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:
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:
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:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment