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.

* * * * *

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

The Truth About the modern RV Gomez Spanish Bible

I've already written a blog presenting the facts about the corrupt 1865 Spanish Bible. I now feel compelled to give the truth about the modern RVG (Reina-Valera Gomez) Spanish Bible, which seems to be gaining much popularity today. For it too is not perfect, as those who use it claim.
The RVG was the brainchild of Humberto Gomez Caballero, an Independent Baptist minister and Missionary to his birth country of Mexico. According to his website, he started "translating" (an interesting word which we shall look at later), and I quote: "the Word of God into a pure, error free, Spanish translation of the Bible."
But did Mr. Gomez do this? Did he give the spanish speaking world a pure and error free Spanish "translation?" (I'll let you, dear reader, decide as you look at the facts presented).
According to the Trinitarian Bible Society, a person involved in Bible revision must have a native-level fluency of the target language, and the original language of the Bible which is being revised. That is they must understand both Hebrew and Greek, and use those texts in their revision work.
We know Mr. Gomez knows Spanish, but does he know Hebrew or Greek? The answer is "No!" So did he really do a "translation" of the entire Bible into Spanish? The answer is "No!"
Note: Mr. Gomez aquired the help of a Mr. Donald Waite in his work, a learned scholar in Greek. However, for Mr. Gomez to say that he himself did the work of "translating" is dishonest to say the least.
Quoting from Mr. Gomez' website, we read, "In 2002, Dr. Gomez began translating the Word of God..." But then we read on his website the following words of Mr. Gomez himself, "In the year 2000 we ventured to do a revision of our Spanish Bible..."
So which was it? Did he start in 2000 or 2002? For it's rather misleading to give two different conflicting dates.
When he started his work exactly is a mystery, but he finished his first edition in 2004. Because of this, his version was quickly labeled the RVG '04.
Was that version a quote: "pure, error free Spanish translation of the Bible?"
As we've seen, it wasn't a translation. Instead, according to Mr. Gomez's words, it was only a revision of the 1909 Spanish Bible (with 1960 verses added as we will see farther along).
But was it "pure, and error free?" I'll let you decide. Below are a few horrendous examples from that first edition of his work:

JOHN 2:10

Here, we find Jesus turning water into wine, but we know that wine was just grape juice in the context. But Mr. Gomez in this verse changed the word "hartos" or "full" (the old 1602 says "bien bebidos" or "well druken") to the horrific word "borrachos" which means drunk on hard liquor. How could anyone do this? This means Jesus turned the water into alcohol, hooch, white lightening! Was Jesus, then, at a party where they drank hard liquor?

