Ephesians 6:13-14

Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, TO STAND. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about WITH TRUTH, and having on the breastplate of righteousness.

* * * * *

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

RESPONSE TO GUY ABOUT THE GOMEZ

A while Back I did a blog entitled, "The Go-mess Bible." I received a response in the comment box by a man named Mr. Wilps. I promptly emailed him in return to his comments. But my response to him didn't appear on my blog. So I thought I'd post my response to him here, so people who read my blog and his comments could see the rest of the story...
"Mister Wilps, Thanks for reading my blog and writing back with your thoughts. I appreciate you doing so. Thanks also for inviting me down to Paraguay. If I had the money, I'd love to go. I'm sure it'd be a great time in the Lord. Now to your comments. And I want you to know that I'm not interested in fighting or debating either. I'm only interested in the truth.
1. I wrote on my blog that it was a lie what you wrote. And to me it is. It might not be to you, but it is to me. After looking back at it, I can see I should have worded it differently, as I didn't quote you exactly. You said, "La RVG2010 es la unica biblia en espanol que elimina la confusion!" But, this statement still cannot be true. For the 1602 P eliminated the confusion way before the Gomez, when it read "la estrella de la manana" years before the Gomez ever said that. So maybe you should consider revising that part of your tract.
2. The 1602 P did change "salud" to "salvacion" but not because the 1960 did so (They refused to even look at the 1960 in their revision work). It was because there were older protestant versions that had the word salvacion. The 1602 P also tried to be faithful to the old 1602 as much as possible. As I read the Gomez, I do not see that. It chose to use many words that are in the 1960 and even the NIV in Spanish, even when the original 1602 Castellan word is fine. Why change synonyms, especially when the old RV word is fine? I'm well aware that the 1865 crowd calls EVERY SPANISH BIBLE AFTER 1881 a MODERNISTIC VERSION. That's what they do. And I don't know anybody more wanting to argue and debate than those behind the 1865. I'm not like them, nor do I want to be. I'm not interested in arguing, attacking, or calling names. Let me be clear, I'm glad people are using a purer version than the 1960! If you want to use the Gomez or the 1865 or the 1862, go right ahead. I'm not trying to tell you at all what version to use. I'm just giving as many facts as I can to show people the truth, because I want them to decide for themselves. Nothing wrong with that! Huh? That's my ministry. And I try to give all the facts. Now, on my blog, I gave an opinion. An opinion based upon much study of the issue. If you don't agree, then we can agree to disagree! :) But shouldn't a guy be entitled to his own opinion?
3. I get quite a lot of people emailing me (who speak Spanish), who tell me what they think after they've studied both the Gomez and the 1602 P. They are from all over the world, and even in Europe and Central and South America. (Not a "small circle"). They are saying what I said they were saying in my blog. They are reading my books online, and studying the issue for themselves, and THEY ARE TAKING ME SERIOUSLY. (Or maybe I should say they are taking the 1602 Purified seriously). They only want a pure Spanish Bible, but they want a CASTELLAN Spanish Bible like the 1602 P, and not a revised 1960 version (Which is what a lot of them are saying the Gomez is, as it reads so closely to the 1960 because of many of the words Mr. Gomez chose are the same words in the 1960, and not the ones from the original 1602 and 1569. I believe we shoud have a true Reina-Valera Bible, revised with the right texts, and not a modern version revised with the right texts. We should go BACK to the original 1602 and bring it in line with the texts underlying the KJV and not FORWARD to a version like the 1960 or 1909 and then try to bring it back in line with the right texts. That's the difference between the 1602 P and the Gomez.) You are right in saying the RVG is being "widely accepted." But just because a lot of people accept something doesn't mean much. The majority isn't always right. With your logic, then we should all become Catholics and use the NIV, because that's the largest religon, and that's the most widely accepted version today! I've seen that most of the Spanish Bible Issue is about Politics; something I don't want any part of. I'm interested more in purity of the texts.
4. I don't know what you mean by the main authority for the 1602 P being a woman, I assume you refer to Gail Riplinger. Well, she is not the main authority. You want to know who the authority is for the 1602P? That would be God, first and foremost. And then it would be both Reina and Valera, who desired a pure Bible, and asked for pious men of God to work together to get one. That's what those behind the 1602 P did. They followed Valera's preface and his desire. They should be honored for it, and not "ignored" which is the case with those who push the Gomez. (Speaking of women, what about the stories of women helping to do the translation work behind the Gomez? I've personally heard several times that men who were missionaries to Spanish-Speaking countries went to their hispanic wives and said things like, "What do YOU think this verse should say?" Is that true???)
