THE GO-MESS BIBLE!

For those of you who have followed the Spanish Bible Controversy, otherwise known by many as the Spanish Bible Issue, you've undoubtably heard of the modern Gomez Bible, also known as the RVG.

As a Missionary Evangelist to Spanish Speaking People, I have studied this version extensively and have even written a booklet about it. Find it at:

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

And let me say, I'm not at all impressed with this modernistic version. I truly think it should rather be called the GO-MESS Bible! But that's just my opinion. For the facts, go read my book, and you'll see some hard evidence.

What's wrong with the Gomez Bible? Quite a few things actually. But as I've followed its rise to fame, I can't help but be amazed at how quickly people will embrace something without even looking at it.

The Gomez version has become popular and adopted by many Fundamentalists not because of the TEXT, rather because of the MEN behind it. And, now Chick Publications is pushing it, and trying to tell people that it's the best Spanish Bible available. But is this true?

When the Gomez first came out, it was called the Reina-Valera Gomez 2004. But have you noticed the name has changed? It's now called the RVG 2010. Does that mean it's still the same Bible?

What is the RVG 2010? From what I've understood, Chick Publications wanted to use the Gomez, but they weren't happy with the '04 version. So they told Mr. Gomez that if he'd make some changes that they wanted done, they would endorse it. He did, so it was titled the Gomez 2010, and then put out in mass production. But, um, what exactly were those changes? No one knows.

Further, the Gomez when it first came out was claimed to have been based on the original 1909 Spanish revision. But as you read the Gomez, like I have, you can't help but see that that's not true, for it closely reads with the modern corrupt 1960 Spanish version. Words, and even whole sentences have been changed to match the 1960 quite often. How is this good? And how can it be called a "Reina-Valera" Gomez, when time and again words in that version are changed in favor of the 1960 instead of sticking with the original old 1602 word?

With so much acceptance of the Gomez, the question needs to be asked, "Does everyone endorse the Gomez?" The answer is, "No they do not!"

From what I've seen, heard, read in emails to me, and personally witnessed, I've found the case to be the following: "English Speaking People, who usually don't know Spanish or only know a little Spanish are the ones endorsing and pushing the Gomez, while SPANISH-SPEAKING PEOPLE are actively against it, claiming it's a modernistic version."

Even Gail Riplinger downgrades the Gomez, calling it a "stop-gap" translation. (This is because of the method of translation work used in that version).

As I read through the Gomez, I find it's not even close to the original 1602, and it reads much closer to the 1960 than anything else. (Interestingly enough, the 1960 is the version Chick used before they chose the Gomez, and they threw it out because it was a "modernistic" translation.)

Further, the Go-mess Bible and those who support it, are careful not to mention the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible that I use, Gail Riplinger endorses, and that is an exhaustive revision based entire upon the Greek Textus Receptus, the Hebrew Masoretic, the King James and many older Protestant versions in Spanish. I believe it's the best Spanish Bible available and the purest. (It chose to follow the original 1602 as closely as possible in its revision, while the Gomez appears to have gone with the 1960 as closely as possible in its revision.)

What is the Valera 1602 Purified, and why is it not spoken of often by the Gomez crowd? Could there be a reason?

The fact is the Valera 1602 Purified came out BEFORE the Gomez, in 2002 (exactly 400 years after the original 1602). It is the work of a street-preaching, soul-winning, Independent Baptist Church in Monterrey, Mexico, which worked for almost 15 years to purifiy the original 1602 Spanish Bible. Taking it as their basis, they went verse by verse in both the Old and New Testament, and desired to stay as closely as possible to the original 1602, correcting it only when necessary and making sure it read entirely with the Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic, the KJV. They also used the older Spanish Castellan Spanish Bibles, and made sure they used the oldest, most consistent Spanish word. They wanted a true Castellan Spanish Bible, and not a modern version with modern Spanish (like the Gomez). With prayer and fasting, they made sure the work was that of the LOCAL CHURCH, and not of corrupt Bible Societies, or one man, or faceless unknown men.

When their work was completed, it was printed and distributed. Mr. Gomez even got a copy and said it was great. But, he must have thought he could do better, so he soon put out his own version. Taking the work of those in Monterrey, which they painstakinly did for years, Mr. Gomez quickly put out his own New Testament. As I read through it, it was easy to see he changed a lot of "synonyms" in his translation. But it looked a lot like the Valera 1602 Purified. However, there were a lot of changes made by Mr. Gomez that were horrific, and downright blasfemeous in his first edition, like allowing a man to marry his own daughter! (See my book for more details).