1 COR. 7:36

Here we find not only a grave doctrinal error, but also a disgusting dishonor to the word of God, as Mr. Gomez adds the single, little word "hija" (which means "daughter") to this verse. He did it again in verse 38, but put it in italics, which shows he knew it wasn't part of the original text.
If you know this passage, you know it's speaking about a man marrying his virgin. But by adding the word "hija," Mr. Gomez made the Bible read that it's okay for a man to marry his virgin daughter! That's incest! That's disgusting! How on earth does something like that get in a Bible? Who's to blame? Why, Mr. Gomez of course, who told me personally that he was the "final authority" on the work.
There are many more examples I could give from this first edition, but these should be sufficient to show the mindset of the "translator" (I use the term loosely). Luckily, these verses are corrected in later editions of the Gomez, but how on earth did they get in there to begin with? This should seriously make us think twice about Mr. Gomez and his "translation work."
Let's now look at what Mr. Gomez claims to have done in his work. According to his website, we read:
"To accomplish this work...we have gone verse by verse making sure first of the purity of the text and then comparing the 1909 with the Authorized KJV... We have attempted to correct every mistranslation. We have attempted to correct every verse that was not in line with the TR and the KJV. We added all the words that were omitted, and we have removed all the words that were added, and we feel we have a perfect text."
Here we are told Mr. Gomez chose the 1909 Spanish Bible and the KJV and attempted to correct verses with those (we will see he didn't do a very thorough job of this farther along in this article).
What is the 1909 Spanish Bible? It is a revision of the Reina-Valera with many critical text readings and errors. But is the 1909 version and the KJV the only versions Mr. Gomez used? No!
According to Mr. Gomez' own words, he confessed to a Missionary to Spain he also used the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible (which inserted many critical text readings and followed the English RSV in many places), following it in over 4000 places.
This means Mr. Gomez started with two corrupt versions of the Spanish Bible (the 1909 and 1960), and tried to "revise" them with the King James Bible. But was that the right thing to do? I mean, should we start with corrupt versions and just revise them? Or should we instead go back to the original 1602 of Valera from the protestant reformation and use that as our basis? (Which is exactly what those who put out the Valera Purificada have done, which we will mention a little later).
Is the Gomez Bible really a "Reina-Valera" Bible? Or has it changed many words and updated the old Spanish? According to Mr. Gomez it has "improved" upon the Valera. He says, and I have translated it from Spanish to English:
"Many of the discrepancies are only questions of the language and not of error. In the edition that we are going to print the language has been enormously made better."
Does this mean that Mr. Gomez thought the old Reina-Valera Bibles were "archaic" and needed to be updated.
In his book, "The 1909 Recycled text" by Luis Vega, we find him quoting Mr. Gomez on page 5 and 6 saying things like:
"Magos is correct, but..."
"Salud is correct, but..."
"La Paz de su siervo is not bad, but I think our [version] is a little better"
"It is not incorrect to say 'por su gloria,' but..."
"We changed the word 'mujer' to 'esposa' not because mujer was wrong, but because in many cases it sounded better..."
Time and again Mr. Gomez says the RV text is correct BUT... That is to say, it's okay the way it was, but HE decided to change it to the way he believed it sounded better. Truly, the name the Reina-Valera GOMEZ fits his version, as he is the one who made the changes according to how he wanted them done.
Maybe this is why Mr. Gomez confessed the following:
"There are many changes more that little by little we are going to annex. Not all are changes for the cause of the purity of the text, many of them are because we think it is a better translation."
Remember, earlier I quoted Mr. Gomez saying he had a pure, perfect text. But in this quote we find he had plans of changing many other places not for the purity of the text, but because he just thought it was a better 'translation.'
Mr. Gomez further states:
"...we have gone verse by verse making sure first of the purity of the text and then comparing the 1909 with the Authorized KJV. Every single verse that did not line up with the TR or the KJV we have immediately corrected."
If this is so, then the Gomez Spanish Bible should match word for word with both the Textus Receptus and the KJV, should they not? Let's see if they do. I'll take the latest edition of the Gomez, the RVG 2010, printed by Chick Publications, and let's see if Mr. Gomez' claim is correct.
Let's first look at the TR, and take some verses at random from the book of John and see if Mr. Gomez's Bible follows the Textus Receptus completely...
John 5:33 Here the Greek TR literally translated is "a la verdad" ("to the truth" like the KJV). So why does the Gomez have "de la verdad" or "of the truth." Isn't there a difference between the words to and of? Especially in context of the verse, where John is giving testimony TO the truth of who Jesus is, not OF the truth.
John 5:34 The Greek word in the TR is plural and is translated these things in the KJV. The Gomez has "esto" or "this." You would think if Mr. Gomez went "verse by verse" with the KJV and the TR, he would have caught this, right? I mean there is a difference between singular and plural, isn't there?
John 6:22 The Greek word estakos means "standing" (as the KJV translates it) is missing in the Gomez here and in John 11:56. Why didn't they translate it as "de pie" like the 1602 Purified does?
John 6:63 Gomez here translates os he hablado, (I have spoken) which is the wrong verb tense. The KJV says, "I speak" which is present tense, and is the literal translation of the Greek word is lalo. In the Gomez, truth is what Jesus SPOKE, while in the KJV (and 1602 Purified) is what Jesus SPEAKS still today. (Note: The Gomez here follows the 1960 and even the NIV in making this past tense).
John 7:44 The Gomez has "mano" (hand) in the singular form. The Greek words are tas xeiras, which of course are plural words, and that's why the KJV translates it as "hands." Why doesn't the Gomez here follow the TR and the KJV as it's supposed to and it claims to have done?
John 7:49 The Gomez reads the singular "es" (interestingly enough just like the 1960 reading), while the KJV says are (plural). The Greek word is eisi which is plural. Even a first year Greek student could have "translated" that verse correctly.
John 8:6,8 The Gomez says, "inclinando al suelo" (bending down to the FLOOR or GROUND). The Greek words are kato kufas, meaning only bending down as the KJV says. There is no mention of the word FLOOR or GROUND. This is an addition to the Gomez, and interestingly enough it reads just like the 1960.
John 11:27 The Gomez translates like the 1960 with "dijo" the past tense, which means "he spake or he said. The KJV, the original 1602 and the 1602 P all get this right with dice and he says. This happens time and again. Some other places are John. 11:39 and 44. But shouldn't the Greek word be translated EXACTLY AS POSSIBLE, especially to agree with the KJV?
These are just a few examples of the many examples where the Gomez DOES NOT read with the TR as it claims to do.
Now, many will look at these examples and think nothing of it. In fact, there is already a site out there entitled, "Breaker's Broken Bible," in which a missionary explains away what I've listed here. But aren't we supposed to live by every word of God? If this is so, why does the Gomez take out so many of God's words when they are in the KJV, the TR, and even the 1602 Purified? Especially when Gomez says he went verse by verse through the entire Bible. How could I catch these things when I went verse by verse with the TR, KJV, and Spanish Bibles, and he didn't? Is the pure word of God (KJV and TR) just not as important to him as it is to me???
We have seen the Gomez DOES NOT read with the TR exactly. There are many discrepancies. But does the Gomez read completely with the KJV? It does not. Let's look at a few examples:
John 16:33 Gomez reads with 1960 and even the NIV with “aflicción.” 1602 Purified reads tribulación, just like the KJV reading of tribulation. One could argue this is a DOCTRINAL ERROR, as Jesus is speaking to JEWS who will not only go through physical tribulations (suffering) in their service for Jesus, but doctrinally will pass through the great tribulation after the rapture!

