The Ommission of the Blood of Jesus Christ

I've been saying it for years, that modern FUNDAMENTALISTS, EVANGELICALS, and so-called CHRISTIANS, are GUILTY of ommitting the blood of Jesus Christ in their gospel message, either ignorantly or willfully. By saying this, I've gotten a lot of angry letters, emails, phone calls, etc. They all tell me things like, "Well, you don't have to know about the blood to be saved!" or "You don't have to know anything to get saved. Just come to God the best way you know how!" But is that so? Of course not. A person must first HEAR the gospel before he can believe it, and before he believes it, he must UNDERSTAND it! That's just sound Bible doctrine.

I was reading through a commentary by J. Vernon McGee the other day, and read the following. I believe it's very important for us today, for there are many today who claim to be Christians, yet they leave out the blood of Jesus Christ for salvation. I quote from page 20 of his commentary on the book of 1 Peter:

" 'And sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ...' There is often a silence about the blood of Christ, even in fundamental circles. As long as the blood of our Lord coursed through His veins, it had no saving value for us; but when that precious blood was shed, Christ Jesus gave His life. The life of the flesh is in the blood. He shed that blood that you and I might have life.
Remember that Peter is writing to Jews who had been brought up in Judaism. They were the Diaspora, believing Jews living in Asia minor. They knew the Old Testament, and they understood that the high priest on the Day of Atonement took blood with him when he went into the Holy of Holies, and that he sprinkled the blood seven times on the mercy seat. Now the Lord Jesus Christ has taken His own blood to the throne of God (the throne at which we are judged as guilty sinners), and He sprinkled His blood there. He gave His life and paid the penalty for us. Now that throne of judgment is the throne of grace where you and I can come and receive salvation.
My friend, the gospel has not been preached until the meaning of the blood of Christ has been explained. It may offend you aesthetically--the offense of the cross is that He shed His blood. Of course it is not pretty, but your sin and my sin are not pretty either. Our ugly sin is what made it necessary for Christ to die for us.
This reminds me of a story about a terrible accident which occurred at a railroad crossing. Several people were killed when the train hit a car. There was a court trial, and the watchman who had been at the crossing at the time of the accident was questioned.
'Where were you at the time of the accident?'
'I was at the crossing.'
'Did you have a lantern?'
'Yes.'
'Did you wave that lantern to warn them of the danger?'
'I certainly did.'
The court thought that was enough evidence. When the watchman walked out of the court he was heard to mumble to himself, 'I'm sure glad they didn't ask me about the light in the lantern because the light had gone out.'
My friend, there can be a lot of lanterns waved in the circles of fundamentalism and evangelicalism and conservatism. However, unless there is the message of the blood of Jesus Christ and the sprinkling of the blood which cleanses us from all sin, there is no light in the lantern."

One old preacher once said, "You can't preach the Gospel without preaching the BLOOD, and you can't preach the BLOOD without preaching the Gospel!" What on earth, then are modern so-called Christians preaching?

Oh yeah, that's right. They are preaching a "BLOODLESS GOSPEL" which is "another gospel," of which the apostle Paul warns us about in Galatians chapter one. What is their gospel? It goes something like:

Just ask God to save you

Ask or invite Jesus into your heart

Make your committment to Christ

Call on the Lord through prayer alone and ask him to come into your heart

Repeat this prayer after me

Simply Recite the Sinner's Prayer

But, all of these modern gospels have one thing in common -- THEY ALL LEAVE OUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST, and FAITH ALONE IN IT FOR SALVATION!

Further, they can all be done in the MIND, without any faith whatsoever from the HEART.

So HOW ON EARTH, can so called Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Christians preach THESE rather than simply pointing sinners to Christ crucified and salvation by faith alone in his precious shed blood? It's insanity!

I'll close with this. I'm constantly working to get people the truth about the Spanish Bible, and which one is the best. Through my studies, I'm convinced it's the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible. But I'm also amazed at how many FUNDAMENTALISTS and EVANGELICALS disagree, choosing instead other versions. One of those is the modern GOMEZ Spanish Bible. And, I found a new book by one Emmanuel Rodriguez defending that version and Mr. Gomez who produced it. In that book I read about the tesimony of Mr. Gomez, and that book gives the following information about his "salvation" experience. I quote from pages 22-23:
Gomez speaking: "My religion never taught me that God was willing to save a wretch like me. They never told me that if I would PUT MY FAITH IN THE BLOOD THAT CHRIST SHED FOR ME ON THE CROSS [emphasis mine], that, not only would He save me from an eternity in hell, but He would change my life. ...but something happened to me today. I ASKED JESUS TO SAVE ME. [emphasis mine] And he did. He changed my life."
This is very interesting and is typical of what we see in modern Fundamentalists circles today. Some might talk about the blood and say that to be saved a person MUST put their faith in it. But then later they will give another conflicting idea for their plan of salvation, that of ASKING for God to save them. But where's the faith in the blood if you are asking? For asking God to save you, apart from trusting him and his blood atonement to do so is another gospel.
Is Mr. Gomez even saved according to this testimony? He tells us an American Missionary from Colorado told him the right way to be saved: By FAITH IN THE BLOOD, but then on the next page, he confesses that he rather "ASKED JESUS TO SAVE HIM." So which is it? Did he trust the blood, or did he only ask?
I'm not calling into question Mr. Gomez' salvation. He could very well be saved, and I hope he is. But why does he give two conflicting statements in his testimony in that book? Thank God he "mentioned" the blood and wasn't "silent" like many modern Fundamentalists. However, why did he say he "asked" for salvation, rather than "trusted" the blood like instructed?

This is an important point. For there are countless millions of people today who call themselves Fundamentalists or Evangelicals who rather than preach the Blood, pressure people to "repeat a prayer" or "call vocally upon God asking for salvation" without stressing a Sinner's need to trust the blood atonement. They are like Mr. McGee said, watchman with no LIGHT in their lanterns.

I'll close with one more example. I was preaching in Guatemala once with a man who had a big church and bus ministry. I preached on "THE BLOOD of Jesus Christ." Afterwards, the Pastor got up and apologized publically for not having preached the blood before, and he promised from then on to preach the blood alone for salvation. Yet, he'd been in the ministry for decades and claimed he had won thousands to Jesus Christ. What then was he preaching? It was a "BLOODLESS GOSPEL." But he was only doing what he'd been instructed to do in his own Bible College when he went "soul winning." What was that? A quick 1,2, 3 repeat after me method of quickly pressuring a sinner to REPEAT a prayer, without any signs of REPENTANCE from the heart. And absolutely no mention of the blood atonement, nor one's need to trust it alone for salvation. Who was this man? I'd rather not give his name, needless to say, he uses the Gomez Spanish Bible now. Could there be a pattern here?

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the Gomez Bible is now printed by Chick Tracts. You know, the ones with the cartoons in them. And, have you ever read the back page of a Chick Tract? They instruct you to "ASK" Jesus into your heart. Where's the FAITH IN THE BLOOD like the evangelist from Colorado instructed Mr. Gomez to follow? They might mention the blood, but they don't instruct Sinners to trust or rely solely in the shed blood by faith alone. They try to get sinners to ask or beg for salvation apart from resting only in the finished work of Christ.

I'm a BIBLE BELIEVER, and I'm quickly getting as far away as I can from modern apostate FUNNY-MENT-AL-ISTS who claim to be standing for the faith, when they preaching another plan of salvation. I don't want to be connected to anyone who OMITS the blood of Jesus Christ. And that's exactly what they are doing.

