SPANISH BIBLE??? YES OR NO?

Only if it was translated from the KJV1611 complete with apocrypha.

 

That is the one that I purchased for my daughter (she is a freshman at Bible College). It was difficult to know which translation to buy considering that this is the college's doctrinal statement pertaining to the scriptures:

"We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. The Old and New Testament are definitely inspired word for word. We accept the Textus Receptus manuscripts from which came the King James Bible. The Scripture is the final Authority in all matters of faith and practice."

From researching, and consulting with my Pastor, I found that even the KJVOs do not fully agree on which Spanish translation. Evidently, the college found the translation acceptable since they did not indicate which translation to buy, nor did they object to the one I bought.

 

This topic was discussed a couple of months ago. To read the thread click
HERE.

 

corn.....check the word ...corn...go from the greek to the KJV to the spanish version of the KJ and learn how we go from grain to corn on the cob.

 

Does anyone believe that the Spanish reina valera 1960 is the perfect word of God in spanish?

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the KJV is a translation without error and therefore the perfect word of God in English, then if the RV differs in even one tiny place in meaning from the KJV, it is "corrupt."

 

I don't believe it is. I believe it's a W/H translation.

Try this, 1865 Cipriano de Valera

Also, check out this site, http://www.biblebelievers.com/Spanish/comparison_spanish-texts.html

God bless,
RR

 

Quote from link at biblebelievers.com above:
_______________________________________
"We have to sadly say that the 1865 Spanish Bible is not widely available. It was out-of-print for many years until some faithful men took it upon themselves to re-typeset the 1865 and publish via Local Church Bible Publishers of Lansing Michigan."
-----------------------------------------
Oh, my GOODNESS, the Spanish speaking people didn't have a preserved Bible from 1865 until now. I sure wouldn't want to imply that somebody lied about "preservation" of God's word."

 

That's about 4 or 5 GENERATIONS without a preserved Bible? Certainly somebody wouldn't forget the third or fourth largest language group in the entire WORLD! OH, NO!!!

 

Not sure how long it was not available, but it is today. Nice of you to poke fun of something that I thought might help. Really Christlike, gotcha.

 

No!

My preference for a Spanish translation of the Bible is La Biblia de las Americas. I am including its translation of Rom. chapter one for you to look at.

Rom 1:1 Pablo, siervo de Cristo Jesús, llamado a ser apóstol, apartado para el evangelio de Dios,
Rom 1:2 que El ya había prometido por medio de sus profetas en las santas Escrituras,
Rom 1:3 acerca de su Hijo, que nació de la descendencia de David según la carne,
Rom 1:4 y que fue declarado Hijo de Dios con poder, conforme al Espíritu de santidad, por la resurrección de entre los muertos: nuestro Señor Jesucristo,
Rom 1:5 por medio de quien hemos recibido la gracia y el apostolado para promover la obediencia a la fe entre todos los gentiles, por amor a su nombre;
Rom 1:6 entre los cuales estáis también vosotros, llamados de Jesucristo;
Rom 1:7 a todos los amados de Dios que están en Roma, llamados a ser santos: Gracia a vosotros y paz de parte de Dios nuestro Padre y del Señor Jesucristo.
Rom 1:8 En primer lugar, doy gracias a mi Dios por medio de Jesucristo por todos vosotros, porque por todo el mundo se habla de vuestra fe.
Rom 1:9 Pues Dios, a quien sirvo en mi espíritu en la predicación del evangelio de su Hijo, me es testigo de cómo sin cesar hago mención de vosotros
Rom 1:10 siempre en mis oraciones, implorando que ahora, al fin, por la voluntad de Dios, logre ir a vosotros.
Rom 1:11 Porque anhelo veros para impartiros algún don espiritual, a fin de que seáis confirmados;
Rom 1:12 es decir, para que cuando esté entre vosotros nos confortemos mutuamente, cada uno por la fe del otro, tanto la vuestra como la mía.
Rom 1:13 Y no quiero que ignoréis, hermanos, que con frecuencia he hecho planes para ir a visitaros (y hasta ahora me he visto impedido) a fin de obtener algún fruto también entre vosotros, así como entre los demás gentiles.
Rom 1:14 Tengo obligación tanto para con los griegos como para con los bárbaros, para con los sabios como para con los ignorantes.
Rom 1:15 Así que, por mi parte, ansioso estoy de anunciar el evangelio también a vosotros que estáis en Roma.
Rom 1:16 Porque no me avergüenzo del evangelio, pues es el poder de Dios para la salvación de todo el que cree; del judío primeramente y también del griego.
Rom 1:17 Porque en el evangelio la justicia de Dios se revela por fe y para fe; como está escrito: MAS EL JUSTO POR LA FE VIVIRA.
Rom 1:18 Porque la ira de Dios se revela desde el cielo contra toda impiedad e injusticia de los hombres, que con injusticia restringen la verdad;
Rom 1:19 porque lo que se conoce acerca de Dios es evidente dentro de ellos, pues Dios se lo hizo evidente.
Rom 1:20 Porque desde la creación del mundo, sus atributos invisibles, su eterno poder y divinidad, se han visto con toda claridad, siendo entendidos por medio de lo creado, de manera que no tienen excusa.
Rom 1:21 Pues aunque conocían a Dios, no le honraron como a Dios ni le dieron gracias, sino que se hicieron vanos en sus razonamientos y su necio corazón fue entenebrecido.
Rom 1:22 Profesando ser sabios, se volvieron necios,
Rom 1:23 y cambiaron la gloria del Dios incorruptible por una imagen en forma de hombre corruptible, de aves, de cuadrúpedos y de reptiles.
Rom 1:24 Por consiguiente, Dios los entregó a la impureza en la lujuria de sus corazones, de modo que deshonraron entre sí sus propios cuerpos;
Rom 1:25 porque cambiaron la verdad de Dios por la mentira, y adoraron y sirvieron a la criatura en lugar del Creador, quien es bendito por los siglos. Amén.
Rom 1:26 Por esta razón Dios los entregó a pasiones degradantes; porque sus mujeres cambiaron la función natural por la que es contra la naturaleza;
Rom 1:27 y de la misma manera también los hombres, abandonando el uso natural de la mujer, se encendieron en su lujuria unos con otros, cometiendo hechos vergonzosos hombres con hombres, y recibiendo en sí mismos el castigo correspondiente a su extravío.
Rom 1:28 Y como ellos no tuvieron a bien reconocer a Dios, Dios los entregó a una mente depravada, para que hicieran las cosas que no convienen;
Rom 1:29 estando llenos de toda injusticia, maldad, avaricia y malicia; colmados de envidia, homicidios, pleitos, engaños y malignidad; son chismosos,
Rom 1:30 detractores, aborrecedores de Dios, insolentes, soberbios, jactanciosos, inventores de lo malo, desobedientes a los padres,
Rom 1:31 sin entendimiento, indignos de confianza, sin amor, despiadados;
Rom 1:32 los cuales, aunque conocen el decreto de Dios que los que practican tales cosas son dignos de muerte, no sólo las hacen, sino que también dan su aprobación a los que las practican.