1 Cor. 4:1 Gomez says “administradores” (like 1960), while KJV says stewards. 1602 Purified reads mayordomos (stewards).

1 Cor. 11:10 RVG uses 1960 and NIV word “autoridad” (authority). KJV, 1602 original, and 1602 Purified all use poder (power). This could be argued as a DOCTRINAL ERROR in the Gomez, as the verse speaks of women having POWER on their heads (King James reading). Giving a woman AUTHORITY on her head (like the Gomez does) sounds pretty close to the feminist movement, which God is against in the Bible. Woman are not to usurp AUTHORITY over men (1 Tim. 2:2).

1 Cor. 12:24 RVG says “ordenó” (like 1960 and original 1602). KJV says hath tempered. 1602P reads templó.

1 Cor. 15:51 Gomez says “transformados” (like original 1602, NIV and 1960). KJV uses changed. 1602P reads cambiados. (Same thing in verse 52).

2 Cor. 3:2 Gomez uses “sabida” instead of more correct “conocida” (1602P reading), as it speaks of knowing SOMEONE instead of knowing SOMETHING. The KJV says known in the sense of being known by all men.

2 Cor. 11:17 Gomez reads “con esta confianza de gloria” like the 1602 original. KJV says in this confidence of boasting (literally what the Greek TR says). 1602P reads en este atrevimiento de jactancia.

2 Cor. 11:25 RVG removes italicized words in 1602/1602P de la mar, and replaces it with only “las profundidades. KJV says in the deep. 1602P reads more clearly del profundo de la mar (the last three words being in italics).

Gal. 1:8 Gomez, 1602 and 1960 all say “anatema.” But this is a transliteration of the Greek word, not a translation. KJV says accursed. 1602P reads maldito.

Gal. 3:9 RVG translated just like the 1602 and 1960 with the erroneous “creyente Abraham.” This can’t be right for two reasons. 1. Abraham wasn’t a believer in the sense that we are today in the church age, and 2. The Greek word is faithful. (But in all fairness, the Greek root word is the same used for believing). The 1602P reads exactly with KJV with fiel Abraham (faithful Abraham).

Eph. 1:14 RVG reads with the 1960 again with “posesión adquirida” (aquired possession). The King James says purchased possession, and the 1602P follows it with posesión comprada. This is important, and could be construed as a DOCTRINAL ERROR in the Gomez, as taking away the fact that a person’s soul is PURCHASED by the blood of Jesus (Acts 20:28) is a horrible thing to do!

Eph. 2:12 Gomez reads with 1960 once more with “ciudadanía” (citizenship). The 1602 and 1602P read Republica. KJV says commonwealth. REPUBLICA is much better as the word in Greek is politeias, the same word is translated as REPUBLIC in Plato’s work The Republic.

Republica is clearer, as the verse is speaking of the NATION of ISRAEL in the passage, and those under THE LAW. In a republic, the LAWS GOVERN! A Jew is governed by the Old Testament Law. Changing it to just citizens of Israel removes this fact, and makes it an ANTI-VALERA, PRO 1960 WORD.

