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They often are quick to call Castellan Spanish "outdated" and they claim ridiculous things like, "Spanish is different in every country.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to this weighty and important statement, Spanish is Castellano or Castilian, and anyone who says that Castilian is out of date is very misinformed.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.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS

As I study history and I watch politics, I think I've finally figured out the main difference between Republicans and Democrats. (Aside from the fact, that is, that they are both corrupt!)

I used to not even pay attention to politics. As a matter of fact, a year ago, I didn't even know what GOP stood for. (I've since learned it stands for the Grand Old Party.)

I even remember a couple of elections ago wandering who the red ones were and who the blue ones are. Now I know that red is for Republican and blue is for Democrat.

I find this quite fitting, for red is the color of BLOOD, and the Republicans when they take power always seem to be the ones who start WARS, where there is much bloodshed. (How interesting too that Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN, and he's the one who started that whole War of Northern Agression thing).

Blue is not only the color of the Democrats, but is the color of heaven, and how fitting that it as that's what the Democrats want to make here on earth as they are busy trying to start their own "utopia" or "village" (see Hillary Clinton's book), with their Socialization of society. But they always RAISE TAXES to fund their plans and put them into effect, which usually give us ton of overpaid bueracrats who get paid to do nothing! That might be heaven to those who are on the government payroll, but not to us who have to foot the bill.

With this said, I believe the easist way to differenciate between Republican and Democrat, is the Republicans are the War Mongers, while the Democrats are the Tax raisers.

This means both of them are doing harm to our country and the American people. For the "Publicans" (uh, er, I mean "Re" publicans) bankrupt the country by running up the national debt to pay for their foreign wars. (What ever happened to the Monroe Doctrine?) While the Demoncrats (whoops, I mean Democ-Rats) destroy small businesses by taxing them to death, making it hard for people to find work, which eventually leads to much joblessness. (Like the almost 14 percent unemployment rate in our country.

Thus, both of them end up doing the same thing which is destroy our country and make our economy worse.

What do you think? Got any other differences between those two corrupt parties? I'd like to hear 'em. Please feel free to comment below!

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