Please note that in the published version, some of the words are in italics, indicating that some of the words are added by the editors for clarity, just as in the KJV.

 

Why do you ask? Do you think that any of us actually have the authority to make that declaration?

We have the word of God. Man's idea of perfection is not God's idea of perfection. Nor would man's idea of "the perfect word of God" be God's idea of "the perfect word of God".

If you are trying to decide if that particular translation is as pure as the 1611KJV in regards to being "the perfect word of God", you have already lost the battle.

Use it, and use it to the glory of God. Outside of that, you are wasting your time and effort looking for a "holy grail" that does not exist outside of the bigotted opinion of man.

En Christo,
Trotter

PS- tell Alice I said "Hi!"

 

First, don't go getting personal. This is a DEBATE you know, or did you?

Second, I was making a tongue-in-cheek argument to show that the KJVo theory of 100% Word-for-word preservation for ALL generations is flawed.

God has surely preserved HIS Word. No doubt about that. But, when the question was asked it said "PERFECT", which reeks of KJVonlyism. Is the "translation" made by men perfect, on a word-for-word basis with the original manuscripts? Or is the Word of God the perfect Word of God?There is a BIG difference you know.

In other words, there is ONE perfect translation in Spanish and ONE perfect translation in English.

If THIS were the real case, then God would not have left one of the largest language groups in the world without His word for several generations.

THAT shoots down the theory of KJVonlyism just like the fact that there was no perfect word before 1611 for English speakers.

That's all I meant. Got it?

 

Brothers and Sisters,

We have a young man here asking some questions from his heart. He is Alycia’s brother and he wants to interact with us on the subject of the Spanish translation of the Bible known as the Reina Valera 1960. He is our Christian brother and let’s remember that in our posts. I am including here a very brief evaluation of Spanish Language translations of the Bible from BibleTexts.com.

To download, without cost, the LBLA, go to the E-Sword download page at:
http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html

 

Hermano de Fiddler:

This is my “litmus test” for a Bible which I will use as my primary or secondary source (others I will use or quote to give the “sense” of the Scriptures).

I look to see if 1 John 5:7 is present and/or commented upon or missing

1) Best - included, no comment.
2) Less than best - If included is it commented upon as missing in the “best” mss.
3) Not good - If not included, is it in the margin or footnoted as "missing from best...".
4) Worst - Missing altogether, no comment.

This is because I prefer the TR as the basis of translation, not so much as to the authority of the Comma (although I believe it to be apostolic).

1 John 5:7 is also known as the Johannine Comma, or The Three Heavenly Witnesses.

Here it is from the 1960 Valera:

7 Porque tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo: el Padre, el Verbo y el Espíritu Santo; y estos tres son uno.

So I wouldn't have a problem. There are other criteria I would use to further investigate, but if the Comma is present usually the Bible is TR based.

As to “perfect”: that is a subjective matter, my view is that no translation can be word-for-word perfect unless of course God Himself somehow did the translation.

If therefore there has been sufficient time for and there is indeed a history of corrections and revisions (such as the Vulgate, the KJV, and the Valera) then in my view it couldn’t be directly from the Hand of God and therefore not “perfect” in that sense.

HankD

 

It was interesting to note that the listing of Bibles was mentioned "as equivalent to the NASB" or "Equivalent to the Good News".

Were all Spanish Bibles translated from English Versions or were any translated directly from Greek and Hebrew?

Would it not be more accurate to translate any language directly from Greek and Hebrew? Otherwise, the translational losses will start stacking on you?

 

This is Logic 101 Phillip but as you know certain among us have poo-pooed logic as a valid means of determining the things of God except via Sola Scriptura, although these same folks can not find the doctrine or Onlyism or "jots" and "tittles" (which Jesus said would never pass away from the Law) in any translation on earth.

I suspect another reason to discount logic is because it is incriminating to the KJVO ideas of advanced revelation (AKA, "inspired errors") and that 1611 English is so superior a language as to actually correct the Hebrew and Greek of the original language manuscripts as first given by God (easter=Passover, temples=churches,etc) through the prophets and Apostles (of which the 17th century translators were neither unless one subcribes to the Church of England/Rome doctrine of apostolic succession through the office of "Bishop").

HankD