Phil. 1:19 RVG follows the 1960 and NIV here with “liberación.” Original 1602 reads salud. 1602P reads with KJV when it puts salvación. Greek word is sotarian which is of course the word for SALVATION!

Phil. 2:2 Gomez follows old 1602 and 1960 with “sintáis.” But the KJV says like minded. The Greek word is phrnonate which is the word for to think. 1602P translates it literally with penséis lo mismo. (In verse 5 the Gomez does something similar. Also in Phil. 3:15 and 4:2)

Phil. 2:8 RVG has 1960 reading of “condición.” KJV reads in fashion. 1602P is better with forma. Verse speaks of Christ being in the flesh. It wasn’t his condition. He was fashioned or born in the flesh in the form of a man.

Phil. 4:19 Here Mr. Gomez makes a GLARING DOCTRINAL BLUNDER! He translates “Mi Dios, pues, suplirá todo lo que os falte...This literally means “Mi God will supply everything that you lack.” This is a DOCTRINAL ERROR!

The Greek shows us that the KJV rendering is correct with But my God will supply all your needsThe 1602P follows with Mas mi Dios suplirá todo vuestra necesidad...

Note the difference! The Gomez says God will give you EVERYTHING YOU LACK! This would include your WANTS. But the KJV and 1602P are correct as they say God will only supply your NEEDS. The Greek words are o de theos mou plarosei pasan xreian humon (But God will supply your EVERY NEED…). THIS IS A GREAT DOCTRINAL ERROR! God promised to supply your NEEDS, not your WANTS! Is this the new age, charismatic, prosperity gospel in the Gomez?

1 Thes. 1:4 Gomez reads with 1602 and 1960 as “hermanos amados de Dios, vuestra elección.” Notice the placement of the comma. The KJV says brethren, beloved, your election of God. 1602P gets it right and reads with the KJV as, amados hermanos, vuestra elección de Dios. In case you missed it, the Gomez makes a person beloved of God instead elected of God.

1 Thes. 4:6 KJV agrees with the Greek TR with testified. RVG and original 1602 read “protestado.” 1602P agrees with TR and KJV with testificado.

1 Thes. 5:1 1602 and RVG say “tiempos y momentos.” KJV says times and seasons. 1602P follows with tiempos y sazones. Greek word that Gomez translates moments is the word for seasons. Once again the 1602 Purified is closer to the Greek TR and KJV than the Gomez.

2 Thes. 2:2 RVG and 1960 have “pensar.” KJV says mind. 1602P reads mente.

2 Thes. 3:14 Gomez follows 1960 with “Señalad.” Old 1602 and 1602P both read Notad, like the KJV reading Note.

1 Tim. 2:2 RVG follows 1602 and 1960 with “eminencia.” KJV says authority. 1602P reads autoridad.

Tito 1:9 Gomez follows 1960 with “Retenedor de la palabra fiel” (literally one who retains the faithful word). KJV has Holding fast the faithful word from the Greek TR. 1602P is reteniendo firme la palabra fiel.

1 Peter 1:13 RVG, 1602, and 1960 all read “manifestación.” Greek word is apokalupsei, the same root word for Revelation, the last book of the Bible. This is why the KJV says revelation in this verse, and the 1602P reads revelación.

This could be argued as another DOCTRINAL ERROR in the Gomez, as the manifestaction of Jesus was his first coming in the flesh to die on the cross. While the revelation of Jesus Christ is his second coming.

1 Peter 3:8 KJV commands us to be of the same mind. RVG and 1960 tell us to be of the same feeling with “sentir.” 1602P has it right with mente. The Charismatics would love this verse, as they go by FEELINGS instead of by FACTS!