I wasn't the only one to think Mr. Gomez copied the Valera 1602 Purified, making "synonym changes" to make it look like his own work. Two or three other noted scholars said the same thing, calling his work a "Synonym Bible."

Eventually, Mr. Gomez' work went through three different revisions, until it came out in it's fifth edition as the RVG 2010. (Question: Isn't 5 the number of death???)

Within Fundamentalist circles, the Gomez quickly gained popularity. And now it is what it is today. But is it perfect? Is it really a Reina-Valera? Is it really the best Spanish Bible available???

Well, let's see?

A friend sent me a tract written by Mike Wilps published by Chick Publications. The tract title in English is: "Which Bible? The 1602? The 1909? The 1865? The 1960? Or should I use the RVG 2010?"

Notice this conveniently omits the 1602 Purified, also known as the 1602P. In the tract it shows various verses and tries to tell you Gomez is better in all those verses. Interestingly enough, on page eight, we are told the Gomez is better because it uses "la estrella de la mañana" in 2 Peter 1:19 instead of the confusing term "Lucero" which can apply to either Jesus or Satan (Lucifer). We are then told the Gomez is the only Spanish Bible that does this. This of course is a blatant LIE, as the Valera 1602 Purified had "la estrella de la mañana" way before the Gomez ever changed it! Did Gomez just copy the 1602 P in that verse? Hmmm.

A little later in the tract, we read on page 19 how in a comparison of 220 different verses in various Spanish Bibles, the Gomez is completely in agreement with the Textus Receptus and doesn't depart from it at all. Conveniently left out, of course, is the fact that before the Gomez even came out, the Valera 1602 Purified was put to the same comparison, and it too had absolutely no departures from the Textus Receptus, and was completely in line with it! Hmmm. I wonder why they didn't state that simple fact? And, didn't Mr. Gomez have a copy of the 1602 P before that? I believe he did. Would have been easy for him to change those 220 verses then wouldn't it have?

On page 20 of the tract, we then read of the word "propiciatorio" and how many times it appears in different versions. In the original 1602, the 1865, and the 1909, that word only appears 2 times. But in the RVG 2010, the word appears 28 times. But, interestingly enough, that is exactly how many times the word is used in the 1960! Wow, hmmm. Interesting. Why does it line up with the 1960? Isn't that the version that's corrupt??? That doesn't seem to help the cause of the RVG 2010, does it?

Then of course we have the most important part. The word "VERBO." According to the original 1569, the original 1602, the old 1543 Enzinas New Testament, and other old Protestant Spanish Versions, Jesus Christ is called the "PALABRA" in John 1:1. This is the protestant and oldest word in Spanish. However, as one studies history, we find the Catholic Spanish Bibles all use verbo instead of palabra. Why is this? What word does the Gomez use? It has the Catholic word VERBO, just as the 1865, 1909, and 1960 do. Why is this? And what about the Valera 1602 Purified? Why, it reads Palabra. That means it's even closer to the original Reina-Valera than the Gomez!

Why is this important? Because even ERASMUS, the great scholar, said that VERBO (VERBUM in LATIN) was a catholic word, and he refused to use it in his texts! Further, we find in the Jewish Caballa, and yeah even in occultic circles that God is referred to as the GOD IN ACTION or the great VERB. Hmm. How interesting. So we see a pro-catholic, pro-occultic word in modern versions which the Gomez chose to keep, instead of preserving the old protestant word. How odd!

Then we come to the word "Jehova" in Spanish. The Gomez keeps the word "Jehova" instead of SEÑOR (LORD) in the Old Testament, as the King James has it. Why is this? Well, let us back up a bit and look at the original 1569 of Reina and the original 1602 of Valera. They both say "Jehova" in the Old Testament, and that's the argument those behind the Gomez use to say it's okay to keep it that way. But wait a minute. We need to look at the preface of both Reina and Valera's bibles and we find something interesting. Reina said he chose to use "Jehova" because he said the "supersticious" Jews refused to. As an ex-catholic, Reina retained some of his anti-semetic sentiment, and chose to use JEHOVA just because the Jews wouldn't. But in his preface, he says that when you read the Bible, you can read it as SEÑOR instead of Jehova. How interesting. Now, it's true that Valera left it spelled as Jehova in his revision, but he further stated in his preface that he didn't even know if Jehova was the right pronounciation of the word, and that to pronounce it might even be blasphemy as you might be pronouncing it wrong! So he said it was okay to use SEÑOR as well. And as we read the writing of both Reina and Valera, they use SEÑOR in some of their other writings as they quote the Old Testament. We also find that even the older versions use SEÑOR in the Old Testament. So would it not be better if the Spanish Bible read SEÑOR instead of JEHOVA, especially since the use of the word Jehova is helping the Jehovah Witness cult spread like wildfire in the hispanic world?