If you are a Fundamentalist, an Evangelical, or a Christian, make sure you don't go along with them in the error of their ways in ommitting the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. Preach the blood with all your might! Make sure there is LIGHT in your latern!

All this ties in to why we left our old home church. It was over this very issue. If you desire a real eye-opening read, then please go to:

http://www.rrb3.com/Left/reasons_left_church.htm

This is a very important topic. That of salvation. For there very well could be countless millions of people within the Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and even Independent Baptist movements which are lost, trusting a BLOODLESS GOSPEL rather than the true BLOODSTAINED GOSPEL of Jesus Christ. It is for them that I keep my lantern lit! Wouldn't you do the same?

Note: Part of the reason for me posting this blog, is because I've recently been personally attacked by Mr. Emanuel Rodriguez, in his following article:

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/PDF/is_gail_riplinger_right.pdf

In this article, Mr. Rodriguez states that for "dishonest practices" I was "kicked" out of my old home church. I know of no dishonesty on my part, nor of any dishonest practices. All I know is that I of my own accord left that church over this very issue, an issue in which they used to be in complete agreement with me. (Click on the link above about why we left our own home church to read the letter of my old Pastor to my father, where he too once claimed to be against "Ask Jesus Into Your Heart.") It appears the doctrine of SALVATION and the SPANISH BIBLE are quickly being melded together, and in order to find the right Spanish Bible, you need to make sure the people who try to steer you in the direction of thier own version(s) have the RIGHT GOSPEL of salvation to begin with! For this is a very, very important issue.)

Verbo vs Palabra

If you speak spanish, and you know a little about the Spanish Bible Controversy, then you have heard about the word "Verbo" in John 1:1. But did you know that was a Catholic word that didn't show up Spanish until the late 1700's? And did you know that the word used before that was "Palabra" in Spanish?

All corrupt versions of the Bible in Spanish use "Verbo." All Protestant versions before the 1700's use "Palabra."

Gail Riplinger has done a great work in writing an essay about this, and showing why "Verbo" is so wrong. Not only is the word from the corrupt Latin Vulgate (that word is "Verbum"), but is also is a New Age, occultic word. And, it's a word that has been consistenly rejected by Christians down through millenia.

Here work is below. I hope it will open your eyes and help you to turn from a corrupt Spanish Bible, to a pure one, as the Valera 1602 Purified is the only Spanish Bible which does not use Verbo.

http://www.rrb3.com/bibles/spnbibl/verbo%20vs%20palabra.htm

(Note: You must have adobe format to open this file)

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 SPANISH BIBLE

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 needs… The 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?

The Truth About the 1865 Spanish Bible

Way back on November 3, 2010, I posted a blog on here entitled, "A Crash Course on the Spanish Bible Issue," which you can still find and read. In respose to my article, a man responded on December 30, 2010 with the following words:

"Your history is incorrect regarding Mr Pratt and Mr Mora. Mr Pratt did not work on the 1865 Valera. He was commissioned to do it but did not because of the civil war and health issues. Therefore Mr Mora did the project on his own."

I believe this man was probably a defender of the 1865 Spanish Bible, and he probably was just repeating what many who defend that version are repeating, since one of the leaders of that movement has stated this very same thing on many occasions.

The statement this man makes above comes from the American Bible Society, and what he is stating is not the whole truth. I too have received the very same information which the 1865 people have and which they quote for this statement. But they do not give all the facts.

Here, for all the world to see, I give the whole truth about the 1865 Spanish Bible for all to see, for there are those who would have to you only know part of the truth, while they hide the rest, as it doesn't help their position. Here I will give the whole truth not only about that statement, but also about the corrupt 1865 Spanish Bible. I hope this article will not be seen as attacking, but rather as objective journalism, as the facts are clearly presented for all to see.

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE 1865 SPANISH BIBLE

According to Essay #16, of the American Bible Society Text and Translation, on pages 25 through 28, we find a written record of how the ABS 1865 Spanish Bible project was started. I will quote from that work on various ocassions, for it is critical (no pun intended), that you see what that version is, and what the American Bible Society believed, and who worked on that version and what they did. (I also am not photocopying or reproducing that article in any way, other than simply quoting from it as a credible source in this article).

According to page 25, we read:

"In March [of 1860] they recommeded that the services of Sr. de Mora of Madrid and the Rev. Mr. H. B. Pratt of Bogota, working with Mr. Brigham, be used to produce a Spanish Bible..."

Here we see there were not only two men who were hired to work on the version, but three.

Skipping ahead, the paper continues,

"The salaries for Mr. Pratt and Sr. de Mora were set at $1,200 a year each."

Then we read the words, "Then eye trouble and the disruption in communication by the Civil War made it necessary for Mr. Pratt (in North Carolina) to withdraw."

This makes it look like Mr. Pratt had nothing to do with the work, doesn't it? But we will see later that he did. (As it appears his eye trouble came from working on the revision).

Continuing in the report, we read,

"This enforced withdrawal of Mr. Pratt had caused the Versions committee to consider for a time dropping the project. The Committee approved Psalms and Proverbs, (1,000 copies each) for publication and requested Sr. de Mora to continue with the Old Testament consulting Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Jones of the Committee and Dr. Brigham, de Mora to continue at the rate of $1000 per year."

Here we find three more men who were on the committee and worked on the project, bringing our total to five if we include Pratt, which me still must, as I will prove later.

In a May meeting of 1865, one Mr. Holdich presented a lengthy report on the history of the 1865 revision, and concluded:

"Athough they may not dare to hope that the work is absolutely perfect, for that would be to claim for it what belongs to nothing human, yet they have strong persuasion that it will be found a very decided improvement on Valera's generally excellent version."

He goes on about how they carefully changed words to modernized spelling, while trying to remaim faithful to the old beauty of the Castellan language.

Then we are told after the version was finished, that the committee gave a gift of $1000 dollars to Mr. Mora for his work, and I quote from page 26, "The book was published in 1865 with great hopes for wide use in Spanish America."

But then on page 27, we read the words of Mr. Pratt (you know, the guy who was supposed to have "dropped out" and not done any work on the 1865). He says in speaking of Mora and the work:

"My good friend Mora, as my long and intimate acquaintance with him qualified me to know, was more than an ordinary master of Spanish, but had not nor could he have a clear notion of critical accuracy so far as the sense was concerned. In our own division of labor, he was responsible for the language, and I for the critical accuracy of the revision. He used to pass on over many things that greatly needed mending, without perceiving that need, till I followed after and called his aattention to them. It is, I assure you, one of the few great disappointments of my life, that I could not go on with him till the work was done; and the more so as two men never wrought toghter in greater harmony than we did."

So even though Pratt did drop out eventually, by his own confession from his own words here presented, he did work together with Mora (and in great harmony, mind you).

But look also at the words I have underlined in his quote. He confesses his job was to be responsible for CRITICAL ACCURACY. What does that mean? Well, if you know Pratt, and you know the American Bible Society at that time, and you know what was taught in their Bible Schools, then you know that it is talking about the CRITICAL TEXTS! That Mr. Pratt loved the critical texts is no secret. In 1893, he produced his own Spanish Bible entitled, "La Versión Moderna" which was based entirely upon the critical texts.

Still, 1865 defenders say it's impossible that Pratt could have inserted critical text readings into the 1865. They claim number one, he didn't work on that revision at all, (but what we've seen from his own words above he did work some with Mr. Mora), and two, they say that there were no critical texts around in 1865. But that is an outright lie. There were critical texts, especial those of Lachman and Tishendorf in the 1850s and 1860s. Not to mention there existed the corrupt Latin Vulgate, a critical, catolic text.

