Reina Valera Gomez

One interesting aspect is the fact that KJV-only advocates seem to have no problem with a modern revision of the old Spanish Bibles keeping or using part of those old Spanish Bibles' name [Reina-Valera], but they seem to object strongly to any later revision or updating of the KJV keeping or using part of its name.

The Reina Valera Gomez Bible seems to be another attempt to conform the Spanish Bible to the KJV.

 

Anyone who is unbaised towards any particular English version will also not have a problem with the RVR1960. There is a very small but vocal group of KJV pastors in the USA who wield undue influence over certain missionaries in Spanish-speaking countries and those missionaries had better 'fall into line'- or else. Of course those missionaries then feel the pressure to put the screws on the national pastors that they teach.

 

Exactly. The large majority of those who object to the R-V 1960 are English-only speaking people!

Give me a break!

If there is a reason why English-speakers should have a superior translation than the Spanish, I would certainly like to hear it.

R1

 

I was doing a Google search for some information on the Spanish Bible and I ran accross these boards. I don't have much time anymore to post on boards like this due to deputation travels (I'm a Missionary to Puerto Rico), but I thought I'd sacrifice a little time to respectfully respond to some statements on this thread as it deals with a topic that is near and dear to my heart as a Hispanic Christian.

Over the past several years I have analyzed all of Calvin George's material on the Spanish Bible issue. His articles do not expose any problems whatsoever with the RVG Spanish Bible. All he does is try to denigrate Bro. Gomez and his collaborators in the RVG project. But he never, not one time, demonstrates one example of deficiency in the RVG text itself. If Calvin George has managed to come up with a "serious problem" that I missed concerning the RVG Bible or the "philosophies" behind the project, I would love for someone to point me to that supposedly relevant information.

Also, you have posted Calvin George's website which attacks Humberto Gomez and his collaboraters. But I think it's only fair that people also hear the other side of the story if they are concerned with making a fair and thorough judgement. The following website, though I don't necessarily agree with every single item on it (I don't agree with everything on ANY website, do you?), presents a different outlook on the RVG project from Bible-believing brethren all around the Spanish-speaking world.

www.reinavaleragomez.com

 

It is interesting indeed but there is a difference. The difference is that some of us strongly and sincerely believe that the Reina Valera Bible has been in need of revision, whereas we do not believe the same for the KJV. We believe the KJV has been finalized in that we have a completely accurate English Bible. We wish for the same with the Spanish Bible and any other language.

This is not totally true. Yes, the KJV was used a great deal in the revision of the Spanish Bible. But to not make mention of the fact that the Received Texts were also used is to render an unfair assessment of the matter. The truth is that the Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masorectic Text were also thoroughly checked for accuracy to the original languages. I am a personal eyewitness to this. I watched Humberto Gomez in his own home and also on my own computer (when he visited our church) field emails filled with suggestions from Spanish-speaking brethren all around the world as he sifted through each one praying over and considering which suggestions for changes were valid. Whenever he came accross a suggestion that was potentially valid he would immediately resort to Bible programs on the computer which contained editions of the Textus Receptus to see how a certain word was translated in different instances. If the word as it existed in the 1909 Antigua (the version of the Spanish Bible being revised) was already in conformity to the TR, many times he would disregard that particular suggestion for change. But sometimes he would change it if he and his collaborators felt that a better word could be used such as salvacion for the word salvation instead of salud. And of course, in instances where the passage reflected the Alexandrian Westcott & Hort Critical Texts rather than the TR, he changed it to conform to the TR, which inevitably would also bring the reading to agree with the KJV.

