increasing popularity amongst fundamentalist leaders.

However, there are those who refuse to switch from the 1909 to the 1960, despite it's popularity, because of their desire to have a Bible that is more faithful to the Textus Receptus of which it was originally based upon. But even the 1909 has several critical text readings in it such as Mark 1:2, Rom. 1:16, Eph. 3:9, Luke 23:42, and others. It also uses the Greek transliteration of Hades instead of the Spanish word for Hell (infierno) in key places, as does the 1960.

Because of the departures from the Textus Receptus found within the 1960 and 1909, there has been a cry for yet more revision. This outcry has seemed to be almost exclusively from fundamentalist American missionaries who stand for the KJV in English and therefore desire to use a Bible in Spanish that is true to the Textus Receptus as is their KJV in English. This has offended many Hispanic Fundamentalist leaders as they see it as an insult for a bunch of Americans to try and correct them and their Bible of their language. To a certain degree I sympathize with them (I myself am hispanic). I believe there has been too many "bulls in a china shop" who have complicated these matters through their unnecessary aggression, misinformation, arrogance, disrespect, and lack of spiritual discernment in knowing how to deal with people of different language and culture.

On the other hand, not all of the American brethren have behaved this way. But unfortunately, those who have had a sincere and humble attitude concerning these issues have also been lumped into the same category as those who have complicated matters.

Some have taken it upon themselves to revise the Reina/Valera versions to bring them more in line with Textus Receptus rather than the Critical Texts. But most have failed. One caucasion American tried to do a totally new translation straight off the King James Bible. But this was immediately rejected by Hispanic brethren for two reasons. They see a new translation as an undermining of what God has given already given the Spanish-speaking world in the Reina/Valera Bible. I agree with them in this. Why reinvent the wheel? Secondly they rejected it because it had mistranslations of it manifesting the translator's poor understanding of the Spanish language. For example, he tried translating the word Holy Ghost, of which there is no Spanish equivalent for Ghost in the sense that Americans use "Ghost" in reference to the Holy Spirit. So he translated it as Fantasma Santo which is Spanish for a Holy Phantom, of which in the Spanish mind a phantom is never something good and is only a reference to something demonic. Thus they perceived this rendering as blasphemous and utterly rejected this new translation altogether.

Other men have tried restoring the old Enzinas translation of the NT which was also Textus Receptus based. But this work has not enjoyed much acceptance as it again appears to be an undermining of what God has already given the Hispanic people.

One group has restored the 1865 Mora and Pratt revision, of which the revisers actually used the King James Bible as their primary guide to fill in a lot of places that had yet to translated and updated in the original 1602. This group has enjoyed some acceptance as it truer to the Textus Receptus than the 1909 and 1960 and thus reads closer to the KJV. However, many Hispanic people don't care much for this version because of much of it's outdated usage of words such as salud for salvation, of which the modern usage for salvation today is salvacion. Also it uses alma (soul) instead of vida (life) in Lev. 17:11 as well as other outdated usages.

One church in Monterrey, Mexico had endeavored to restore the original 1602 and update it with the Textus Receptus and King James Bible in places where the 1602 needed updating. There was for a good while a rallying of American Fundamentalists backing this work. But questionable morality of one of it's key players and other questionable behavior by this group has caused those who were already critical of any revision of the Reina/Valera to have added ammunition against those wanting a new revision more faithful to the Textus Receptus. Thus, the momentum that this work once enjoyed seems to have lost a lot of it's steam.

(this response is continued in my next post)

__________________
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.

Finally, I come to the work of a missionary in Mexico named Humberto Gomez Sr. Bro. Gomez has been a missionary in Mexico for over 30 years. Many claim that he and his family is responsible for having established more Fundamental, Independant Baptist churches than any other missionary and/or missionary family. At any rate, Bro. Gomez is a native Mexican with Spanish as his first language. He is a master of his own language and loves his language with a passion like no other. Bro. Gomez also stands fervently for the King James Bible and the Textus Receptus, being a member and key speaker of the Dean Burgon Society headed up by Dr. D.A.Waite, a modern day champion of the Traditional Texts.

Bro. Gomez has worked diligently and sacrificially for the past 7 years on revising the 1909 Reina/Valera Bible. He has used the original 1602, the King James Bible, the Greek Textus Receptus, and the Hebrew Masoretic Text for his work. He has accurately brought every reading from Genesis to Revelation in line with the Textus Receptus. Thus, his revision reads closest to the King James Bible in English, while staying true and faithful to the original 1602 Reina Valera.