Now, we will look further at the ABS paper. On page 27 we read that Pratt requested two copies of the finished 1865 so that, and I quote, "...he might note in one of them all the remaining inaccuracies..."

So he kept one for himself, and the other he marked up, no doubt inserting more critical texts readings. Was this later used by the ABS? We do not know, but we do know the following from page 27:

"Dr. Holdich was distressed at the errors Mr. Pratt then noticed and the latter explained further what had been his part in the work:

'I must say in justification that Mr. Mora had no part of the Bible which I had reviewed except the New Testament (barring the Revelation, which I have here), or that we had made but a partial revision of it, having determined to leave many things unsettled, til we came to revise it again before publication, our intention was to revise the Old Testament once, but the New Test. twice as its CRITICAL ACCURACY [emphasis mine] was most important.'"

Notice what he says in this confession. He says that he was distressed by "errors" noticed by Mr. Pratt. It appears from context that to him "errors" are places where the 1865 does not read with the critical text.

Further, he says that Mora had no part in the translation except the N.T. So who did it? Could it have been Pratt working with him on the N.T. before he dropped out? Could this have been why he had eye trouble?

Finally, he says they revised the Old Testament once and the New Testament twice. Who did the revision??? Was it Mr. Holdich? Who ever it was, most likely he is the one who added many more critical text readings to the 1865, as it is full of them.

Continuing to read the ABS report we read on page 27:

"He [Holdich] pointed out that...Mr Mora had no critical knowledge of the Scripture, nor even of the present English version."

Did you get that? Mora had no CRITICAL knowledge. It appears Mora was only interested in the original 1602 of Valera and reproducing it. He worked hard at changing the Old Spanish spelling of words to modern Spanish spelling, but he either didn't care or didn't know anything about the critical text readings, so he steered away from them. It was PRATT, and HOLDICH, who found them, pointed them out, and most likely made changes.

Now we come to the last paragraph on page 27, which is a real shocker. It says:

"A point of interest in this connection is committee action in 1868 by which the word 'Palabra' was ordered changed to 'Verbo,' Dr. Schmidt to make a list of the places where this was to be done. At the next meeting he reported changes to be made in John 1:1, 14, 1 John 1:1, 5:7, and Rev. 19:13."

So here we have an interesting confession. We are told in 1868 the word "Palabra" was ordered changed to "Verbo" in the 1865 edition. So that means there must have been an 1865 edition where it said "PALABRA." Thus, that means there was more than one edition of the 1865!

If you look at the 1865 that is being sold today, you'll see it says "verbo." So is it really even an 1865, or is it instead an 1868 revision of the 1865?

That needs to be addressed, especially, when you have yahoos going around saying things like, "We need to defend every word of the 1865!" How can they do that if the version they are using isn't the 1865, but a revision of it done in 1868???

Anyway, on page 28, we find an interesting paragraph with a lot of information. There we read:

"About this time [1868] in writing to Mr. Girdlestone of the BFBS, Dr. Holdich said he was at a loss to know what to do about a Spanish Bible. The ABS edition was better than the Valera but what were they to do? [Note: it was better in their eyes because they were pro-critical text and they added Critical Text readings.] All the criticisms came from Mexico and South America. 'We do not know how far to rely on them!' He would like a comparison of the BFBS and ABS editions. There should be one as near perfect as possible and both Societies use it. 'How can this be secured?' "

Look at what we find in this paragraph. Dr. Holdich of the ABS (American Bible Society) wrote to a member of the BFBS (British Foreign Bible Society), and proclaimed his 1865 (or 1868) was better than the Valera. To him I'm sure it was, as it had been mixed with critical texts, which he believed were the "older and more reliable" texts. But then he confesses that there were many criticisms of the 1865 from Mexico and South America! That means many Spanish Christians did not like it or accept it! Probably because they weren't in favor of the critical texts!

And then he says they should work together to get a near perfect as possible Spanish Bible.

Interestingly enough, they did work together to produce the 1909 Reina-Valera Spanish revision, which became very widely accepted and even was the standard Spanish protestant Bible in Central and South America for over 70 years (until it was replaced by the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible). (Note: the 1909 was not perfect as it too has critical text readings).

So there you have it. We clearly see from the ABS Text and Translation history that the 1865 Spanish Bible was produced by men who were pro-critical texts, and who inserted many critical texts into their translation. We also see that their version was NOT ACCEPTED and was very much criticized by people in Mexico and South America. And the fruit of the 1865 (or 1868), was to get them to produce another Bible, the 1909.

Years ago Dr. Floyd Dallis wrote of the corruption in the 1865 Spanish Bible, and adamant defenders of the 1865 lamblasted him and said his claims were unfounded lies. I'll let you decide for yourself as I quote from Dr. Floyd Dallis:

"Dr. Pratt made the most of his textual changes because of the then recent discoveries of Dr. Tishendorf. Thus, of all the revision to this date, this one had more changes in the text bassed on Westcott and Hort corruptions. About 100,000 chagnes were made in wording. Dr. Pratt and Dr. Mora began their work in 1861. Because of the numerous corruptions of this edition, the 1909 was published! Note the 1909 was therefore published to correct the corruptions of the 1865 of the ABS!"

Now two things are obviously wrong with this statement. First, Westcott and Hort didn't come on the scene until 1881 with their own published critical greek text. Second, Pratt and Mora started in 1860, not 1861.

But the rest of the quote seems pretty much right on the line! Especially with the evidence we have just seen as we read through ABS's own history of that version.

With all this information, how could anyone who claims to be a Bible Believer who loves God and wants a pure Spanish Bible use the 1865? We don't even know if it really is an 1865. For what those who use an 1865 are preaching from says "Verbo" which our source tells us is what was changed in 1868.

But even after reading all of this evidence, there will still be some who will seek to defend the 1865 and try to deny the truth. It is for them, that I continue with a little more evidence.

THE CRITICAL TEXT READINGS IN THE 1865 ABS

We will assume that the 1865 being pushed today is the original 1865. We don't know this, but we'll assume it. And we will take the version that they are printing and look at some places where it does not line up with the Textus Reptus and the King James Bible. In fact, we'll prove that it instead lines up with the critical texts. Eight examples should be sufficient to prove the point. (For even one critical text reading against the textus receptus and King James in favor of the Vaticanus and Siniaticus is too many!)

However, before going further, let me state that in my first book, "A Brief look at the History of the Spanish Bible," I pointed out a list of problems in the 1865 Spanish Bible. After that, those behind the 1865 Spanish Bible printed the 1865 with fifty changes to the text (many of which are those same errors I listed in my book), and these were listed in the back of their version under the title of "Errata." (If this is not a confession that the original 1865 was in error, I don't know what is).

Because of this, many brethern accused those behind the 1865 of being deceitful in continuing to call that version the 1865, as it was no longer the 1865, but a revision of it done in 2005. They claimed it should have been called either a 2005 Reina Valera, or a 2005 revision of the 1865.

Those behind the 1865 later undid those fifty changes (many of which were critical text readings removed), in order to defend the original 1865, claiming it alone was the word of God, and that no version after 1881 (when Westcott and Hort put out their critical text) could ever be anything more than a "Laodicean" version of the scriptures. (So what did that make their 2005 edition?)