The Original Languages were indeed considered in the RVG project. On the website given in my prior post, you will find an endorsement from Dr. D.A.Waite, president and founder of the Dean Burgon Society, a group that majors on the defence of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words that underlie the KJV as they are found in the Received Texts. Dr. Waite has been teaching the Original Languages since 1945. He is a true linguist and an expert. (He also knows conversational spanish.) It is also interesting to know that he publicly disagrees with the views of Dr. Peter Ruckman and denounces the idea that a translation, even the KJV, can be inspired. He testifies that he checked the RVG for accuracy to the Original Languages as they stand in the Received Texts and found everything to be in complete conformity. Anyone that knows anything about Dr. Waite and the Dean Burgon Society knows that he would not endorse the RVG, or any other foreign language translation, if it wasn't in accurate conformity to the correct Original Language texts. (see his endorsement at http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/ForeignBibles/spanish_bible.asp)

Time would fail me to make mention of other linguistic experts involved with this project such as Dr. Rex Cobb, an experienced Bible translator, former missionary to Mexico (speaks Spanish fluently), and Director of the Baptist Bible Translators Institute in Bowie, TX, as well as other Spanish-speaking brethren, both natives and Americans, with a working knowledge in Greek and Hebrew who were involved in the RVG project. I have had the privelege to meet some of them in person and discuss these matters.

 

In the past 8 years that I have been involved in this issue, this has not been my experience. And believe me, I am in a lot of English-speaking churches these days as I am on the deputation trail.

I was in a Bible conference in Matamoros, Mexico in November of 2007. There was roughly 120 preachers at this meeting. Only 5 of them were English-speaking only. The rest were Spanish-speakers, and probably 98% of them were nationals. The majority of them could ONLY speak Spanish. Most of them have never stepped foot outside of their native land. The overwelming majority of these Spanish-speaking Preachers use the RVG for their ministries.

There is no reason why English-speakers SHOULD have a superior translation to the Spanish Bible. When Valera finished revising Reina's translation in 1602, the Spanish world was well on it's way of having a completely accurate Spanish Bible based on basically the same line of manuscripts that underlie the KJV. However, liberal Bible societies got their hands on our TR-based Spanish Bible and inserted (corrupted) Alexandrian Critical Text renderings that contradicted the Received Texts. Thus, in 1909, and 1960, they replaced many TR based renderings (as put in place by Reina and Valera) with Critical Text corruptions. And I will document that fact in the next couple of posts.

Many of us believe that accuracy to the Original Autographs can be found in the Received Texts, not in the Critical Texts. So our position is that we do not appreciate liberal Bible societies inserting Alexandrian Westcott & Hort Critical Text renderings in our TR-based Spanish Bible. We believe the Critical Texts are corrupt. We want our Spanish Bible to be totally free of such corruption.

We do not refer to the KJV because we feel the English language is superior to the Spanish. I am Hispanic myself and I would never believe that in a million years. We refer to the KJV because we know that it is completely accurate with the Received Texts. I believe the standard for accuracy is not necessarily the English words, but the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words that underlie the KJV.

 

Here's a statement from Eugene Nida, the man who appointed the revisers for the 1960 Reina Valera and oversaw the project:

"Nevertheless in some instances where a critical text is so much preferred over the traditional Textus Receptus the committee did make some slight changes..."

The Bible Translator, Vol.12, No.3, 1961, by Eugene Nida, pg. 113

 

I challenge you to show me one, just one, instance of Calvin George pointing out a problem in the Reina Valera Gomez Bible text. Just one will do. He does not. He only tries to denigrate Bro. Gomez and his collaborators by trying to link them to Peter Ruckman and other irrelevant stereotypes like that.

I have a question for you. I have already explained that the RVG was not an attempt to only conform it to the KJV. (And I can demonstrate this with over 50 examples if you had the time and stamina later on.)

4hisglory, you seem to have a problem with the RVG incorporating the KJV, but would you have a problem with the RV 1960 incorporating the ASV and RSV bibles?

 

It is one thing to be thorough in your research by consulting all available manuscripts, it is another thing to replace Textus Receptus readings with Critical Text corruption.

 

I know for a fact that it is being used in Argentina. But I also know that the vast majority of Fundamentalists in Argentina are using the RV 1960. But that doesn't change the fact that the RVG, though in it's infant stages, is growing at a rapid rate around the world. In just 2 years, 70,000 RVG Bibles have been distributed around the world. Who is buying these RVG Bibles?

What if they were right?

 

I was there when he said that. But I was also there when I saw him with my own eyeballs consult the Received Texts as he made changes at his computer (did you read my posts earlier?).

Bro. Gomez has also said this:

And this:

 

Had a hard time hearing it. Did he really say that standard for comparison must be the King James?