It's not hard at all reading through this list to see that the RVG is NOT closer to the King James, but rather it is much closer to the 1960 and even the Spanish NIV! Why is this? Because Mr. Gomez used the 1960 heavily in his revision.
If you'll do what I did, which was take the 1909, 1960, KJV, original 1602 and the 1602 Purified, and compare them you'll come to the same truth I did, that the Gomez (better stated Go-mess) Bible is NOT CLOSER TO THE KJV or the TR as it claims to be! In fact, it is very far away from them. (Being much closer to the 1960 and even the Spanish NIV in many places!)
Thus, the Gomez is not a faithful translation. In fact, it's not even a translation at all. It's just a revision of the 1960 and 1909. Sure, it might have taken out many critical text readings, which is good, but it also changed many Reina-Valera words and phrases for modern, updated words and phrases, oftentimes following the corrupt liberal 1960 Spanish Bible.
The question then is, should we as Bible Believers accept such a version? This would be the equivalent in English of taking the New King James Bible, and saying the KJV is archaic, so we are just going to revise the NKJV and take out the critical texts. Why would we do that, when we already have the pure and perfect KJV?
In Spanish, there is no pure and perfect Authorized version like our blessed KJV. So to get one, we would have to go back to the original Reina-Valera 1602, and take that as our basis as we compare it with the KJV and TR and take out any critical text readings while inserting anything that's been taken out.
Has this been done? YES IT HAS! The 1602 Valera Purified Spanish Bible is the 15 year work of Iglesia Bautista Biblica de la Gracia in Monterrey, Mexico, which not only used the KJV, TR, Hebrew Masoretic, and the old 1602, but also used older Protestant Spanish Bibles in their work, diligently comparing them verse by verse. They learned Hebrew and Greek, and with much prayer and fasting made sure to correct any errors in the original 1602. What they have produced is finished and available to Spanish Speakers today. It is not modern Spanish, like the Gomez, but the beautiful old Castellan Spanish still spoken and read today by all Spanish-speaking people.
So why aren't more people using it? It's because those that use the Gomez, the 1865, the 1909, and the 1960 don't want others to know about it. They want people to use their versions only. And they want to cover up the fact that there is a much better Spanish bible out there. Now you know. What will you do about it?


  1. La Valera 1602P igual que la RVG en 1de Corintios 16:22 ambas ponen un punto, separando anatema y maranata. la KJV correctamente lee anathema maranatha, sin separar las palabras.

    Galatas 5:20 las dos biblias traducen "emulations" como "celos" cuando debe ser emulaciones. No celos, porque es una obra de la carne y el nombre de mi Dios es Celoso.

  2. I have never heard of the word in Spanish "emulaciones," in common parlance.

  3. What makes the KJV good is that it is translated from the Received text (NT) and not the later Critical Text which chops some quotes from the OT in half. All English Bibles, including KJV are translations of copies of the original manuscripts. The KJV is not the pure Word of God in the sense of being an exact duplicate of the originals. Neither is it free of error. It is very close to the originals but not perfectly so. I think the KJV is one of the best translations, except for the error of translating monogenes as "only begotten". If that were true, then the JW's are correct in saying Jesus did not exist before He was eternally begotten.

    Translation from one language to another is quite difficult because the languages don't translate seamlessly together without some dynamic equivalence to make it understandable. The pity is the so called best Spanish Bibles are clones of the KJV, and is said to be pure simply because it clones the KJV. After weighing through all the arguments of manuscripts and Spanish Bibles for decades, I finally prefer the RV1960 because there is not a Bible in Spanish or English that is perfect and not in need of correction. I like that the RV1960 translates HELL correctly so you know if it is Sheol, Hades, or Gehenna. All the so-called pure Spanish Bibles translate those three words as INFIERNO, and make no distinctions. So pick your Error Bible, that you prefer, and have an archival pen in your hand, and a healthy margin in the Bible.

    Porque de tal manera amó Dios al mundo, que ha dado a su Hijo unico,para que todo aquel que en él cree, no se pierda, mas tenga vida eterna. I changed unigenito to unico as it should be.

    1. You clearly don't understand where these manuscripts come from or how they are translated. True, when it comes to translating a language to another, some things get left out. But, what matters is that the person understands what is being said for example if you want to say I'm hungry in Spanish it's like this: "yo tengo hambre". But if you wanted to translate it word for word it means: "I have hunger" which makes no sense in English. So what you do? You transliterate it for it to make sense saying: I am hungry. A Transliteration is better then speaking in tongues to another who doesn't understand you:

      “So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

      Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

      For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

      Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?”
      ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭14:9, 11, 14, 16‬ ‭KJV‬‬

      I can tell you don't know all the hardships that the early Christians went through during the reformation nor do you know who makes the revisions or translations for most of the bibles out there. If you did you would of rejected the RV1960 and very modern translation out here. Look up the history of the Spanish bibles and you'll see what I'm talking about, unless you too afraid to see where most of the modern bibles came from.

      P.S I actually "read" Velera 1602 Purificada, and I'll say that it is definitely not a carbon copy of the KJV. It stands on its own, matter of fact in some instances, it translates much more efficiently then the KJV does due the advantage that Spanish has, being a close relative to Latin. You need to actually read it before you start "theorizing" without any knowledge of the translation.