8 PLACES THE 1865 READS WITH THE CRITICAL TEXTS

Matt. 24:2 Omits the word Jesus following the Latin Vulgate

Mark 15:3 Removes "mas el no respondió nada" following the Vulgate

Luke 9:43 Removes the word Jesus as do Aleph, B, and the Vulgate

Jn 14:28 Changes "mi padre" to "el padre"as do Aleph, B. and the Vulgate (see also 16:10,25 and (8:28)

Acts 16:10 Changes Señor to Dios following the Vulgate, Aleph, and B

Acts 17:27 Changes Señor to Dios following the Vulgate, Aleph, and B

Acts 22:16 Removes the words El Señor reading with the Vulgate and the critical texts

James 1:12 Changes Señor to Dios following the Latin Vulgate reading

CHANGES IN THE 1865 WITH NO TEXTUAL BASIS

Not only does the 1865 follow the critical texts against the King James and Textus Receptus, it also makes many strange changes with no textual basis for doing so. Below are a few examples:

Matt. 8:1 Adds Jesus to the verse when there is no textual basis to do so!

Mark 6:44 Omits the word como

Mark 8:25 Adds the words de lejos

Acts 8:16 Omits Señor

Acts 8:25 Changes Señor to Dios

2 Cor. 10:18 Changes Señor to Dios, following no text on earth!

1 Tim. 6:1 Changes Dios to Señor with no textual basis to do so

2 Tim. 4:14 Changes Señor to Dios, for no reason following no text

These are just a few of the many places in which the 1865 version has changed the true Reina-Valera Bible, departing not only in favor of the critical texts, but making changes with no texual basis to do so whatsoever! It's almost like whoever revised it decided they liked to interchange God and Lord back and forth anytime they so desired.

IN SUMMARY

The mountain of evidence given in this brief blog should be sufficient to any true Bible believer that the 1865 spanish Bible is not worth wasting your time with. Although it has greatly improved some verses to match even closer to the KJV, it has also destroyed other verses by making them read with the critical texts, and decimated even other verses by changing words which don't match with any text on the face of the earth!

Those who defend the 1865 claim to be KJV in English. If so, how do they reconcile the fact that their Spanish version doesn't line up with the English version? And how can they claim (as they do) that the KJV is perfect, and then claim their 1865 is perfect when they don't say the same thing?

It is up to you, dear reader, with the evidence presented here to decide for yourself what to do with the 1865 (or is it an 1868?) Spanish Bible. Facts have been given which cannot be denied from those who commissioned the work to be done (the American Bible Society). I have also tried to give evidence within the pages of the 1865 itself which prove it reads with the critical texts, and I've given information about how those who push the 1865 have revised it, but then gone back to the old version, proving they are not really interested at all in a pure Spanish Bible that lines up with their English King James.

But, you mark my words, those who defend the 1865 will not deal with the facts, or the evidence. They will continue to do what they have always done, which is to try to explain away the obvious, and say that facts have been "twisted" or "taken out of context."

If falls upon you then, dear reader, to study this issue for yourself and see who is telling the truth. And please don't allow yourself to be taken off the trail with side arguements. Stick to the facts as I have done.

Eventually, if you will study with an open mind, you will find exactly what I have found, that the purest Spanish Bible available today is the 1602 Purified Spanish Bible.

Breaker's Broken Bible?

Several years ago, I wrote a book about the new phenomenon known as the modern Reina-Valera Gomez Bible. I then posted that book to my website. It can be found at the following address:

www.rrb3.com/mypub/books/truth_about_gomez.htm

When I wrote the book, I was careful to only give facts, and not "attack" that new version, wishing only to point out that in my opinion it was not an exhaustive work, nor did it make the Spanish Bible any better, rather worse as in it's first edition, IT SAID A MAN COULD MARRY HIS OWN DAUGHTER!

I was careful to also point out Mr. Gomez' lack of knowledge of the Greek language led to his edition containing many anti-Textus Receptus readings in his version. And I gave some examples in my book, along with various other strange readings and even doctrinal errors.

Quickly, a Missionary to Chile came along and critiqued my work, claiming I was "attacking" the Gomez Bible, and he proceeded to try to make me look stupid and unlearned. He then went to the Greek and tried to say I was wrong, and that the "anti-TR" readings I presented weren't really important. (They must have been, however, as Mr. Gomez has recently changed some of them in his later editions.) And, this Missionary to Chile then wrote an essasy against me entitled, "Breaker's Broken Bible" on a blog.

I read it once and thought it was silly, as most of his arguments were either false or foolish. And to me it appeared he really exposed himself as a man who didn't really care about having God's pure words (all of them), as he was fine with translating words in other tenses, and having them plural instead of singular (and vice versa). He also went against the original 1602 and the King James time and again to defend the Gomez reading. How sad.

In short, he appeared to me as just a man who didn't care about having every word of God translated correctly into the Spanish language.

So I just forgot the man and his article and moved on.

But today, several years later, as I sat sick with a cough, I looked that article up again, and found that many people had responded to it. You can read the article and people's responses to it at:

www.prisonersofmexico.com/bible/1865%20Breaker%92s%20Broken%20Booklet.pdf

As I read through it, I found the first response was from Mr. Gomez himself. How sad was his response in Spanish. I translate it here into English:

"Esteemed Bro. Heinz, thanks for your words. It is sad to see how Bro. Breaker doing what he does, only adds confusion and contributes to the critiques against the purity of the Word of God. God have mercy.

A constructive critique will always be welcome.

Humberto Gomez."

As I read this, I thought to myself, "What? How does that even make sense???" How does showing the TRUTH about the errors and anti-Textus Receptus readings in the first edition of the Gomez Bible cause CONFUSION? How can TRUTH ever cause confusion for that matter???

Obviously, what I pointed out was true, as in later editions of the Gomez Bible, some of the "criticisms" I made were later changed in new Gomez versions. (But not all of them!) So obviously, I was right. Did I get an apology. NOPE! Do I want one, NOPE!

Instead, I've been labeled as someone who confuses others and contributes to the critiques against the purity of God's word. How strange, when I'm simply pointing out that the Gomez reads AGAINST the KJV and Textus Receptus on many occasions.

The truth is, I didn't critique God's pure words, nor do I confuse anyone. I simply stated the truth. I care about the pure word of God in Spanish, even though Mr. Gomez claims my motive is just to cause confusion and criticize the purity of God's word (which it appears Mr. Gomez insinuates is his own version alone).

No, Mr. Missionary to Chile's article didn't bother me, nor did Mr. Gomez' condesending response. So I read on. And what I found next was the same Missionary to Chile writing back to Mr. Gomez with the following words, which I've translated into English:

"Brother Gomez, I equally thank you for commenting here. It is very certain what you said. God will make more cooperation than confusion in the future. Thanks for your work of love in the purification of the Word."

Boy, there is no bias there, huh? Ha Ha. Of course, I'm being sarcastic. It's easy to see that the reason Mr. Missionary to Chile was against me, was because he'd already made up his mind to use the Gomez Bible. And he is very much in favor of Mr. Gomez and his "purification" of the Spanish Bible.

Why, oh why, then would Mr. Missionary to Chile entitle his essay, "Breaker's Broken Bible," when I give the evidence on the problems in the Gomez first edition, while pointing out that they were CORRECTED in the Valera 1602 PURIFIED Spanish Bible already??? (The Bible he wants to claim is broken).

People are strange, aren't they, in their choice of words? They'll attack the Valera 1602 PURIFIED and make fun of it, while defending the Gomez Bible which hasn't been "purified" enough, as it still reads against the KJV, the Textus Receptus, and the original 1602 in many places. Hmmm. Strange, wouldn't you say?

And, then at the same time they praise a man for "purifying" the Spanish Bible, who in his first edition made the Bible read that it's okay to marry one's own daughter! (Like the Gomez did). Sure, this has been changed in the later editions, but does changing the Bible to teach heresy and then changing it back part of the "PURIFICATION" Process???