I have spend hours upon hours examining his revision. I own two copies, one in leather, one in paperback. I have a copy of it on E-Sword as well as Power Bible Sword. I had the privelege to sit down with Bro. Gomez for about 3 hours discussing his work on the Spanish Bible. Since then he and I have become good friends as we communicate with one another on the phone several times on a weekly basis. I have also compared his revision with other Reina Valera versions, the Textus Receptus, and the King James Bible in my own studies and have found it to be 100% faithful to the Traditional texts. The Spanish language and integrity of the Reina Valera Bible is kept intact. Most importantly, IT IS 100% FREE OF ANY CRITICAL TEXT READINGS WHATSOEVER! Consequently, it reads closer and almost parallel (barring language differences) to the King James Bible than any other version of the Reina Valera Bible in existence. I not only recommend it but I intend to stand for it as I endeavor to reach hispanic souls for Christ.


A PDF file of Bro. Gomez's work can be seen here - http://gomezministries.gaius.org/RVG04.pdf

The most recent revision of it can be downloaded for E-Sword here - http://www.rices4peru.com/Bible.html (This link also contains a detailed chart and much information on the subject at hand.)

News on the distribution of his revision can be seen here - http://www.thervg.com/english.htm

An article by Bro. Gomez himself, as well as an endoresement by Dr. DA Waite, and a detailed chart by Dr. Rex Cobb can be seen here - http://www.biblefortoday.org/Foreign...nish_bible.asp

A video of Bro. Gomez preaching and discussing his work at the Dean Burgon Society at Chicago can be seen here - http://www.biblefortoday.org/Videos/dbs2007s.htm

If you have read this far, you deserve about 14 rewards in heaven for your patience. LOL. Hope this info helps. There is much more I can discuss on this.

__________________
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 can assume that you support the RVG then? I have a copy of the 04 edition, and it seems to be ok. A friend of mine has the 07 edition and says that it is much better than the 04 and much better than any other version that he has read (He's Hispanic as well).

I have the 1602 NT...it seems to be very good in its rendering of certain phrases...

I just want a version of the Bible for my spanish friends that is right!

Thanks for your input!

I definately support the RVG. I gave a link of which the latest edition can be downloaded onto E-Sword.

I can assure you that this Spanish Bible is right for your friends. It has absolutely no critical text readings in it. And it is perfect in it's language. To me, if the RVG is perfectly in line with the Textus Receptus, and thus the King James Bible, than the issue is RESOLVED as there is nothing else to complain about.

__________________
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.

Hola Manny. I have a lot to say, but I may break it up over the next few days instead of trying to write one long piece.

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. See J.J. Ray’s “God wrote only one Bible,” and Mickey Carter’s “Things that are different are not the same.” Just about any other KJV defender praises the Peshitta in their writings. 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.

Does Brother Gomez have formal Greek and Hebrew training? If not, how could he do this?

How could he revise the 1602 and yet remain true and faithful to it? If we are to be true to the 1602, why not reprint it? In Bro. Gomez' article in the DBS website, he talks about the "poverty" of Spanish Bibles, in order to justify his own. Was he not downing the 1602 there and in other places in his writings?

Judging by the way you wrote the above, you must not realize that there are many Textus Receptus editions within the Traditional Text family, and there are some variations between them.

On a related note, I consider the charts on the Dean Burgon Society website misleading because it is possible to turn the tables around and prove the exact opposite. To prove how misleading the charts are, I made my own chart adhering consistently to the Stephanus 1550 Textus Receptus edition. Instead of being selective going all over the Bible to pick certain verses, I restricted myself to omissions of only one word in only one book of the New Testament. I can't post a chart on this forum, but see if you can find the word "evangelio" (gospel) in the RVG or KJV in the following places:

Acts 8:12
Acts 10:36
Acts 15:35
Acts 17:18

Then see if you can locate it in the RV 1960 and the Stephanus 1550 Textus Receptus edition. There they are. And this example only covers only one single word in only one book of the Bible.

Was this the motive behind the project?

You could be right, if by critical texts you have like the Westcott and Hort texts in mind. And of course the KJV was not influenced by Westcott and Hort texts, as it would have been an impossibility since W&H wasn't published until 1881. However, there are some Latin Vulgate readings in the KJV (and possibly the Reina-Valera), which is kind of the equivalent of a critical text before the Westcott and Hort era. That the KJV incorporated some Latin Vulgate readings is admited by a number of authors who defend the KJV, and I could provide some quotes on request. One quick way of verifying this is to check out Isa. 14:12. "Lucifer" perfectly matches the spelling of the Latin. The RVG incorporates this Latin Vulgate reading here as well, which was not present in the 1602 or 1909.

My point with all this is that the KJV is allowed to have a few critical readings via the Latin Vulgate and still be considered to be based on the Textus Receptus, but the Spanish Bible (1909 or 1960, to be more specific) is not allowed to have any critical reading whatsoever by its KJVonly critics for it to qualify as being based on the Textus Receptus. This is a double standard!

I have a full review of my thoughts on the RVG here:
http://literaturabautista.com/english/englishrvg.htm

I'll say more later. Adios.

Here we go

Tina

Humberto Gomez is a good man and a dear friend!

Tina

Amen! Sistah he is to us too!