Is this the correct position on Spanish Bibles?

In his book entitled THE BIBLE BELIEVER'S GUIDE TO ELEPHANT HUNTING, Jeff McArdle wrote: "There is only one correct position to start from when dealing with Spanish Bibles. The correct position is this: If the King James Bible is superior to even the Greek text in regards to omissions and additions (and by 'the Greek text' we mean any Greek NT extant), then certainly it is superior to any Spanish Bible" (p. 18).

McArdle added: "as one brother once pointed out, 'If the King James can correct the Greek, it can certainly correct the Spanish'" (p. 18).

McArdle asserted that "the KJV should be the standard also for Latin Americans" (p. 21).

McArdle wrote: "the standard Bible not just for the English-speaking world, but also for the Spanish-speaking world, was, is, and always will be the King James Bible" (p. 76).

McArdle maintained that "the King James Bible must be the standard Book by which any Spanish Bible is judged" (p. 78).

 

After reading his book, Jeff McArdle seems to be serious in making his claims that I quoted. His view concerning Spanish Bibles seems to be his consistent application of his KJV-only view. I ordered the book from the web address below.

http://valera1865.org/EnglishIntroduction.htm (Jeff McArdle’s website)

I do not agree with his position on the Spanish Bible. My view would be that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages should be the standard and greater authority for the making and evaluating of all translations including the KJV and including Spanish Bibles.

 

http://valera1865.org/EnglishIntroduction.htm

While I do not agree with the KJV-only view advocated at the above web address, one good thing about that site is that there is available there facsimile reprints of the 1569 edition of the Spanish Bible and the 1602 Spanish Valera.

 

I am not aware of any one that says that King James I was the one that had this word changed, but there is evidence that a great prelate had it changed.

Here is the evidence that indicates that the majority of the KJV translators may not have been responsible for the rendering “Easter” Acts 12:4. Instead they likely supported the Geneva Bible’s rendering “Passover.” Just as the KJV translators changed the Bishops’ Bible’s two other uses of “Easter” at John 11:55 to “Passover,” they may have also changed this third use at Acts 12:4. While Tyndale and Coverdale had used the rendering “Easter” several times for the Jewish Passover, the later English translators had increasingly changed this rendering to “Passover." In his 1671 book, E. Whiston indicated that a great prelate, the chief supervisor of the KJV, inserted “Easter” back into the text of the KJV at this verse as one of the 14 changes he was said to have made (Life and Death of Mr. Henry Jessey, p. 49). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill, a member of the Westminster Assembly, also noted that Acts 12:4 “was another place that was altered (as you have heard) to keep up that holy time of Easter, as they would think it” (Six Sermons, p. 25). Was the goal of inserting the rendering “Easter” back into the text at this verse in order to present faithfully the meaning of the Greek word in English or was it intended to give the readers a different meaning? This evidence suggests this rendering was inserted for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter.

 

Jeff McArdle claimed: "If the King James Bible is not the standard Bible for all men everywhere then why is there now such a controversy brewing over the Spanish Bible. One should not have anything to do with the other. But, the obvious truth is that there would be no controversy over the Spanish Bible if it weren't for the English Bible" (BIBLE BELIEVER'S GUIDE TO ELEPHANT HUNTING, p. 9).

Would there be any controversy over the Spanish Bible if it wasn't for holders of a KJV-only view stirring up one?

 

In the book entitled THE ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM : SEEING THE SHADOW OF THE RSV IN SPANISH that is edited by Mickey Carter, Allen Johnson wrote: "It should also be no surprise that the Spanish RV 1960 matches with the RSV, NWT, and other perversions--they all have modernist fingerprints from the Critical Text" (p. 122).

In another chapter in this same book, Gail Riplinger wrote: "The changes in the Reina-Valera 1960 mirror those in the New World Translation and the corruptions which were introduced in English Bibles at the turn of the century" (p. 63).

Jeff McArdle wrote: "The RV1909 and RV1960 both represent an attempt to destroy the original 1602 Valera and bring it in line with the work of the 1881 revision committee" (BIBLE BELIEVER'S GUIDE TO ELEPHANT HUNTING, p. 69).

Does this application of KJV-only reasoning to the Spanish Bible by KJV-only advocates themselves indicate its logical consequences and implications?

 

At Leviticus 11:30, the 1569 and 1602 Spanish Bibles have "erizo" [hedgehog, porcupine] in agreement with Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops’ Bibles that also rendered the Hebrew word anakah as "hedgehog," possibly through the influence of the Rabbinical writers or Luther‘s Bible or both. The 1534 Luther’s German Bible has “Igel” [hedgehog] as its rendering. The 1637 authorized Dutch Bible evidently agreed with Luther’s at this verse as can be seen in Haak’s rendering “hedgehog.”