Anyway, I read further in the responses and found Jeff McCardle, who supports the 1865, weighed in with his opinions. Although I don't agree with Jeff McCardle, nor do I use his version, I found he gives some great points about some errors in the Gomez first edition. (It is important and only fair to report that the later editions of the Gomez change these grevious errors.)

I later found an old friend, Manny Rodriguez, jumping in to defend the Gomez, but neither he, Gomez, or Mr. Missionary to Chile ever deal with the issue I gave in my book. That is: The Gomez first edition DID CONTAIN CRITICAL TEXT READINGS over TEXTUS RECEPTUS readings, and the latest edition of the Gomez does as well. And it does so because Mr. Gomez used the 1909 Spanish Bible as his basis, a version that was made in order to introduce Critical Text readings into the Reina-Valera Bibles.

Anyway, without going on further, I would encourage you to read my book, read Mr. Heinz' article, and then read the responses and see what you think. Do what my Dad always taught me to do, PRACTICE DISCERNMENT!

And it'll be interesting what you find out. Is my Bible "broken?" I don't believe so. I know the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible is really the closest to the original 1602, and the Textus Receptus, while the Gomez is closer to the 1909 and 1960 in many words it chooses to follow against the original 1602.

I'm also sure if you'll study this out for yourself, you'll see many of the things I've seen over the years in the Spanish Bible debate:

1. Opinions are political in nature instead of focusing on the purity of the texts.

2. There is much man worship (i.e. Mr. Gomez)

3. A political movement has developed to push the Gomez Bible while covering up facts about the Valera 1602 Purified.

4. Men often attack others and call them names instead of just giving the facts.

5. Arrogance and pride run rampant instead of humility.

6. Statements are made by men that they later have to retract, or amend, as they have changed their position.

7. Men are quick to "label" men like myself, who only present the facts, as guilty of "confusing" instead of "clarifying" the evidence.

8. Angry fleshly rhetoric is used in attacking, instead of the fruits of the spirit in speaking the truth in love.

9. Men who claim to believe something in English are not very consistent to believe the same thing in Spanish.

And much more.

Have fun! I believe you're smart enough to let the facts speak for themselves. Don't get caught up in what Bro. So and So says, rather focus on the FACTS!

One Fundamentalist summed it up nicely, "The Spanish Bible Issue isn't about PURITY, rather it's about POLITICS!" Isn't that sad?

But, I believe this article and it's responses illustrate that concept nicely. It also gives a great representation of how Independent Baptists have dealt with the issue over the centuries. That is, instead of dealing the issue itself, they bark at each other and are quick to get in the flesh, lead by their emotions, rather than simply learning the facts and debating them in an orderly fashion.

In closing, let me say that if you still haven't seen the Valera 1602 Purified, or heard about it, why not visit my website at:

http://www.rrb3.com/

And then click on the Spanish Bible Issue for more information. You can also go to my blog I wrote entitled:

"A CRASH COURSE ON THE SPANISH BIBLE ISSUE"

That article is found at:

http://truth-stands-alone.blogspot.com/2010/11/crash-course-on-spanish-bible-issue.html

God bless, and let's all get busy setting aside politics and get to the importance of the purity of the word of God.

POST SCRIPT: After having looked at the above link that takes you to the article "Breaker's Broken Bible," in adobe format, I found that it left off the last three posts, one of which was mine. These can be found at the original blog:

http://diligentsearch.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/breakers-broken-rvg-1602p-analysis/

Sincerely,

Robert Breaker III

P.S. Oh, I even forgot to mention how these guys who use the Gomez are so far off, they don't even know the difference between the Word (capital "W"), and the word (lower case "w"). Do you know the difference? Well, if you are a KJB believer, you do. For in the King James Bible, the Word (capital "W") is always a reference to JESUS CHRIST! While word is a reference to the Scriptures -the word of God- or the Bible. I wonder if these guys know this, as they are always capitalizing the W when they talk about the Bible. Kinda shows their ignorance, doesn't it?

Well, anyway, let's just all go marry our daughters! Ha, Ha.

CASTELLAN SPANISH

One of the many knocks we get against our Valera 1602 Spanish Bible is that it is "archaic" and "old." Some have complained that they don't understand some of the old words. (Which is strange because they almost always are the same words used in the old 1909 Spanish Bible, and no one complained about them in that version). They say they want a modern updated Bible which new words that any Spanish speaker can understand. Those that use the 1960 Spanish Bible praise it because they say the modern grammar is easier to understand. Those who use the Modern Gomez say the same.

They often are quick to call Castellan Spanish "outdated" and they claim ridiculous things like, "Spanish is different in every country. There is therefore a need to have a Spanish Bible in every country that is translated into their dialect." But is this so?

It is for these people I give the following from the International Correspondence School Spanish Grammar book, copyright 1903. There we read:

"Among Spanish-Speaking People, Spanish grammar is usually called gramática castellana, Castilian grammar; and the Spanish language itself, lengua castellana, Cástilian language, or simply castellano, Castilian. The reason for this being that language was first spoken in the old kingdom of Castile, the center of Spanish power and influence at that time; but a law was enforced later on by which the dialects spoken in some of the provinces should be totally discarded from the public schools, and in their place the Castilian language should exclusively be taught used in all official documents, becoming therefore the national language. Accordingly, the general prevailing tendency is to call the Castilian language "el idioma español" or simply "el español."

The entire population of Spanish America speak and write the language of Castile, with only some slight deviations in pronouncing certain letters, as it will be presently explained."

According to this weighty and important statement, Spanish is Castellano or Castilian, and anyone who says that Castilian is out of date is very misinformed. It is also the LAW that official documents should be written in Castellan Spanish. Should not then the Bible be done in Castellan as well?

And we are further told that the entire population of Spanish America SPEAKS and WRITES the language of Castile.

The 1909 Spanish Bible, and even the 1865 are Castilian Bibles. But they contain critical text readings, and therefore are not pure.

The Reina-Valera Gomez from 2010 is not completely a Castilian Bible, as it deviates time and again from the many Castilian words from the 1909 of which it claims to come from. It also many times reads in favor of the 1960 Spanish Bible, which is very modern Spanish. And, it has changed many old Castellano words with synonyms of modern spanish words. Several Hispanic people who have read the Gomez tell me it is full of "street spanish" and is not like reading the beautiful old Reina-Valera CASTELLANO Spanish.

Thus, the purest Spanish Bible available today that is indeed based upon the old Reina-Valera Castilian texts, and has removed all critical text readings is the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible.

So, if you want a true Spanish Bible (a Castilian Bible) you need to turn to the Valera 1602 Purified.

Some heresies of Reina and Valera

So I'm going through the book of Genesis in the old Valera Spanish Bible printed in 1602 and written in old Spanish with the old Spanish spelling where the "s" is an "f" and the "c" is a "z" and the "v" is a "u," etc. And what I decided to do was not only read the text again, but I decided I'd read the notes in the margin as well. This has really helped me to see what Reina and Valera actually believed about some things. And, boy, do they really seem supersticious, and messed up on their doctrine! This is really no surpise, as they were both Catholics before they were saved. And, obviously, they kept some of the doctrine they had learned from that church. But you would think they would have learned some more by translating the Bible, and they would have adopted sound doctrine. Sadly, they did not. Below, I give just a few of the heresies I found in their thinking and teaching by reading the footnotes...