5. I'm not "concerned" that you don't mention the 1602P. I just believe it's rather deceitful that you and others don't. It should be mentioned, especially since Mr. Gomez used it for several years before he put out his own version. (Some have told me that they think he just copied our 1602P and used synonyms to make it look like his own work. I don't know, but that's what his first edition looks like, except for where he makes really weird changes like telling a man it's okay to marry his own daughter, and having Jesus go to a party where people are drinking LIQUOR!) A friend who also wrote a book for Chick and had it published there, told me, and I paraphase of course, "I'm not going to mention your 1602P because I don't like you anymore, and I don't think people need to hear about your version." That's been the attitude I've been seeing by those who use the Gomez. They aren't willing to even acknowledge the 1602P, even though it came out BEFORE the GOMEZ, and it is a very scholarly work of almost three times as much study as the Gomez itself (It's was the work of almost 15 years). My attitude is: "Buy a Gomez Bible and buy a 1602P and read them both side by side with the Textus Receptus, the Hebrew Masoretic, and the KJV and THEN decide for yourself!" The least the Gomez crowd could do is say the same thing. If you've got nothing to worry about, then why not mention the 1602P more? Why the cover up? What are you afraid of? Also, to the contrary of what you've stated, the 1602P did not "take the words 'the brother of' out of 2 Sam. 21:19." If you'll check the original 1602 you'll see those words were never in the text in Spanish (only in the footnote on the side of the page). Those words are in the KJV and are in italics! So you can't say it's a mistake to "take out" something that wasn't there to begin with in the original 1602. Also, if it's in italics, shouldn't that be something you shouldn't try to start an arguement about??? I'm trusting the Lord to get the truth out. I'm not a follower of MAN, or MEN but a follower of GOD, and I follow him according to my conscience, and to his word. Thank you that your heart goes out to me. But I do not see any bitterness in my heart. Discouragement, perhaps, but bitterness, no. Persecution complex? Well, who knows. All I know is: 2 Tim 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.2 Tim 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. I'm truly sorry you think I think everyone is apostate but me. I really don't want to come across that way. I guess I'll just sit here under my juniper tree with my Elijah complex for now. But in the mean time, I'm doing the best I can to get people to hear the other side of the story and to see the 1602 Purified for what it is, THE ORIGINAL 1602, PURIFED! And not a new translation done by a man who changed a lot of old RV words (that have been around for over 400 years) with modern words that just happen to match the 1960 and even the spanish NIV. Could it be for other reasons than apostasy that the 1602 P is not being accepted? Maybe it's just because people haven't heard about it! Why not mention it. I mention the Gomez in my book about which Bible in Spanish. In fact, I mention all Spanish Bibles. I believe in telling people the WHOLE STORY and not just point them to one thing while covering up another. It's funny that you say I'm bitter and how I always write in my writings that "I preached myself out of the ministry," because I only wrote that blog a few days ago. And funnier still, that you should say I'm mad at the Gomez and try to attack it. Because almost everyone who contacts me via email that has read my website says almost the same thing, "I've been studying the Spanish Bible Issue for years and your site is the only one that presents the facts clearly and in order without attacking, lamblasting, and just arguing all the time. I appreciate that!" Funnier too, that you should say that I'm bitter, hurt, and defeated. I recently got an email from someone who said, "Bro. Breaker, I'm just curious why the Gomez crowd attacks you so vehementely. I've read your website and it's really good, and you are so very nice. Why do you think they attack you so?" Weird, isn't it? I'm not interested in attacking, arguing, debating, or anything else. I just want present the facts. Here's one: The word PALABRA is found in the original 1569, 1602, and even the Enzinas of 1543 and the Juan Perez de Pineda. Why then doesn't the Gomez use it? Why does it use VERBO, when EVERY CATHOLIC BIBLE uses it, as so does the 1865, the 1909, the 1960, the NVI, etc.? That's a good question, isn't it? And I'm serious, and I'm not attacking. Erasmus said he hated the word "VERBUM" in latin (where Verbo comes from in Spanish) and he called it CATHOLIC, and refused to use it in his latin translation, instead using SERMO. Shouldn't the Gomez use the old RV word there, the old PROTESTANT word there, instead of the pro-catholic, and MODERNISTIC word VERBO? I'd really like to know what you think about that one? And what about JEHOVA? Shouldn't it be SENOR, especially since that's what Juan Perez de Pineda used in his Psalms? ANd that's what both Reina and Valera used in their other writings beside the Bible. Have you read in their prefaces what they said about SENOR? It was because they were anti-semitic that they used JEHOVA. (They called the Jews "supersticiosos" for not trying to pronounce Jehova). Is it good to use anti-semitic words? The 1602 P uses SENOR (notice in all caps just like the KJV). Why doesn't the Gomezz? I hope I haven't come across as "bitter," "angry," or "attacking." I hope you will look at the words, and not at what you perceived the tone to be. I appreciate you praying for me and my ministry. I am and will continue to do the same for you. I only ask you to PREACH SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE IN THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST, for there are too many good men out there preaching another Gospel: A BLOODLESS GOSPEL. These things ought not so to be. Preach the BLOOD, the BOOK, and the BLESSED HOPE.
Sincerely in Christ Jesus our Lord, and only through his precious blood,
Robert R. Breaker III
1 Sam. 12:24!"

No comments:

Post a Comment