Is there a Bible that uses SEÑOR instead of Jehova? Yep, there is only one! That's the Valera 1602 Purified!!!

So which is better, the Gomez 2010 or the Valera 1602 Purified 2002? Why don't you compare the two? What's that? You haven't heard about the Valera 1602 Purified, or know where to get one? Hmmm. That's odd. I wonder why? Maybe those behind the Gomez don't want you to get a copy because you might read it and see something you shouldn't!

I still have some Valera 1602 Purifieds available myself. And, I'm trying to get the word out and tell people the truth about the modern Go-Mess and why the Valera 1602 P is better. Sadly, modern fundamentalists don't care. They are more interested in following MEN instead of searching out the facts and finding the TRUTH.

I talked to Gail Riplinger a while back, and she told me, "I know the Gomez is not of God, as there was no suffering invovled. Everyone who worked to give us the word of God in its pure form suffered because of it throughout history. But where is the suffering behind the Gomez?"

As I've watched this issue, I have seen those behind the Valera 1602 Purified suffer for their stand for the pure word of God. They were attacked on all sides, especially by those who used the 1960. And they have given the world a pure Spanish Bible. But you don't hear about them, do you? Nope, all you've heard about was the Gomez Bible, which seems to have copied their work, and then decided to make it read along with the 1960 so much that the 1960 crowd would readily change to use it. This is not only dishonest, but also rather deceitful. We should give credit to whom credit is do. And we should desire the OLD REINA-VALERA bible instead of MODERN pro-1960 versions. (Ask yourself this question: Did God give us the right words in the original 1602, or did he wait until these last days to give us Gomez who would then give us the right words in Spanish?)

What will become of the Gomez Bible of 2010? Who knows. Knowing that we are in an age of apostasy right before the coming of our Lord, and that there'll be no revival, as Christ returns while the world is in apostasy, I figure the Gomez will grow by leaps and bounds. It'll continue to receive the praise of man down here. But I believe in heaven, it'll be a different story. God, who has seen all things, will reward those who have done the work and suffered for the cause of Christ and his pure word.

The only question is, "What do you want?" Do you want the old 1602 Valera that has been purified, and that reads along with the right texts. Or do you want a Bible put out by a man who likes to substitute synonyms while he copies the 1960 time and again. Do you want a pure OLD SPANISH BIBLE, or do you want a MODERN SPANISH BIBLE? Do you want the words God gave Reina and Valera, or a version that is the words of Gomez?

For me, the words of God are very precious, in any language. And in Spanish, I want them. And I believe I have them in the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible. As I get the word out, other hispanics say the same thing. I can't tell you how many emails I get from SPanish Speakers that say, "God really speaks to me through the 1602 Purified, as it is old spanish and so meaningful. It's amazing!" And those same people say things like this about the Gomez, "It's modern Spanish. It's like reading the newspaper. It just doesn't speak to me like the old Castellan version!"

You that are King James only, which do you like more: The old KING JAMES or a modern updated version in contemporary English?

What if I took the King James and changed it with a lot of synonyms, and then I took the RSV or RV and made sure I made it line up with those, all the while making sure I checked to leave it in line with the Textus Receptus, and then I printed it, calling it "The BREAKER BIBLE." Would you want my version? I doubt it. I wouldn't even want my version. I'd want the Old King James.

But this is exactly what's happening in the Spanish Speaking world. Now we have the modern GOMEZ BIBLE. And those same people who are KJV only in English are buying into this Spanish version in droves. Why? I just don't understand. If they love the old KJV, why wouldn't they want the old RV like the 1602 that's been purified to make sure it is completely in line with the pure texts?

I'll let you decide. All I know is I'm willing to defend the pure words of God in Spanish even though it's not popular to go against the majority. But hey, when have the majority ever been right?

If you haven't studied the Spanish Bible Controversy on which Bible is the right one in Spanish, or you just want more info, please go to my webpage about it at:

http://www.rrb3.com/bibles/spnbibl/spn_bible_issue.htm