THE ADDING OF THE CHURCH IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS

On the first page of Valera's edition we find the words: "Primero Libro de Moysen Llamado Comunmente Genesis."

Right below this, and before the text itself of Genesis begins, we read the following strange commentary: "En el cual cuenta Moysen el principio del mundo, y de la Iglesia de Dios, su doctrina, religion, progreso y su admirable gobierno por espacio de dos mil tecientos y sesenta y ocho años, que hay hasta la muerte de Joseph."

Notice what this is saying! Valera says that Genesis speaks of the CHURCH (la Iglesia de Dios), and it doctrine, religion, and progress, and its admirable government up until the death of Joseph! What???

I've read the book of Genesis through time and again, and I'VE NEVER, EVER, FOUND THE CHURCH MENTIONED in it one time! Nor do we find the doctrine, religion, progress, and governance of the church mentioned either!

Oh, you might say that we can find the church in type in Genesis, but even then you are stretching it. And you'll be hard pressed to find the doctrine, religion, progress, and governance of the church in type in the book of Genesis as well.

This is a very strange commentary by Valera. And I looked up the same in the old 1569, and it's not there. That means this was added by Valera alone.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF SINS

Catholicism gives many types of sin. It tries to make some sins worse then others. We see this type of "classifying" sin in the notes of Valera when we read in a footnote about the fall of Adam and Eve:

"Adam no fue engañado sino la mujer fue engañado en la rebelion. La serpiente pecó contra el Espíritu Santo de una malicia obstinada: y asi su pecado no le fue perdonado asi pecaron los Fariseos. Eva pecó de ignorancia, como Pablo, 1 Tim. 1:13, que es pecado contra el hijo: asi alcanzaron misericordia. Adam pecó de flaquez o, como Pedro, cuando negó a Christo, que es pecado contra el Padre: y fueles perdonado. A estos tres generos de pecados se ha de veduz ir todos los pecados que despúes cometieron."

MAKING ADAM OBEDIENTE TO EVE

In the same above context, Valera has God saying the following to Adam, "Y porque obedeciste a la voz de tu mujer, y comiste del arbol de que te mandé diciendo, No comerás del, Maldita será la tierra pro amor de ti: con dolor comerás de ella todoos los dias de tu vida." (Gen. 3:17)

Notice the Valera reads that Adam "obeyed" the voice of his wife. It is almost as if she forced him to submit to her and obey her. And because of this in context the next verses makes it look like the reason God told Eve she must be in obedience to her husband is because of her forcing to make him obey her.

This is very different in the King James. In the KJV we are told that Adam "harkened" to the voice of his wife. That is he listened to her, and he decided himself to do what she suggested, which was to eat of the fruit. As a type of Christ, Adam of his own free will chose to die with Eve, just as Jesus chose to freely give his life for the church. It was out of love that they wanted to die for their brides. It was not out of obeying their brides. The church did not tell Jesus to die. Jesus knew the only way to save the church was to die for it, so he did so.

When you know the Spanish "machismo" and the Hispanic attitude towards women, you gain some insight into why Valera's note and reading of the text tries to make Eve out to be the bad one, who tried to gain authority over Adam, even while they were in the Garden of Eve. Hispanic men want to be in charge, and they pride themselves on being the boss, and putting the woman under subjection. And I see in the text the reason they changed "harkened" to "obeyed" was to show the contrast and importance of a woman to obey a man and not vice versa.

THE GIANTS MADE ONLY INTO MEN OF SEDUCTION INSTEAD OF MEN OF TALL

STATURE

In Genesis chapter six, Valera propagates the ridiculous theory that even many modern day Fundamentalits erroneously teach. That is that the "sons of God" are only "the sons of Seth" and the "daughters of men" are only women from the line of Cain.

Valera's note says exactly: "Quiere decir los descendientes de Seth...quiere decir las descendientes de Cain..."

And the "mating" which the text speaks of, Valera says is the marrying of the lineage of Seth to the lineage of Cain. We read his words: "Primera corrupción del siglo, Perversion del Matrimonio."

And he finished by stating that those who were born were those who were the children of those mixture of Seth's Children with Cain's Children.

His note in Spanish is: "Los que nacieron de aquellos matrimonios arriba."

Finally, instead of believing the Bible fact that the sons of God were fallen angels which mated with the daughters of men, which produced GIANTS like Goliath was, Valera believes the following: "Violentos, tyranos, giantes como los otros. Origén de la nobleza en el mundo."

This is too funny. Valera says they were just men who were giant in their sins who were well known, and that they were the first "nobility" in the world. If this be the case, then does that mean the queen of England is from the line of Cain???

The truth is there is a spiritual and physical degregation here by fallen angels who mate with the daugthers of men and produce GIANTS, which the Bible tells us have six fingers and six toes. The Bible has much to say about these giants (called Anakims) and their offspring. It also gives us the origin of where the demons come from. (A topic we won't go into now. For more on this, go to my blood on "Where do demons come from?")

THE SOUL IS IN THE BLOOD

This is a strange teaching. But in Genesis 9 we read the following in verse five: "Porque ciertamente vuestra sangre que es vuestras almas..."

This literally says, "Because certainly our blood, that is our souls..."

This is very different than the King James which tells us the LIFE of the flesh is in the blood. It is not the life of the soul. The Soul is spiritual, while the Life is physical.

Valera's note shows he doesn't quite buy into this entirely, when he writes: "La sangre se dice ser el anima de la carne; porque en ella residen los espiritus vitales senticious."

Now this is just weird! But notice he says: "it is said to be..." (The words: "se dice ser"). This shows Valera didn't necesarily buy into this teaching. But how weird. Who would believe that in your blood resides the vital spirits of your being?

Strange. Yet, the 1865 Spanish Bible does just as bad as retaining the Valera read in other verses in which it claims the life of the soul is in the blood. (Lev. 17:11), instead of the correct reading of the King James: "The life of the FLESH is in the blood."

IN SUMMARY

So we see in just the first eight chapters of Genesis that Valera was messed up on his doctrine according to his footnotes. As most people know, Valera was a CALVINIST, who adhered adamantly to CALVINISM, a horrible doctrine if there ever was one. Because of this, it's easy to see how Valera was easily deceived into believing things that others taught instead of simply believing the word of God.

Valera did a great job revising the 1569 Spanish Bible of Cassiodoro de Reina. But when it comes to the footnotes he added, I would advise not to follow them too closely. It is interesting though to read them and to gain insight into the man and what he thought and believed.

A CRASH COURSE ON THE SPANISH BIBLE ISSUE

For many a year I've followed the Spanish Bible Issue and I've watched Fundamentalists battle each other over which Bible in Spanish is the right one. And I've seen them all be consistenly WRONG on which Bible they chose, as each one defended a version that is either mixed with catholic texts, the critical texts, and/or is modern Spanish instead of the beautiful old Castellan of Spain, like the old Reina-Valera of 1602.

As I watched the fray, I didn't realize at the time, that God was putting me right slap-dab in the middle of the controversy in order to teach me some things and then use me to help Hispanics learn about the History of their Bible, and to point them to the purest word of God in their language.

Looking back now over the years, I see just how God has used me in a mighty way to show English and Spanish Speakers alike the truth about the Spanish Bible Controversy and the practice of modern day Pharisees who hypocritcally hide the truth about their corrupt versions in order to deceive the masses.

Over the years, I wrote several books on the Spanish Bible Issue and I saw them printed and distributed far and wide, with much positive feedback. Gail Riplinger has even told me personally, "As far as I'm concerned, you are the foremost authority on the Spanish Bible Issue and the History of the Spanish Bible."

As fattering as that might be, I know I still have much to learn. But I'm grateful God has given me a purpose and a reason for my ministry. So, I steadfastly continue preaching the truth about the various Spanish Bible versions, and pointing Spanish speakers to the purest word of God in their language.

For those who don't know anything about the Spanish Bible Issue, I give the following crash course...

THE 1960 REINA-VALERA REVISION

Fundamentalists for almost half a century have adamantly defended the popular 1960 Spanish Bible, now known as the "Crown Version." But when that version came out in the early 1950s (its text appeared in New Testament only, and was a bi-lingual edition printed with the RSV in English), no Fundamentalist would touch it with a ten foot pole! It wasn't until they printed it with the Scofield notes, that some Fundamentalists bought it. Then eventually more did, and it finally became the standard Fundamentalist Bible for the next forty years. (How sad they bought it more for the NOTES and not for the TEXT!) This is how many Fundamentalist missionaries who were KJV only in English hypocritically became RSV in Spanish.

Then, along came a few guys like myself who actually read the 1960 with the King James and became appalled at the many differences. We then began to ask why other missionaries, who only use the KJV in English and are against the English RSV, could use a Bible in Spanish that read with the RSV in many places? It just didn’t make sense.

Eventually a Missionary in Guatemala found a book by Jose Flores (a consultant on the 1960 revision) in which the author stated the 1960 Spanish Bible relied heavily on the English RSV and the CRITICAL TEXTS in it's revision. Myself and others began to point this out, as well as the many DOCTRINAL ERRORS in the 1960. We also showed the influence of Eugene Nida and his Damnable doctrine of DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE, which teaches a man doesn't have to translate the words rather only the idea or the message behind the words (This allows the translator to become his own "Interpreter" rather than an honest and objective translator).

But for our speaking out on the truth, we were labelled as "trouble makers" and "Bible attackers" instead of the true Bible Believers we are who wanted a pure bible to take to Hispanics.

THE 1909 REINA-VALERA REVISION

Not all Fundamentalists jumped on the bandwagon of the 1960. A few stuck with the old 1909, and were often ridiculed and attacked by the 1960 crowd because of it. Many claimed it was "archaic" and "out-dated" and others should just chunk it in favor of the more popular 1960. But many a dogmatic fundamentalist who knew his Bible and saw the horrendous errors of the 1960 would not waiver. They stood firm on their convictions of using the old 1909, which had become known as "La Antigua" (the Old version).

But when faced with the truth that the 1909 was done by men who not only favored the Critical Texts, but also used them in their translation, many 1909 users became upset. Eventually they desired a pure Bible based upon the pure texts underlying the King James Bible, and not a version mixed with the critical texts of men. So they began to look elsewhere.

THE 1543 ENZINAS NEW TESTAMENT

A movement began in Arizona in the 1990's to resurrect the old Francisco de Enzinas New Testament of 1543, the work of a learned and well-known Protestant Spaniard. It was reprinted in old Castellan (where the "s" is an "f" and the "v" is a "b," etc.) but saw very little distribution and acceptance by many Fundamentalists. Although it was much better than the 1960 and 1909, it also had been messed with by Catholics who changed some things after Enzinas did his work. So it too wasn't pure.

THE 1865 A.B.S. SPANISH BIBLE

Then in 2001, Jeff McCardle and Paul Garcia tried to resurrect the 1865 Spanish Bible. I was there when they called a group of men together to show them the version they'd found and how they tried to convince us all that it was, and I quote, "The true word of God in Spanish."

With their list of 200 verses that showed the 1865 was better than both the 1960 and 1909, and closer to the King James, some people readily accepted the 1865. I was skeptical, and did not, determining to study it out more. I did, and found Mr. H.B. Pratt who worked on the 1865 (with a man named Mora) was very biased towards the critical texts (so much so that he produced a version in 1893 based entirely on them, called "La Version Moderna"), and that he had inserted some critical text readings into the 1865. He also changed many words with no textual basis to do so (often times changing "God" to "Lord" or vice versa for no reason!)

With a list I had found of about 50 places in the 1865 that read either against the King James or with the critical texts, I went with Jeff McCardle to speak to Peter S. Ruckman about the issue. Jeff had already written an article in Ruckman's Bible Baptist Bulletin, in which he stated that spanish speakers should defend: "...Every word of the 1865 Spanish Bible."

Faced with the truth, Jeff eventually made 50 changes in his beloved 1865, in favor of the King James and pure texts, but later decided to undo those changes, as they didn't go along with his teaching that no Bible after 1881 could be the preserved word of God. Because of his backpeddling, and not wanting to purify his version further, Jeff has since lost much credibility, and his movement and his Valera Bible Society are now suffering because of it. Emanuel Rodriguez (who is in favor of the Gomez Bible) has recently written a good article on the internet exposing Jeff McCardle and his illogical and flip-flopping doctrinal position.

THE 1602 PURIFIED SPANISH BIBLE

The next version to come along did what McCardle did not, in that it did do an extensive revising of the original Valera 1602 with the pure texts underlying our King James Bible. It is the Valera 1602 Purified (also known as the 1602 TR in the New Testament and the 1602 Purified or 1602 Monterrey as the whole Bible). Those who worked on this version are were Hispanic in orgin (not American like McCardle). They are further Independent Baptist Fundamentalists Christians located in Monterrey, Mexico. As a local Church, they worked for 15 years purifying the Spanish Bible to bring it in line with the Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic texts.

Following the advice of Cipriano de Valera in his preface of his 1602 version, they went directly back to the original 1602 and started from there. (Note: The 1602 original wasn't printed much exactly like Valera's 1602 edition, as Bible Societies rather took it and "revised" [i.e. "changed"] in many passages to read more in favor with the Catholic texts to be able to distribute it in Catholic countries. This is why modern bibles like the 1960, 1909, 1865, the Gomez, and more retain the Catholic term "Verbo" instead of the correct, Protestant term "Palabra" in speaking of Jesus Christ).

Those behind the 1602 Purified also went verse by verse with all older Protestant Bibles as well as the King James as they scrutinized every verse with the Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic Text. What they produced was the most exhaustive and scholarly work done by ANYONE on the face of the earth in giving Spanish Speakers a Bible that reads not only with the pure texts (instead of the Critical Texts), but also retains the old Castellan Spanish of Reina and Valera instead of updating to modern Spanish (like the Gomez does).

The Valera 1602 Purified is endorsed by Gail Riplinger, as the right Spanish Bible, not only because of the much work (prayer and fasting) involved, but also because it chose to use the old PROTESTANT WORDS instead of modern CATHOLIC words. It is also the only Spanish Bible that uses “SEÑOR,” following the King James Bible (and its use of LORD in all caps) in the Old Testament, instead of “Jehová.”

After the Valera 1602 Purified came out in 2002 (exactly 400 years after the 1602 revision), it was not well received. The reason being most Fundamentalists were still in attack mode. They used either the 1909 or the 1960 and didn't want anything else, as that's what their "group" had used for many decades. (I call them "groupies" who only use a Bible because others in their group do, not because they want a pure Bible for the Spanish Speaking People).

Because of their "group" or "camp" mentality, they chose to attack rather than study the issue, and were quick to put down the exhaustive work of the Valera 1602 Purified. They even made the outlandish claim that Pastor Raul Reyes was a "homosexual" (Isn't it kind of funny the enemies of King James called him the same thing?) and many others such derogatory names.

Those behind the Valera 1602 Purified were vehemently attacked by apostate Fundamentalists, but they didn't let it bother them. Instead they chose to work by themselves and let their critic's words come to naught. Like Pastor Raul Reyes said, "We had to make a decision. Either take out time to write back the letters and emails of our attackers, (which would have turned out to be a full time job), or shun their childish attacks and do the work of God trusting Him to help us get a pure Bible to the Spanish Speaking people."

Thus, they decided to let their work finished work speak for itself. (Which it does by reading entirely with the pure texts against the critical texts, while still staying as close to the old Valera of 1602 as possible).

When the Purified was first printed, only as the New Testament (the whole Bible came out in 2007), the 1960 attackers who obtained a copy showed their ignorance of their own language and their own Bible history by attacking the word "Palabra" instead of "Verbo." Many of them had never even seen an original 1602, and didn't even know that all protestant versions used "Palabra" instead of the pro-catholic word "Verbo."

The 1960 crowd’s adamant defense of their version proved they were more interested in politics than in the purity of God's words. But the more they lamblasted the Valera 1602 Purified, the more people became curious about it and sought it out. Thus, they learned the best way to keep the Purified out of the hands of the masses was to simply not mention it anymore. And that's exactly what they did, and what others are doing now, not even mentioning it in favor of a newer version called the Gomez. (Note: Many who are now in favor of the modern Gomez Bible are those same 1960 users who attacked the 1602 Purified).

THE modern 2004/ 2010 GOMEZ BIBLE

After the Valera 1602 Purified came out, some wise Fundamentalists began to realize they could not longer deny the fact that both their 1960 and 1909 Spanish Bibles had mistakes, additions, critical text readings, and doctrinal errors. Eventually the attacks slowed down and hispanic Fundamentalists realized the mistakes in their Bibles could no longer be denied. Thus, they chose to discuss the issue, rather than continue to debate it.

It is during this time, Mr. Humberto Gomez, a Fundamentalist Independent Baptist missionary to his native country of Mexico, decided he'd get on the band wagon and make his own translation of the Spanish Bible, by revising the old 1909 Spanish Bible. He knew no Hebrew or Greek, but he believed God had told him to begin work on revising the Spanish Bible, so he did.

The first edition of his New Testament came out in 2004, and soon became known as the RVG '04 (or Reina-Valera Gomez 2004). Interestingly enough, however, many have claimed his first edition reads a lot like the Valera 1602 Purified (which he has been rumored to have used in his churches for a short time), and that they thought he used the Purified in his work, making sure to change many words for Spanish synonyms in order to make it look like his work. Whether this is true or not, we'll probably never know, but this has been the charge that was made.

But, the facts are when Gomez' first edition of the New Testament came out, it was horrendous and full of errors and mistakes! For example, in 1 Corinthians 7, it gave permission to a man to marry his own daughter. (Yep, you read that right!) And in John chapter 2, it had Jesus at a party with people drinking hard liquor. (Yep, you read that right too!)

But instead of Gomez' work being attacked by modern Fundamentalists, he found many jump to his side and volunteer to help him with his work. (I guess they didn't read the first edition, for if they had they might have thought otherwise).

Their "help" consisted of emailing him many suggestions of things he should change. Mr. Gomez knew no Hebrew or Greek, so he eventually enlisted the help of Dr. Donald Waite, and together they tried to make their translation read more in line with the pure texts. However, Gomez was insistent upon being the "final authority" on the project, based upon his own words. (Thus, it is still called the Reina-Valera GOMEZ Bible).

The Gomez is now out in its fifth edition, and is now called the Reina-Valera Gomez 2010 Spanish Bible. Many Fundamentalists are now adopting this version, and even Chick Publications is printing it. (They are now calling their revision the Gomez 2010).

But as I've gone through and studied that version, I found an interesting thing. Even though it claims to be a revision of the old 1909, it in many places reads with the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible, choosing words and even sentence structure that follows that version exactly. (In other words, it appears Mr. Gomez' Bible is nothing more than a revision of the 1960). Some have hypothesized that the reason is because Mr. Gomez wanted many of those Fundamentalists who used the 1960 to come over to his side, knowing they would accept a version which read closer to their revision. Whatever the case may be, Gomez and his Bible is clearly becoming a political movement, as those who adhere to that version all seem to adore and worship Mr. Gomez more than the pure words of God. And the Gomez Bible, even though it might be closer to the King James in some places, still retains the catholic word "Verbo" instead of the protestant word "Palabra."

Further, the Gomez is dogmatically being labeled by its proponents as "The Preserved words of God in Spanish." But is this so?

The question needs to be asked: "Did God wait until Gomez to give the Spanish Speaking People His preserved Words?" If so, "Why?" And, "What about the 'marrying your own daughter thing?'" Was that God preserving His word?

We also must ask, "Did God want the many synonym words that Gomez chose in his version, many of which are not in the original 1602, to be His preserved words in Spanish, or did God give us His preserved words in 1602, and we should honor and keep those old words as much as possible?" (Just as those who put out the Valera 1602 Purified did.)

And finally, we should also ask, “If Fundamentalist were once wrong in using the 1960 Spanish Bible, could it be they are wrong again in turning toward this modern version?”

IN SUMMARY

The Spanish Bible Controversy has been an issue of much bitter fighting, and attacks by modern Fundamentalists who battle each other over which Bible they think is best in Spanish. Usually, their reasoning that their version is best is because it’s the one their group uses or has used for years. But very few wish to actually do the painstaking work of comparing all the versions together with the King James and the texts underlying it, to see how it lines up. Instead of finding the pure words of God to take to the Spanish Speaking people, they seem content to give them something, even though they know it contains catholic words, critical texts, and man’s synonymns.

As for me, my desire is to take Spanish-speaking people the pure words of God in their language, free of critical and catholic text readings. And, I believe the purest word of God in Spanish to be the Valera 1602 Purified, which is Old Castellan Spanish (not modern Spanish) and is the closest not only to the pure texts underlying the King James Bible, but is also the closest to the original 1602 and the Protesant texts of the Spanish reformation.

But as I watch modern Fundamentalists, I find they aren't as interested as they claim to be about a pure Spanish Bible. I appears they are more intersted in politics. And, instead of them talking about the "texts," (GOD'S WORDS) they seem to be either attacking or praising different Bible "translators" (MEN).

Fundamentalists have been WRONG in openly embracing the 1960 and the 1865. Could it be they are wrong again in accepting a new version like the modern Gomez Bible? You must decide for yourself. And the only way to decide is to study it for yourself.

I've done just that, and I only use the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible in Preaching and Teaching, and I do so only after having studied the issue. From my studies, I've come to the conclusion that the Valera 1602 Purified is the purest Spanish Bible available today. But don't take my word for it. Do what I did. Get an old 1602, all the old Spanish Protestant Bibles: the 1543 Enzinas, the 1556 Juan Perez de Pineda, the Biblia de Ferrara of 1553 and others. Then look at them verse by verse with the 1865, 1909, 1960, the Gomez, and more.

And what you'll find is that the Valera 1602 Spanish Bible is old Spanish (just like the KJV is old Elizabethan English), and reads in favor more with the texts of the Protestant Reformation, while the 1865, 1909, and 1960 all read with the Critical Texts time and again. And though the modern Gomez claims to have purified all critical text readings, you'll also find that the Gomez reads closer to the 1960 and even the Spanish NIV than it does with the old Reina-Valera Spanish Bible!

So that’s the Spanish Bible Issue in a nutshell. Fundamentalists need to stop the "Groupism" and “Politics!” And instead, they should get busy starting the "STUDY GROUPS" to verify the FACTS.

For more information, please go to my website at:

www.rrb3.com